« Home | My Favorite Sims 2 Video - Little Mermaid » | Sarah Obama tapes available... » | Born in Kenya? » | Sims 3 - The Next Generation » | Getting Ready... Just in Case » | Pictures of Coco » | Ouch » | I love Foxsaver » | Forensics of Logic vs Faith based Election » | ??? Gack! »

Sunday, November 02, 2008

"Vetting" a Candidate Gets a Boost from the Electoral College?

Approaching storm... where is the light?

Vetting the Presidential Candidates does not exist at the level of confidence that some voters believe.
Claims that it does exist in a secure, thorough and consistent manner are bogus and based on assumptions. Vetting of - Vice Presidents is done by the presidential candidate's advisors and is probably a more thorough procedure than that used for presidential nominees. Vetting of visitors to the White House however, is abysmal.

Now, on Monday the 3rd... a day before the big day, Electoral College may be involved in the growing number of lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility. In my opinion, EC does have to get involved with the alleged and unsatisfactory vetting process and how it failed for Obama's campaign. ". . .24 potential Electoral College electors are filing action Monday morning in court"

So who screens? Who does the vetting? Had it been a different election year, Obama's alleged party affiliations (eg, with Illinois' socialist New Party) might have actually had some elements of conflict with California's nomination requirements which include the following, but it's doubtful that SoS would actually investigate or challenge since it appears to be merely a paperwork formality:

1Any candidate for state partisan office shall have been registered with the political party the nomination of which he or she seeks continuously for not less than three months prior to the time of presentation of his/her Declaration of Candidacy or, if eligible to register for less than three months, for as long as he or she has been eligible to register to vote in California. The candidate shall not have been registered as affiliated with a political party other than that party within twelve months immediately prior to the filing of the Declaration of Candidacy. This party affiliation requirement is not applicable for candidates of political parties participating in their first direct primary election subsequent to their qualification as political parties. §8001

Here's a PDF of the procedure in Washington state to get more familiarity (or if it's your state).

The Illinois webpage listing Obama as a member of the New Party has been deleted from the NP site, and if you clicked that link above, you find yourself landing on the Internet Time Machine. More info here including other sources of NP info with Obama membership. Are the dates for his affiliation known? October 1996 was the date of the article that has been 'deleted'. 12 months is pretty close to his Declaration of Candidacy filed with the State of California given his youth. While his affiliations with alternate parties is his choice and of little quibble to me, it is relevant to me that his affiliations mirror important issues of party allegiance, consistency and faith in direction, and that was part of why the stipulation of a grace period is important. It's also very important to me that all the elements of lack of accountability in politics are addressed with a reasonable explanation, rather than whatever is going on now. It's quite obvious that Obama is not about 'change' if he doesn't want to be held accountable for his own deeds. It mirrors the exact issues we all have with all parties.

At any rate, what about that 'vetting' he went through? For presidential candidates to be accepted in California-
Each party nominates and then certifies their chosen presidential candidates to the California's Secretary of State. The SoS accepts the 'Certification of Nomination' (see sample jpg of one, from another state) from each candidate or that which is submitted by their party on their behalf. Independents are only 'vetted' by popularity and the media. This is really an inside job! An example of procedure is shown in PDF for California, quoted here, in part:
Selection is based on any combination of several criteria, including but not limited to:
• Being generally recognized as seeking the office
• Qualifying for federal matching funds
• Appearing in public opinion polls, candidates' forums, debates, etc.
• Being on the ballot in other states' primaries
• Actively campaigning in California
• Having a campaign office in California

Candidates not selected by the Secretary of State may qualify by circulating petitions statewide
to gather signatures of voters registered in their party.

• Democratic candidates must gather signatures in each of the state’s 53 congressional districts, equal in number to 1% of the district’s Democratic registration in the 154-Day Report of Registration preceding the presidential primary or 500, whichever is fewer. The period for circulating nomination petitions is October 8 to December 4, 2007 (E-120 to E-63). §§ 2187(a)(1), 6061, 6101, 6108, 6122

• Republican, American Independent, Green, Libertarian, and Peace and Freedom Party candidates must gather signatures equal in number to 1% of their party’s statewide registration total in the 154-Day Report of Registration preceding the presidential primary; signatures may be gathered anywhere in the state. The period for circulating nomination petitions is October 24 to November 23, 2007 (E-104 to E-74). §§ 2187(a)(1), 6343, 6360, 6365, 6382, 6568, 6569, 6581, 6586, 6587, 6591, 6725, 6781, 6786, 6787, 6791

By the 120th day before the election, the chairperson of each qualified party must notify the Secretary of State of the number of delegates to represent California at the party’s national nominating convention. Prior to the presidential primary election, each Democratic and Republican candidate must file a slate of the requisite number of delegates for his/her party, selected according to the party’s requirements. For the American Independent, Green, Libertarian, and Peace and Freedom Parties, each group of candidates for delegate must receive the endorsement of a candidate for the presidential nomination, which must be filed with the Secretary of State.
Anyhow, so much for careful "vetting". There at appears to be a lot more attention to 'vetting' his past into obscurity in many areas, from which other candidates cannot escape scrutiny, or if they attempt to, noise is made about it in main stream media.

Icon, Barry Potter's Obama's charisma and debating skills seduce some into believing he is a hero! that will give them solutions and change. Frankly, no one should need reminders that every candidate promises change, but the complex realities of idealism vs reality smack them all down. They are supposed to both uphold the Constitution and serve other people including those that may not have elected them. They are between a rock and hard place. So Obama's desire for change is mirrored in all of us but embodied in different ways.

How many us decide as kids, that we would never raise our kids the way our parents did? And then what happens? You grow up, you get the brats by the tail, and over time, you start to see your own parent(s) when you look in the mirror. Reality and idealism are yin and yang. They are never the same. There must be a balance between the id and the ego. And any executive faced with too much change at once has no easy way to deal with a disaster. If 9/11 never happened, how different would be our situation now? Decisions are hard. I still see people leaping to their deaths from smoking, towering buildings and huge barrelling clouds of smoke and debris flowing down the streets like a river... -those images will stay with all of us for a long time.

Labels:


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 11/02/2008 06:39:00 PM | Permanent link | (0) Comments

Puppy Boone says: Let's chat!

<< Back to Main Blog