From: http://redstate.com/blogs/ericka_andersen/2008/may/29/sen_obama_dont_go_if_you_are_not_coming_home_with_the_truth
(Fallacies in parenthesis)
I’m not sure why it took this long for someone to make a big deal of the fact that Barack Obama has only visited Iraq one time over two years ago. (straw man argument) It’s no surprise he has chosen not to meet with Gen. Petraeus, visit our troops or get a personal assessment of the situation on the ground overseas. (Style over substance fallacy) He knows, from seeing other anti-war politicians like Dick Durbin and Hillary Clinton – that it is impossible to deny the progress and positive change when you are faced with it head on. Those two, among others, admitted the truth – that we have done well. (Proof by assertion)
To admit such liberal blasephamy would hamper his purist no-Iraq war image. (Tu quoque ) Perhaps after he’s snagged the nomination for real, it’s a safer bet. But even then, he will look a distant second to John McCain’s seasoned war experience, close relationship with Petraeus and heroic reputation as a war hero. (Appeal to flattery)
What changed America? 9/11. And who does America want in charge when 9/11 strikes again? There is no greater threat to our society. It’s most important right now to have a commander in chief who understands that. (argumentum in terrorem) Barack Obama does not. He cannot. Literally, he cannot. (ad hominum) And he knows that he can’t have any authority on the situation so he caved to McCain’s request to join him in a trip to Iraq. (Wishful thinking ) Well, half caved. There’s no way he’d hop a plane with the one who could pull the presidency from his grasp in a few short months.
He’s going alone. For what purpose? (Subject/Motive Shift) He’s going to “talk to the troops and commanders” but what if they tell him what he doesn’t want to hear? What if they tell him the opposite of his message? A man whose never served in the military and wants to COMMAND our troops in battle having only once stepped foot on their fields? It’s shocking that this could be our reality. (Ipsedixitism)
Do you think he plans on reporting the good news he hears? (Special pleading) Hell no. But I guarantee you now, he WILL hear good news. He will hear that violence is down, that deaths are down, that the democratically elected Iraqi government is finally taking control of themselves, that al-Qaeda exists now in record lows. Do you know why? Because we were there. (No true Scotsman) But Obama’s gone too far to come back now. He can’t backtrack when half of the country is getting off on the delusion he’s created by way of heartsoaring speeches and words of bipartisan rhetoric. He can’t take the dream away now, can he? (petitio principii) Well, he could. But he won’t.
Sen. Obama, don’t go to Iraq if you are not coming back with the truth. Don’t do that to our troops. Don’t do that to the Iraqis. Don’t do that to us. It’s never too late to start doing the right thing. (Hasty generalization) And usually that begins with the truth.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Fallacy Watch
The Game is Afoot....
I expect to see a lot of logical fallacies between now and November, and I am planning on occasionally making fodder of certain poorly thought arguments.
I hope to help take some of the baby steps into beginning a new Age of Reason!
Here are a formal list (thanks to Wikipedia):
Formal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious due to an error in their form or technical structure. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.
1. Appeal to probability: because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is the premise on which Murphy's Law is based.
2. Argument from fallacy: if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion must necessarily be false.
3. Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.
4. Base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.
5. Conjunction fallacy: assumption that specific conditions are more probable than a single general one.
6. Correlative based fallacies
7. Denying the correlative: where attempts are made at introducing alternatives where there are none
8. Suppressed correlative: where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible
9. Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises
10. False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are several
11. If-by-whiskey: An answer that takes side of the questioner's suggestive question
12. Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis)
13. Homunculus fallacy: where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process
14. Masked man fallacy: the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one
15. Naturalistic fallacy: a fallacy that claims that if something is natural, then it is "good" or "right"
16. Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect
17. Negative proof fallacy: that because a premise cannot be proven true, that premise must be false
18. Package-deal fallacy: when two or more things have been linked together by tradition or culture are said to stay that way forever
19. Propositional fallacies:
20. Affirming a disjunct: concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true.
21. Affirming the consequent: the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true. Has the form if A, then B; B, therefore A
22. Denying the antecedent: the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B
23. Quantificational fallacies:
24. Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, but the premises do not establish the truth of the conclusion
25. Illicit conversion: the invalid conclusion that because a statement is true, the inverse must be as well
26. Proof by example: where things are proved by giving an example
27. Syllogistic fallacies are logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.
28. Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
29. Fallacy of exclusive premises: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative
30. Fallacy of four terms: a categorical syllogism has four terms
31. Illicit major: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is undistributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion
32. Illicit minor: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is undistributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.
33. Fallacy of the undistributed middle: the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed
34. Categorical syllogism: an argument with a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises
35. Informal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural ("formal") flaws.
36. Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam)
37. Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous
38. Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance")
39. Begging the question ("petitio principii"): where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises
40. Burden of proof
41. Circular cause and consequence
42. Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard)
43. Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc)
44. Equivocation
45. Fallacies of distribution
46. Division: where one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts
47. Ecological fallacy
48. Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum)
49. Fallacy of the single cause
50. Historian's fallacy
51. False attribution
52. Fallacy of quoting out of context
53. False compromise/middle ground
54. Gambler's fallacy: the incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events
55. Incomplete comparison
56. Inconsistent comparison
57. Intentional fallacy
58. Loki's Wager
59. Lump of labour fallacy (fallacy of labour scarcity, zero-sum fallacy)
60. Moving the goalpost
61. No true Scotsman
62. Perfect solution fallacy: where an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented
63. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: also known as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.
64. Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium)
65. Psychologist's fallacy
66. Regression fallacy
67. Reification (hypostatization)
68. Retrospective determinism (it happened so it was bound to)
69. Special pleading: where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption
70. Suppressed correlative: an argument which tries to redefine a correlative (two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, thus making one alternative impossible
71. Sunk cost fallacy
72. Wrong direction
73. Faulty generalizations:
74. Accident (fallacy): when an exception to the generalization is ignored
75. Cherry picking
76. Composition: where one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some (or even every) part of the whole
77. Dicto simpliciter
78. Converse accident (a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter): when an exception to a generalization is wrongly called for
79. False analogy
80. Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid)
81. Loki's Wager: insistence that because a concept cannot be clearly defined, it cannot be discussed
82. Misleading vividness
83. Overwhelming exception
84. Spotlight fallacy
85. Thought-terminating cliché: a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance.
86. A red herring is an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not address the original issue. See also irrelevant conclusion
87. Ad hominem: attacking the personal instead of the argument. A form of this is reductio ad Hitlerum.
88. Argumentum ad baculum ("appeal to force", "appeal to the stick"): where an argument is made through coercion or threats of force towards an opposing party
89. Argumentum ad populum ("appeal to belief", "appeal to the majority", "appeal to the people"): where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true
90. Association fallacy & Guilt by association
91. Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it
92. Appeal to consequences: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument concludes a premise is either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences for a particular party
93. Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning
94. Appeal to fear: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
95. Wishful thinking: a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason
96. Appeal to spite: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party
97. Appeal to flattery: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support
98. Appeal to motive: where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer
99. Appeal to novelty: where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern
100. Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad lazarum)
101. Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam)
102. Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio)
103. Appeal to tradition: where a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long standing tradition behind it
104. Chronological snobbery: where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held
105. Genetic fallacy
106. Judgmental language
107. Poisoning the well
108. Sentimental fallacy: it would be more pleasant if; therefore it ought to be; therefore it is
109. Straw man argument
110. Style over substance fallacy
111. Texas sharpshooter fallacy
112. Two wrongs make a right
113. Tu quoque
114. Conditional or questionable fallacies
115. Definist fallacy
116. Slippery slope
I expect to see a lot of logical fallacies between now and November, and I am planning on occasionally making fodder of certain poorly thought arguments.
I hope to help take some of the baby steps into beginning a new Age of Reason!
Here are a formal list (thanks to Wikipedia):
Formal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious due to an error in their form or technical structure. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.
1. Appeal to probability: because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is the premise on which Murphy's Law is based.
2. Argument from fallacy: if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion must necessarily be false.
3. Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.
4. Base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.
5. Conjunction fallacy: assumption that specific conditions are more probable than a single general one.
6. Correlative based fallacies
7. Denying the correlative: where attempts are made at introducing alternatives where there are none
8. Suppressed correlative: where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible
9. Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises
10. False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are several
11. If-by-whiskey: An answer that takes side of the questioner's suggestive question
12. Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis)
13. Homunculus fallacy: where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process
14. Masked man fallacy: the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one
15. Naturalistic fallacy: a fallacy that claims that if something is natural, then it is "good" or "right"
16. Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect
17. Negative proof fallacy: that because a premise cannot be proven true, that premise must be false
18. Package-deal fallacy: when two or more things have been linked together by tradition or culture are said to stay that way forever
19. Propositional fallacies:
20. Affirming a disjunct: concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true.
21. Affirming the consequent: the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true. Has the form if A, then B; B, therefore A
22. Denying the antecedent: the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B
23. Quantificational fallacies:
24. Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, but the premises do not establish the truth of the conclusion
25. Illicit conversion: the invalid conclusion that because a statement is true, the inverse must be as well
26. Proof by example: where things are proved by giving an example
27. Syllogistic fallacies are logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.
28. Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
29. Fallacy of exclusive premises: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative
30. Fallacy of four terms: a categorical syllogism has four terms
31. Illicit major: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is undistributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion
32. Illicit minor: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is undistributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.
33. Fallacy of the undistributed middle: the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed
34. Categorical syllogism: an argument with a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises
35. Informal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural ("formal") flaws.
36. Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam)
37. Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous
38. Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance")
39. Begging the question ("petitio principii"): where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises
40. Burden of proof
41. Circular cause and consequence
42. Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard)
43. Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc)
44. Equivocation
45. Fallacies of distribution
46. Division: where one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts
47. Ecological fallacy
48. Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum)
49. Fallacy of the single cause
50. Historian's fallacy
51. False attribution
52. Fallacy of quoting out of context
53. False compromise/middle ground
54. Gambler's fallacy: the incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events
55. Incomplete comparison
56. Inconsistent comparison
57. Intentional fallacy
58. Loki's Wager
59. Lump of labour fallacy (fallacy of labour scarcity, zero-sum fallacy)
60. Moving the goalpost
61. No true Scotsman
62. Perfect solution fallacy: where an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented
63. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: also known as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.
64. Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium)
65. Psychologist's fallacy
66. Regression fallacy
67. Reification (hypostatization)
68. Retrospective determinism (it happened so it was bound to)
69. Special pleading: where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption
70. Suppressed correlative: an argument which tries to redefine a correlative (two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, thus making one alternative impossible
71. Sunk cost fallacy
72. Wrong direction
73. Faulty generalizations:
74. Accident (fallacy): when an exception to the generalization is ignored
75. Cherry picking
76. Composition: where one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some (or even every) part of the whole
77. Dicto simpliciter
78. Converse accident (a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter): when an exception to a generalization is wrongly called for
79. False analogy
80. Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid)
81. Loki's Wager: insistence that because a concept cannot be clearly defined, it cannot be discussed
82. Misleading vividness
83. Overwhelming exception
84. Spotlight fallacy
85. Thought-terminating cliché: a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance.
86. A red herring is an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not address the original issue. See also irrelevant conclusion
87. Ad hominem: attacking the personal instead of the argument. A form of this is reductio ad Hitlerum.
88. Argumentum ad baculum ("appeal to force", "appeal to the stick"): where an argument is made through coercion or threats of force towards an opposing party
89. Argumentum ad populum ("appeal to belief", "appeal to the majority", "appeal to the people"): where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true
90. Association fallacy & Guilt by association
91. Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it
92. Appeal to consequences: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument concludes a premise is either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences for a particular party
93. Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning
94. Appeal to fear: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
95. Wishful thinking: a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason
96. Appeal to spite: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party
97. Appeal to flattery: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support
98. Appeal to motive: where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer
99. Appeal to novelty: where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern
100. Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad lazarum)
101. Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam)
102. Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio)
103. Appeal to tradition: where a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long standing tradition behind it
104. Chronological snobbery: where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held
105. Genetic fallacy
106. Judgmental language
107. Poisoning the well
108. Sentimental fallacy: it would be more pleasant if; therefore it ought to be; therefore it is
109. Straw man argument
110. Style over substance fallacy
111. Texas sharpshooter fallacy
112. Two wrongs make a right
113. Tu quoque
114. Conditional or questionable fallacies
115. Definist fallacy
116. Slippery slope
Thursday, May 29, 2008
One Man's (Humble) Opinion: Regarding Who Obama Picks for VP
I am not a bettor. I enjoy watching sports when I haven’t made a bet, and in the rare instances I have bet (or “punted” as the British and Aussies would say) on sports, I tend to enjoy the game so much less.
Nothing could be higher stakes right now than our Government here in the US. Therefore, I will not hold back, nor will I bet; I feel it important to make my (one man’s) perceptions known, simply as a matter of record—if not simply for my own piece of mind.
First my political affiliation: I am a social Moderate, and a Fiscal Conservative. I actually registered Republican to vote for Paul, and have been sorely disappointed by some of Paul’s inability to follow through and capitalize on the real grass roots energy behind a true conservative campaign, which would reduce the role of government in the economy and people’s liberties. I consider myself a quasi-Green-Socialist-Libertarian-Progressive, but I think like many thinking adults that I am not easily defined by either of only two parties.
I endorsed Obama in March, when the Clintons clearly were using race as a tactic to divide the electorate, and Paul was by then a non-factor. I would have withheld some judgment would McCain version 1999 have been in the race with non-Bushee advisors. But ‘tis not so, and that horse long left the barn.
That out of the way, I am determined that Obama be free from the Politics of the Past, and his administration be given every chance to recreate the possibilities of American Civil Society, Citizenship, and Liberty… even if I may not totally agree with him on tax policies among several other potential items.
Vice Presidential selection will say a lot about whom Obama is, or more accurately those he already surrounds himself with and whom they would deign to find the most politically economical choice.
I believe this means he cannot pick Hillary Clinton, and should avoid anyone from the Clinton administrations. The Clinton’s and their ilk have proven so divisive that they are essentially a third rail for Obama personally and politically.
In my opinion, no Senators should be up for the Veep job with another Senator. Aside from already losing last cycle as the VP, that would preclude Edwards.
Although tempting, recent converts to Dem ideology should also be ruled out. So, double-plus un-good for Webb, and all his baggage .
I like the thought of a military Dem, but could only find a list of four reasonable candidates. Maybe because I do not know who is who in the Military, but some non-Clintonian Dem with tons of Executive Military experience would seem to be a very good choice. I identified the following Clintonian Military Candidates;
Barry McCaffrey
Wesley Clark
Louis Caldera
And the semi-non-Clintonian (sort of) candidate is Anthony Zinni . However, I feel his political chops are probably not quite ready for prime time, and he is my choice for Secretary of Defense.
That leaves Governors. I think only Governors on their last Term should be considered, with solid Democratic replacements, and some political advantage to gain. Some small state governors are also off my list, and also a couple of the older less charismatic ones don’t show up here either. That leaves:
(Female Governors)
Jennifer Granholm
Janet Napolitano
Kathleen Sebelius
(Male Governors)
Bill Richardson
Mike Easley
Ed Rendell
Phil Bredesen
Tim Kaine
A good list to choose from, but Rendell and Easley are Clintonians—throw the babies out with the bathwater. I like Granholm, but she was born in Canada.
THE LIST:
1*. Bill Richardson. Absolutely the most experienced of all the choices, and would only be trumped in that category by Al Gore himself. Would help to shore up the Catholic Vote; Consolidatse the West, but has the same issue as Napolitano (NM is already leaning towards Obama, and a Western governor may only serve to solidify the votes in WA, OR, CA, NM, and CO)— no real pick ups except maybe NV and MT; Possibly he could be the Latino Galvinzator, so to coin a phrase, to help win FL and dare I suggest TX? Negatives: Like Al Gore he is technically (Clinton) Old Guard; He also has made enemies of the Clintonians, and the idea of not picking a Clintonian is to also not pick someone potentially offensive to that Clinton Old Guard; and finally, although I truly think he would be quite an excellent choice (why I listed him as number one with an asterisk), he does not assuage the de facto racists . But the question is do we need to try to assuage them ? My pick for Secretary of State.
2. Kathleen Sebelius. Fits the profile: Non-Clintonian that has not offended the Old guard; (White) Female who can reassert some of the gains Hillary made for shattering the glass ceiling (and possibly heal some of the rifts between Clinton and Obama supporters); A unifying force in a Red State with a good and well documented bi-partisan track record; and can help to shore up the Catholic Vote while solidifying the Mid-West (IA, KS, maybe MO, others [IN, MI, WI]) states. Like most governors who are not Bill Richardson, we have the downside of no real International Experience. My choice for VP.
3. Tim Kaine. Probably this is one of the safest possible choices, as he has extensive Executive experience. He would not lose votes, may help shore up Catholics, some Southerners, and to a lesser extent that “white male” voting block. Most clearly one could expect he would shore up VA… maybe SC and IN. International Experience is again the downside. Anyone for Webb should rethink and consider Kaine instead, unless they like the military credentials then go back to Zinni—just not Webb !
Honorable Mention
4. Janet Napolitano. Excellent and as experienced as she may be, she is not as charismatic in my humble opinion as Sebelius or Richardson, who cover the blocks (Female or West) better. They are Catholics, and she is a Methodist… not that it matters all that much, but the North East Catholic block seemed to be elusive to Obama in the Primaries. Like Richardson, if he weren’t to have traction with Latinos, she doesn’t represent enough of a pick up, because states she might assist in like CA, NM, and CO are already leaning or in the Dem camp… so AZ (maybe… remember McCain is from AZ) becomes the only (potential) pickup, unless she can help swing NV and MT. She is my pick for Sect of Interior.
5. Phil Bredesen. Another “safe” Southern-White-Male pick. He is not as Experienced as Kaine, he’s not Catholic, and we already had a VP from TN (think vague Clintonian afterglow). This choice may only help to offset some potential Southern prejudice, maybe assisting in picking up TN, MO, SC and maybe some Appalachian bump for OH and PA.
Nothing could be higher stakes right now than our Government here in the US. Therefore, I will not hold back, nor will I bet; I feel it important to make my (one man’s) perceptions known, simply as a matter of record—if not simply for my own piece of mind.
First my political affiliation: I am a social Moderate, and a Fiscal Conservative. I actually registered Republican to vote for Paul, and have been sorely disappointed by some of Paul’s inability to follow through and capitalize on the real grass roots energy behind a true conservative campaign, which would reduce the role of government in the economy and people’s liberties. I consider myself a quasi-Green-Socialist-Libertarian-Progressive, but I think like many thinking adults that I am not easily defined by either of only two parties.
I endorsed Obama in March, when the Clintons clearly were using race as a tactic to divide the electorate, and Paul was by then a non-factor. I would have withheld some judgment would McCain version 1999 have been in the race with non-Bushee advisors. But ‘tis not so, and that horse long left the barn.
That out of the way, I am determined that Obama be free from the Politics of the Past, and his administration be given every chance to recreate the possibilities of American Civil Society, Citizenship, and Liberty… even if I may not totally agree with him on tax policies among several other potential items.
Vice Presidential selection will say a lot about whom Obama is, or more accurately those he already surrounds himself with and whom they would deign to find the most politically economical choice.
I believe this means he cannot pick Hillary Clinton, and should avoid anyone from the Clinton administrations. The Clinton’s and their ilk have proven so divisive that they are essentially a third rail for Obama personally and politically.
In my opinion, no Senators should be up for the Veep job with another Senator. Aside from already losing last cycle as the VP, that would preclude Edwards.
Although tempting, recent converts to Dem ideology should also be ruled out. So, double-plus un-good for Webb, and all his baggage .
I like the thought of a military Dem, but could only find a list of four reasonable candidates. Maybe because I do not know who is who in the Military, but some non-Clintonian Dem with tons of Executive Military experience would seem to be a very good choice. I identified the following Clintonian Military Candidates;
Barry McCaffrey
Wesley Clark
Louis Caldera
And the semi-non-Clintonian (sort of) candidate is Anthony Zinni . However, I feel his political chops are probably not quite ready for prime time, and he is my choice for Secretary of Defense.
That leaves Governors. I think only Governors on their last Term should be considered, with solid Democratic replacements, and some political advantage to gain. Some small state governors are also off my list, and also a couple of the older less charismatic ones don’t show up here either. That leaves:
(Female Governors)
Jennifer Granholm
Janet Napolitano
Kathleen Sebelius
(Male Governors)
Bill Richardson
Mike Easley
Ed Rendell
Phil Bredesen
Tim Kaine
A good list to choose from, but Rendell and Easley are Clintonians—throw the babies out with the bathwater. I like Granholm, but she was born in Canada.
THE LIST:
1*. Bill Richardson. Absolutely the most experienced of all the choices, and would only be trumped in that category by Al Gore himself. Would help to shore up the Catholic Vote; Consolidatse the West, but has the same issue as Napolitano (NM is already leaning towards Obama, and a Western governor may only serve to solidify the votes in WA, OR, CA, NM, and CO)— no real pick ups except maybe NV and MT; Possibly he could be the Latino Galvinzator, so to coin a phrase, to help win FL and dare I suggest TX? Negatives: Like Al Gore he is technically (Clinton) Old Guard; He also has made enemies of the Clintonians, and the idea of not picking a Clintonian is to also not pick someone potentially offensive to that Clinton Old Guard; and finally, although I truly think he would be quite an excellent choice (why I listed him as number one with an asterisk), he does not assuage the de facto racists . But the question is do we need to try to assuage them ? My pick for Secretary of State.
2. Kathleen Sebelius. Fits the profile: Non-Clintonian that has not offended the Old guard; (White) Female who can reassert some of the gains Hillary made for shattering the glass ceiling (and possibly heal some of the rifts between Clinton and Obama supporters); A unifying force in a Red State with a good and well documented bi-partisan track record; and can help to shore up the Catholic Vote while solidifying the Mid-West (IA, KS, maybe MO, others [IN, MI, WI]) states. Like most governors who are not Bill Richardson, we have the downside of no real International Experience. My choice for VP.
3. Tim Kaine. Probably this is one of the safest possible choices, as he has extensive Executive experience. He would not lose votes, may help shore up Catholics, some Southerners, and to a lesser extent that “white male” voting block. Most clearly one could expect he would shore up VA… maybe SC and IN. International Experience is again the downside. Anyone for Webb should rethink and consider Kaine instead, unless they like the military credentials then go back to Zinni—just not Webb !
Honorable Mention
4. Janet Napolitano. Excellent and as experienced as she may be, she is not as charismatic in my humble opinion as Sebelius or Richardson, who cover the blocks (Female or West) better. They are Catholics, and she is a Methodist… not that it matters all that much, but the North East Catholic block seemed to be elusive to Obama in the Primaries. Like Richardson, if he weren’t to have traction with Latinos, she doesn’t represent enough of a pick up, because states she might assist in like CA, NM, and CO are already leaning or in the Dem camp… so AZ (maybe… remember McCain is from AZ) becomes the only (potential) pickup, unless she can help swing NV and MT. She is my pick for Sect of Interior.
5. Phil Bredesen. Another “safe” Southern-White-Male pick. He is not as Experienced as Kaine, he’s not Catholic, and we already had a VP from TN (think vague Clintonian afterglow). This choice may only help to offset some potential Southern prejudice, maybe assisting in picking up TN, MO, SC and maybe some Appalachian bump for OH and PA.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Obama's Cabinet Suggestions
Obama's Cabinet (First Term [IMHO])
VP: Kathleen Sebelius
Secretary of State: Bill Richardson
Secretary of Treasury: Edmund Phelps
Secretary of Defense: Anthony Zinni
Secretary of Peace (new): Dennis Kucinich
Attorney General: Jerry Brown
Secretary of Interior: Janet Napolitano
Secretary of Agriculture: Tom Harkin
Secretary of Commerce: Mark Warner
Secretary of Labor: John Edwards
Secretary of Health: Howard Dean
Secretary of Housing: David Gottfried
Secretary of Transportation: Gary Locke
Secretary of Energy: Wesley Clark
Secretary of Education: Chris Dodd
Secretary of Veteran Affairs: Max Cleland
Secretary of Homeland Security: Joe Biden
EPA Administrator: James Gustave Speth
World Bank President: Jeffrey Sachs
UN Ambassador: Jody Williams
VP: Kathleen Sebelius
Secretary of State: Bill Richardson
Secretary of Treasury: Edmund Phelps
Secretary of Defense: Anthony Zinni
Secretary of Peace (new): Dennis Kucinich
Attorney General: Jerry Brown
Secretary of Interior: Janet Napolitano
Secretary of Agriculture: Tom Harkin
Secretary of Commerce: Mark Warner
Secretary of Labor: John Edwards
Secretary of Health: Howard Dean
Secretary of Housing: David Gottfried
Secretary of Transportation: Gary Locke
Secretary of Energy: Wesley Clark
Secretary of Education: Chris Dodd
Secretary of Veteran Affairs: Max Cleland
Secretary of Homeland Security: Joe Biden
EPA Administrator: James Gustave Speth
World Bank President: Jeffrey Sachs
UN Ambassador: Jody Williams
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)