James M. Redwine

Hillary Clinton

The Right To Matter

by Leave a Comment

From www.270towin.com

It was not the British Parliament’s tax on tea that caused the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773; it was the denial of the Colonists’ right to be represented in Parliament.

It is not the sexual part of unwanted sex that matters to the Me Too Movement, we Homo sapiens have spent the last 200 to 300 thousand years engaging in sex; it is the “unwanted” factor that is objectionable.

And when our Founders were barely able to cobble together our Republic it was not the fact that some of the Thirteen Colonies had much greater populations than others or much greater wealth than others that almost caused the United States to be simply thirteen entirely separate entities; it was the fear by both the more populous and less populous colonies that their voices would not sufficiently matter.

There were many reasons why and how our constitutional democracy survived colliding circumstances, desires and egos but two of the most significant compromises were the Proportional Representative construct and the Electoral College.

Large states accepted the compromise that in the Senate each state would have two and only two Senators because their proportional influence was recognized by having the number of Congressional Representatives determined by population. Smaller states accepted this arrangement in like manner because they would have an equal voice in at least one of the two Congressional bodies, the Senate, even though they would have fewer Congresspersons than larger states.

Then there is the imaginative system of the Electoral College. The Electoral College determines who will be the Executive Branch leaders, the President and Vice President, via a method similar to the proportional representative system. And because the President has the authority to nominate all federal judges, whoever has influence over the election of the President has an indirect voice in the makeup of the third branch of our federal government, the Judicial Branch. Therefore, the Electoral College, whose only job is to meet every four years and vote for the Chief Executive and the Vice President, has some influence over two of the three Branches of our government. Of course, the Executive Branch contains the armed forces, the F.B.I., the D.E.A., etc., etc., etc. And these countless agencies assert immense power over all of us. We certainly want our opinions to matter when it comes to all those aspects of our government.

The number of Electors of the Electoral College is determined by totaling the number of Congressional Representatives each state has and each state’s two senators. The number of Congressional Representatives is derived from each state’s population. So, very similar to the general system of representative/proportional government, where all states have two and only two senators but have differing numbers of Congresspersons based on population, the Electoral College is based on every state having some Electors but more populous states having more Electors than less populous states.

Currently there are 538 members of the Electoral College based on 100 Senators and 438 Congressional Representatives. For example, Indiana has 2 Senators and 9 Congresspersons for a total of 11 Electors and Oklahoma has 2 Senators and 5 Congresspersons for a total of 7 Electors. On the other hand, California has 2 Senators and 53 Congresspersons for a total of 55 Electors. Indiana’s sister state of Illinois has 20 Electors, almost twice as many as Indiana, and Oklahoma’s sister state of Texas has 38, over five times as many as Oklahoma. The District of Columbia has no Senators but does have 3 Electors based on the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution. Three is the least number of Electors of any state. The U.S. Territories do not receive any Electors.

Whichever candidate receives 270 Electoral votes, the current majority of Electors, is elected President. Sometimes the candidate who receives the most popular votes does not receive a majority of the Electoral votes. This always reignites a debate to eliminate the Electoral College and go to a pure one person/one vote system. Such was the case in 2016 when the Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton received 3,000,000 more popular votes than the Republican nominee Donald Trump, but Trump received 304 Electoral votes, which was 77 more than Clinton received. Had this outcome been inverted I suggest the pro/anti-Electoral College debate would have also been inverted.

There certainly are legitimate arguments for modifying or even eliminating the Electoral College system even though the College has helped to assuage the constant yin and yang of large states versus small ones. As for me, having spent most of my life, so far, in either Oklahoma or Indiana, I do not wish to rely upon the tender mercies of the few lumbering giant states with huge populations of voters that might deign to turn a deaf ear to my concerns and those of the other residents of the numerous less populous states.

Sticks And Stones

by Leave a Comment

Special Consul Robert Mueller testified before Congress on July 24, 2019. During his six hours of testimony before the House Judiciary Committee the major emphasis shifted from concerns about the outcome of the 2016 presidential election to attempts by foreign countries to influence all of our elections.

Mueller testified that for many years and right up to our next election cycle in 2020 several foreign entities were involving themselves in our democracy. And while Mueller specified only Russia for 2016 he made it clear that we should be aware of other actors. Iran, Israel and even our first cousins the British, among numerous others, have sought to inveigle themselves into our governmental decisions.

We have often been subtlety and sometimes not so subtlety nudged toward or away from war or toward or away from alliances with other countries. The favored techniques in days before the internet were the planting of fake newspaper stories or biased books and movies. Today spy dossiers or misleading memes and tweets over the internet are the preferred methods.

But if the aim of a foreign country is to defame or embarrass a politician it seems silly to dispense dirty secrets or even create false ones when such disclosures and prejudiced articles appear in the newspapers and on television every day. For example, if a country wanted to defame Donald Trump it should just encourage Americans to read The New York Times or watch CNN. And if a foreign entity wished to bring down Hillary Clinton it should republish stories from The National Enquirer or push FOX News. There is no need for foreign attempts to bring down a candidate for public office when we do such a thorough job of that ourselves.

What is even more perplexing is why any foreign country cares about our elections when we care so little about the outcomes ourselves. About 40% of eligible voters do not vote in presidential elections and only about 40% trouble themselves to vote in mid-term national elections. And when it comes to state, county and city elections most of the voters are those hoping to get jobs from the winners.

The bottom line may be that foreign entities are often more concerned with the outcomes of our elections than we are. Maybe we should learn from them.

Some News Fit To Print

by Leave a Comment

Adolf Ochs (1858-1935) pinned the motto of the New York Times newspaper: “All the News Fit to Print” in 1897. It remains on the paper’s front page today. Mottoes sometimes are more hope than substance.

In 1965, as the Viet Nam War was gearing up and 18 year old men could be drafted but could not vote, Barry McGuire (born 1935) sang ♫The Eve of Destruction♫. The lyrics included the following phrases:

“The eastern world, it is expoldin’
Violence flarin’, bullets loadin’
You’re old enough to kill but not for votin’
You don’t believe in war, but what’s that gun you’re totin’?
….
The poundin’ of the drums, the pride and disgrace
You can bury your dead but don’t leave a trace
Hate your next door neighbor, but don’t forget to say grace.”

About twenty years later in 1983 Anne Murray (born June 20, 1945) sang the song ♫A Little Good News Today♫ that included:

“I rolled out this morning
Kids had the morning news show on
…
Some senator was squawkin’ ‘bout the bad economy
It’s gonna get worse you see, we need a change in policy
…
Just once how I’d like to see the headline say
‘Not much to print today, can’t find nothing bad to say’
…
We sure could use a little good news today.”

So, Gentle Reader, I submit the following retreat from the edge of doom and a little good news for your April First consideration.

It was announced today that Sean Hannity has been hired to replace Wolf Blitzer at CNN and Joe Scarborough will be joining FOX News.

At his debut on CNN Sean Hannity reported that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had met with Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi at Camp David where they decided to apply the national defense budget to universal health care and free college tuition for all.

The budgets for the CIA and FBI will be redirected to environmental concerns and repair of the nation’s infrastructure. McConnell was assured by Chuck Schumer there would be unanimous support for these proposals in the Senate. And in the House, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy heaped praise on both Pelosi and Clinton as he pledged his ardent support for both.

At a conference of media anchors held just outside the gates of Camp David it was announced by Washington Post’s editor Martin Baron that the national print and electronic media were impressed with the honesty, integrity and goodwill of the Executive and Legislative branches. Baron even mentioned the anticipated wisdom of the Supreme Court that is expected to refuse to grant any delays in the implementation of the stated goals of fair and equal treatment for all Americans.

Well, Gentle Reader, that’s about all the Good News I can report. It appears the country is just brimming with good works and goodwill.

Who Works for Whom?

by Leave a Comment

You may be aware of a story in the January 11, 2019 New York Times that disclosed the FBI decided to investigate President Trump for possible treason right after he fired FBI Director James B. Comey. As America divides almost in half over whether Donald Trump is a messiah or a menace, probably half of you who read the Times story were infuriated and half of you were elated. Perhaps this column may invoke similar reactions, among a somewhat smaller audience of course.

If you have read Gavel Gamut over the past 28 years you may recall my general philosophical position on our political system is that democracy not bureaucracy is the ideal. In other words, if we want to keep control of our government and our freedom, we should elect all public officials, they should all be term-limited and bureaucrats should be subservient to elected officer holders. Much as we make our military subservient to our civilian authority, we should make sure we do not allow unelected, life-time appointees to rule us via unfettered discretion.

On the local level that means our law enforcement community’s duty is to serve and protect not abuse. And at the federal level that means our FBI, CIA, FISA (United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) and other agencies should serve at the pleasure of our elected officials because we can know who our officials are, and we have the power to remove them at the next election.

Unfortunately, our FBI has always been a political organization with shifting ideologies depending upon the bureaucrats, especially the Directors, who lead them. As set forth on National Public Radio in a January 26, 2018 report:

“Everyone agrees that the FBI should be as professional and impartial as possible and that its investigations should not be driven by any political agenda or vendetta. That has always been the ideal.

… As a matter of reality, the FBI has been political from its outset.

… Surely there is a massive case of collective amnesia afflicting Washington and much of the media commentariat on that score.”

NPR then exposited the sordid history of the FBI being used to harass Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., anti-war protesters during the Viet Nam War and numerous instances of FBI surveillances and investigations of civil rights activists by agents of the FBI whose main purpose was to advance partisan political positions.

I realize if you hate the President, you want him investigated. If you hate Hillary Clinton, you want her investigated. And if you hate your neighbors, you want them investigated. However, you might reflect on the possibility they feel the same way.

As for politically connected matters, some do need to be addressed and even investigated. I respectfully suggest that should remain the purview of Congress. They will gladly proceed.

It Sounds So Simple

by Leave a Comment

The Babylonians of Mesopotamia formed a written code of laws designed to resolve all human needs and control all human behavior. That was over 3,500 years ago. It did not guarantee Freedom of Speech.

Fear not, after the Babylonians the Hebrews took a shot at it and adopted, after first rejecting, the Ten Commandments that were supplanted by first Greek then Roman laws. None of these directly recognized the essential right to publicly disagree.

Then along came history’s greatest conquerors, the British, who promulgated a system of law that encompassed much of prior legal systems. What each Code contained was a written desire to account for all human behavior. But the right to peaceably assemble and tell the rulers they were either great or full of bug dust was not specifically included.

In 1787-89 a small group of white, Anglo-Saxon men made up largely of lawyers put forth the U.S. Constitution that was amended ten times before it was even adopted. The first of these amendments attempted to provide for free speech and assembly, an ideal that has helped preserve our democracy for over 200 years. Perhaps those prior legal systems should have included it.

I was musing about these attempts to avoid conflict by applying written words when I watched and read the accounts of President Trump’s campaign stop in Evansville, Indiana on August 30, 2018. And I was transported back to when I took our son out of school to see President Ford when he led a motorcade down Main Street in Evansville on Friday, April 23, 1976.

Jim and I were crushed by the crowd of about 20,000; however, we managed to not only see President Ford but to even get to shake his hand. I thought such an opportunity was of more educational value than one day of sixth grade class. The school disagreed and still marked his absence “unexcused”.

Regardless, while Peg and I did not take the opportunity to praise or protest President Trump, it was not due to politics or philosophy but simply an inability to be two places at once; we were previously committed and our absence from the conflicting event would most assuredly have been “unexcused”. Had President Clinton, Hillary that is, been the campaigner we would have wanted to see her too. In other words, that First Amendment was and still is quite a good idea.

I am appending my column on President Ford’s visit that was first published the week of January 8, 2007. I hope you find it worthwhile if you are seeing it for the first time and not excessively boring if this is a repeat for you. There were many Americans pro and con then too.

Pardon Me, President Ford

(Originally Published Week of January 8, 2007)

President Gerald Ford died December 26, 2006.  In a life filled with public service, he will always be best known for his pardon of President Nixon in 1974.

President Nixon personally chose Gerald Ford to replace the disgraced Vice-President Spiro Agnew who resigned in 1973 amid disclosures of bribery while Agnew was Governor of Maryland.

Vice-President Ford served under President Nixon until Nixon resigned in August of 1974.  One month after President Nixon resigned, President Ford issued him a full pardon for any crimes he may have committed while president.

At the time, I and most Americans were calling for a complete investigation of the Watergate debacle and especially Nixon’s involvement in it.  It was a time of a media feeding frenzy and blood in the water.

President Ford took the unprecedented step of going personally before Congress and flatly stating that President Nixon and then Vice-President Ford had no deal to pardon Nixon if he would resign.

I recall how dubious I was when President Ford stated that he issued the pardon only to help our country to start healing from the loss of confidence caused by Watergate.

Yet, after a few months I began to have second thoughts about my initial reaction to the pardon.  I began to see how much courage it took for President Ford to go straight into the anti-Nixon firestorm sweeping the United States.

As a country, we were almost paralyzed by the partisan fighting at home and the War in Vietnam.  We needed a new direction and a renewed spirit.

Surely President Ford with his twenty-two (22) years in Congress knew he was committing political suicide by not giving us our pound of flesh.  Still, he put his country first.  Of course, the country rewarded his sacrifice by booting him from office and electing President Jimmy Carter to replace him.

But during the campaign of 1976, when President Ford came to Evansville on April the 23rd, I took my son, Jim, out of school and we went to the Downtown Walkway to cheer the man who put country above self.

For while William Shakespeare may almost always get his character analysis right, when it came to President Ford, “The good he did lived after him.”   Julius Caesar, Act III, sc. ii.

Even President Carter, one of America’s most courageous and best former presidents said of President Ford:

“President Ford was one of the most admirable
public servants I have ever known.”

And when it came to the pardon of President Nixon, Senator Ted Kennedy, while admitting that he had severely criticized the pardon in 1974, said that he had come to realize that:

“The pardon was an extraordinary act of courage
that historians recognize was truly in the national
interest.”

So, President Ford, since even your political opponents came to appreciate your courage and goodness, I am confident that you have long ago “pardoned” all of us who doubted you back when we needed your leadership.

When Do We Grow Up?

by Leave a Comment

Our two most recent presidential candidates often provided mirrors for us to see ourselves as others see us. If you are like me the experience was not always positive.

My friends and family who supported Clinton often reacted with pity or chagrin when I questioned whether she had the character to lead. Those who supported Trump often reacted angrily if I wondered out loud if his campaign rhetoric disqualified him.

What I found most puzzling was the reaction from members of both camps if I voiced no opinion. Whether they were Clintonians or Trumpers they invariably assumed my reticence meant I was for the candidate they were against or, at least, was not for the candidate they supported. Such projection upon me of their insecurities made me wonder what they really thought about their candidate.

Were they afraid the opposition research or Fox News or CNN might have some actual validity when their candidate was exposed? Was that experience a little like an attendee at a church revival might feel when some modern day Elmer Gantry begins to cast out demons or a contemporary Cotton Mather hunts witches to burn?

Or, have Americans fallen so far under the spell of Wolf Blitzer and Sean Hannity we do not care what is true but only care that bad things be aired about those we despise? About thirty wasted seconds watching Jerry Springer should give us our answer.

Even after five hundred years of non-native influence we Americans still think of ourselves as a young country. Maybe that volksgeist is why we engage in childish diatribes instead of mature analysis. Now, I do not know if Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are either, both or neither the Devil’s gifts to the national media. However, I do know that if we and our representatives continue to engage in this food fight we call debate, our plates will always be filled with garbage.