The current question and links to the first responses have been posted at Enerigon.net.

I will provide links to any other responses to these questions that are called to my attention. Leave your links in comments over at Energion.net. The comment will probably go into moderation, but I’ll be approving them fairly quickly.

Practically every national election I’ve voted in has featured concerns about increasing executive power. In the modern era, the power to make war has been a particularly strong example of a shift of power toward the executive, with the powers of the commander-in-chief stretched past the limit, in my view. Yes, war happens faster, but rather than taking up their responsibility and finding a way to authorize (or not) actions more rapidly, congress has generally let the power to declare war slip away from them. But that’s just an example.

McClatchy has an article, Obama turning to executive power to get what he wants, and it illustrates how similar President Obama is to President Bush. What’s always amused me about the complaints regarding Obama’s policies, especially on foreign policy, is that he has, in fact, changed so little.

There are a couple of quotes I’d like to highlight:

Arguably more than any other president in modern history, he’s using executive actions, primarily orders, to bypass or pressure a Congress where the opposition Republicans can block any proposal. (source)

And the real danger:

Now that Obama has showed a willingness to use those tactics, advocacy groups, supporters and even members of Congress are lobbying him to do so more and more. (source, emphasis mine)

Undoubtedly, some of these same groups would have been up in arms if President Bush carried out some of the same sorts of actions as they are now, and rightfully so. In fact, many groups were, quite correctly, critical of Bush for abusing executive power, particularly signing statements.

We tend to focus more on the results than on the process, but when we bypass the process in order to get the results we want, we also make it easier for others to get results we don’t want by bypassing the process in turn. Patience in doing things the right way might just be critical.

I’m not a fan of Rand Paul, but I respect him more after this filibuster than before. It was for a good cause, and one which should have gotten much more attention. Indeed, there are a number of other areas where we have handed power to the federal government ostensibly because of terrorism, but unnecessarily in my view.

But it was also a good demonstration of what the Senate, and particularly a Senate filibuster should be about … forcing actual debate. For all the good action on the floor of the House and Senate does these days our senators and representatives could stay home and debate and vote over the internet. The personal interaction seen here should again become part of our deliberative process.

I’m not a fan of the current filibuster rules. I wasn’t a fan when Republicans were in the majority either. The idea of indefinitely blocking a vote on absolutely anything without having to go to any work annoys me. But heading down to the floor for a good, old fashioned talking filibuster? That’s good stuff. It’s people who care fighting about issues that matter.

Now if they’d just discuss some justification for how many Pakistani civilians we kill using drones, I’d be almost happy. But I doubt that’s going to happen.

But here’s the video. Get started thinking!

Note: While there are just two official participants, I will link from the debate posts to anyone who sends me a response on the current topic. Note that any essays on income distribution will not be posted until after April 18. Through mid-March, essays and comments are welcome on the budget.

HT: Upworthy

HT: The Jesus Blog

To put a charitable construction on it, they mean the deal was made at the last-minute and passed two hours after the deadline, but if you pass it after the deadline, is it really last minute? Isn’t it after the last-minute. And shouldn’t meeting a deadline with a legislative deal actually include passing the deal? In addition, the deal hasn’t yet passed. The house must still vote on it.

But what it tells me, and this is nothing new, is that you can’t trust things like the sequester, which was intended to force congress to actually do something. They just choose to ignore it.

Regardless of whether our president is Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, the mission of our fellowship is the same.

Just so!

Eric Dondero thinks you should go so far as to divorce a wife who voted for Obama. “I strongly urge all other libertarians to do the same. Are you married to someone who voted for Obama, have a girlfriend who voted ‘O’. Divorce them. Break up with them without haste. Vow not to attend family functions, Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas for example, if there will be any family members in attendance who are Democrats.” Of course, the candidate who lost was not precisely libertarian, but who’s dealing in nuances?

This CEO read a prayer and then laid off 156 people. Co0nsidering he works in coal, he may have had a point, but I doubt the future changed that much the day of the election.

These are extreme examples, but I’m concerned every time we cut off dialog due to the fact that someone differs from us too much, or seems to disrespect our beliefs. As Christians we should be about reaching out much more than cutting off. (There’s some biblical “cutting off” but that’s for another day.) I am concerned when I see Christians trying to do business just with fellow Christians or trying to listen only to fellow Christians. When we limit our conversation to those who are Christians like us, except, of course, for preaching at people who differ, then it becomes even worse.

I also believe that there are many more people who would support Republican (or Libertarian) economic policies than will support the complete social agenda. Rejecting Republicans this time around may not have had as much to do with “takers” vs “producers” as people are assuming. I remember a Lowell Weicker comment from some years ago to the effect that if we could get the Democrats out of the boardroom and the Republicans out of the bedroom we’d be much better off. Weicker, unfortunately, didn’t live out his plan as far as I can tell, but he wasn’t entirely wrong.

But of course, after a losing election, the reason for the loss is rejection of my pet policies by the lose!

1) Those who lead in the polls believe polls. Those who trail write scenarios. For the last few elections we’ve had some pretty accurate models built from multiple polls. Folks like Nate Silver are more accurate than just reading polls because they test the polls and their models objectively. This combination of polls allows one to minimize, though not eliminate the chance or error or bias.

2) The media can’t handle polls. They just can’t. They constantly report minor variations, changes within the sampling error for the poll, as though they were major changes in reality. They also can’t decide what “tied,” close,” or “substantial” actually mean. If you read headlines, you’ll get misled. I’d recommend that the media start reading the aggregators, Nate Silver, Sam Wang (Princeton Election Consortium), Votamatic, etc. Frankly, I thought they were over-optimistic regarding President Obama’s chances for reelection. After looking at the numbers myself, I had guessed in the 280-290 range. But I was wrong and the aggregators were generally right.

3) Everybody needs to learn how to put numbers in context. This relates to the polls. Is a new poll by the same organization as the last one? Are you comparing the same sort of things? When somebody states the deficit or how much they intend to reduce it, what’s the time period and the starting point for each number?Especially in ads, there was hardly a worthwhile number presented in the entire election cycle.

4) 30-60 seconds is too short a time to tell the truth. I didn’t see a single ad that would pass muster on providing information. I don’t say there weren’t any anywhere, but I didn’t see any, and I saw a lot of ads. If you’re getting any of your information from ads, you probably lack context.

5) For that small deciding margin the election is not about ideology. Look at some of the combinations of people that were elected. Too many people have no idea what they’re voting for or against, and with elections this close, that means often that political decisions are made by the uninformed. Some people may think this points toward one party or the other, or ideologically right or left. My unscientific, subjective impression is that there is plenty of ignorance on all sides. A significant number of the ignorant are actually quite intelligent people. Political information just isn’t enough of a priority for them.  It’s hard to be informed because information is hard to find and is hidden behind walls of empty rhetoric. There were even more vacuous slogans than there were falsehoods in this election.

6) Winners talk unity while losers question mandates. It’s a psychological game. The only official mandate is having that nifty check mark by your name. There isn’t a defined super majority that gives one a mandate. On the other hand, our system allows for conflicting mandates, and the result of that should be interesting to watch.

7) Everybody knows how to fix a party that’s suffered a major loss. People are now suggesting how the Republican party needs to change their positions on various issues. While one should always be ready to reexamine one’s positions, you also won’t win by making yourself like the other party. That applies no matter what party you are. If the Republican Party changes its position on abortion, for example, is there any possibility they will pick up enough votes in the center to make up for the ones they lose on the right? I don’t see it. I could suggest issues on which the Republican Party should change as well, but by making themselves more acceptable to me personally, I expect they would shed many other voters.

8) I’d love to see some education going on. The Democrats ran away from the one major piece of legislation they passed while they controlled both houses of congress. Conservatives will say this is because they were ashamed of it. I’d say it falls somewhere between cowardice and bad politics. They should have gotten out there and explained and defended the ACA from the time it was passed until the election. I’m betting that would have improved their results. The Republicans should have gone out there with a more detailed budget proposal and then defended it. You think it would mean they’d lose? Well, just look at what did happen!

9) Money is important, but it doesn’t guarantee success.

I’m going to enjoy watching politics for the next couple of years.