Ford Campaign Speech Thread (Simplicity in Forum Affairs)

[The Duke]

Obviously, this is where I'll be making my campaign speeches.

[The Duke]

Statement on Voting Reform:

Three months ago, Forum Issues were brought to the front of the nation's political debate by the secession of a group of Midwesterners who thought that the complexity of the elections process and the manipulation of that process by certain voters had resulted in the disenfranchising of citizens.  It was becoming difficult to keep track of all the rules and technicalities involved in elections and important clerical threads were out of date.  As Joe Republic assumed the Presidency, it was clear that the most important issue we faced was voting reform.

In three months, there has not been any meaningful voting reform.

Three months.

Senator Gabu has been asked to carry nearly the entire burden of voting reform by himself, without significant executive leadership.  Without Presidential leadership, voting reform cannot happen.  Joe Republic has not provided that leadership and shows no inclination to do so in the future.  It logically follows that as long as Joe Republic is the President, then voting reform cannot happen.

It is necessary then to elect a President that supports the kind of needed reforms that Senator Gabu has proposed, and has the political skill to craft both a legislative and a nationwide majority to pass these reforms.  I think I am that candidate.

[Gabu]

In three months, there has not been any meaningful voting reform.

Three months.

Senator Gabu has been asked to carry nearly the entire burden of voting reform by himself, without significant executive leadership.  Without Presidential leadership, voting reform cannot happen.  Joe Republic has not provided that leadership and shows no inclination to do so in the future.  It logically follows that as long as Joe Republic is the President, then voting reform cannot happen.

It is necessary then to elect a President that supports the kind of needed reforms that Senator Gabu has proposed, and has the political skill to craft both a legislative and a nationwide majority to pass these reforms.  I think I am that candidate.

I'm not really sure that a stronger president would be able to sway the voting public that much, really.  People in Atlasia tend to be rather set in their opinions, and the only thing I could think of that would really convince them is to see it in action to see that it's not so bad - and, of course, the problem is that they would have to have already implemented it to be able to see as such.  Of course, you're certainly welcome to try, nonetheless.

All they need to do now is reject my idea of a FPTP system with a runoff and my grand dream for Atlasia will have finally been fully crushed.

[The Duke]

Statement on why forum issues, especially voting reform, are the most important issues:

I have had a lot of fun dealing with real world issues on this fantasy forum.  Wars, peace, taxes, crime, budgets, I have a great time dealing with these things.  But ultimately, none of it is real.  When I cut taxes in the Pacific, I didn't actually cut taxes and no actualy person got any money back.  It was all pretend.  Pretend is a lot of fun sometimes, but there are things in Atlasia that are not pretend, they are very real indeed.

These real things that actually affect real people, their level of personal happiness, and the way they interact with others on an almost daily basis are forum issues.  When we can't even run an election without a civil war breaking out, we can't ever really deal with the meaty issues that are the most fun to debate.

Without the real problems taken care of, we'll never be able to effectively solve the pretend problems.

These are issues that anyone, regardless of ideology, can agree are important.  Right now, there is no movement in the right direction.  The secret ballot has been defeated, the FPTP system (which is much more important than a secret ballot could ever be) hasn't been voted on, and the reform of the Dept. of Forum Affairs seems to be directionless.  Presidential leadership is required to put free and fair elections together, and the President should be personally involved on a daily basis to put together well crafted, well vetted legislation before the Senate and to build an electoral majority to pass this legislation.  This isn't happenning, because the I believe the President has not performed as well as he could in this area.  Voting reform should have been completed and done with by Christmas, given the dramatic circumstances, yet it still hasn;t been done as the President's term comes to an end.  He's had four manths, how much time does he need?

The country will not be on the right track until the tasks of voting reform and Forum Affairs Dept. reform are complete, and I don't think the current President can get these things accomplished.

[True Democrat]

Wne are you going to pick a Vice-President?

[The Duke]

Wne are you going to pick a Vice-President?

I'm in the process right now.

[afleitch]

Wne are you going to pick a Vice-President?

I'm in the process right now.

Excellent news

[The Duke]

Statement on why the Joe's ideas about introducing legislation are wrong:

Allowing the President to introduce legislation directly into the Senate is plainly dangerous.  The Constitution sets out a clear seperation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government.  The effort by President Republic is a clear cut power grab, and the explicit purpose of the proposal is to increase the institutional power of the Presidency at the expense of the Senate.  For this reason, the proposal by the President is nothing more than a power grab, and its not the kind of forum affairs reform we need.

It is also unnecessary.  When I was in the executive branch, we proposed legislation all the time.  Any time I wanted a bill, I'd write a bill and get a Senat or to introduce it for me, just as is done in real life by executive branch officials in the American system.  Its incredibly easy to do, and Senators are more than happy to cooperate in making this a better country, and the executives bills all got a fair hearing in my experience.

The great irony is that Joe Republic got his bill to expand the powers of the President into the Senate by getting a Senator to introduce it!  Yet it clearly evaded the President's attention that he could do this with any bill he wanted.  It is obviously easy to get a Senator to introduce a bill, so why has the President seen to dramatically expand the power of his office for no apparent reason other than to expand the powers of his office?

And after four months, there hasn't even been a vote on this.  Nor has there been a vote on almost any meaningful Forum Affairs reform.  Only the Secret ballot has gotten that far.  After three months, with a full on secession to spur us ahead, we are no further along than we ever were.  Its time for a change, that much is clear.

[Peter]

The President comprimised on that particular proposal, quite a while ago actually, agreeing instead to have one Senate slot especially set aside for forum affairs.

[The Duke]

The President comprimised on that particular proposal, quite a while ago actually, agreeing instead to have one Senate slot especially set aside for forum affairs.

But the idea itself in its original form was troubling, and I think the point stands that it violates the seperation of powers and the point stands that there are better ways to do congressional relations.

[Joe Republic]

And that's why I made a compromise on that issue.  I wrote the amendment, in fact.

[The Duke]

And that's why I made a compromise on that issue.  I wrote the amendment, in fact.

There was a comrpomise, but that doesn't address the issue of how a President ought to do Congressional relations.  There's the way its always been done for our entire history and then there's this new way you're prroposing.  The way we've done it in the past has been incredibly successful when people had the energy to employ it and it in no way shape or form even rhymed with a violation of the principle of the seperation of powers.  The way you proposed doing it did in my view threaten this principle and the compromise.

The compromise also didn't appear to come from any change of heart on your part, it appeared to me to come from political necessity.  You saw the bill would not be passed so then you compromised.  I think if tommorrow the composition of the Senate changed and became more favorable to the original proposal I don't think its unreasonable to assume you would try to bring the bill back to the floor.  The question for voters might well be do you want someone who would infringe on the separation of powers except the Senate blocked it or someone who doesn't want to infringe on the seperation of powers in the first place.

[Joe Republic]

There was a comrpomise, but that doesn't address the issue of how a President ought to do Congressional relations.  There's the way its always been done for our entire history and then there's this new way you're prroposing.  The way we've done it in the past has been incredibly successful when people had the energy to employ it and it in no way shape or form even rhymed with a violation of the principle of the seperation of powers.  The way you proposed doing it did in my view threaten this principle and the compromise.

I disagree, but we could argue about something that won't be happening until the cows come home.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

May I ask where you drew that false conclusion from?

[The Duke]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

May I ask where you drew that false conclusion from?
[/quote]

It may be false, but that's certainly how it came off to an outsider.  You had a proposal, it went nowhere, then you modified it.  Isn't this the course of events?  Is it not then perfectly reasonable to think that the proposal not being viable in the Senate is the reason you did what you did?  Did not you yourself describe it as a "compromise" as in it's not everything you had wanted but you gave a little and got a little in return?  Every indiciation I've seen seems to suggest the conclusion I have inferred.  If I am wrong, please do set me straight.

[Joe Republic]

Your conclusion was false because it inferred that I would be happy to go back to the original version if the wind were to change in my favor.  As it happens, I think the compromise version is even better, and resolves all of the concerns I previously had that led me to introduce the bill in the first place.

[The Duke]

Statement on how a lack of consultation characterizes the current Administration's governing style and has hurt the country:

Today, a critical piece of legislation that I ahppen to support and was put forward by the President died on the Senate floor.  The failure to get this bill passed resulted from a series of serious technical errors in the way the bill was written, and by all appearances could have easily been avoided.  The errors had to do with how the new legislation would interact with existing legislation governing Forum Affairs.  When in Senate debates the possibility was rasied that no consultation had been done with anyone outside the White House, the President did not attempt to counter this assertion.

It was clear to all: The White House proposed a bill without any consultation, and as a result the bill died, and may not see the floor for another two months.

Another recent example of the lack of consultation was the Pentagon's plan to convert all US mechanized forces in Europe into light infantry and to close all US facilities in Europe, even facilities that provide medical and logisitical support for forces in Iraq.  It was clear that not only had the Pentagon not consulted with outside experts on defense issues, but they had barely consulted with their own Secretary of State!

The plan was decried by Fmr Defense Secretary Jake, who came out against the plan immeditely.  Senator Wixted said a lack of understanding was evident from the plan.  The plan was quickly rewritten several times, with the Pentagon admitting it had not considered the effects of closing certain key facilities, especially USAF Ramstein, or the impact of a complte withdrawal of US forces from their Balkan peacekeeping duties.

As with the Forum Affairs legislation, there were some positive ideas in the proposal, but the proposal fell flat because of a lack of consultation prior to the plan being publicly announced.  There is a pattern emerging as to the kind of governing style taking place in Nyman right now, and it isn't a positive one.  The trend is that redeemable ideas are failing politically because the is were not dotted and the ts were not crossed, even though they easily could have been.

... Next week, I'll be moving into areas of real world policy instead of Forum Issues, since I think I've made my stand on Forum Issues pretty clear by now.

[Ebowed]

Today, a critical piece of legislation that I ahppen to support and was put forward by the President died on the Senate floor.  The failure to get this bill passed resulted from a series of serious technical errors in the way the bill was written, and by all appearances could have easily been avoided.  The errors had to do with how the new legislation would interact with existing legislation governing Forum Affairs.  When in Senate debates the possibility was rasied that no consultation had been done with anyone outside the White House, the President did not attempt to counter this assertion.

It was clear to all: The White House proposed a bill without any consultation, and as a result the bill died, and may not see the floor for another two months.

The situation is not as dire as you claim.  The bill was failed because we needed to get it off of the floor so Joe could re-write it, at which point it can be re-introduced and bumped to the top of the legislative agenda.  Yes, mistakes were made, but as opposed to doing nothing about them, the administration has been working behind the scenes to make things right.

[Jake]

It was clear that not only had the Pentagon not consulted with outside experts on defense issues, but they had barely consulted with their own Secretary of State!

I'm not sure what worries me more. That the Pentagon unilaterally proposed the policy, or that the President set the policy.

[The Duke]

Today, a critical piece of legislation that I ahppen to support and was put forward by the President died on the Senate floor.  The failure to get this bill passed resulted from a series of serious technical errors in the way the bill was written, and by all appearances could have easily been avoided.  The errors had to do with how the new legislation would interact with existing legislation governing Forum Affairs.  When in Senate debates the possibility was rasied that no consultation had been done with anyone outside the White House, the President did not attempt to counter this assertion.

It was clear to all: The White House proposed a bill without any consultation, and as a result the bill died, and may not see the floor for another two months.

The situation is not as dire as you claim.  The bill was failed because we needed to get it off of the floor so Joe could re-write it, at which point it can be re-introduced and bumped to the top of the legislative agenda.  Yes, mistakes were made, but as opposed to doing nothing about them, the administration has been working behind the scenes to make things right.

This statement doesn't have much to do with the way the floor debate was handled, it has a heck of a lot more to do with the fact that the White House doesn't want to ask for outside help or advice.  Just because it deals with the same policy issue as the other thread doesn't necessarily mean its the same criticism.  Its two seperate criticisms of the way the same issue was handled.

[The Duke]

It was clear that not only had the Pentagon not consulted with outside experts on defense issues, but they had barely consulted with their own Secretary of State!

I'm not sure what worries me more. That the Pentagon unilaterally proposed the policy, or that the President set the policy.

The President said this in the thread:

Atlasia no longer has any military interest in Europe.

So I think it's fair to say he at least knew about it, and almost certainly approved of it beforehand.  Though that's an assumption, I think it's a safe one.

When I was SecDef we talked about removing heavy divisions from Europe.  We did not get the kind of negative firestorm in response to that idea that these guys got, and there are very specific reasons why.  We consulted with the State Department, with allies, we asked the GM about costs, we only proposed taking out certain troops and closing certain bases and not a blanket withdrawal, and we didn't propose turning tank crews into Ranger school cadets.

This was not an outrageous idea, but the execution was not what it could have and should have been.

[Ebowed]

Today, a critical piece of legislation that I ahppen to support and was put forward by the President died on the Senate floor.  The failure to get this bill passed resulted from a series of serious technical errors in the way the bill was written, and by all appearances could have easily been avoided.  The errors had to do with how the new legislation would interact with existing legislation governing Forum Affairs.  When in Senate debates the possibility was rasied that no consultation had been done with anyone outside the White House, the President did not attempt to counter this assertion.

It was clear to all: The White House proposed a bill without any consultation, and as a result the bill died, and may not see the floor for another two months.

The situation is not as dire as you claim.  The bill was failed because we needed to get it off of the floor so Joe could re-write it, at which point it can be re-introduced and bumped to the top of the legislative agenda.  Yes, mistakes were made, but as opposed to doing nothing about them, the administration has been working behind the scenes to make things right.

This statement doesn't have much to do with the way the floor debate was handled, it has a heck of a lot more to do with the fact that the White House doesn't want to ask for outside help or advice.  Just because it deals with the same policy issue as the other thread doesn't necessarily mean its the same criticism.  Its two seperate criticisms of the way the same issue was handled.

Yes, mistakes were made- that's already been admitted to.  Your criticisms may not be exactly the same, but your continued worry that the proposal will not see the light of day for another two months warranted my response - which is, the administration made a mistake and is seeking to resolve it in the most correct way possible.  As far as the lack of consultation goes, I can only say that we support a degree of freedom in how the cabinet members work.  You say that Joe Republic and Q don't trust each other; if this were true, what do you have to say about the way the deregistration issue was handled earlier in the term?  (And no, I am not referring to the legislation currently on the floor.)  You have all but outright stated that since Q doesn't support one of Joe Republic's forum affairs-related proposals, he should get the sack - or, as you put it, update his resume.  Is this warranted?  No; but it does make waves, which seems like what you wanted to do in the first place.

[The Duke]

Whe I talk about lack of consultation, I wasn't even talking about consultation within the adminiistration.  I was referring to consultation with outsiders.  None of the people who are the top Forum Affairs minds were asked to profread the Forum Affairs bill.  There is such a thing as groupthink, and it does affect government institutions.  Because most government officials are always either under siege or about to be under siege, a bunker mentality can develop.  This leads to errors because the advisors become a closed circuit even in the most favorable conditions.

When talking about the troop withdrawal plan, which just like the Forum Affairs bill has some good elements, I did say that there was not enough discussion within the Administration itself, and I think that's true.  I think that had more attention been paid to True Democrat a lot of the problems this proposal had would have been worked out long before it went public.

[Jake]

At the very least, True Dem could've met with his counterpart in Germany to discuss such a big issue to Germany. To my knowledge, no such meeting occurred.

[True Democrat]

At the very least, True Dem could've met with his counterpart in Germany to discuss such a big issue to Germany. To my knowledge, no such meeting occurred.

I meet with Chancellor Merkel in Germany only a couple of days before Dubya made his proposal:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=31696.msg738335#msg738335
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=28225.msg756732#msg756732

If Dubya would have given me any notice at all about his proposal (I didn't even know he was going to make it until he posted it), I would've surely talked to the German government first.

[Jake]

If Dubya would have given me any notice at all about his proposal (I didn't even know he was going to make it until he posted it).

I think the problem is here.