Who says you can't run a campaign on CNN?

As many of you know, Caroline Kennedy is pushing hard to get the Senate seat from New York that was vacated by Obama's appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Kennedy has made no qualms about pining for the position. She is using her profile as JFK's daughter to attract copious amounts of media attention to build momentum and tie the hands of New York governor David Patterson.

This comes at a time that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has been arrested on corruption charges for, among other things, attempting to sell Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat. I honestly believe that we should look at a constitutional amendment to change the way that vacant Senate seats are filled. Our constituion is based on the idea of checks and balances, and there is no check on executive authority when a single person is allowed to wield such power and influence.

I'm not sure why we don't have it already, but any time a seat is vacated, there should be a temporary appointment by an executive, and then an election by the people the Senator represents. I'd like to hear an argument against it... so if you disagree, let me know.

Beginning of the End?

I have been following the
Presidential primaries closely, not sure of who gets my vote. In the Republican primary, there's not one that really gets me excited. I almost jumped on the Huckabee bandwagon for a couple days, until I learned about his love of the regressive flat tax and realized how really unelectable he is. A Huck nomination would be the Dem's Christmas present for the next four years. And while Hillary has had Republicans trembling in their shoes with the possibility of the Dems extending the Clinton dynasty, it appears that the trouble for the Republicans is just beginning. Truth is, Republicans should be more concerned with an Obama nomination, which they might just be getting. Howard Fineman of MSNBC said today that the Clinton campaign could be in major danger of losing all four of the key early states despite a double-digit lead in national polls. What does this mean for the Republicans? Obama's surge means that the Republicans better get serious soon about finding an electable candidate and forget this fleeting love affair with Huck. The Dems would love to see a Huckabee nomination; they're waiting until the general election to tear him to shreds. With this in mind, I am rather reluctantly thinking about supporting Romney. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, that is, I am Mormon. I am leaning toward supporting Romney despite his religion, not because of it. However, that is not the main issue in the Romney campaign for me. While I believe he may be the most electable in the Republican field, I have been reluctant in my support of Romney 1)because I'm not a huge fan of the way his health care plan is carried out... I don't think it helps enough, 2)I am worried about the impact that United States foreign policy would have on the image of my religion if Romney were President, and 3)I have worried about his chances of beating Hillary. However, after Romney's performance at the latest Iowa debate, realizing Giuliani's authoritarian personality, and McCain's anemic campaign, I have reluctantly turned to Romney. If he is able to come back and win Iowa and hold onto his lead in New Hampshire, and gain the nomination, though, he will have a tough road ahead if he has to face Obama in the general election. A Romney-Thompson ticket might just be the one to beat Obama.