I'm rather tired of people saying "won't you support <candidate X> now that he has <done y>"?
I reserve the right to vote against people, as I did in the last Presidential election (and explained why; that seditious rat bastard McCain deserves to be in prison for knowingly enabling and remaining silent while the banksters looted the public, and both he and his campaign advisers knew damn well this was what was going on as I documented at the time. I would not***** on him to put him out were he on fire as a direct consequence of his and his advisor's conduct in this regard.)
But if you want The Market Ticker's endorsement (which is my personal endorsement since I run this joint) this is what any candidate for any office must meet as a minimum set of criteria.
This is not a "best of" test; you either meet all of the criteria below or you may as well meet none. I am willing to entertain debate on virtually any other policy position beyond the below requirements; this base set of conditions is one that I urge the entire electorate to adopt as it is a perfect filter that is non-partisan but also looks at politics through the lens of what is possible both physically and within the founder's framework, assuming honest effort by all involved.
This is not to say that if you meet these you will earn said endorsement, but rather that this is the filter through which one gets in the door to the level where I start looking at what I believe are the right choices. This filter is intentionally set to disqualify only those who promise something that's impossible or something that's blatantly unconstitutional (and thus unlawful); everyone else passes this test. There will be a second posting some time in the next few months, probably somewhere around the beginning of 2012, where I will begin to issue formal endorsements based on an evaluation of those who pass this filter. If nobody passes this first-level filter for a particular office then I will formally recommend voting for Beelzebub as if you're going to vote for the impossible or someone who has declared evil intent you may as well go all the way -- vote for the prince of Darkness and get it over with.
Sadly, I suspect that this list will leave one candidate in ten beyond this round of analysis (and perhaps far fewer) but that's actually good rather than bad, as it will leave me free to actually analyze those candidates in detail rather than spending my time on those who I wouldn't vote for if the other alternative on the ballot were Beelzebub.
In addition please note that due to my time being fairly constrained (I do have to sleep at some point!) I am only interested in evaluating candidates for The House, The Senate and President of the United States. I do not care what party affiliation the candidate has; any party, including third parties, are welcome to submit their names in the comments for consideration, provided they are formally announced and in election-law compliance candidates for the above offices.
- No part of any speech or policy position on an economic matter may, under analysis, devolve into reliance on a pyramid scheme. To put this in plain English any economic policy that relies on compounded growth without a definite and stated end date by which that compounding will stop fails this test. This is called the "Did you pass arithmetic in school?" test, and it is not negotiable. If this test fails you fail the base qualifications for office as either your IQ is insufficient to pass the 8th grade or you are a compulsive and intentional liar.
- No part of any policy position or speech may require a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. There are a whole host of stupid things candidates can (and have) said that fall into this category. The first one that passes your lips disqualifies you. If you're a political candidate be extremely careful with anything related to energy policy in this regard, as it's easy to break this rule if you listen to a lot of people, especially those on the left (those on the right are more likely to violate #1 when it comes to energy policy; this makes such speeches fraught with risk of instant disqualification unless you have both someone with ordinary knowledge of both mathematics and thermodynamics look over your speech before your gums start flapping.)
- No part of any speech or policy position may violate The Supreme Law of the Land as written in The Constitution, unless your speech or position is arguing for an amendment to that document and the policy is to take effect only upon its passage. That is not a violation as there is lawful process to amend our Constitution and recognition of it (even if I disagree with the proposal) will garner you a checkmark rather than a blacklist entry. The Constitution (and Bill of Rights) is remarkably clear and precise in its use of the English language. If you resort to twisting the ordinary meaning of words (e.g. "shall not be infringed" and "Congress shall make no law" as just two of many examples) you either failed grammar in grade school or are a congenital and intentional liar and are unqualified for office. There are legitimate areas of disagreement on original intent in a few places, but not many. Most of the "wordsmithing" that is encompassed in latter-day politics is nothing of the sort; it is raw and intentional falsehood, not legitimate disagreement on what the founders intended. Formal amendment of the Constitution was made difficult on purpose; said purpose being elucidated in The Declaration ("Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"); if you cannot respect that then you have announced your intent to violate your oath of office before it was administered. A willful refusal to take the oath of office announced pre-election is an instantaneous and incurable disqualification.
That's it.
Right now I have nobody in either major political party that I am willing to vote for under this criteria, as none have put forward sufficient policy frameworks to satisfy the test or they have disqualified themselves.
If you're a national candidate for office (House, Senate or President) then you need to address at least the following issues in order for me to assess whether you meet these three requirements:
- Economic policy. Duh. And you need to be specific enough that I can test against (at least) #1 and #3. If you're not, you get an "I" (incomplete) until I can. The minimum requirement means you must have a trade and tax policy incorporated in your economic views or I can't evaluate you.
- Energy policy. Each unit of GDP has a unit of energy behind it. This is so trivially evident that anyone who fails to address this fails the minimum intelligence requirement ("can wipe mirror after fogging it") for public office. Beware here as much of what passes for "energy policy" runs afoul of either exclusionary criteria #1 or #2, and stepping on either of those mines dooms you. You've been given fair warning!
- Domestic social policy. I can't evaluate whether you respect The Constitution unless you have this laid out in significant detail. Most candidates, however, love to talk about the various subtopics in this area, so I do not expect any problems finding enough material to issue a rating here. Unfortunately most candidates do their best job of disqualifying themselves here too.
That's it. Those who think I should be looking at one candidate or another are free to submit their desires for my examination in the comments. You're more likely to get me interested enough to actually perform the evaluation (remember, this is an exhaustion test - if I don't find a disqualifying factor it will take me several hours to vet someone against this list) if you put forward your reasons for why you think that candidate meets #1 - #3 right up front instead of forcing me to look for them myself.
One final note: Once disqualified under this criteria if you want to be reconsidered you must publicly denounce whatever it was that disqualified you. A "flip flop" will be ignored; if you're incapable of admitting a mistake you also fail the essential character test for public office.
This topic will remain pinned until some time next year close to the election; those candidates that pass this evaluation are found in the below list with their respective offices being sought. Anyone taking a snipe or partisan attack in the comments will instantly and permanently be banned - this is an attempt to further discourse and I will not tolerate attempts to disrupt that process. There are three areas on the forum for political discourse that are "free fire" zones ("Politics", "Lefties" and "Righties") - this is not one of them.
Disclosure: I may be working on various campaigns in advisory positions in this upcoming political season and of course may give candidates money as well. If a candidate on this list is one that I have a formal advisory position with or for in any capacity or have made a political donation to that campaign there will be an asterisk next to his or her name as it is blatantly unfair for me to "pass" someone without disclosing that I am assisting them in any manner, no matter how small.
Candidate list that has passed #1-3
Calen Fretts*, candidate for Congress, FL-1, Libertarian
