According to the Ineligibility Clause of the United States Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to an office that has benefited from a salary increase during the time that Senator or Representative served in Congress. A January 2008 Executive Order signed by President Bush during Hillary Clinton’s current Senate term increased the salary for Secretary of State, thereby rendering Senator Clinton ineligible for the position.

Specifically, Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.” The provision is seen by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption.

Ouch.  How much you want to bet that they’ll go around that somehow.  The very same post by the Judicial watch talks about something called the “Saxbe fix”

The Nixon administration managed to force legislation through Congress to reduce the salary for the position of Attorney General to the level that existed prior to Senator Saxbe’s appointment. This scheme, known thereafter as “The Saxbe Fix,” was also used to allow Senator Lloyd Bentsen to assume the position of Treasury Secretary under President Clinton.

And her husband used it, so you know she knows that it is there and usable.  So, I’m sure that, barring any unforeseen problems, we’ll see Mrs. Clinton become Secretary of State.  Constitution be damned.

I’m sure that Hillary did not have the office in mind for herself when she voted on the raise for the position.  She had much loftier goals.  Nevertheless, Obama is a Constitutional law professor.  You’d think he’d want to uphold the thing rather than find ways around it.  Alas, more change we can believe in.

She could be just the extra bit that the McCain camp needs.  First, I think that Obama missed out when he chose not to pick Clinton as his VP.  He would have gotten a very popular candidate as well as a Woman.  McCain could pick up a small amount of votes for having a woman on the ticket.

Also, with all the uproar being about spending, spending, and more spending, McCain and Palin could be to of the best of the best conservatives as far as anti-earmarking goes.  And I like that.  It’s time to be fiscally conservative once again.  When the rest of the country is reportedly in a damn recession, why is the government spending more?

Adding Sarah Palin to the ticket would pretty much cement my pick for President.  Obama lost me months ago, but I don’t believe in wasted votes, so the other Presidential candidates (yes there are others) still have a chance.  Probably not with Palin on the ticket though.

Update: It’s official.  Even McCain’s campaign site has been updated already. (although the site doesn’t render very well for me in Firefox right now.  Maybe they’re still working on it.)

But I had to look at the alternatives.  Clinton will do just like her husband did and send our troops out on “peacekeeping missions” instead of actually telling us about the conflicts.  Anyone remember Bosnia?  And I don’t really know where Obama stands on all of it, but from what I’ve read, I have come to the conclusion that he’d rather not partake in any conflict with anyone.  It’s easier to not have any public conflict so your image doesn’t get muddied.  I’d rather have a president that has some nuts than one that is content to hide conflicts.

As far as the economy goes, I have to say that there hasn’t been a Democrat yet that I agree with on the economy.  I’ll take McCain there too.

McCain also has a very strong record on being anti-pork and his home state of Arizona is one of the hardest on illegal immigration.  I don’t know if that has anything to do with him, but I have to believe that if he didn’t agree with it at least a little, he probably has the ability to make it stop.

When I measure those and other points, I come to the conclusion that of the three candidates before me, there is only one that I can vote for.  McCain.  He’s not exactly what I want.  He’s not a(my) perfect candidate.  But he’s the best one out there at the moment.  Maybe we’ll see a decent third party candidate that will sweep me up.  Until then, I’m flying the McCain banner.

They’ve got fold + glue finger puppets of Clinton, Obama, and McCain.

All in handy dandy printable full color pdf formats.  And check out the video instructions that are tailored to each candidate puppet.

First, let me say that I really believe that the government is way too involved in much of the economy.  Sure, it’s their responsibility now to keep it from total collapse, but otherwise, I really think they should keep their greasy little mitts off of it.  So, with that said, which candidate is the better of the bunch as far as the economy is concerned?

The answer may surprise you.  It’s “D: None of the Above”.  At least that’s the answer if you ask me.  Let’s take a quick look.  I’m paraphrasing here, so keep that in mind.

McCain wants to cut corporate taxes, allow faster writing off of equipment, and give a tax credit that is equal to 10% of the wage cost on research and development.

Obama wants to start dishing out the money.  Temporarily of course.  A one time stimulus paired with a $45 billion reserve to do the same if the economy goes south again.  And if none of that works, he’s planning on extending and expanding unemployment insurance.

Then there’s Hillary.  She thinks she can fix the economy with $30 billion to put a cork in the subprime mess, freeze the rates on those same loans, as well as $25 billion for energy subsidies to families, $10 billion to expand and extend the unemployment insurance, and $5 billion to jump start the eco sensitive “green-collar” job market.

Here’s what’s wrong with each one.  McCain is coddling the corporate world.  It’s a typical Republican M.O. and only goes so far.  Cutting corporate taxes is only going to inflate the CEO salaries a little bit more.  That’s good for McCain and the others because those same CEOs are the ones that are featured prominently in the list of heavy hitting campaign donations.  It would benefit small business somewhat, but more would have to be done to stimulate the small business sector and these cuts would only serve to strengthen the hold the big corporations have on the market.

Obama thinks the government is made of money.  (I don’t agree with the latest stimulation package either) Instead of fixing the problems with the economy (bad lending practices, corporate fraud, etc…), he wants to give us a temporary boost in hopes that it will pull the economy back up.  The main problem with that is that it doesn’t really help.  They claim that it stimulates the economy and brings it back up out of the dip.  I think it just levels it out and then it climbs back out on it’s own.  Even if that’s not the case, a temporary fix is only that.  Temporary. It’s time for permanent fixes.

Hillary wants us all to be wards of the state.  If you signed the dotted line on a loan you couldn’t afford, the state will bail you out.  Loaned money to a bad borrower?  The state will bail you out.  Can’t pay your heating bill?  Here’s a check to bail you out there too.  Expanding unemployment insurance will only make things worse.  There are people who play that program almost as bad as many play the welfare program.  And the $5 billion to jump start the green collar job force?  A coyly disguised push for a higher approval rating.

None of these candidates have a solid workable solution to the problem.  Each will patch it in their own way.  Some (Hillary) in a way only Marx could be proud of.  So what is the answer?  That’s another article I think.