If at first you don't secede...

By Jeff Orvis

Well, it didn't take the Tea Party kooks to resurface. Just days after a slim majority of us gave President Obama a hesitant vote of confidence for another four years, a campaign was started to sign petitions to allow some states to secede from the union.

Apparently there's a spot on the White House web site where residents may petition the federal government to allow for secession. The site indicates that when there are at least 25,000 signatures from any state, the White House will comment on the petition. At last count, there were 11 states with at least 25,000 signatures.

Not too surprising, Texas leads the way with 117,373 signatures. I wasn't surprised, since I have relatives there who reflect the traditional independent nature of Texans. In fact, when we visited Dallas a few years ago, I was informed that the Texas constitution allows for the state to leave the United States whenever enough voters wanted to. This was while we were still languishing under the failed presidency of a former Texas governor who somehow was elected president twice. My immediate response was that if that happened, I had a suggestion on who they could get as their president...”W,” enter stage right!

The days after the election, I heard a few people who voted for the other guy grumble that they were thinking about moving to Canada. But a lot of those people were strongly against the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare). As soon as they realized that Canada is even more progressive when it comes to providing health care to all of its residents, the talk of heading north faded away.

Then came this secession movement. More than 1 million of our friends and neighbors have signed the petition. Of the 11 states who have had at least 25,000 signatures, 10 of them are south of Iowa. That may explain another reason why they have taken on this form of protest and frustration rather than the move to Canada talk. This is the time of year when a lot of people move to Texas and points south. There's already a lot of snow in Canada.

At the very least, this talk of secession has provided plenty of fuel for discussion by professors and students of constitutional law. The possibilities and potential problems are enough to easily spill over to another column. The next time a major hurricane hits Texas or Florida, if those states were no longer part of the United States, how long could they go it alone? Even in peaceful weather times, how many billions of dollars would be lost if the United States suddenly pulled out all military personnel from bases in those states? No more Medicare or Social Security. If Texans are upset with the federal tax rate now, what would they pay in state income taxes if they suddenly had to go it alone?

I can empathize with those who were frustrated with the election. Some of the points made by the Republicans, specifically the dire warnings of our sick economy, have plenty of merit. It's just that most of the messengers the GOP put out there, especially several of the presidential candidates, were merely prime ammunition for Saturday Night Live skits and Leno and Letterman. When the other party can promote a sensible candidate who is not afraid of the word “compromise,” then things could be different next time.

Let's just hope there are still 50 states voting in 2016.

A not-surprising endorsement

By Jeff Orvis

We are finally on the eve of the presidential election. So far, I have refrained from doing a lot of commentary on this whole process, other than to point out the obvious – that too much money is spent on the very annoying tactics the representatives of the candidates are using to promote their person.

But after reading countless posts from some of my Facebook friends, people I believe are otherwise really intelligent individuals, here's my one shot at a response.

Last week, I went to our county auditor's office and proudly voted for President Obama. I voted for the man, what he stands for, what he has attempted to do to right the ship these past four years despite overwhelming odds from the far right. I voted for him because of the party he is affiliated with. The Democrats have historically represented the philosophy that most closely reflects mine.

The current crop of Republicans represent the party of Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, that congressional candidate who had to convince her voters that she wasn't a witch, that congressional candidate who claims that women who are raped will magically find a natural way not to get pregnant, another congressional candidate who claims that it's God's will when someone is raped and the list goes on and on. And let's not forget that gleaming national spokesman, Donald Trump.

Some of my Facebook friends actually quote Beck and Limbaugh, as if they are somehow equal to Cronkite, Huntley or Brinkley. I find it interesting that some of the candidates I've heard try to claim that the Republican party is the party of Lincoln or Reagan. I didn't hear anyone claim it is the party of Bush or Agnew or Dan Quayle.

This race is coming down to the wire. A lot of people who claim to have voted for Obama last time are now so frustrated with the economy that they are apparently willing to try anything different. I hope that those who have not yet cast their vote will take a minute to think before they fill in that circle next to the candidate.

President Obama has experience helping those who are down and out. He has grown in his tenure in the White House and has shown that he is a strong commander-in-chief. Even though I am one of those definitely affected by the sour economy, I have faith that if given more time and a more responsive congress (Republican and Democrat) that will truly represent their constituents and work as a team with the executive branch, we can get this thing turned around.

I have no doubt that Mitt Romney is a good person. He has a strong wife who has battled serious health issues to be a strong advocate for her husband. His family is personable. He is apparently a man of faith. As a successful businessman, he probably entered the race because of his fears on the future of the economy.

Although he has won the endorsement of several newspapers across the country, perhaps the Salt Lake Tribune said it best in its endorsement of Obama. I'm paraphrasing here, but the editors said they really wanted to endorse Romney. He did a good job heading up the Salt Lake Olympics. But since then, it has been difficult to figure out which Romney we would be voting for. He has changed his positions on several issues in recent years, seeming to see which way the political winds are blowing. As the leader of the free world, we need someone whose stand is known and not subject to change.

Although he has made some decisions over the past four years that he might want to change, President Obama has stayed strong in his principles. We know where he's coming from. I am more confident with where we can go if he is given a vote of confidence on Tuesday.