Randy's Views

Forty-one pounds later (from 236 lbs at Christmas to 195 lbs by the end of June) -- there is now living proof that anyone can lose weight. It is actually easier than most people think. There were no fancy diets or magic pills. Instead, it was (and still is) a journey in discipline.

How? Here are some thoughts from someone that no one would have expected to make it.

1. Make the decision every day. Some people think that the decision to lose weight is one made on New Year's Day or after a physical, and then it happens. They aim high and start strong, but it never lasts. Set a different goal - just stick to it one day. The fact is that losing weight is a decision that is made at the beginning of each day with a single goal - make it one day. No worrying about a week or a month or the weekend or the holidays - just focus on one day. Then, at the beginning of the next day, focus on one day - just one day.

2. Don't give up, don't give in. Occasionally, unexpected circumstances will cause lapses. It's okay. It happens. The key is to make them the exception, not the rule. Real change involves changing habits. Habits start with one single set of actions which are repeated continuously. Pretty soon, the actions become patterns, which become habits, which become automatic. having your auto-pilot set on good habits is a really good thing. For men, basically, the rule is the less thinking involved, the better.

3. Stop starving and eat more often. Crash-anything rarely accomplishes anything and crash-dieting does worse. It is not going happen in a day or even a week. No one is going to lose twenty pounds in one week and no one should try. Starvation (which is what crash-dieting really is) only makes the human body store more fat and crave more food. Here is a better plan - lots of little snacks (grazing). And try nature's candy - bananas, peaches, and watermelon. The body thinks it is getting fed and the stomach gets so much smaller.

4. Give it up. As former Arkansas Governor Mark Huckabee points out, being southern and being thin is a tough combination. Generations have worked to perfect the best fried chicken, bar-b-que, pies, and the list goes on. These can all spell disaster for the arteries, organs, and waistline. Of course, it does not have to be all or nothing. But, it is a choice - daily bad food with a shorter "quality life," or occasionally bad food with a longer "quality life." Importantly, this is not a decision to be made in the buffet line. It is a decision that must be made at the beginning of every day before the choices come along.

5. Exercise a little every day. Some people only think of exercise as a vigorous work-out in the gym. It does not have to be. Exercise can come from the little things that all add up. Try things that work - like walking the concourses at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport rather than taking the train; or, pacing around the office while on the phone; or, parking at the first available space and then walking to the store. Minor inconveniences that translate into a kind of multi-tasking that involves exercising. There are many others. Mostly, it just requires thinking about what's ahead and deciding where a little walk here or there can be worked in.

6. Stop using food as a meeting place. Not everything has be built around eating. There are some couples who use dinner as a way to get the family together. There are some business people who schedule every new encounter around a breakfast, lunch, or dinner. It is the essence of today's multi-tasking world. Here is a different approach. Get it "to go." Sitting in a restaurant increases both the time and opportunity to eat too much. Making it worse, there are servers eager to encourage an appetizer, a soup, a dessert, and more. And who hasn't felt the need to get their money's worth at the buffet. "Take out" limits the quantity and, often, the type of food. "Take out" "brought in" is one good way to multi-task without all the shouting. (For family time, try the back porch with a little "take out.")

7. Make it a priority. Here is a simple rule of thumb - if something is important enough, it will get done. The question is whether it is important enough. Answer this question tomorrow morning and then make it through the day with discipline. Then, repeat. Every day is easier than the one before.

Former President Bill Clinton criticized the Bush Administration for commuting Scooter Libby's sentence. Now, that is pretty far out there.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to federal agents in connection with the CIA leak investigation. Notably, he was not charged (and hence not convicted) of being the leak. Instead, the charges and conviction were based on statements he made during the course of the investigation to federal agents and a Grand Jury. He was sentenced to 30-months in prison, a $250,000 fine and two-years of probation. Most agree that the sentence imposed was more severe than others with similar violations and exceeded the federal sentencing guidelines. However, the crimes were serious and involved matters of national security.

The federal court hearing the case ordered that Scooter Libby serve his sentence including the prison time while his appeal was pending. After a federal Court of Appeals refused to stay the sentence, President Bush commuted (as opposed to pardoned) Scooter Libby, leaving in place the conviction, the $250,000 fine, and the probation. A pardon would have been a complete forgiveness of the crime and eliminated any of the penalty associated with it.

Former President Bill Clinton was impeached by the United States House of Representatives for perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power. The United States Senate did not convict him of those charges. Most agree that he lied under oath when he denied having sex with a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. In a separate matter, President Clinton was disbarred from the practice of law for five years and ordered to pay $25,000 in fines as part of an agreement in which federal prosecutors agreed to abandon federal perjury charges against him in connection with the Whitewater investigation.

On his last day in office, President Clinton handed out over one hundred pardons including one to Marc Rich, an international commodities trader who had been indicted for tax evasion and illegal international transactions with Iran during the hostage crisis. [Oddly enough, the United States Attorney leading the investigation against Rich was Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York and now Republican Presidential Candidate.] Rich's former wife and mother of his children was a significant contributor to the Democratic Party and to the Clinton library.

So, in this context, here is what former President Bill Clinton had to say about President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence; they "believe they should be able to do what they want, and that the law is a minor obstacle." There is a disconnect here.

As Tony Snow put it, "I don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it." According to Wikipedia, in Hebrew, "Chutzpah is used indignantly, to describe someone who has over-stepped the boundaries of accepted behavior with no shame." That about captures its use in this case.

The only thing that makes less sense is when "the" Reverend Al Sharpton attacked Attorney General Thurbert Baker based on the State of Georgia's appeal in the Genarlow Wilson case. This is the same Al Sharpton that helped lead the effort on behalf of Tawana Brawley, a woman who, in 1987, falsely accused six men of rape. A Grand Jury found that her story had been fabricated. In a libel suit against Sharpton, after he accused a local prosecutor of being involved, the jury found Sharpton liable for making seven defamatory statements and ordered him (and two attorneys) to pay $345,000 dollars in damages. And Sharpton is the spokesman against Georgia's Attorney General?

The world has gone mad.

There are two people that are clearly not candidates for President of the United States – George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. After that, it gets rather complicated. If all of the Presidential candidates were in the same place, it would be a small crowd of over thirty candidates (if other political parties are included) and approximately twenty candidates for just the Republicans and Democrats.

Most people have heard of the media termed “top tier” candidates – Senator Hillary Clinton (New York), Senator Barack Obama (Illinois), former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards (North Carolina), former Governor Mitt Romney (Massachusetts), former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (New York), Senator John McCain (Arizona), and former Senator Fred Thompson (Tennessee). Notably, there are seven “top tier” candidates, and that is without including some other individuals considered heavyweights like former Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Vice President Al Gore, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The Republicans have the most crowded field with twelve candidates vying for the nomination. Some of them are better known than others, but they all appear to have the so called “fire in the belly” to wage a Presidential campaign. In addition to the so called “top tier” candidates, they include two additional U. S. Senators – Senator Sam Brownback (Kansas) and Senator Chuck Hagel (Nebraska, although not officially declared); three additional former governors – Jim Gilmore (Virginia), Mike Huckabee (Arkansas), and Tommy Thompson (Wisconsin); and, three U. S. Congressman – Duncan Hunter (California), Ron Paul (Texas), and Tom Tancredo (California).

The Democrats are not far behind with eight candidates who want to be their Party’s nominee. In addition to the “top tier” candidates, they include two additional U.S. Senators – Senator Joe Biden (Delaware), and Chris Dodd (Connecticut); one Governor – Governor Bill Richardson (New Mexico); one additional former Senator – Mike Gravel (Alaska); and, one Congressman – Dennis Kucinich (Ohio).

In all, there are ten current or former United States Senators who want to be the next President of the United States. There are five current or former governors that want the job. They come from eighteen different states – four from the Northeast (Delaware, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts), two from the West (Alaska and California), four from the Southeast (Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia), five from the Mideast (Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Nebraska), and three from the Midwest/Southwest (Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico).

One interesting geographical note, there are two possibilities of a single state producing both nominees for President – Tennessee (Fred Thompson for the Republicans and Al Gore (if he ran) for the Democrats); and New York (Senator Hillary Clinton for the Democrats and Mayor Rudy Giuliani for the Republicans). In fact, should New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg decide to run as an independent, there could be three major candidates from the State of New York. It is anyone’s guess as to who would carry that state in a General Election with all three names on the ballot.

Of course, none of this considers the twenty-five third party candidates from the Independent Party (ten candidates from eight states); Green Party (eight candidates from seven states); or the Libertarian Party (seven candidates from seven states). So far, there is one candidate from Georgia – Elaine Brown seeking the nomination of the Green Party.

Since people appear to be tuning in, there will be many more Cable News sponsored debates. There should be a rule, however, that the number of candidates can never exceed the number of viewers. Well, maybe not. There are times when a single candidate is talking and no one is listening or watching. It’s called July.

Another court (the Michigan Supreme Court) has upheld a photo identification requirement for voting. Last year, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Indiana photo identification requirement. The one injunction (not surprisingly by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) that made its way to the United States Supreme Court was vacated by it.

Americans and Georgians remain concerned about the integrity of the voting process. Beginning with the 2000 Presidential Election (and its hanging chads) and continuing through the recent immigration debate (which assumes twelve to fifteen million illegal immigrants), there is good reason for this concern. Notwithstanding the media portrayals otherwise, it has been and continues to be a bipartisan concern.

Indeed, the integrity of American elections was the subject of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform. Former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker co-chaired that Commission. The main task of the Commission was to consider reforms that would build confidence in U.S. Elections.

In upholding Indiana’s photo identification law, the federal judge summarized the conclusions of the Commission’s report as follows: “The report from the Commission on Federal Election Reform (known as the Baker-Carter Commission) recently concluded that there is no doubt that [in-person voter fraud] occurs.”

Significantly, the dynamics underlying voter fraud are getting worse. The number of non-citizens in the United States is steadily increasing at an alarming rate. Efforts to involve them in the voting process in Georgia are well documented. Of course, it only takes a few votes to make a big difference. As the margins in elections dwindle (as most recently reflected in the Tenth Congressional District runoff election in Georgia), the impact of each illegal vote is magnified (and the votes of legal voters are diluted.) With control of the Presidency, the Congress, governorships, state legislatures, county commissions, and local boards at play in 2008, the stakes (and consequential incentive for overzealous political activists) will increase substantially.

Against the backdrop of a worsening voter fraud problem, the ability to detect fraud has decreased. As the number of voters increase and precincts get larger, the ability to detect in person voter fraud decreases. In today’s environment, the need for prevention of voter fraud has never been greater. Yet, in the words of one judge, “[w]ithout requiring a photo ID, there is little chance of preventing this kind of fraud because busy poll workers are unlikely to scrutinize signatures carefully and argue with people who deny having forged someone else’s signature.”

This problem is even worse in a state like Georgia that uses electronic voting without a verifiable paper audit trail. Unlike systems with an audit paper trail, a fraudulent ballot once cast on an electronic voting machine on election day cannot be removed once it is cast, even if it is determined to be invalid because of voter fraud. Instead, once the ballot is cast, the only remedy in Georgia elections if the number of fraudulent ballots exceeds the margin of victory is a new election, as unfair to candidates as it is to voters who follow the rules. It is also expensive. Accordingly, in a state like Georgia, prevention of voter fraud is even more important. Although opponents to photo identification will rarely admit it, the fact is that the right to vote can be denied as much by fraud as any restriction on voting.

In Georgia, it is easier to vote under the recent election laws which included a photo ID requirement, than under the old law. In Georgia, a voter can drive to the polls and present their driver’s license and vote. If they cannot drive, then they can ask for a no-excuse absentee ballot and vote from the comfort of their home. If they want to vote in person, they can get a free voter identification photo ID at the same place where they register to vote. If they do not have a photo ID or forget their photo ID when they go to vote, they can vote a provisional ballot and return with their ID within 48 hours. It is time to implement Georgia’s photo identification law.

What was the single most election-determinative decision that Al Gore and John Kerry made in losing the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections? Their selection of a running mate. The math tells the story. It also foreshadows some of the thinking that will undoubtedly be involved as the 2008 Presidential candidates think about their possible running mates.

First, there is the math. In order to be elected President, a candidate must receive 270 electoral votes (out of a total of 538). Georgia now has fifteen electoral votes. California has the most with fifty-five. Seven states and the District of Columbia each have three. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, which divides their electoral votes, the winning candidate gets all of the electoral votes of each state.

In 2000, President George W. Bush won 271 electoral votes – just one more than the minimum required. He did not win the popular vote. The key state that eventually decided the outcome of the election was Florida, which had twenty-five electoral votes. If Florida had gone the other way, Vice President Al Gore would have won the Presidential election with 291 electoral votes. President Bush would have only received 246 electoral votes.

In 2004, President George W. Bush won 286 electoral votes. Senator John Kerry won 251. Ohio was the key state with twenty electoral votes. If Senator Kerry had won Ohio, then he would have become President with 271 electoral votes. President George W. Bush did win the popular vote with 51% of the vote.

In both 2000 and 2004, the margins of victory in the two key states (Florida and Ohio, respectively) was small. Indeed, in the context of the over 100 million votes cast, the margins were very small. This came as no surprise to anyone since both Florida and Ohio were considered key battleground states from the beginning of the election.

In this context, the choices of Vice President Gore and Senator Kerry for their running mates was notable. Vice President Gore chose Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Connecticut’s eight electoral votes were always considered safe for the Democratic nominee. In fact, with the exception of New Hampshire, all of the Northeast was considered safe for the Democratic nominee.

Senator John Kerry chose North Carolina Senator John Edwards. This would have been a significant choice if Senator Edwards carried either his home state, which had fourteen electoral votes, or some southern states. He did neither. North Carolina went to President George W. Bush, and the south went solidly for the Republican nominee.

History might have been very different with a different running mate. If Vice President Al Gore had picked Florida Senator Bob Graham in 2000, the outcome could have been different. As a former Florida governor and popular Senator, Florida’s twenty-five electoral votes would probably have been light lifting. And if Senator Kerry had picked Senator Graham in 2004 (as he considered), he might have picked up its twenty seven electoral votes and become President.

As 2008, candidates will undoubtedly consider long and hard the Florida running mate possibilities and there are some good ones. Republican Governor Charlie Crist is popular among Florida voters and has an impressive track record in his short tenure as Florida’s chief executive. Democratic Senator Bill Nelson, who was elected to the Senate in the hotly contested 2000 Presidential election, easily won reelection in 2006.

One interesting side note is the historical possibilities that could emerge next year. Should Senator Clinton and Mayor Rudy Giuliani win their respective parties’ nominations and pick Senator Nelson and Governor Crist as their running mates, it would be an all New York/Florida Presidential election. Now, how odd would that be?