Okay, so Colin Powell came out and endorsed Obama.
That kinda messes up my scenario in which he bursts forth as McCain's new runny.
So...
I'm going to keep the basics - i.e. Palin withdraws (soon, Sarah, any moment now...), and McCain is forced to announce...
(drumroll please)
JOE THE PLUMBER!
thankyouverymuch.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
On pronunciation
I've been listening to the debate while writing this, and I've been thinking.
From what Governor Palin's just been saying, it sounds like - if the McCain ticket wins - we may just get another national leader who's convinced the word 'nuclear' is pronounced "nuke-yoo-lur". She just said it three or four times in a row. How depressing.
But, you might well say, she'd just be the Veep, we wouldn't have to hear it as often...
No, maybe not, as long as McCain stays healthy; but McCain's not in the clear either.
Have you heard how he pronounces the name of our nation's capital?
"I'm going to Warshington as an agent of change!"
Yes, he ads an "r" to Washington. He's going to Warshington. That may drive me as nuts as nukeyoolur.
Oh, please!
From what Governor Palin's just been saying, it sounds like - if the McCain ticket wins - we may just get another national leader who's convinced the word 'nuclear' is pronounced "nuke-yoo-lur". She just said it three or four times in a row. How depressing.
But, you might well say, she'd just be the Veep, we wouldn't have to hear it as often...
No, maybe not, as long as McCain stays healthy; but McCain's not in the clear either.
Have you heard how he pronounces the name of our nation's capital?
"I'm going to Warshington as an agent of change!"
Yes, he ads an "r" to Washington. He's going to Warshington. That may drive me as nuts as nukeyoolur.
Oh, please!
McCain's Intent
Okay, I think I've got his plan figured out.
For quite a while, I was convinced that John McCain didn't actually want to win the presidency. I was sure he was doing everything he could to throw the election, and was perhaps watching with amazement at how his polling numbers kept rising despite his planned missteps.
but now, I've got a different theory. He - and the other GOP powers - are just setting us up for the October Surprise. Of course, I thought today, what's an election without an October Surprise?
So how will this one work? Well, I'm guessing that the McCain will let Governor Palin do her darndest, but continue to flounder for another couple of weeks. But the McCain ticket will continue to lose ground. What will they do, one thinks. Well, suddenly Sarahcudda will announce that upon further reflection, she cannot continue to run the race. Senator McCain will put up a fine show of shock, of regret, but will sadly accept her withdrawal. He'll retreat to his ranch to 'consider all options' (meanwhile, they'll go, put their feet up, perhaps watch a football game or something, and wait for the media frenzy to hit fever pitch). After all the media have brought their cameras and microphones to his side - abandoning all attention to the Democrats - he'll emerge to announce his new running mate...
Who will it be...
...
Has anybody seen or heard from, oh, say, Colin Powell lately?
The Dems will be caught off guard. The Republicans and centrist independents and Democrats who've been abandoning the USS McCain in droves will stop in their tracks. Heads will turn to the Candidate and his Running Mate standing with an Arizona desert sunset behind them, arms raised in victory.
If it doesn't really happen, it would make a good novel, don'tcha think?
For quite a while, I was convinced that John McCain didn't actually want to win the presidency. I was sure he was doing everything he could to throw the election, and was perhaps watching with amazement at how his polling numbers kept rising despite his planned missteps.
but now, I've got a different theory. He - and the other GOP powers - are just setting us up for the October Surprise. Of course, I thought today, what's an election without an October Surprise?
So how will this one work? Well, I'm guessing that the McCain will let Governor Palin do her darndest, but continue to flounder for another couple of weeks. But the McCain ticket will continue to lose ground. What will they do, one thinks. Well, suddenly Sarahcudda will announce that upon further reflection, she cannot continue to run the race. Senator McCain will put up a fine show of shock, of regret, but will sadly accept her withdrawal. He'll retreat to his ranch to 'consider all options' (meanwhile, they'll go, put their feet up, perhaps watch a football game or something, and wait for the media frenzy to hit fever pitch). After all the media have brought their cameras and microphones to his side - abandoning all attention to the Democrats - he'll emerge to announce his new running mate...
Who will it be...
...
Has anybody seen or heard from, oh, say, Colin Powell lately?
The Dems will be caught off guard. The Republicans and centrist independents and Democrats who've been abandoning the USS McCain in droves will stop in their tracks. Heads will turn to the Candidate and his Running Mate standing with an Arizona desert sunset behind them, arms raised in victory.
If it doesn't really happen, it would make a good novel, don'tcha think?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Throwing the election?
I just got to thinking. Is it possible that John McCain is actually trying (with little success at this stage) to throw the election?
Here's my reasoning:
He of the Straight Talk Express has taken to talking anything but straight. He's evasive, he answers straight questions with pre-scripted responses that don't, in fact, answer the original query.
He blathers on about how his opponent "was wrong about the surge", just begging for the response: "but if we hadn't gone into that mire in the first place, we wouldn't have NEEDED the surge!"
He eggs on his followers in chants of "Drill, baby, Drill", and insists that his offshore drilling plan will be a huge solution, despite the caveat we got from experts at the start of gas price spikes this year that drilling wouldn't have any effect on gas prices for five to ten years.
He was probably the last public voice to abandon his philosophy that our economy's foundations are not, in fact, sound, but have been eaten away by a bunch of greedy, self serving profiteers (in this case, I'm referring to the leaders of most major - and formerly major - financial institutions, not politicans, to whom the same adjectives could be applied).
He blatantly went and picked a running mate whose flash and initial lustre would certainly and quickly fade once the majority of the public saw she's a liar, an ambitious manipulator, and as far from the Christian virtues of forgiveness, patience, and Love as one can possibly be.
There are many other hints he's given along the campaign that lead me to believe he doesn't really want to be President any more. But even he must be a bit stunned that the farther he gets from his original values, the deeper he gets in the muck, the more reactionary he becomes, the more the pundits say he gains in the polls.
Could he be saying to himself: "What's a guy got to do in order to hand a victory to the other side?!"
Here's my reasoning:
He of the Straight Talk Express has taken to talking anything but straight. He's evasive, he answers straight questions with pre-scripted responses that don't, in fact, answer the original query.
He blathers on about how his opponent "was wrong about the surge", just begging for the response: "but if we hadn't gone into that mire in the first place, we wouldn't have NEEDED the surge!"
He eggs on his followers in chants of "Drill, baby, Drill", and insists that his offshore drilling plan will be a huge solution, despite the caveat we got from experts at the start of gas price spikes this year that drilling wouldn't have any effect on gas prices for five to ten years.
He was probably the last public voice to abandon his philosophy that our economy's foundations are not, in fact, sound, but have been eaten away by a bunch of greedy, self serving profiteers (in this case, I'm referring to the leaders of most major - and formerly major - financial institutions, not politicans, to whom the same adjectives could be applied).
He blatantly went and picked a running mate whose flash and initial lustre would certainly and quickly fade once the majority of the public saw she's a liar, an ambitious manipulator, and as far from the Christian virtues of forgiveness, patience, and Love as one can possibly be.
There are many other hints he's given along the campaign that lead me to believe he doesn't really want to be President any more. But even he must be a bit stunned that the farther he gets from his original values, the deeper he gets in the muck, the more reactionary he becomes, the more the pundits say he gains in the polls.
Could he be saying to himself: "What's a guy got to do in order to hand a victory to the other side?!"
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Welcome to DemocracyDuty blog
Hey there, readers where- and whoever you may be.
I'm new to this, so I have a feeling I'm shouting into the void, or even more likely into the cacaphony of other blogvoices. So this is more to amuse myself than any other purpose. Here we go, it's a venting process, a journaling process, a thinking-out-loud process (kindasorta).
It's mostly looking at our system, getting more and more corrupt and absurd by the day and by the election season, and wondering if we might come up with something better. I'm writing from the starting point that our country's (the U.S.ofA. of course) founders didn't expect, plan, or wish for their Grand Experiment to become a permanent, unchangeable system. Rather, they tweaked the English Constitution and various other models to fit the circumstances in which our former - or soon-to-be-former colonies existed at the time.
So let's use their model as one from which to improve, to shape to fit the modern world.
Along the way in this blog, I'm sure I'll be commenting on the current political situation - right now of course it's the election, but if this blog survives beyond the election, it'll no doubt be the continuing tumult, bizarre behavior, or blatant blowhardiness of whatever clique is in power.
But first...
Here's a proposal.
Let's can the whole pandering, lobbyist-infested, self-serving, bottom-feeding system that has come to be the public face of our once-great system, and replace it with a new version of democracy. I've been calling it Randomocracy - though I think that term's been used for all kinds of blogs, philosophies, and proposals. So I invite folks to suggest other monickers for this once we get the basics. Let's start with some whereases:
Whereas our country's founders wrote nowhere in the Constitution or Declaration that it's the be-all and end-all solution to the world's needs...
Whereas our government has become increasingly isolated from its constituents, answering primarily to high-paid lobbyists, friends of whatever politico holds power, and corporations...
Whereas allegations of and indictments for corruption are now a monthly occurence in our halls of government...
Whereas many wise, capable, and experienced individuals may be found throughout our society, but those individuals are usually discouraged from seeking political office...
Whereas campaigns now require huge warchests, and the conventional wisdom seems to say "he (or she) with the fattest bank account wins"...
Whereas the power of Incumbency is such that barring a prison term, those in office are highly unlikely to lose to a challenger...
Whereas the two party system has evolved into a joke...
Whereas most normal folks now say "nobody in their right mind would run for political office",
Therefore, let us start building a new system.
Here's a framework. Let's change it and tweak it 'til it seems feasible. Then we can sit back and sigh, because of course it won't stand a chance of being put into action, since the existing powers-that-be wouldn't give it a moment's thought.
Let's start with our State Legislatures and our Congress. On Day 1, every American's name (with some basic requirements, primarily: functional literacy and no record of psychotic behavior that might reasonably pose a danger to the individual or those around him or her) goes into a big box (okay, we live in the 21st Century, a computer - checked by independent experts to make sure it's not rigged), and names are chosen at random - like jury duty - to fill seats in the legislatures (a residency filter would make sure each legislator comes from the appropriate district).
Names chosen, those individuals would prepare for a period of perhaps six to nine months. A few months to make job/living arrangements - for they would be leaving their jobs, their businesses, their farms, or their unemployment lines for a term of office, perhaps six years. The remainder of the preparation period would be a cram course in the legislative process - how to propose, draft, negotiate, and enact legislation, the place of the legislature in our system, and perhaps most important, how to communicate positively and productively. These courses would be taught from a non-partisan perspective - just how laws get made, not what laws to make...
These legislators would be paid at the same comparative level as current legislators, and receive the same benefit packages. I figure this means most of the randomly-chosen lawmakers would do better while in office than they ever did in the private sector. Those who take a step down in salary during those years might be able to see it as a donation to the nation.
Now, there are a few things this system would NOT have:
No re-election
No raising of campaign funds
After serving the term, the individual could choose to have his or her name removed in perpetuity from any future legislative lottery. There's a chance a few might put their names back in, but they would understand the chance of being chosen again would be nil.
Now, with all those legislators, one wouldn't want to have turnover happening all at one time, right? So the legislatures would be broken into three or four "classes", so every two years, say, a third of the legislature would be replaced by a new "class" coming in to serve. Each person chosen to serve a term could bring trusted folks to serve on staff, and would have a staff to help in the day-to-day work.
Here are some guesses about how this would compare to our existing system.
Our legislatures would probably have about the same percentage of complete doofuses serving in office. But the randomly chosen ones would probably be more likely to recognize their doofosity, and choose to sit quietly and be observers rather than doing what so many do today: stand up in front of everybody and attempt to orate themselves into a perception of wisdom.
It would be at least a little harder to be corrupt in this system. One's finances would have to be open to scrutiny, and as most of the randomly-chosen legislators wouldn't be practiced liars and scoundrels, most misdeeds would quickly come to light.
Now here's another fun part of the system I suggest. Every four or six years, from among all those legislators at all levels, certain individuals would likely rise, like cream on milk, to the top. They would prove themselves to be excellent orators, consensus builders, and natural leaders. In our current system, of course, these people wouldn't touch politics with a ten-foot insulated pole. But in this system they could be approached by their constituents, or by their fellow legislators to consider running for President.
I figure from the 535 national-level legislators, and thousands of state-level lawmakers, at least ten would emerge with Presidential potential. These ten (perhaps more, perhaps fewer) would then run within guidelines that would relieve them of fundraising duties and allow each an equal opportunity to reach the public. Each candidate would get an equal share of advertising funds (they could choose the media mix, of course), each would appear on the same number of talk shows, all would gather for debates, and all would have travel budgets to stump across the country. There would be no political parties, the candidates would simply run on their leadership philosophies.
Then there would be elections. Yes, elections. Runoff elections. In one or two elections, the larger field would be winnowed down to two, three, or perhaps four finalists. In a final election, on the first Tuesday of November (we'd want to keep some vestiges of our old system) the voters (not the Electoral College) would have their say, and the top vote-getter would become President, the second place finisher would become Vice President. (An incentive for the candidates to be respectful of the other competitors).
Okay, that's enough of my framework for now. Let's see if anybody has suggestions to build on this. Let's keep it positive folks, but aside from that, let's dream of a better way. Comments and constructive ideas are welcome!
I'm new to this, so I have a feeling I'm shouting into the void, or even more likely into the cacaphony of other blogvoices. So this is more to amuse myself than any other purpose. Here we go, it's a venting process, a journaling process, a thinking-out-loud process (kindasorta).
It's mostly looking at our system, getting more and more corrupt and absurd by the day and by the election season, and wondering if we might come up with something better. I'm writing from the starting point that our country's (the U.S.ofA. of course) founders didn't expect, plan, or wish for their Grand Experiment to become a permanent, unchangeable system. Rather, they tweaked the English Constitution and various other models to fit the circumstances in which our former - or soon-to-be-former colonies existed at the time.
So let's use their model as one from which to improve, to shape to fit the modern world.
Along the way in this blog, I'm sure I'll be commenting on the current political situation - right now of course it's the election, but if this blog survives beyond the election, it'll no doubt be the continuing tumult, bizarre behavior, or blatant blowhardiness of whatever clique is in power.
But first...
Here's a proposal.
Let's can the whole pandering, lobbyist-infested, self-serving, bottom-feeding system that has come to be the public face of our once-great system, and replace it with a new version of democracy. I've been calling it Randomocracy - though I think that term's been used for all kinds of blogs, philosophies, and proposals. So I invite folks to suggest other monickers for this once we get the basics. Let's start with some whereases:
Whereas our country's founders wrote nowhere in the Constitution or Declaration that it's the be-all and end-all solution to the world's needs...
Whereas our government has become increasingly isolated from its constituents, answering primarily to high-paid lobbyists, friends of whatever politico holds power, and corporations...
Whereas allegations of and indictments for corruption are now a monthly occurence in our halls of government...
Whereas many wise, capable, and experienced individuals may be found throughout our society, but those individuals are usually discouraged from seeking political office...
Whereas campaigns now require huge warchests, and the conventional wisdom seems to say "he (or she) with the fattest bank account wins"...
Whereas the power of Incumbency is such that barring a prison term, those in office are highly unlikely to lose to a challenger...
Whereas the two party system has evolved into a joke...
Whereas most normal folks now say "nobody in their right mind would run for political office",
Therefore, let us start building a new system.
Here's a framework. Let's change it and tweak it 'til it seems feasible. Then we can sit back and sigh, because of course it won't stand a chance of being put into action, since the existing powers-that-be wouldn't give it a moment's thought.
Let's start with our State Legislatures and our Congress. On Day 1, every American's name (with some basic requirements, primarily: functional literacy and no record of psychotic behavior that might reasonably pose a danger to the individual or those around him or her) goes into a big box (okay, we live in the 21st Century, a computer - checked by independent experts to make sure it's not rigged), and names are chosen at random - like jury duty - to fill seats in the legislatures (a residency filter would make sure each legislator comes from the appropriate district).
Names chosen, those individuals would prepare for a period of perhaps six to nine months. A few months to make job/living arrangements - for they would be leaving their jobs, their businesses, their farms, or their unemployment lines for a term of office, perhaps six years. The remainder of the preparation period would be a cram course in the legislative process - how to propose, draft, negotiate, and enact legislation, the place of the legislature in our system, and perhaps most important, how to communicate positively and productively. These courses would be taught from a non-partisan perspective - just how laws get made, not what laws to make...
These legislators would be paid at the same comparative level as current legislators, and receive the same benefit packages. I figure this means most of the randomly-chosen lawmakers would do better while in office than they ever did in the private sector. Those who take a step down in salary during those years might be able to see it as a donation to the nation.
Now, there are a few things this system would NOT have:
No re-election
No raising of campaign funds
After serving the term, the individual could choose to have his or her name removed in perpetuity from any future legislative lottery. There's a chance a few might put their names back in, but they would understand the chance of being chosen again would be nil.
Now, with all those legislators, one wouldn't want to have turnover happening all at one time, right? So the legislatures would be broken into three or four "classes", so every two years, say, a third of the legislature would be replaced by a new "class" coming in to serve. Each person chosen to serve a term could bring trusted folks to serve on staff, and would have a staff to help in the day-to-day work.
Here are some guesses about how this would compare to our existing system.
Our legislatures would probably have about the same percentage of complete doofuses serving in office. But the randomly chosen ones would probably be more likely to recognize their doofosity, and choose to sit quietly and be observers rather than doing what so many do today: stand up in front of everybody and attempt to orate themselves into a perception of wisdom.
It would be at least a little harder to be corrupt in this system. One's finances would have to be open to scrutiny, and as most of the randomly-chosen legislators wouldn't be practiced liars and scoundrels, most misdeeds would quickly come to light.
Now here's another fun part of the system I suggest. Every four or six years, from among all those legislators at all levels, certain individuals would likely rise, like cream on milk, to the top. They would prove themselves to be excellent orators, consensus builders, and natural leaders. In our current system, of course, these people wouldn't touch politics with a ten-foot insulated pole. But in this system they could be approached by their constituents, or by their fellow legislators to consider running for President.
I figure from the 535 national-level legislators, and thousands of state-level lawmakers, at least ten would emerge with Presidential potential. These ten (perhaps more, perhaps fewer) would then run within guidelines that would relieve them of fundraising duties and allow each an equal opportunity to reach the public. Each candidate would get an equal share of advertising funds (they could choose the media mix, of course), each would appear on the same number of talk shows, all would gather for debates, and all would have travel budgets to stump across the country. There would be no political parties, the candidates would simply run on their leadership philosophies.
Then there would be elections. Yes, elections. Runoff elections. In one or two elections, the larger field would be winnowed down to two, three, or perhaps four finalists. In a final election, on the first Tuesday of November (we'd want to keep some vestiges of our old system) the voters (not the Electoral College) would have their say, and the top vote-getter would become President, the second place finisher would become Vice President. (An incentive for the candidates to be respectful of the other competitors).
Okay, that's enough of my framework for now. Let's see if anybody has suggestions to build on this. Let's keep it positive folks, but aside from that, let's dream of a better way. Comments and constructive ideas are welcome!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)