h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In the US we now have a political class. Professional politicians at the top of the pyramid, then political appointees, and lobbyists right under them. It works in its own weird way from time to time, but not now, when one party is in control of all branches of government and is engaging in dirty tricks in order to retain power and, through power, money.

No, it's not new. But that fact is not a reason to shrug and point fingers in other directions. The law is the law, no matter how many "signing statements" the president thinks will put him above that law.

My better half was just commenting not two days ago how shocked the framers of our Constitution would be to discover that we have professional politicians. That was never their intent, and their attitude towards public service was that it was a necessary evil, their duty which must be discharged despite the inconvenience and expense and detriment to their own livelihood. What happened?

Dear Healing - Thank you. I agree 100%. If I missed your opinion I apologize. Our country is being slowly destroyed from within because of Politicians. Not just one man.

I have a friend down in Texas who tells me every year he visits that we don't "need to vote them all out, we need to *fire* them all."

I have found a really good way to open my speech on Wednesday. I'm going to hold up a flag and a lighter. Not going to do the deed though as it will not be necessary.

<>

Hey, you're the one standing up for the INCUMBENT, Joe Lieberman, Mo. I don't think you'd get an argument out of any one of us that new blood is needed in Connecticut. And if you'd like to move on to new people with new ideas, quit bringing up Chappaquiddick '69.

Something that Republican conservatives have problems understanding is that it's okay to have dissent within a group of people. Republicans view the Democratic party's constant influx of new ideas as weak. They like to get behind one party line, and beat that dead horse into a fine meringue. Anybody that disagrees is labeled as a traitor to the cause, and anti-American.

Democrats like debate - they're always arguing with each other and refining each other's ideas. I think it's the brainstorming philosophy - the more ideas there are, the better chance there is of finding one that works.

As for new blood, you'll see some changes if we start funding election campaigns 100%. No candidate can use their own money or any donations when running for office - it all comes out of one pile, and it's the same for every candidate that reaches a certain number of votes in the primaries. Professional politicians will hate that, because they'll lose.

GDZ, there's been a series of Doonesbury cartoons about flag burning - if you're interested, I think this is the first one.

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060703

Sounds like your speech will be a good one!

I saw that series actually, thanks for the link though! The speech should be good, assuming I actually get in enough practice.

Lentilla, I totally agree with your statement about how campaigns should be financed. There has been a lot of debate in our circles about this. The main problem most people have with it is that in order to accomplish this, it is another thing that government has to do: get the money and then distribute it. It has been my observation that whenever we trust the government to tax us and then distribute the money later, they manage to screw that up somehow. And I think that if we do adopt this method, some way must be made to allow people who are on the fringes and members of third and fourth parties to get funded, not just the "traditional" two parties.

Another thing we really should do is adopt the idea that campaigns should be only x number of days long. I mean, it is 2006 and people are already planning and talking about the next presidential election, Hillary is building her war chest, etc etc.

I think that there should be NO ads on television. The 60 second spot has reduced political campaigns to 30 second sound bites. It also plays into the habit of reducing the campaign to one major issue, or perhaps two, and encourages mud slinging. Eliminating television ads would keep the costs of the campaign down, and possibly force people to actually learn what the candidates are all about. It would also elimiate the power of the shocking lie, such as we discovered via the Fast Boat Veterans for Truth fiasco.

I still like no campaigning whatsoever, total write-in elections for all posts. Who would win if you did this? Oprah? David Letterman? Rev. Jesse Jackson? Mother Teresa?

How does everybody feel about the new technology for voting -- touch screen computers. Am I the only person who feels worried that my vote could be manipulated,changed, not counted?

Soap Box'es should be brought back!

I like the idea of the local rally and the electorate being able to heckle!



the open microphone has some importants too i think

Oh, I hadn't thought of the open microphone. Good idea. It would give us a better idea of who to write in.

I worry very much what Diebold will do with my vote.

For all intents and purposes, the touch screen vote is ruined as a viable option unless there is a paper trail, and the governor of New Mexico has made paperless voting illegal.

I am still stunned by pictures I've seen earlier this morning of Pres Bush coming up behind the Chancellor of Germany, right into her personal space and trying to give her a shoulder massage. She shrugged him off. The man is an idiot.

Rev. Russell, when you mentioned open mikes, were you thinking particularly of the one that was open at the g8 summit a few days ago? Or of the one that was open in 2000 when Candidate Bush called a reporter an a**hole?

Latest news -- Several states are thinking about reducing services to illegals. What a novel concept.

Then perhaps illegals ought to consider reducing their contributions to our economy and stop picking our fruits and vegetables.

I'm all for reducing the length of time between the Presidental primary and the November election. One, *maybe* two months, tops. And I think all states should be put on the same primary calendar. Everybody votes on the same Tuesday in September or October. That would be better than having Iowa or New Hampshire getting a disproportionate amount of attention (and forcing some of the candidates who don't have a good showing quit the race) due to their February primaries.

I like the idea of primaries on the same day.

Yeah! What a great idea! Why can't we do that? We have the main election on the same day.

I'm sorry but that is much too logical.

How about this: no primaries. Put everyone who wants a try at election be put on the ballot. Sure it might be a long ballot but it would be much more representative.

Mo << Just because the man doesn't wear blinders and hate conservatives Lieberman is an outcast in his own party. >>

Actually, a friend of mine, who is Jewish, said that the US will never elect a Jew, no matter how good a choice he/she would be. I hope to Bob she's wrong, but it does look like Lieberman is not being supported by his party this time around, ostensibly due to supporting an unpopular war. The real reason: who knows? Israel is not as popular among Americans anymore, either.

SC