It takes 2 to make 1

I was wondering this morning why all the hoopla over VP selections, then it occured to me that we have weak candidates and perhaps everyone is hoping the VP will add to one great choice.

Neither combination seems to have done the trick, so far, so this election year has been a dud. Since it is probable we will never again have one candidate large enough to fill the role of President, the future might hold some promising combinations. On the Democrat side, if Clinton runs again she should choose someone out of politics like Quinton Tarantino if for no other reason than the play on names-- Clinton/Tarantino -- which gives it a cool sound of inevitability. With years of Hollywood experience, Tarantino would relate to the base and win over independents who like his movies (that should be worth 100s of votes -- plus he would be a master at image-making, perhaps transforming Hillary's image to that of a lovable dominatrix, go a little gothic and bring in a whole new wave of voters unyet tapped, also appealing to the nation's repressed kinky side. Foreign leaders would be both intimidated and excited creating emotional conflict and giving the US an advantage in negotiations.

John Edwards could repair his image by running again and announcing ahead of time that Mary Cheney will be his running mate if nominated. This will solve several problems, including a female VP who will be safe around Edwards, catering to the gay/women/moderate/Cheney-hater votes , and creating such a complex analysis that pundits will just give up and accept that it's brilliant.

I will think of Republican combos and post it later -- the weekend is interfering with my writing.

Giving thought to Palin

I've had to give some thought to Palin as VP choice and I'm still not sure. It all depends on how quickly she can scale the learning curve. From what I've seen, she is energetic and smart, already has a grounding in political issues and will probably work hard to learn quickly all the various insider stuff that will enable her to fill a position that is potentially important.

If Mccain stays healthy, then it's not a problem, her strengths in a VP role will be formidable, but if something happened to McCain, she might be lost in the presidential role. In a way, this might be a good thing. The less a President does the greater the chances of success for the country. If it was a Hollywood movie, we would believe it -- inexperienced woman becomes VP, the President is incapicitated and she has to take over the country. The Pentagon types and crusty, old, fat, male Senators don't respect her -- she has momentary doubt whether she can handle the job -- some wise old Washington insider played by Morgan Freeman pulls her aside and convinces her she has what it takes -- she fights the establishment, takes control, saves the world from bad guys with Russian accents and in the end everyone loves her.

It could happen.

Not standing in the sun, but committed none the less.

http://www.reason.com/convention2008/show/128430.html

"While my sympathies will always gravitate toward the people who center their lives far away from the vagaries of American electoral politics, there is something genuinely moving about watching adults wait patiently to watch an adult political speech. We dismiss it as simple-minded jock-sniffing at our peril."

I agree with Mr. Welch for the most part, in spite of my free-thinking, non-interventionist views. I respect anyone who participates in ideas and the political process. I truly believe that most of the supporters of the Democrat "plans" this year are sincere in their beliefs and are not simply wacko Marxists, or desperate whiners looking for a free ride. I'm sure the majority are "normal" in the sense they want "change", want to see a black man make history, want justice and equality, want a clean planet, want people to stop killing one another, want the US to be a good country, want women to advance in equal measure to men, want alternative energy sources, want those in poverty to improve their financial situation, want the middle class to thrive and want the wealthiest among us to pay the largest share to make it all happen.

I believe, though, that these people have been sold empty promises, that they are partisan, stuck in an old means/end mindset and they misunderstand the necessary changes that must be implemented to achieve their goals. There will be many at the Republican convention who are just as "normal" who want the same thing. They will be just as partisan and just as misguided as to how to make these things happen, although many at the Republican convention will think most of these goals are understood and they will want different policies to achieve the goals. They will want a black man to make histroy, just not Obama; they will want women to advance but will claim they are already being advanced in the Republican Party; they will want alternative energy sources, but they will want to drill now to get there; they will want people to get out of poverty by government supporting businesses to create jobs; they want people to stop killing one another, but they want a strong military to make that happen; they will want a clean planet, but they will say the environmentalist radicals are going too far backed with pseudo-science; they will think that Republican policies will help the poor, middle class and the wealthy and that it can be paid for by a Republican-led government helping the economy to grow. 

The problem is that both groups are looking to the government and their chosen party for answers, and each believes their party can do the best job. There has been a lot of talk about the growth of independents. This year, the independent vote will likely be more critical than ever. The "normal" people standing in lines at conventions represent the faithful who are split about 50/50 between both parties, yet there is a large group that is not faithful to any one party, and I think this "group" has yet to be defined and recognized for what they are. If you want to talk about nuanced thinking, then I think independents need to be considered. I wouldn't dare attempt to categorize the independents as a homogeneous group and I think that is the point. They are the growing new breed who don't accept party lines and they are going to break up the hard party lines.

Both Democrats and Republicans will be drawn from their extremes to a more reasoned approach if they want to capture the independent vote. Basically, they are a number of individuals who don't fit in "groups". I believe they are mostly people who want the least intrusive government that works efficiently, defends their liberties, protects their borders and doesn't try to micro-manage their lives, economically, socially or spiritually. I don't think they expect government to fix all the problems, nor do they want government attempting to do these things. They work, pay their bills and want government to function efficiently and leave them alone until they are needed for defense purposes or to settle disputes -- aside from that, they seem to be a diverse lot with no governing platform or organized movement

This actually is how it should be. I'm not sure any of these people would stand in the sun for three hours waiting to listen to a politician tell them how the government is going to "fix" the country and save them from despair. However, we dismiss them as less committed at our peril.

Less speechification and more humble and limited service

A friend of mine and I decided that Obama hides behind the sophistication of nuance to conceal his paralysis caused by committments to so many special interests and the desire to not be seen at radically liberal. It's much better to put forth the image of a deep, nuanced thinker than it is to admit you have no core values and are catering to as many special interests as possible, including independents with various interests which aren't radically left, therefore avoiding alienation with clear purpose in policy.

I have a feeling that with Michelle, Barry, and all the people he collects around his adminstration, if he wins, we'll see the biggest jack-in-the-box surprise in history as he begins his campaign to change the US.

It's pretty clear through his associations and past unguarded comments that his intention is to totally change the relationship between government and the private sector, using the power of persuasion to intervene and implement a sweeping plan of justice and equality. He will use class warfare as a cover to take as much from the "rich", defining rich as anyone who makes over $250,000, to pay for his schemes, which will fall back on the middle class in the form of higher prices and lost production.

He has grand neo-New Deal plans to engineer society and increase the size and power of government so that his legacy is the image of champion for the little guy spurred by his ambition for transcendence and historical importance and Michelle's burning desire to get even with the rich status quo represented by business. Ambitious crusaders who are out to change the world, operating from the mindset of public vs private, are dangerous. Neither of them understand the private sector and associate it with greed, white power over black power, inequality and injustice. They place little, if any, value on production and free market principles which offer equality of pursuit -- they are of the mindset of equality of results engineered through government intervention.

We had almost moved past these old ideas, but now they are back in full force. All the crusaders needed was trouble in the economy to take the opening and reinstate the necessity of government assistance in a complicated, interdependent world where capitalism has failed. It's billed as a sophisticated European view of the state's role in procuring equality and justice through central planning and oversight, and this is supposed to impress people with modern urgency and fear of chaotic, simplistic capitalism with all its faults and inequities. Capitalism is the system that favors corporate greed and drains the middle class of power, and progressiveism is the public spirit and effort which empowers people to fight against the monied and privileged class.

You would think by the fervor at the convention that this is a new idea. We all know it's not, and we can only hope that people are paying attention. I know it's cynically popular now to portray people as ignorant who will only hear the message of change and fall for sticking it to the rich, but I believe people who vote are much smarter and more informed than the media thinks. All my satirical joshing aside, I believe people are doing better than the Democrats' doomsday talk suggests and they will vote for steady improvemnt coming out of a down cycle in the economy -- I think they will reject the huge, sweeping plans of reform in favor of the least amount of intervention possible.

When people express their displeasure in polls, it is most likely displeasure with congress and government in general. The vote will come down to which candidate will cause the least amount of harm, not which candidate will create more government solutions. I may be wrong, but from what I hear talking to people, outside partisans at political conventions, is that government manipulation is being blamed for most of the problems, and that's government as a whole, not just one party. I'm not sure the two parties fully understand this, but when one party does get the idea and presents themselves as protectors of freedom and production, serving as protectors only,  for ALL people, to allow them to do what they do best, make things happen, then that party will be successful for a long time to come.

Satirical Exaggeration or I think I'm kidding

What the hell, let's try it. Listening to the ideas inside and outside the Denver convention, I've been convinced we ought to try out all the demands from the Democrats. But, if we are going to do it, let's do it right. It might be premature to institute socialism in its purest form, but we can give greater interventionism the old college try and see where it goes.

Let's implement national healthcare as soon as Obama is sworn in -- get it going, make it happen. Let's all give these ideas a chance -- let's change. If for no other reason, let's do it for Uncle Teddy.

Let's pull all the troops out of Iraq. Then, let's establish a monthly luncheon with Middle East leaders to discuss co-operative ways we can peacefully co-exist and better uderstand one another. Our Secretary of State (hopefully Al Franken) can be our representative at these luncheons and suggest topics like "Compulsory Islamic Sensitivity Training For All Western Leaders" or  "The Commonalities of Dictatorship and Democracy".

Also, let's call in green car designers and have them come up with the perfect green model and require all automakers to make 85% of their cars based on this model. People will adjust to smaller cars, and if psychological counseling is needed, GM, Ford and Chysler can staff psychologists to meet this need. The 15% remaining will, of course, be SUVs for government, drug dealer and Hollywood needs. 

Then, let's institute every global warming plan that the Democrats have ever proposed, even the one sheet of toilet paper -- it's tricky, but it can work. Make airpressure-checks for your tires mandatory by having motorists send in a monthly report signed by a ceritfied, government-approved mechanic.

Let's determine how much profit the oil companies should make and then tax the excess. We should devise a formula that controls the price gas is charged for at the pumps so that it governs the amount of profit oil companies can make. Plans should be made to nationalize the oil industry to solve the problem once and for all. I propose "Uncle Sam Oil" and also build a chain of "Uncle Sam Quik Marts". Once the government controls oil, they can set the price of gas where it is fair, but still creates enough revenue to subsidize housing for everyone who can't afford a home. Also, a lot of money is wasted building McMansions that are far too big and inefficient, so size restrictions on homes should be set according the size of the family. However let's limit the right to own property by making full ownership contingent on the eco-friendliness of the home. If a potential owner meets all the environmental requirements they have 95% ownership, if not, they have only 50%, with the government having the remaining percentage of ownership. Why not 100% ownership if a homeowner is in full compliance? Because everyone must be reminded that ownership is a privilege, not a right.

Once you get into change you begin seeing so many things that could be changed. The greatest change we can enact is to end class warfare once and for all by establsihing one class that is built on the ideal "middle" -- by taking the excess from the top and adding it to the bottom equality can be accomplished in five years. We can call it the Five Year Equalization Plan. We went to the moon, didn't we? Training programs for the rich to adjust to middle class lifestyles can be provided through local programs that teach the rich how to bar-b-que, change their own oil, appreciate bowling, operate a small fishing boat, order correctly at Kentucky Fried Chicken, cut their own grass and shop for bargains at K-mart.

Everyone who is unemployed can be assigned a "potential" job and be paid a salary until an "actual" job opens up, thereby abolishing the awful stigma of unemployment and being on welfare rolls. Everyone has a right to the dignity of having a job. This "potential" job will be the same as employment, since the person is just waiting for the actual work to begin. 

All retail giants that aren't approved by FTC should be required to compensate local businesses when they move into a town when these local businesses are negatively affected by the retail giants' unfair advantage regarding volume, size, efficiency and pricing. Whatever losses of revenue are experienced by the local small businesses should be made up for by the giants - an equitable revenue sharing among local interests which will ensure the giants give back to the community and don't cause economic disruption.

It might also be time (and this is something that is being swept under the rug) to nationalize the internet since this is the biggest under-regulated part of our society. Requiring everyone to register verifiable personal information identifying which political party they belong to before using the internet will allow the government to keep track of who is abusing freedom so they can ban all offenders. The greatest danger facing our society is the free flow of information on the internet which is destroying our media and undermining the authority of progressive government. Thousands upon thousands of dangerous ideas are being broadcast daily from unregulated sources spreading a chaotic mish-mash of thought that weakens the unity of our society. Capitalists and warmongers, religious fanatics and anarchists, iconoclasts and racists, all have free reign with little governance or over-sight. All the efforts of public servants who are dedicated to building a safe and fair society of co-operating citizens are being destroyed by this constant barrage of subversion. How are people going to know what's correct and what's incorrect if anyone with a computer can spill their misinformation on the screen with impunity? Freedom of speech doesn't mean hate speech should be allowed. Information is good, but false information that promotes the destruction of our planet, or praises the corporations who are suppressing the disenfranchised minorities, or gives a voice to religious fanatics who enslave women and poison the minds of children, should be regulated.

If not the internet, at least we can shut down talk radio so that Rush Limbaugh doesn't have an audience. Radio should be left to music, local advertising and NPR.

Extreme? Well, change is extreme, Buster! Finally, the fat cats have met their match -- vote for Michelle and Barry -- civilsation depends on it.