Putin: Ph34r Sarah Palin

[Brad and Vika 129]

At the end of every recent national election, I always wind up looking at the candidates from both sides of the traditional "aisle" and thinking "is this really the best we could do?" I would really like to see at least one national candidate that is:

1) Not a political windsock - changing position to suit the moment

2) Not an elitist

Good Luck Right?

[Fedup 0]

Wow...you've put a lot of thought into this. I don't think it would pass Constitutional muster

As I've said, after 250 years, it's time to start over (:

What I failed to point out in the previous post is that the electors should be appointed by the governments of their respective states. Also, the 17th amendment should be abolished, so that senators are appointed by the governments of their respective states too.

Under this system, the only thing that "the people" vote for are members of the house of representatives, and their own state/local government. This puts a lot more emphasis on involvement at the state level and less at the national level. States are representing their own interests and getting less involved in ####### that doesn't involve them.

I agree with that, like the idea how this can work.

I think some European govts are set up in a similar way: Germany, Britain, even some elements are same in Russia.

[slim 1,530]

I think everyone should just not vote. Some sort of voting strike.

I've been on strike since I was 18. Never voted, as of right now, probably never will.

If you don't vote, then you have no right to gripe. Get involved in the system or give up complaining. It's still better than having only one person to choose from.

I used to think this, but I no longer do.Having the option to choose between two people who will #### you and the country over at every opportunity sounds nice in theory, but in practice, you're still getting ###### over, so what difference does it make?

I no longer believe in the election process.

Same here. I do not believe in participating in a system that not only does not value my individual opinion, but does not afford me the opportunity to choose the person I feel best for the job simply because they lack the funding to be represented.

Yeah, see, to me, this is a fallacy, for several reasons.

a). As long as people take the view that voting on a 3rd party is throwing your vote away because they will never win, you're going to continue to be stuck with a 2 party system.

B). It assumes that just because you vote for a candidate that didn't win (or has "no chance" of winning), your vote is thrown away. That's just not true, for a couple of reasons. Is voting for the winning candidate really making your vote count if the winning candidate violates your entire belief system and everything you stand for? Is voting for the popular guy really making your vote count, since even if you didn't vote, the popular guy would have still won, and by a large margin?

I think the entire system needs to be completely re-vamped as follows:

The electoral college system remains in place, but what changes is how the votes work. The change is as follows:

a). Each voter ranks four candidates in order of preference. High preference gets a 1, low preference gets a 4.

B). Tally up the votes. Assign positions as follows:

- lowest total: assigned as president

- second lowest total: assigned as vice president

- third lowest total: assigned as speaker of the house

- fourth lowest total: assigned as senate pro tempore

This will do wonders to reduce party politics and put an end to a lot of the bullshit that goes on.

Now - here is the kicker. Every third election (12 years), a vote is taken to assign the chief justice of the supreme court. There are five votes that count. Each of the office holders mentioned above get one vote. The 5th vote goes to the electoral college.

Of course, I would also get rid of most of the federal government - whole departments. Merge some departments into others, get rid of most federal law enforcement (how many ###### federal law enforcement agencies do we need anyway?), replace the national income tax with a national sales tax, and implement revenue sharing amongst the states (sort of like Canada and the NFL do it). The federal govt's role would be limited as per the constitution - national defense and other real national issues. Leave the states to do as they will.

AKDiver for President!

[mox 298]

1) Not a political windsock - changing position to suit the moment

Y'know, politicians take a lot of flak for this, but I think in many cases it shows maturity and common sense. When the first Bush delivered his famous "read my lips, no new taxes" speech, and then later had to reneg, he took a lot of flak from the left. But I think it showed a man who can adjust to the reality of a changing situation. Same thing with John Kerry. He was branded a "flip-flopper," but I can admire a man who recognizes when he is wrong and then corrects it.

2) Not an elitist

Honestly I don't even know what this means. As I see it, we *want* our politicians to be elite. I want them to have an ivy league education, and I want them to spend a lot of their time thinking, reading, and writing. Cutting your brush on your zillion acre ranch might make you "just a normal guy," but I don't want "just a normal guy" carrying the newkular football. I really don't care if someone is an elitist snob as long as they can govern with intelligence and wisdom.

[Bobalouie 0]

1) Not a political windsock - changing position to suit the moment

Y'know, politicians take a lot of flak for this, but I think in many cases it shows maturity and common sense. When the first Bush delivered his famous "read my lips, no new taxes" speech, and then later had to reneg, he took a lot of flak from the left. But I think it showed a man who can adjust to the reality of a changing situation. Same thing with John Kerry. He was branded a "flip-flopper," but I can admire a man who recognizes when he is wrong and then corrects it.

2) Not an elitist

Honestly I don't even know what this means. As I see it, we *want* our politicians to be elite. I want them to have an ivy league education, and I want them to spend a lot of their time thinking, reading, and writing. Cutting your brush on your zillion acre ranch might make you "just a normal guy," but I don't want "just a normal guy" carrying the newkular football. I really don't care if someone is an elitist snob as long as they can govern with intelligence and wisdom.

But how does an elitist snob represent you and your interests. Since this is supposed to be a government by the people, even the president should represent your interests. Elitists generally are out of touch with the reality of 99% of the population. Thats how we get all the damn special interest groups getting their way. The special interests represent the elite (for the most part), and the elitists in government pander their wishes at the expense of "normal folks". That contributes to the broken system.

I would also point out that there are just as many people of similar intelligence that come from non Ivy League schools. Your Ivy League schools are really just Elitist preporatory schools where you also get a good education. But a good education can be had at the University of Iowa as well.

[Danno 1,228]

I too caught the Palin speech last night and could only find one hole, it was a little lite on policy but her being the VP and it being her first major "showing", one would not expect a big policy dissertation.

She is obviously at home making a speech .... so good in fact that I never noticed the Teleprompter was malfunctioning. She was confident and relaxed and talked to the crowd, not at them.

Still in all, the best speech maker alive today (that I can think of) is non other then; Bill Clinton he proved that again at the DNC the other night.

I haven't had the time to read the Left-wing bloggers but their response will be both predictable and full of talking points but it is obvious they are *after* this lady with everything they have and after last nights speech where she went ofter BO with both a knife and a smile.... the price on her head will be even higher.

They will claim her speech was aimed at *the base* but... she hardly mentioned any of the red-meat issues at all. No rattling on about alternative marriage, abortion, Hollywood, guns,

or any other typical far-right issues which the base hold dear.

The bottom line will come down to (as Mox said) if she appealed to enough of the center.

True, Palin has brought the base alive in ways no one could have imagined but I have to imagine there are still lots of people like me who were going to sit this election out... and still might.

=============

As for the 2-Party system; I still think it's the best way to get at least a majority of the people pulling for one candidate.

Just imagine if we had a "three ring circus" going on in this election (rather than a 2 ring)

we could end up voting in a guy (or gal) with just 35% of the vote.

Talk about a divided country!

[mox 298]

But how does an elitist snob represent you and your interests.

The problem is that the term "elitist" means different things to different people. Orwell wrote that terms such as this "are largely the defense of the indefensible." ("Politics and the English Language") Terms such as "elitist," "patriot," "appeasement," "support the troops," "war on terror," are all terms that invite the defense of the indefensible. It's hard for you and I to talk about the topic because there's no standard definition on what an elitist snob is, and yet we will defend it vehemently. If you and I were on opposite sides of the political spectrum, I might say Obama is an elitist because he speaks eloquently and goes to Europe to get his throngs of fans. You might say McCain is an elitist because he owns 9 or however many houses he owns. And on it goes, with us talking past each other.

But elite in the strictest definition simply means that you have a quality that is head and shoulders above the norm. We don't criticize our special forces for being "elite," and yet they are the best of the best of what the military has to offer. We consider our astronauts and even airline pilots to be elite, and for good reason. And yet having an "elite" leader seems to be a bad thing.

I would also point out that there are just as many people of similar intelligence that come from non Ivy League schools. Your Ivy League schools are really just Elitist preporatory schools where you also get a good education. But a good education can be had at the University of Iowa as well.

I meant ivy league schools as a general example...absolutely I agree that being in/from an ivy league school doesn't necessarily confer any level of ability. Our current President should be proof enough of that. And a very elite scientist, Albert Einstein, dropped out of school, so I totally agree. But I think there's a dangerous trend in America that the more educated you are, the more "out of touch" and "elite" you are, and therefore bad. I couldn't agree less. As I said before, I want a President who spends a lot of time reading, thinking, and studying. I will never have a beer with a President, so him being "one of us" isn't important to me. I'm only interested in him being able to make the right choices at the right moment, and not being afraid to second guess his choices as the situation changes. In that respect you and I are agreed that no matter who is elected we will probably be disappointed.

I haven't had the time to read the Left-wing bloggers but their response will be both predictable and full of talking points but it is obvious they are *after* this lady with everything they have and after last nights speech where she went ofter BO with both a knife and a smile.... the price on her head will be even higher.

Well it is politics after all. Attacks are the norm. The line about the styrofoam pillars was funny. Where I think she (well, the speech writers) crossed the line though was when she mocked Obama for his work on the South side of Chicago, and also (as McCain has done) when she accused Obama of policy for personal gain, after the campaigns had agreed not to go there.

They will claim her speech was aimed at *the base* but... she hardly mentioned any of the red-meat issues at all. No rattling on about alternative marriage, abortion, Hollywood, guns,

or any other typical far-right issues which the base hold dear.

Oh it was definitely aimed at the base. She didn't hit the core issues directly, she hit them by attacking Obama. And again, that's fair, I'm not complaining, but that's how she did it. Obama wants bigger government, he wants to increase your taxes, he's light on defense, etc, etc. I think it was pretty effective.

The bottom line will come down to (as Mox said) if she appealed to enough of the center.

True, Palin has brought the base alive in ways no one could have imagined but I have to imagine there are still lots of people like me who were going to sit this election out... and still might.

Exactly. She energized the base, and it might even be sustainable. But she did nothing to win converts, and I think that's what McCain desperately had to do. It's so bizarre because the Palin pick seemed to be about pulling in non-core voters, but the speech indicates otherwise. Almost like a change in strategy between her pick and the speech. Weird.

[1HappyGuy 45]

If you don't vote, then why do you even care who's running for what office and what they will do to you, your country or the rest of the world for that matter. I take my citizenship serious and have never failed to vote, since I was 18.

I will admit that our system is kind of messed up. That happened years ago, before most of us were born. The parties got together to make changes to the Constitution. They decided that the top vote getter should have a running mate, instead of the top two vote getters being President and Vice President. Our history has these two offices filled by people of opposing views and it seemed to work pretty well. The President had to be more atune to the needs of the populace otherwise Congress and the Vice President would pass laws he didn't want. (Oh wait, they do that now).

The other thing was putting term limits on the President. If we have a good leader, why should we be excluded from keeping him. I already know all the bad aspects of this, like the difficulty of defeating a standing president, etc. But it just seems that whenever the "Political Parties" have screwed with the Constitution, then end up making it worse. I think the founding fathers had a lot more understanding about what was best than they are given credit for.

[Brad and Vika 129]

1) Not a political windsock - changing position to suit the moment

Y'know, politicians take a lot of flak for this, but I think in many cases it shows maturity and common sense. When the first Bush delivered his famous "read my lips, no new taxes" speech, and then later had to reneg, he took a lot of flak from the left. But I think it showed a man who can adjust to the reality of a changing situation. Same thing with John Kerry. He was branded a "flip-flopper," but I can admire a man who recognizes when he is wrong and then corrects it.

2) Not an elitist

Honestly I don't even know what this means. As I see it, we *want* our politicians to be elite. I want them to have an ivy league education, and I want them to spend a lot of their time thinking, reading, and writing. Cutting your brush on your zillion acre ranch might make you "just a normal guy," but I don't want "just a normal guy" carrying the newkular football. I really don't care if someone is an elitist snob as long as they can govern with intelligence and wisdom.

But how does an elitist snob represent you and your interests. Since this is supposed to be a government by the people, even the president should represent your interests. Elitists generally are out of touch with the reality of 99% of the population. Thats how we get all the damn special interest groups getting their way. The special interests represent the elite (for the most part), and the elitists in government pander their wishes at the expense of "normal folks". That contributes to the broken system.

I would also point out that there are just as many people of similar intelligence that come from non Ivy League schools. Your Ivy League schools are really just Elitist preporatory schools where you also get a good education. But a good education can be had at the University of Iowa as well.

Good points, and it looks like the opinion above was understood by a few here anyway. What I forgot is that here in the VJ zone, one can make a statement like "water is wet" and have trouble with it. Something so easy fairly screams for an intellectual debate over the chemical composition of water, and the obvious subjectivity of the term "wet".

Opinions will always differ. I think the sky was pretty blue today, for some of us, will always be a good entre' to a dissertation about weather. I fall into that trap myself occasionally. So how 'bout them GB Packers? Pie any one?

[Danno 1,228]

If you don't vote, then why do you even care who's running for what office and what they will do to you, your country or the rest of the world for that matter. I take my citizenship serious and have never failed to vote, since I was 18.

Not sure if you were referring to me or not but:

Sometimes when your party looses (and badly) it can come back in the next election with all new people and a fresh vision. Some times 4 years of "the other party" can make a big change in voter outlook too.

Without 4 years of Carter, there would have been no platform for Reagan.

Bush has given a Golden opportunity for the Democrats, if they can not get someone elected this time, God help them.

[slim 1,530]

If you don't vote, then why do you even care who's running for what office and what they will do to you, your country or the rest of the world for that matter.

If you do vote, why do you care? Do you really feel a connection with the people you're voting for and that the system has worked for you so far? Have all your votes "counted?"

When folks tell me they're voters and therefore should be given "credit" for voting I have to turn the tables on them and ask, "So you 'helped' create the current problems then?"

I take my citizenship serious and have never failed to vote, since I was 18.

Instead of taking a couple minutes out of my day on a Tuesday morning every four years or so I actually spent the better part of my young adult life actively supporting and defending the Constitution. Whether I vote or not now, I'm pretty sure that earned me the right to voice my oppinion whenever I see fit for as long as America exists.

You take an 18-year-old fresh out of high school to the polls and then you take another one off to boot camp and tell me which one takes their citizenship more seriously down the road. You'd be surprised how many vets lose their faith in the system along the way but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find those same "serious citizens" that went to the polls all those years ago putting their @$$es on the line with the vets when the SHTF. Serious about citizenship because you cast a ballot? Bullets change elections far surer than votes.

I think the founding fathers had a lot more understanding about what was best than they are given credit for.

When the founding fathers made the govt. it was nothing like it is today. People voted to turn it into what it is. No they didn't? Well, through a process of conitnually voting for the lesser of two evils, the officials they elected did. And "voting" is what did it.

The founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they could see what America has become.

[slim 1,530]

I almost forgot.... Big ups to Barack Obama with his soundbite today in response to Gov. Palin's dis yesterday. "I've been called worse things on the basketball court" he replied when asked about how it made him feel.

Not only did he remind folks that he's black (because he plays basketball... on a basketball court, no less) but that he's still "down" (because his game is so nasty he gets into heated "debates" with others on the court resulting in verbal lashings too strong for the FCC to replay "in a family-friendly atmosphere.")

Keep it real, Sen. Obama!

[akdiver 3]

I almost forgot.... Big ups to Barack Obama with his soundbite today in response to Gov. Palin's dis yesterday. "I've been called worse things on the basketball court" he replied when asked about how it made him feel. Not only did he remind folks that he's black (because he plays basketball... on a basketball court, no less)...

Now, would you say the same thing if Barak had said, "Sure, Gov. Palin looks pretty tasty. My watermelon is tasty too, but I wouldn't vote it in as vice president."

[slim 1,530]

I almost forgot.... Big ups to Barack Obama with his soundbite today in response to Gov. Palin's dis yesterday. "I've been called worse things on the basketball court" he replied when asked about how it made him feel. Not only did he remind folks that he's black (because he plays basketball... on a basketball court, no less)...

Now, would you say the same thing if Barak had said, "Sure, Gov. Palin looks pretty tasty. My watermelon is tasty too, but I wouldn't vote it in as vice president."

Only if he was on TV One or BET.

It's already been assured that he's "guranteed" the black vote, but he should watch out because white folks who are also "down" may wish to vote for the candidate keeping it more real, and that's Palin.

17-year-old daughter pregnant? Word up!

I find it very funny now that all the comparisons are being done not between Obama and McCain, but Obama and Palin. Hmmm. Shouldn't we be comparing the guys running for President to each other, not one to the other's VP? Says something about their qualifications doesn't it?

[1HappyGuy 45]

Bullets change elections far surer than votes.

So, I take it you advocate assassination as a method of determining who leads a country? I don't think you really mean that.

As far as spending time in our military or peace corps as justifying someone who as earned to the right to voice their opinion, I agree. But, I don't think serving our country is, as far as someone should go. Being an American doesn't end when you have completed your time of service, it is a life long commitment. I also served my country in the military and in a war. But, I don't feel that the country owes me a lot just for that. Quite the reverse. I owe my country a lot for providing me with a safe environment, modern roads and the freedom to go from one end to the other and only having to stop for gas, food and to sleep. Regardless of what you think about the current state of our environment, infrastructure and freedoms, this is still a pretty nice country to live in.

Complacency is the problem in this country. Too many have given up on the political system instead of trying to get more involved. If you feel that your vote would have no effect so that's why you don't vote, then you have proven your position. Even though you choice of a candidate didn't win is no reason to give up on the process. Maybe a review of those societies that never had the chance to choose their own leaders and determining if they have a better existence is called for.