How the Parties Fail to Serve
The American two-party system is an anachronism that we’re trapped in and can’t get out of. Here’s a proposed two-part solution:
- Establish an “official start date” for the campaign season, say, nine months prior to election day. Allow all candidates publicly-funded air time for the first two months so voters can hear a wider range of possible solutions to issues. The major candidates could pick up ideas from other candidates and more importantly, respond to a wider array of challenges.
- Implement Instant-Runoff Voting. I’m late to the party on IRV, but this is a relatively easy to implement reform to our current voting method that would make a huge difference in outcomes.
This YouTube video explains the process with a couple of irritatingly drawn and badly voiced cartoon characters:
The really glorious aspect to the IRV solution is that it eliminates the “spoiler effect” (a.k.a. The Nader Effect, or “vote splitting.”) that voting for a third-party candidate now produces: if you vote for a third-party candidate similar to the major party candidate, you take your vote away from the major party, thereby helping the opposition candidate get elected.
There are many arguments for keeping the two-party system in place because in many ways it gets us to the same results as IRV. No major party candidate can win without appealing to and capturing the votes of independents. Independents are generally centrists, people like Colin Powell. (yay! Colin Powell!! You remind us all about how being American is about being INCLUSIVE.) We are very fortunate in this election cycle to have two arguably centrist candidates, though McCain has certainly veered. But wouldn’t it have been cool to keep Ron Paul in the debates? Or even Bob Barr? It would really force the dialog onto the issues and away from tit-for-tat personal attacks.
What if, like in past elections, we weren’t as fortunate with our candidates? George Bush lost the popular vote, but won the election. I doubt this would’ve happened with Runoff Voting. We would have been spared the last eight excruciating years.
McCain’s Ball and Chain (and it’s not Cindy)
If Sarah Palin (the woman I am absolutely TIRED of dissing, but who remains a candidate for VP) is a simpleton, a mere mouthpiece for the Republican Party, then I pity her. If Sarah Palin is an outrageous, deluded liar, then I fear her. Either way, she is the awful mistake the McCain campaign has to live with.
The Anchorage Daily News Editorial page spells out the best interpretation of Sarah Palin’s bizarre reaction to the recent report on Troopergate:
She claims the report “vindicates” her. She said that the investigation found “no unlawful or unethical activity on my part.”
Her response is either astoundingly ignorant or downright Orwellian.
Page 8, Finding Number One of the report says: “I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.” In plain English, she did something “unlawful.” She broke the state ethics law. Perhaps Gov. Palin has been too busy to actually read the Troopergate report. Perhaps she is relying on briefings from McCain campaign spinmeisters. [...] Palin’s response is the kind of political “big lie” that George Orwell warned against. War is peace. Black is white. Up is down.”
According to Newsweek, the Palin camp attempted to skirt the original Troopergate findings by appealing to the Alaska State Personnel Board for a separate investigation. Surprise! They’ve expanded the investigation to address several other complaints against Governor Palin.
Still sure you don’t want to swap out your VP pick, McCain?
With Freedom and Liberty for All
Ugh. The debate tonight? Can’t watch. Palin’s too much for me. The Bailout? No use thinking about it. The House will vote to pass it anyway. Rigged voting machines? Matt Groening’s got that covered! Gavin Newsom? Yeah, he’s just nice to look at. Yow! But what am I thinking about then? Well, glad you asked! Here’s a bittersweet story. I don’t know much about Del Martin or her wife Phyllis Lyon, but I am sentimental about their long life together.
According to Wikipedia:
On February 12, 2004, Martin and Lyon were issued a marriage license by the City and County of San Francisco after mayor Gavin Newsom ordered that marriage licenses be given to same-sex couples who requested them. The license, along with those of several thousand other same-sex couples, were voided by the California supreme court on August 12, 2004.
“Del is 83 years old and I am 79. After being together for more than 50 years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time.” —Phyllis Lyon
However, they were married again on June 16, 2008, after the California Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal. Once again they were the first couple married in San Francisco, in fact the only couple married that day by the mayor.”
Aren’t they adorable? They had been officially, legally married for only three months when Del Martin died. They’d been together 55 years.
If you live in California, vote NO on Prop. 8.
A World-Crisis: One More Opportunity to Play the Blame Game
Wow. There’s some heavy stuff going down in Washington. And once again, I am loathe to trust anything I hear because it’s all so steeped and occluded in “messaging,” “spin,” and deluxe finger-pointing. It’s really hard to be an informed citizen these days. You begin to feel as though there really is no TRUTH. Just somebody’s version of it. And as in all things politics, it’s being bent to serve a purpose.
From today’s decidedly left-leaning HuffPost:
Some people have been wondering whether Dick Cheney and George Bush, to preserve their legacy and their secrets, would spring an October surprise to secure the election of John McCain–the clearest and almost the only urgent goal of this administration as it winds down. We have wondered whether the trigger could be in Georgia, or Iran, or Pakistan. Yet the banking crisis, in the manner of its management, now looks like the October surprise one week early and with one week longer to turn it to advantage.”
Gawd. Really? I mean, could that be true? I think not. I think the people in Washington can’t help working every situation to their advantage, but I guarantee that this crisis was not “manufactured.” A ridiculous assumption. There are too many people in Washington, including Pelosi, Barney Frank, and a gazillion others who would be aware of it. It’s cynicism maximized into paranoid delusion. That said, would the Bush Administration and Cheney, et al, work this situation to their advantage? Yup. No doubt. One begins to wonder: if the result is the same as if it were manufactured, then there are far scarier things going on in Washington than I can stomach. I am naive enough to believe that the leaders of our country, ALL of them, care about the people and want to do what’s right. Greater good and all that.
Republicans, on the other hand, argue that the Clinton Administration forced the bad subprime loan practices by insisting that low/no credit borrowers be allowed to borrow anyway (Community Reinvestment Act). According to Investor’s Business Daily (emphasis added):
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Reinvestment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but “predatory.” Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the ’90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
Uh, yeah. So, all that subprime credit was just irresistibly JUICY and the Democrats practically FORCED all those poor victimized hedge-fund managers and senior-level Wall Street investors to re-package it and sell it worldwide in a disguised form that then crumbled everyone’s assets. I understand. It’s quite clearly the Democrats’ fault. Those bad, bad social engineers and their JUICY, JUICY subprime mortgages! It was NOT POSSIBLE TO RESIST THAT TEMPTATION. Kind of like Eve bringing down the whole scene and the downfall of all humanity. Really. All her fault. Democrats. All their fault. Nothing to do with de-regulation at all. (Which, some Democrats supported, I might add.)
The important take-away for all this is to choose a side. Be sure to rant whenever possible about FAULT and point-
fingers. Be sure to maximize cynical thinking by looking intensely for political maneuvering rather than solutions. McCain’s decision to delay the debate seemed like a good idea. I was a little shocked by the Obama camp objecting to debate delays. I’m sure all he heard for days was, “Don’t do it! That’s what they want!” Then I read his statement that the American people need the debates more than ever. Oh yeah. Dang. It’s so hard to remember what I want!
Dood. All WE THE PEOPLE want is to know that our representatives are responsible, clear-thinking individuals who will do what’s right for the greater good. It’s just world markets we’re talking about. And remember, if you’re going to seek some completely unprecedented solution? Maybe you can make sure there’s some justice involved. Those bankers came from both parties. Jails don’t care who you voted for.
Above the Law? Come on Down, Snowmobile Boy!
Dang it smells like Karl Rove around here lately, what with TODD PALIN, SNOWMOBILE HERO, AND FIRST “DUDE” ALSO COMPLETELY ABOVE THE LAW AND REFUSING TO TESTIFY even though he’s been subpoenaed by a BI-PARTISAN, YES, A BIPARTISAN committee whose investigation began PRIOR TO Palin (the Lipstick Pig, why is Lipstick Pitbull okay, but not pig? They’re both noble animals!) being picked as VP and subsequently launched into a blinding vision of righteousness by the Republicans. According to the family lawyer, Thomas van Flein:
“We maintain our general objections that the legislative council investigation, besides being pursued for partisan purposes, is being conducted in violation of all accepted norms of due process.”
So let’s talk about Lipstick Boy, shall we? He sits in on almost all legislative sessions and Sarah copies her husband on all official state business, yet he works for BP as an oil employee. Okay, so I can get past the whole conflict of interest thing, but what is up with his “unusual” involvement in Sarah’s governing? Is this Biblical subordination to the husband? Is this a deep-seated insecurity that maybe Sarah does not know what the heck she’s doing? Is it to make sure Todd agrees whenever she fires someone?
However, speaking of conflict of interest, according to one news source:
In a letter listing Todd Palin’s objections, his Anchorage attorney, Thomas Van Flein, argued that legislators lack legal authority to investigate the governor, [ED., WHAT?!?!] that French has shown his bias by talking of potential impeachment, and that Branchflower has a conflict of interest because his wife worked under Monegan at the Anchorage Police Department.[ED., EMPHASIS ADDED]
I don’t like these people! It’s illegal not to testify when you’re subpoenaed by a BIPARTISAN 
committee. Conflict of interest, my butt! I’ve had it with eight years of above-the-law behavior from the Bush administration. DON’T LET THESE PEOPLE GET ELECTED!!
Okay, deep breaths. I’m better now.
Voting for McCain for Your Tax Bill? Think Again.
More bad news on the economic front today, yet more headlines beginning MARKETS PLUNGE WORLDWIDE ON NEWS OF… [enter latest giant insolvency or government bailout here]. I started thinking about how little the election coverage has delved into the implications of McCain’s or Obama’s planned economic approach. When discussing whether I am a Democrat or a Republican (I’m neither) I often quote someone more brilliant than me (author unknown!) that the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats want to spend too much on social programs, while Republicans want to spend too much on the military. Bottom line: they both just spend, spend, spend!
Which leads me to the issue of tax cuts. McCain wants to continue to uphold Bush’s tax cut policies, which sounds great on the surface, but really isn’t. Obama wants to raise rich people’s taxes and lower poor people’s taxes. Yeah, that’s gonna get him elected for sure! But in all seriousness (well, as serious as I can get), neither candidate has ANY SUBSTANTIVE PLANS TO REDUCE FEDERAL SPENDING. Instead, we just keep printing money and climbing deeper into the debt hole. My Republican friends and family are holding onto antiquated ideas that the Republican party is somehow less likely to impact your paycheck. The widespread groan is that Liberals and the ANGRY LEFT want to give your money to fat lazy people and their ungrateful children. This is viewed as offensive and unAmerican, terminally at odds with the great Puritan ethic of lifting oneself up by one’s own bootstraps. It becomes an argument about why on earth anyone should give his money to those people. Transfer of wealth.
So, do Republicans not realize that wars are insanely costly? That corporate welfare is insanely costly? That all this “nation-building” is a hundred times more expensive than just leading by example? It’s all just more transfer of wealth, but without the image of a begging lazy person attached to it. Even Alan Greenspan says the country cannot afford McCain’s tax cuts. (Yes, we can say that Greenspan has been entirely discredited, but I don’t believe that. His fatal flaw was to trust banks and other investment entities to follow good business practices. They obviously didn’t. )
It’s not popular to cut spending. Any spending, since it’s coming down the line to someone, and I guarantee that
someone does not want to give it up. But we Americans have been on a wild spending binge for a long time now using our children’s money in the form of loans from China for decades. TIME TO GET OFF THE FUN RIDE!! If you’re a Republican, you should be sensible enough to realize that it’s horribly self-serving to demand tax cuts when we owe so much debt. If you’re a Democrat and want universal health care or other insanely costly programs, be prepared to pay. In the end it’s what makes me a liberal rather than a conservative: I’d rather help Americans than pay for infrastructure in Iraq. We can’t have our cake and eat it too. The Fat Lady’s already singing.
-
-
About
Welcome to duh pookie where we work hard to bring you sparkly new thoughts.
-
- RSS Feed
-
Visit Political Voices of Women Community
