Foley artistry

[York99]

"We're for the kids" my ass. Neither side is for the kids, neither side is for openess or honesty in government, and neither side is for you. Both sides are sick, corrupt, power mad, manipulative, and out of control.

I fucking hate politicians. But, in their defense in this and other cases, those are the rules of the game and they are players. If they were to take the high road, they lose. Period.

Worse, we lose as a result either way.

[Wesley]

If they were to take the high road, they lose. Period.

Only because WE allow them to.
Most politicians are scumbags. Both major parties are corrupt and out of touch. Some third parties were never in touch to begin with. They take and take and take and we continue to give. But all of this, ALL of it, it OUR fault.

Worse, we lose as a result either way.

Only because we allow ourselves to.
We don't vote. When we do, most people are completely ignorant of the issues, having done little or nothing to educate themselves. Most people just blindly vote straight ticket and don't even know the condidates or positions they are voting for.
And we soak up their excuses and propganda like sponges. I actually heard someone say they were voting for Strayhorn becuase "like she says in her ads, she's doing it for her grandkids." I asked them what she was doing and they didn't know. Didn't know how she'd reform education, just that she said she would. Didn't know what she'd do about taxes, just that she promised to do something.
We allow scandal to go unpunished. We allow ignorance to make important decisions. We allow fear and religion to be used as weapons against us by our own leadership.
Why? Because we are lazy? Stupid? Trained not to know better? Who knows. But it all comes back to us.
The only way we'll get our country back is by taking it back and that doesn't just mean an occasional flip-flop of power between the two major parties.

[Wesley]

"Yes, it is mere talk. But why is it mere talk? Because, my friend, beauty, purity, respectability, religion, morality, art, patriotism, bravery and the rest are nothing but words which I or anyone else can turn inside out like a glove. Were they realities, you would have to plead guilty to my indictment; but fortunately for your self-respect, my diabolical friend, they are not realities. As you say, they are mere words, useful for duping barbarians into adopting civilization, or the civilized poor into submitting to be robbed and enslaved. That is the family secret of the governing caste; and if we who are of that caste aimed at more Life for the world instead of at more power and luxury for our miserable selves, that secret would make us great."
Don Juan, Act III, Man and Superman by George Bernard Shaw.

[arthursimone]

The only way we'll get our country back is by taking it back and that doesn't just mean an occasional flip-flop of power between the two major parties.

check out Instant Runoff Voting, the only thing out there that could really shake up the entrenched two-party pendulum.

[Wesley]

I'm all for it, as well as a number of other systems. Approval voting would be great. Borda count or candidate ranking, as well. The Libertarians almost always include "None of the Above" in intra-party votes and primaries.

I think our state should do it. I would vote for a candidate on that issue alone if they promised to propose something like that, even if they did nothing else. It would be incredibly easy to implement at lower levels or in one or two districts as a "trial run" so that "the people" could see how it plays out.
I think that's why most government initatives stagnate and fail. Too much at once. We should run limited time and location experiments as "proof of concepts" for things like this.

I wonder how far a candidate would get if they basically ran on a platform of "I am going to propose and push these 5 radical changes (like approval voting or something) and that's it. My record doesn't matter because THIS is why you are electing me and sending me there."
Probably not far, but it would be interesting.

[Wesley]

Still thinking, sorry.

You know, I'd seriously be down for pushing this locally. Finding out what it would take to get an initiative on the ballot. Signatures, etc. Then try to get people to vote the old way for a new way of doing things, just for local elections, just once to see how it works. Hmmmm...

[shando]

The only way we'll get our country back is by taking it back and that doesn't just mean an occasional flip-flop of power between the two major parties.

Wes, I appreciate your passion, but I find sentiments like this as pie-eyed as the response from your friend in support of Strayhorn. Take the country back? For whom? Go to a mega-church outside of Dallas, and the vision of what that would look like is, I imagine, a far cry from what your vision would be. Same for some super diehard environmental crusader. And that's the thing, there's no unified American public per se from which our political class is out of touch. I daresay the two major political parties do, in fact, represent the the America public fairly well. Talked to a diehard Bush supporter recently?

Parties (and this is true for our two-party system as well as more multi-party systems like in European countries and elsewhere) are coalitions of vaguely similar interest groups. They aren't perfect, or even logically coherent. The Republicans are a broad swath of people who shouldn't get along--limited government libertarian types alongside social conservatives who love to legislate morality. Democrats are the same way. Gays, union members, and a significant portion of the Hispanic population. What do they have in commmon? Hell, it took the Democrats over 100 years to shed the white Southern racist wing of the party.

But as imperfect as it is (and yes the American political system has many flaws, but show me a system that's perfect) I much prefer a political culture where people channel their energy through the electoral system. Does that mean that I don't always see my number priroties addressed? Sure. To that I say thank god, becuase it means that there are times when other people's ideas, ones that I find abhorent (oh say, like dissolving the wall between church and state) aren't addressed either.

[York99]

Politics and politicians are evil. I recognize that they are necessary evils... but that doesn't sway my opinion that they are still evil.

*Politicians can be "good" before they are in office, after they are in office, occasionally while they are in office (both privately and with respect to their job), but any successful politician is evil at least some of the time. Call it compromise. It's evil. Accept it. I have... sort of.

[shando]

Politics and politicians are evil. I recognize that they are necessary evils... but that doesn't sway my opinion that they are still evil.

Again, I find this the educated person's sophisticated way of saying I can't be bothered by the difficult task of being engaged with self-government. Also, that's a pretty broad definition of evil, broad to the pint of the word not even meaning anything.

FDR was a consumate politician. Did he fuck people over. Certainly. And every day I'm glad he was once our president and did a hell of a lot of good things for our country. Same with Lincoln. Jefferson I still have mixed feelings about.

*Politicians can be "good" before they are in office, after they are in office, occasionally while they are in office (both privately and with respect to their job), but any successful politician is evil at least some of the time. Call it compromise. It's evil. Accept it. I have... sort of.

[York99]

Again, I find this the educated person's sophisticated way of saying I can't be bothered by the difficult task of being engaged with self-government.

I disagree, at least for me. I follow politics. I read. I watch the news. I'm watching the gubernatorial debate as I type right now. I vote.

My point was that even if a politician has good intentions, the degree of compromise necessary to meet those ends requires evil.

Again, I understand the game. But it takes a certain type of person to be a player in that game. It's not me.

[shando]

I disagree, at least for me. I follow politics. I read. I watch the news. I'm watching the gubernatorial debate as I type right now. I vote.

I misunderstood the jist of what you were saying. I thought you were talking about being engaged politically, not about being a politician.

But I do encounter a number of people who are bright and otherwise well-educated who are jaded and cynical about politics as a cover for the fact that they don't know the first thing about politics, this country's history, or how we're governed. And that drives me nuts. Sorry to lump you in with that when that wasn't what you meant.

My point was that even if a politician has good intentions, the degree of compromise necessary to meet those ends requires evil.

I still think evil's too strong a word. Yes, there are politicians who are corrupted by their power, or who eve start out seekimg office for power's sake only. Those people are scumbags. But there are plenty of principaled public servants. I'd hold up Russ Feingold as an example of that. Or hell, Harry Truman.

And even playing the game well doesn't make a politician evil. Bobby Kennedy was probably one of the coldest, most calcualting politicians of the 20th century. But I wouldn't call him corrupt and evil. Although some Marilyn Monroe fans might disagree.

[Wesley]

Wes, I appreciate your passion, but I find sentiments like this as pie-eyed as the response from your friend in support of Strayhorn. Take the country back? For whom?

From the ones who want to pass laws mandating the 10 Commandments be placed in public faciliites because they are oh so important, but then, when asked what the 10 Commandments are, can't even name more than 3 of them. From the one's who no longer know the price of bread in the supermarket because they haven't set foot inside one in a decade. From the ones who refuse to actually answer a straight question without soundbyte politicking and twisting it around (after that debate I'm looking at you Strayhorn). Or speaking of the debate, from the ones who made all sorts of pathetic demands like "I need a box to stand on so I don't look short" to "I won't show if Kinky gets to have 'props'" to the people who once again wouldn't allow the Libertarians or other parties in the front door. And again, the politicians only made such demands because they know we actually do vote on image over substance and one CAN be hurt for nothing more than being shorter or uglier than an opponent. They know that we vote not as individuals, but in predictable blocks that can be manipulated. How I dream of the day I no longer hear the phrases "female vote" or "the Hispanic vote."
Or from the ones that have legislation shot down only to attach it to a defense bill or something else COMPLETELY unrelated to sneak it through. Or the ones that don't even bother to read the bills they vote on. Or, worse, the ones who don't show up to vote. (Where's a modern Cato when you need him?) And don't even get me started on the ones who run on one stance, such as smaller government, despite having demonstrable track records of the opposite=and we never call them on it. The list, the abuses, the gimmicks, goes on an on.

And we're no better. Don't think that I condemn politicians and hold the people sacrosanct. We DO view it as a game, which is why it gets played as one. We praise their subtle tactics and reward them instead of saying "um, guys, how about NOT playing a game with our futures?" We don't vote for those we believe in because we fear "wasting" a vote, as if such a thing were possible. We trade votes like they were commodities in an attempt to "beat" the system.
Hell, you know how many Americans out there have probably never even read the Constitution? The basis for their entire legal system? Or for that matter the Declaration of Independence? You ask 100 people on the street, who the Declaration was sent to and how many do you think would even know without needing to look it up? We've forgotten the core concept of what so many people fought and bled and died for--and we don't care to find it again just so long as we get to keep our potato chips, cable TV, and cheap gas coming. We are creatures of habit and revolution, even non-violent ones at the voting booth, are simply too much trouble. We are content with a 30% (or less) voter turn out. Decades of 'Rock the vote" and the youth vote is falling. People who publically chastize others for not voting, don't even vote themselves. Sure, we'll complain about this and that, but hen not bother to go vote because the Survivor semi-finals were on that night.

We're in a sorry state of affairs all the way around.

[York99]

What are you hiding, McCormick?

Hmmm. McCormick? McCormick?

Sounds Irish to me. You know who else is Irish? The Kennedys.

Hey everyone, it looks like we've got a politician on our hands. A dirty, stinkin' lawmaker. A back-stabbing, corrupt, immoral public servant. A slimy, smarmy get-drunk-and-murder-your-date-by-driving-your-car-into-the-water-and-letting-her-drown-but-getting-off-because-of-your-name-and-get-reelected-to-countless-additional-terms-because-you're-so-powerful-in-the-Senate-that-your-state-doesn't-care-how-slimy-you-are statesman.

I bet the reason he shaves his head is that if it were to grow out it would grow into a perfect parted, smart looking hair cut.

I've outed you, Shannon. You can shave your head, but I know you still have horns. Get him, Arthur.

[shando]

What are you hiding, McCormick?

Hmmm. McCormick? McCormick?

Sounds Irish to me. You know who else is Irish? The Kennedys.

Hey everyone, it looks like we've got a politician on our hands. A dirty, stinkin' lawmaker. A back-stabbing, corrupt, immoral public servant. A slimy, smarmy get-drunk-and-murder-your-date-by-driving-your-car-into-the-water-and-letting-her-drown-but-getting-off-because-of-your-name-and-get-reelected-to-countless-additional-terms-because-you're-so-powerful-in-the-Senate-that-your-state-doesn't-care-how-slimy-you-are statesman.

I bet the reason he shaves his head is that if it were to grow out it would grow into a perfect parted, smart looking hair cut.

I've outed you, Shannon. You can shave your head, but I know you still have horns. Get him, Arthur.

I'm guessing this is supposed to be some kind of joke? It's hard to tell what with the continued, always high-larious, calls for violence against me and my family.

[shksprtx]

Also, Bob Ross, the ABC dude that broke the story, alluded in a New York Times article that a Republican staffer leaked the IMs.

Democratic plot indeed...

I thought Bob Ross was the deceased PBS-Happy-Little-Tree guy...

[Blatant Liberalism Follows]

Also, the most repulsive thing about this whole deal, to my way of thinking, is that Rush Limbaugh, the neocon mouthpiece, has tried on his radio show to imply that perhaps the page(s) in question were involved in some kind of prank or liberal-fueled conspiracy.

The very notion that the Rape-ublicans would spin something like this in order to attack liberals just for the sake of winning an election sickens me to the core.

I have no issue at all with people of other sexual orientations. But I also have a young child. And therefore, pedophiles (and by association, people who try to spin pedophilia for political gain) make me wanna get violent.

Really violent.

Mr. Limbaugh -- do us all a favor and die in a fire...I'll even help you out and buy a gallon or two of gasoline and a box of matches, you depraved fuck...