Austin Improv

Asaf wrote:
I would never vote for Hilary.

Please discuss.

I hear this over and over again and no one has anything but emotional reasons for disliking her. Hilary has kept her nose clean and been a pretty decent, if unremarkable, senator for NY. I think Schumer's been a more eloquent and outspoken voice especially on Iraq and his finance committeee's many issues. Regardlesss, I'm curious why people dislike her so. I don't plan on voting for her in the primaries...but I don't hate her either.

She has a track record of basically doing nothing outside of being on a couple of cross-party bills. Gets involved in lots of heated arguments and says lots of stupid things along the way. And voted for the war while others did not.

It is another example of how fucked our whole democracy system has become. It used to be that electability was a result of other aspects that a candidate had, like a record of civic service or experience in the political field. Now we have electability as its own aspect and I don't get it.

Why are Obama and Hilary being so touted as front runners? Do they really have anything going for them except for name recognition? In that case, let's sign up Paris Hilton to run. Or Sanjaya.

Hillary has worked hard to overcome her high unfavorability numbers by running to the center and doing very little. She's got a great deal of political experience, but I would hope she would have more to show for it. I would certainly vote for her in the general election, but am retardedly poisoned by the notion of her "un-electability", and will most likely support anyone else in the primaries.

I really like Edwards, but have a total mancrush on Obama, on whose senate campaign I worked in 2004. Obama has lots of hype, and most of it is deserved; he's brilliant, he's principled, he's got vision. My only concern with either Edwards or Obama, though, is they don't have enough executive experience. But hell, neither did JFK.

If experience alone were all I was looking for, I'd be all about Bill Richardson; the man has an amazing resume.

arthursimone wrote:My only concern with either Edwards or Obama, though, is they don't have enough executive experience. But hell, neither did JFK.

Last week there was a huge article in Time about JFK. As always, it was blowing sunshine right through the hole(s) in his head. This week Time published reader letters on the subject. One was very scathing on JFK saying that in his 3 years in office he made plenty of mistakes, abused his power to get ladies and never really did much. The only reason he's touted as a great president is that he was assassinated in office and that the Bay of Pigs thing happened to work out. Plus, he was a great orator.

I have to say that I don't disagree. thoughts?

I suspect that Kennedy will be remembered in the future far less for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, his extra-marital dalliances and his facing down Khruschev than the fact that he got the ball rolling on Apollo. That he was motivated by fear of losing face to the Russians won't matter. That we put a man on the moon during his term will.

Love the "blowing sunshine through the holes in his head" line, Justin.

Kennedy was also the first really obvious example of "electability" as Asaf mentioned. After the JFK/Nixon debates the negative impact of Nixon's demeanor & 5 o'clock shadow were apparent to all - since then, one of the first qualities looked for by the party apparatus is "How does this candidate come off in the media?". Lincoln would be unelectable - ugly SOB, plus all those gay rumors, plus I hear his wife might be mentally ill!...

So vote ugly in 2008! I'm nominating the corpse of Joey Ramone.

I would probably vote for Gore (I did before), but I agree that he's probably happier and more effective as a private citizen. If he suddenly dived in I'd be really curious about his motives for doing so.

arthursimone wrote:If experience alone were all I was looking for, I'd be all about Bill Richardson; the man has an amazing resume.

It'd be a real shame if Americans started suddenly voting for things like "realted experience," "demonstrable track records," and "actual legal knowledge of the workings of the Constitution and law" over qualities like "handsomeness," "single-issue soundbytes," and "the cache it wins me with friends and family."

Where would we be then?

Americans will do what they always do: ignore the qualified candidates for the ones the media tells them can win, then they'll vote for who they think can win--not who they actually want (I'd love to vote third party, but...), then they'll bitch for four years until they get a chance to do it all over again. Old people will vote in droves, young people will give bumps to poll numbers, but not turn out at the booth, corporations will give record amounts of money, real issues will be tossed by the wayside for easy to understand ones, and nothing will change.
We're disgusting little creatures of habit and it is always easier to ignore or run from our problems than stand tall and face them (or vote them out of office).

Yay! Idealism!



Seriously. What do we do?

The only thing I can think of to do is SHOUT AND POINT. I like to spend a little time each day browsing varied forums (anything from Ann Coulter to Sam Harris to the various presidential candidates). Check out sourcewatch and other oversight sites. Then start writing e-mails to news organizations, participate in the forums, etc.

If you keep your e-mails short and to the point - you'd be surprised at where and how often you can get published and start a debate. Downside - this can eat away at your time if you get hooked. I spent some 20 hours total online just debating one idiot who was sure the earth was created about the same time the Sumerians invented glue. I wasn't very good at picking my battles. I try to aim for the undecided now.

I've also noticed that "true believer" types - be they pro or anti religion/Bush/drug laws/gays/put your cause here - have no sense of humor whatsoever. Be warned - literalism rules.

Anybody got any other/better ideas short of armed insurrection? I'm open...

mpbrockman wrote:Anybody got any other/better ideas short of armed insurrection? I'm open...

Nope, let's do that one.

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..."

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them."

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."

Wesley wrote:

mpbrockman wrote:Anybody got any other/better ideas short of armed insurrection? I'm open...

Nope, let's do that one.

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..."

I don't think we're quite to that point yet. In fact, if you think our government is out of wack, just find the British Parliament on TV somewhere. Even with all of its faults, our government is still the best of any legitimate* country in the world.

*Sorry Seagram's Island and Sammy Hagar's Cabo Wabo

That seems a bit subjective, Justin. I think people from a number of other nations would disagree strongly with you. I was on the Richard Dawkins forum a few weeks ago trying in vain to convince Aussies, Brits, Dutch and Swiss folks that American ideals as originally expressed in the Constitution were still valid despite the fact that those currently in power seem to have forgotten what they are.

Needless to say, my "America - an experiment derailed" argument was roundly rejected by the "America - a failed experiment" folk. They strongly preferred their current governments (more so the Dutch, less so the Brits).

Strange to find myself as an amateur apologist for America...

On a lighter note: I think I've been to Seagram's Island. I don't remember much, though - it might have been Greenland. Also - I have watched the British Parliament in action, and I strongly recommend it for it's high entertainment value. Especially if you tune it in from Seagram's Island.

don't forget that european citizens will be subjective about their systems of government, too.

most european countries (and former uk colonies) are parliamentary democracies or constitutional monarchies where the head of government is chosen from within the legislative branch -- so they only elect their member of parliament, and then the parliament elects a prime minister from amongst themselves.

our system as a federal republic is completely different because we have separate elections for congress and the president (although we still have that silly electoral college).

I'm not even going to bother voting next election.

mpbrockman wrote:I was on the Richard Dawkins forum a few weeks ago trying in vain to convince Aussies, Brits, Dutch and Swiss folks that American ideals as originally expressed in the Constitution were still valid despite the fact that those currently in power seem to have forgotten what they are.

"The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abe Lincoln

The attitude those in power depend on wrote:I'm not even going to bother voting next election.

There's the spirit of revolution that guarantees change! How about this instead: Vote your heart and honest-to-god belief and try to get others to do the same. Don't play their game. Don't vote trade. Don't try to beat the system. Don't think you can outsmart those that do this for a living. Don't want to vote for x, but think he or she can't win so you'll settle for y. Stand up, be strong and vote your honest belief. Change will come, but not all at once. They take liberties in nips and bites, not wholesale. The only way to change things back is the same way. Slowly, over time, with small changes that lead to bigger ones. Start by voting true. You think the system is unpure, then take it upon yourself to do your small part to make it pure. They treat it like a game and we let them. We help them! They try to trick us. They study us and try to manipulate us. Luckily, manipulation only works when you let it. We can fight back. You give in, you give them what they want.

"Change comes like a little wind that ruffles the curtains at dawn, and it comes like the stealthy perfume of wildflowers hidden in the grass.â€

...but I really like Joe Biden. I always have.

He seems a like an angry sod...

but I kinda like that about him. He's passionate about his ideals. As far as I can tell, he doesn't have a bad position on anything. And he doesn't like bullshit.

The only downside is he likes to talk and talk and talk. But so did Bill