Roads for the Rich

This post is by a guest blogger today. Enjoy.

I am a moderate – always have been, always will be. That often is not a good thing to be in the American discourse on politics. No matter what you say as a moderate you are likely to be branded by one side or the other if not both. This disposition is probably a consequence of being a real GenXer – by “real” I mean the generation that was labeled X in the late 80s not because we were extreme but because we were lost between the demographic bubbles of Baby Boomers and the Children of Baby Boomers, we had no public face, no representation.

Back in the 80s and 90s I favored the caution and fiscal restraint of Republican rhetoric (and even the military spending that contradicted the concept of fiscal restraint) over the more unrestrained domestically focused isolationist direction of the Democrats. As a consequence I know I disappointed many friends and family. Now they are shocked, having previously branded me as “Alex Keaton”, that I am more often (though not always) in the Democrat camp on issues of foreign affairs and civil liberties.

Now along comes an issue that makes me wonder if the world (or at least the US) is finally being affected by all those pharmaceutical traces in the drinking water. One that will probably get me labeled a Trotskyite.

First there was the addition of special security lines, manned by TSA personnel, for people flying first class. Being rich means you are not subject to the same inconveniences for security the rest of us must face, obviously. So, paying for those extra TSA people out of tax money to service an elite minority is perfectly reasonable.

Then comes a recent report (“Letting the Market Drive Transportation”, Washington Post, 17 March 2008) indicating that the Department of Transportation, lacking specific legislative guidance to do anything with $1 billion in discretionary funds, has decided to “experiment” in 5 major municipalities by charging tolls during peak traffic hours to ease traffic congestion. I imagine this will be in the form of some decal you will need to purchase on a periodic basis.

Now I am all for reducing emissions, easing commute times, improving quality of life, etc. But instead of funding things that might actually work like a gas guzzler tax (smaller cars on the road is the same as increasing available road miles), new mass transit systems, or even something as radical as banning commuter traffic from 7 pm to 7 am and banning commercial traffic from 7am to 7pm (why not try a different approach in each place and see which has the most positive impact), they (the DoT) choose to tax the working man and woman at a time of spiking fuel prices and an impending (some would say already underway) recession!

The Wall Street Journal should have called the article “Roads for the Rich.”

-ARC (A Radical Centrist)

Ready on Day One?

The video may need to be setup a bit for all you non-political junkies out there.

Picture it, the White House, 1999. Bill Clinton is President, Hillary Clinton is the First Lady, and Wesley Clark is Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. The United States through NATO decides to start a bombing campaign to force the Serbs from Kosovo. The White House phone rings in the middle of the night. A decision needs to be made...

Sorority Girls

This post is by guest blogger, Mrs. Angry Moderate:

I have been pondering what it is about Hillary Clinton that annoys some but not all people, but particularly men. Here goes--she is not a tough broad. Who is a tough broad? I got to thinking about Margaret Thatcher. I can imagine the Iron Lady sitting down and having a scotch straight up with Winston Churchill and holding her own with the guy. She was tough but in a tough broad kind of way. Who are other tough broads? Katherine Hepburn. Barbara Stanwyck. Betty Davis to name a few actresses. Ann Richards was a tough broad. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, is a mountain climber. I think that definitely qualifies her as a tough broad. The Queen of England is a tough broad. I don't think there is any doubt about that. Sandar Day O'Connor is a tough broad. Think of the school teacher who could dismiss you with a flick of the wrist. I had a few. My guess is that Nancy Pelosi is one behind that smile. I bet she can rule with an iron fist. These are women who you just do not want to mess with. Being a tough broad is part genetic, part environmental, but however it is arrived at, you can sense it immediately. You can see it in their dress, in their demeanor. They like hanging around men and men like hanging around with them. They are tom boys perhaps, and they have more manly traits than womanly traits. They can wear a dress or a suit all right, but you can just see the steeliness in the eyes, the "don't bother me with nonsense and get on with it" attitude. They have no patience for chit chat. They mean business.

Hillary says she is tough but her toughness is not in a tough broad kind of way. I simply cannot see Hillary Clinton having a scotch, let alone one with Churchill where they shoot the breeze and maybe smoke cigars. She has many more womanly traits. She went to Wellesley, an all girls school. She likes to hang around with women. I imagine her as being way more into having tea parties with her sorority sisters than say, joining a softball league. Her idea of being tough is by relying on cliques to surround her and pulling out the claws when necessary. That is so like a girl. When I hear her idea of being tough I feel like I am in the school yard at recess. Am not. Are too! Am not. Are too! You can imagine that if she ran for class president her idea of winning was to spread rumors about her opposition. If I had to name women in power who are the Hillary type of woman, I would nominate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She is smart but she is no Sandra Day O'Connor. Another might be Barbara Boxer from California. I like her, she seems to be fun and smart and I agree with her about a lot of things, but I don't see her as a tough broad.

There is no way out of this for Hillary. She is what she is and all of her declarations of toughness will not make her Margaret Thatcher. That is why I say, we need a woman to be President, just not her. I like Susan Collins of Maine myself. She seems sensible and tough. Some of these women Governors may be up and coming. The lady from Arizona, Janet Napolitano, is pretty cool. We need to let them get battle tested and ready to go. They are out there. Let's hope they bubble to the top and succeed. But whoever it is, I think there can be no doubt, to be considered electable by most men and some women, the first woman President will have to be a real tough broad.

And where is Martha Stewart and Oprah Winfrey in this assessment? I actually peg them both as tough broads. Oprah is a little more touchy feely but my guess is that she has it in her to be steely. Martha is definitely a tough broad. She might be a home maven but I would not want to mess with her. As for chatting with the ladies, Martha could never do that. I don't see it unless she is chatting about stock options and how to make more money.

Over Stimulated

Last week, the Senate basically passed the stimulus package the was crafted by the White House and the House of Representatives. Interestingly, nothing brings our two parties together like giving away free money in an election year.

I find myself agreeing with Mike Huckabee's take on this. He was the only candidate running for president, with the possible exception of Ron Paul (I can't remember), that came out against the stimulus package. He stated in the debate before the Florida Primary;

"One of the concerns that I have is that we'll probably end up borrowing this $150 billion dollars from the Chinese. And when we get those rebate checks, most people will go out and buy stuff that's been imported from China. I have to wonder who's economy is going to be stimulated the most by the package."

He went on to argue that the money would be better spent by adding 2 lanes to I-95 from Maine to Florida, which would have a better impact on the economy. [On a totally separate note, he noted that 1/3 of the total US population lives within 100 miles of I-95, which I did not know.]

If you think about it, it makes sense. Government should spend money in an economic downturn and what better way than infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, etc. It's when the economy is good that government should spend less. It's clear that both parties forget that part. I don't think this generation of Republicans will be able to run as the party of fiscal prudence after the last 6 years of their running Congress. The Democrats are no better, albeit they are more transparent in their earmarks. I won't get started on earmarks. That will be a separate blog.

Looking back at infrastructure projects versus giving people money and hoping they will spend it. It just seems clear to me that Huckabee was right. Which has the greater impact. By doing infrastructure projects, we take care of legitimate needs that need to be done by the government. Some of the water systems and sewer systems in this country are over 100 years old. Roads are inadequate in many (most) metropolitan cities. Bridges are old need to be inspected and replaced. On top of that, it would create jobs. Construction workers who are out of work because of a housing downturn, go build roads. Seem obvious.

On the other hand, giving out money accomplishes exactly what Huckabee says it will. People will go by crap made in China. You really don't have much choice. Most everything is made overseas, a lot of it from China. I actually heard some government official saying that there was a fear that people would get the money from the stimulus package and pay down debt and save it instead of spend it. Good lord, how awful!! There is something fundamentally wrong with our economy when the government is worried that we will save our money or try to pay off debt. Isn't that why China is buying up our debt to begin with because we don't save?

Maybe I am missing something obvious, but I think a little common sense goes a long way and there is a dearth of that in both parties.

Don't Look Back

As I have watched a couple of the debates for both the Republican and Democratic primaries, one thing that has struck me is how backward looking both parties are. The Republicans try their hardest to be the one who emulates all the qualities of Ronald Reagan, while the Hillary supporters on the Democratic side want to restore the Clinton years. I find this a little sad in both regards. It's not that I'm not in favor of learning from history. History was one of my favorite subjects in school. Also, if there was ever a time to look back at history (particularly recent history) and learn over arching lessons, this would be it. Still, I can't help but be moved by the candidates who represent a break from the past.

If you look at both people who are being revered, if not outright worshiped, you can't help but notice that they both broke from their parties past to create something new for themselves. Now I am not going to pass judgment on either Reagan or Clinton, but the one thing they have in common is moving their parties in a different direction and create a new dynamic. Reagan, ran several times for the Republican nomination before winning the presidency in 1980. Each time, he ran into the establishment of the party. I'll use the term Rockefeller Republicans, even though it probably over simplifies it. Reagan created a new coalition of economic conservatives and social conservatives that created a core group of voters that was very difficult to defeat. By appealing to both types of voters, he managed to attract many middle of the road voters, Reagan Democrats, as an example. Bill Clinton did something similar when he ran in 1992. He established himself as a member of the DLC, a movement created by the conservative, mostly southern wing of the Democratic party. He had to break from the old establishment of the Great Society and New Deal Republicans that had served as the bedrock of the Democratic party for over 50 years. By running as a fiscally conservative, socially liberal Democrat, he was able to reach back to the people who had abandoned the Democratic party. Now, we can argue the finer points of the background and who was more successful, but I think both presidents owe their fortunes to breaking with the past.

Now, fast forward to today's election. The Republicans are all trying to be Reagan, going so far to even hold one of the debates at the Reagan Library. I was waiting for someone to pull out a ouija board and consult him directly. It seems clear to me that none of the remaining candidates, McCain, Huckabee, and Ron Paul are him. Ron Paul represents the Libertarian wing of the party, Huckabee is socially conservative and fiscally moderate, and McCain has spent his career poking people in his own party in the eye when they didn't agree with him. The reality is that Reagan wouldn't have even passed this test. Former governor of socially liberal state who had signed the most liberal abortion law in the history of California. You can hear them raking him over the coals now. It's time for the Republicans to move toward the future. Make your own mark. Transformational figures like Reagan come once every 50 years.

The Democrats have a similar problem with their one candidate. Hillary Clinton is counting on people looking back to her husband's term and her supporters do so enthusiastically. Her whole campaign is based partly on her "record" as first lady. Obama is the one person in this race that represents a look to the future. That was then, this is now.

Perhaps it is natural for both parties to want to look to the past, but I do not think it is healthy. Time to write our own story.

Attack Politics

I was watching the news the other day and two items struck me as something that I wanted to blog about. The first one was how John McCain had to hire an entire phone bank to refute malicious charges that were being put out there by mail, robo-dialing (a measure in which a machine randomly calls phone numbers in an area and then plays a recorded message, should the call be answered). The second story was about Bill Clinton's role in Hillary's campaign. I find both of these items connected.

Now let's look at this closely. Here we have a man, who is a decorated war veteran, a former POW, and someone that has served 22 years in the Senate. This man runs for president and has to devote thousands of dollars toward defending himself from spurious accusations being made by some "third-party" supporter of one of his opponents. This is all taking place in South Carolina, which if you recall from the 2000 campaign ran pretty much the same way. Someone who supported George W. Bush had a campaign to call people and suggest that John McCain's daughter, who was adopted from Bangladesh, was actually John's from an interracial adulterous affair. It was appalling...and it worked. Bush trounced McCain. So this time around, McCain was not taking any chances and hired a anti-hit squad. I'm pretty jaded and cynical, but I find this beyond the pale. What is wrong with South Carolina? Or is this indicative of our system of smear and burn? I just want to in the end pick the best candidate.

It has apparently become the Clinton strategy to deploy Bill as the attack dog. Bill Clinton has been vigorously attacking Barack Obama on the campaign trail. He is distorting what Obama says and his positions. I personally find this offensive. I think it is unseemly for a former president to be running around the country campaigning in this manner. It cheapens the dignity of the office and lessens his own legacy. You can see it in his face that Bill Clinton is angry that Obama is standing in the way of Hillary. I personally don't like it when people think they are entitled to something they have not earned. Bill Clinton thinks his wife is entitled to the presidency because it was apart of their lives' plan. It is not right.

On a side note, Fred Thompson dropped out of the race today, but couldn't be bothered to endorse anyone. I'm going to miss him. He is truly a scion of the ambivalent. I raise my glass to you sir. Well, metaphorically, I don't really want to make the effort...

Redefining the Election

Now that the first Caucus and the first Primary in the nation is finished, what does it tell us? (I mean, beside the fact that we really shouldn't have to worry about elections before the holidays...sigh.) Here are some random thoughts on how things are shaping up in the two parties, third party restlessness, and general political mood.

Democrats:

Barack Obama -

OK, he proves he can win, albeit in Iowa. It does show that his message at least resonates in a primarily white rural state. Now some, mainly the Clinton campaign and their supporters, have challenged that he really doesn't have a message except that people should have hope. I disagree. I think that a message of uniting the country's divide between red states and blue states is very compelling, particularly to independents and people that are just sick of the rancor. I certainly count myself among those ranks. It used to be, in modern times (20th Century) that partisan ideology was healthy. If you had Republicans (who used to stand for fiscal responsibility and small government) come together with Democrats (who used to believe in ways to have government help people), you found that with a little compromise, you could come up with legislation that actually got passed and might have even worked. Somewhere along the way, the word compromise, began to mean surrender as the ideologues from left and right began to take control of their respective parties. The reality is the Senate cannot function without this arrangement because you need 60 votes to get anything passed. It is my belief that this is why so little gets done in Congress and why the public is so deeply unhappy with their lack of action on any issue. It is no accident that Independent or Decline is the fastest growing party registration in the Country. I think Obama speaks directly to that group and the group of Democrats that want to see the country move on.


Hillary Clinton -

Hillary Clinton manages a big comeback and ends up winning New Hampshire. Now all the pundits are asking why. Why were the polls wrong? Why was the coverage wrong? Why were the pundits off the mark? Much was made about her getting choked up in the diner when "someone" asked her how she goes on. Was it staged? I'm cynical enough to think it was, but it is ultimately unimportant. People will not remember that scene in another couple of weeks. In election years, people have even shorter attention spans than normal. Mostly because the Media has beaten it out of us. What was I talking about again...? Oh yes, Hillary. I must say, I am mystified. I cannot understand her appeal. She claims to have experience. What experience would that be? She's served about a term and a half in the Senate, which is nice, but hardly overwhelming. And before that? Well, she tried to reform healthcare, which was a disaster, she was a successful attorney. OK, fine. She was First Lady of Arkansas for 12 years and First Lady of the US for 8 years. Um...OK, is she claiming that as experience? I don't think that counts. I've been married to my wife for almost 13 years and I am not experienced in what she does for a living. I know the highlights of the issues we've discussed, but that does not give me experience. Some people counter that with Hillary, you get 2 for the price of 1. Well, how extra-constitutional. Shhh, I think I hear George Washington rolling over in his grave. So, a vote for Hillary, not only gets me one president, but also a former president, who by law cannot serve again, to come back as well. No thanks. We're not some kind of banana republic! Why is this even under consideration? I have read a lot about the Founding Fathers and the War for Independence recently. While I am no expert, I think I can safely say that the Founders would be appalled by the idea. In fact, I'm pretty sure if someone asked them "What country will have been ruled by 2 families for potentially two and a half decades?", they would probably respond, "Um...England?" This and the fact that I simply cannot live through another 4-8 years of the Republicans frothing at the mouth. It would mean the country would not move forward and I simply cannot abide that.

The latest is now Hillary was being questioned by some in the media about her comments regarding Obama and his message of hope. She spoke about how Martin Luther King, Jr. had hope, but it took the power of the presidency in LBJ to actually pass the Civil Rights Act. Now she is complaining that the Obama campaign is making a big deal about this. From everything I have seen and read, it is not Obama that was bringing it up, but the Media. Now just so I understand this, Hillary seems to be saying that it's not enough to be like MLK and inspire people to demonstrate and stand up for themselves. In short, a message of hope for a nation deeply divided by racial tensions. No, it took a white guy to come ride to the rescue, as president, to actually get something done. I can't imagine why people took offense at that. Then other's in the Clinton campaign have made snide allusions to Obama's admitted drug use in his youth. I have read what Obama has said on this issue. He said he wanted people to know about this part of his past, particularly youth. His message is, that if you make a mistake in life, you can still turn your life around and accomplish something. Life is not one strike and your out. Well, that's just a terrible message... I am embarrassed by the Clintonites making this an issue in a derisive way. I am particularly angry to see someone like Bob Johnson make snide references to it. Let's see; what is is Bob Johnson's great contribution to the African American community. Oh yeah, it's a television channel that plays mostly music videos featuring scantily clad dressed women. You're a great example Bob. Now I've been told that the Clintons have done a lot throughout their careers to help further the African American community. If that is true, and I will take it on their word that it is, then they are in danger of squandering all the good they have done by engaging in gutter politics to try and bring Obama down. It's shameful.

I simply will not vote for her, if she is the nominee. Are you listening Democrats?


John Edwards -

Why is he still in the race? Didn't he have to win Iowa? Wasn't that his strategy? Psst, John, you didn't win. Now please bow out graciously.


The rest -

Let's see the 3 candidates that have actual experience - Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd have dropped out. I guess that blows the notion that experience counts. I think Biden or Richardson would have been fine. If I had to listen to Chris Dodd talk for 4 years, I might go mad. He bores me to tears.

I think Dennis Kusinich and Mike Gravel are still in the race, but it's not clear why. I have mixed feelings on that. I think on one hand that at this point they are up against Quixotic odds of going anywhere and on the other hand, it is really not good that the Media has anointed 3 people as this horse race. Nobody can be heard above the din. It's not really a good thing. It keeps people out of getting their message across. But, we are where we are and these gentlemen need to give it up.


Republicans:

Mike Huckabee -

Well, well. He wins Iowa and the Wall Street crowd goes into a panic. This is a guy who came to Iowa with no money and no organization and beat Mit Romney by 10 points. Wow! Now, what's so horrible about Mike Huckabee. Well, he has the audacity to have raised taxes as governor of Arkansas. Now what did he do to waste the taxpayers money? Why it was a reckless spending program of roads and schools. Also, Huckabee has the crazy notion that some government programs might be able to help people, if their run effectively. Heavens to betsy...run for your life. Guess what folks, roads cost money. We don't live in a Communist society where we can compel people to build the infrastructure for the good of the motherland. When did proponents of smaller efficient government turn into anarchists?

Of course, Mike Huckabee is right there on social issues; hates abortion, thinks gays should stay in the closet, thinks we live in a Christian nation, yada, yada, yada. Now he's being accused of destroying the Republican coalition of fiscal conservatives (where were you hiding from 2001-2006?), social/relgious conservatives, and libertarians (kept neatly in a lock box until they need them). It seemed like a pretty weird coalition to begin with, but who am I to say. The bottom line is, even though I may disagree with most of what Mike Huckabee stands for on social issues, [The Angry Moderate's takes a fairly libertarian stand there] there are many things he says that makes sense. I'll give you an example. Voter ID laws. Conservatives love them, Liberals hate them, and the Supreme Court is looking at them right now. Now Liberals will argue that Voter ID laws, which require a voter to show state issued picture identification before your vote will be counted in an election, does nothing but intimidate and suppress the vote among poor, elderly, and minority voters. Conservatives argue that states need these laws to combat rampant voter fraud. Now, surprise surprise, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The fact is that rampant voter fraud is a myth. Sure, some fraud happens, but it is extremely rare and is usually done with absentee ballots, not with voting in person. Second, is it unreasonable to ask for identification to a voter? Probably not. Mike Huckabee's solution to this was to have voters have their picture taken, right when they register to vote. Just like the DMV. In fact you could do it at the DMV. Sure, not everybody drives, but you can still get a state issued ID that is not a driver's license. Huckabee's solution seems eminently reasonable. The other thing is, he's just a nice guy. I've seen a couple different interviews with him on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report and he always comes off as a likeable guy. Don't underestimate that appeal with voters. People want someone they can relate with in the Oval Office. This guy has that.


John McCain -

New Hampshire seems to have saved his bacon. Once again, New Hampshire has given McCain's all but left for dead campaign a new boost. I think it just goes to show how fluid the Republican side is. Nobody is totally happy with any of the candidates. John McCain has angered a lot of Republicans a long his career with the stands he has taken. Particularly with the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, which is anathema to the Republicans. My theory is it is anathema to all establishment people left or right, which probably makes it great legislation. Not a week goes by where George Will isn't railing against McCain on this issue. Move on George, you're boring me. The bottom line is that McCain appeals to a lot of people because he is independent on his decisions even when they aren't popular, but not in a George W. Bush kind of way. I think people have had it with that. McCain taps into a lot of independents and people who value his strong military support. If McCain wins Michigan, it will be a 2 man race between him and Huckabee.


Mitt Romney -

See John Edwards. OK, I guess he can conceivably win Michigan and have a lease on his campaign. Like Hillary, I fail to see the appeal. He seems like a used car salesman. A flip-flopping Massachusetts politician. How can that go badly? On a side note, someone asked Romney, who touts his executive experience early and often, what he would think about someone in business that spent $300K and another person that spent $30 million and achieved the same result. Great point.


Ron Paul -

I like Ron Paul. I can't help myself. I'm not a libertarian or anything, but you have to respect someone that says what they believe and stands up for it, no matter what. I think he's a real dark horse that could hang around a long time in this race asking the other candidates questions they don't want to hear. I love it. Go Ron!


Rudy Guliani -

I can't really understand his strategy. Forget about all the early contests and wait for Florida. OK, I know they have a lot of delegates, but everyone will have forgotten he's in the race. Well, it's your bed. As for Rudy, he would normally be the Angry Moderate's kind of candidate, except for the fact that he frightens me. I just don't trust him. He has a lot of shady characters associated with him and his foreign policy doesn't bring me comfort. I actually saw Norman Podhoretz, who is Rudy Guliani's senior foreign policy advisor, on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer debating Fareed Zakaria, who is the Editor of Newsweek International, on action against Iran. It was pretty scary. Podhoretz was arguing for immediate strikes on Iran (this was about 4-months ago). That was frightening enough until he started arguing that Reagan was soft on Communism. Yes, that pinko Reagan, soft on communism. What madness. The guy was a complete lunatic. You could see the look of exasperation on Zakaria's face. It was really something.


Fred Thompson -

Why is this man running for president? He barely seems interested. Some pundit on the news was saying that he decided to sit out the New Hampshire primary. Wow...couldn't be bothered to show up, huh? This man is fast becoming my hero. I'll get to it later; what's the rush? I will say that I was disappointed in his showing at the Republican debate in South Carolina. He actually seemed like he wanted to win. Too bad, I think he had a real shot at the apathetic vote. Not that they would've shown up.


Duncan Hunter -

There was a story where John McCain's 2 campaign buses, followed by 2 press buses were cruising down a New Hampshire street when they passed Duncan Hunter and his one aid waving to cars passing by. Mr. Hunter, please take what's left of your dignity and go home. Thanks.


Michigan Primary is 1/15 for the Republicans and South Carolina is 1/19. That will hopefully make things a little clearer on the Republican side. For the Democrats, Michigan got stripped of their delegates, so it doesn't count. The South Carolina primary for them is 1/26 and Nevada is 1/19. Does that make sense? Why would a state elect to hold a primary on 2 different days?


The Independents -

Moderates from both parties gathered on January 7th at the University of OK to discuss (lament) the current state of politics. A lot of the big names were there; Chuck Hagel, Sam Nunn, William Cohen, Bob Graham, John Danforth, among others. Of course the 800 lb. gorilla in the room was Mike Bloomberg, the current mayor of NY, who is considering a third party run for the presidency. This meeting wasn't about Bloomberg. It was about the need for a bridge between the red/blue gulf in the country.

Their goal was to get both parties to pledge that they would appoint a bipartisan cabinet, no matter which party won the presidency. This follows closely to movements like Unity08.com that wants to nominate over the internet a person from each party to run together as a third party ticket. I think that both of these groups represent an undercurrent flowing through the populous. There is a huge desire to move past the stagnating partisan politics that both parties can't seem to find their way out of.

Now as important as I think moving past the partisan rancor is, I ultimately do not think that these efforts will be successful. I personally think that we need to break the 2 party system, once and for all. And I don't mean, let's replace one party with another, like in past times. We need more options than just 2. It would be good for America and good for the existing two parties. The more competition, the more the Democrats and Republicans would be unable to play only to their bases. So, what do we have to do to break the 2-party system? My first proposal in this; I would abolish the Electoral College. The Electoral College was dreamed up because the Founders were unsure how the elections were going to go. Would they be able to trust the people? They weren't sure, so they hedged their bets and came up with the Electoral College. The system is designed to dilute the areas of the Country where the most people live; i.e. cities and more populous states. It has had the effect of keeping the 2-party system in place. You need to get 270 to win the presidency. If you have a third party that actually siphons off some electoral college votes, then what? Let's say for example that Mike Bloomberg runs and wins NY. That could mean that up to 31 electoral college votes could be off the table. Would the election be sent up to the House of Representatives to settle who wins the election? Would anybody really want that?

The parties have worked in concert with each other in modern times to keep 3rd party candidates out. They work to keep them off of ballots, out of debates, and out of the picture. To me, that is undemocratic. We need to have a credible third party. (I could be talked into more) I would like to see a Centrist party to represent the middle. Bring back the Whigs! I don't think it's good enough to have a bipartisan ticket or cabinet, though I would welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong. There have been examples in the past where bipartisan cabinets worked well - Lincoln's "Team of Rivals" to quote Dorris Kearns Goodwin's book and examples where it didn't work - the first cabinet, Washington's where Jefferson worked to undermine him at every turn. I think that the ultimate solution is to break the duopoly and get more choice. More choice is healthy.


Discuss...