Retroactive Action

Whether you sympathize with Hillary Clinton or not, it does seem as if every thinking Democrat (is that oxymoronic?) ought to be able to reject out of hand the idea that the delegates from Florida and Michigan would be seated. It is clear that this was a planned campaign tactic on her part; while others respected the call of the Party, those who refrained even from campaigning in those states, responding to the terms which were set before them - playing the "game" according to the rules at the time. Clearly running against a Clinton they ought to have anticipated that for them reality has nothing to do with the bid for office.
Hillary blatently lies about being shot at while visiting troops overseas, and the media jump all over her like hyenas attacking - well, a nap. Her spokespeople blatently lie about her lie - saying it is because she was tired, it was late - she's been campaigning hard - she did after all live with Bill for many years, and how could that not cause you to be confused over what is actually true? And none of them are called on the carpet. While accepting public monies (matching funds), or donations solicited over the internet, or through the United States Post Office, shouldn't there be some standard of expectation that candidates and their representatives tell the truth? Are we going to hold Roger Clemons to a higher standard of "testimony" before Congress, than someone running for the office of President?
Aren't the candidates, each time the step up to the podium, and have their comments broadcast over the public airwaves, essentially testifying, not only before Congress, but before the electorate? Could they not be sworn in, at the inception of each campaign? I can understand spin - like when Barack wins more delegates on a given day, and Hillary claims victory. I can understand optimism in the face of daunting odds. But this is a person who directly lied - a lie which, if believed, would work to her benefit - then lied about the lie. Isn't that what she and the other lawyers who went after Richard Nixon claimed was the worst, most unforgivable, of his actions?
She and the other candidates entered the arena, agreeing to certain rules. Among those rules it was clearly known that the delegates from Florida and Michigan would not be seated at the convention. Now, again when it is to her benefit, she argues vociferously for their inclusion. Changing the rules now would be like changing the tax burden on a business in the middle of the year - okay, not a good example - they do that all the time. That kind of retroactive re-drawing of the rules is absurd. Of course, that does depend on what your definition of is - is.

Fighting For Principal

This recent stand by 13 Democrats against the nomination of Condoleeza Rice has really got me steamed. To start a term in such contentious fashion, fighting a cause which they admit on the floor of the Senate they do not hope to win, is outrageous.

How much better could it have been to state their objections for the record, to air their concerns, but not in a bellicose manner, not in a way that invites derision and signals an intent to fight on every issue, even when there is no intent to change the minds and hearts of those to whom they are speaking?

We'll never know; because we are so entrenched in government of the parties by the parties and for the parties, that we have forgotten that decisions made and even debated affect all of the PEOPLE, and that is who the government is supposed to be of, for, and by.

Our voice in government has been supplanted by the voice of the political party.

Passionate Moderates

It is time that we in our right minds, meaning all those who are not out on the fanatical fringes of issues became more passionate about demanding attention be paid to the center. There is so much babble about red states and blue states, the right-wing and left-wing, and virtually no one paying attention to those who are intelligent enough and reasonable enough to listen to both sides of an issue, and make up their minds not based on a label, but based on the facts of the particular case.

Moderate has come to be synonymous with dispassionate; and that has to stop. It is unreasonable to disregard the wishes of the majority. It is also unreasonable to simply cast minorities, the weak, the elderly, out to sea because they do not have numbers to speak for themselves.

I remember hearing Harry Brown, the Libertarian candidate for President, repeatedly state in previous election years that were he elected, he would get rid of the IRS, get rid of the Public Schools, that he would get rid of our drug laws, then take a break for lunch. That kind of rhetoric doesn't take into account that the President must govern all of the country. You don't get to just implement whatever those who voted for you want; you must go through the appropriate checks and balances, and Congress (Democrats and Republicans) would never approve those sweeping changes, nor should they.

Worst of all such statements betray a simplistic idealism, as do most fanatics, that do not take into account the incredibly complex layering of our economy, the inter-dependent nature of our laws, our fiscal policy, and the businesses and families which plan their expenditures and adventures around existing laws and public structures.