obama brings absolutely nothing of substance to offer except that he's black and a democrat. that in and of itself will make the old media cream and sing his praises until, like edwards, his bag of tricks is sadly empty. he accepts the vp position on the rodham ticket which loses in the most polarizing election in ameican history.
They aren't my rules, Spanky, they are my suggestions. I never mentioned anything about government, only that the country would be better off with a shorter campaign. In any case, the people who "do things" are already elected and paid and they serve in Congress. One more bill won't cost a damn thing.
i dont disagree with your suggestions. i just think that since neither you nor i pull any weight on the republican or demcratic parties, they arent gonna care about our suggestions (unless we enact legislation, which we positively shoulndt). they run long campaigns for some reason or other, and i figure it's their business.
The private sector has a vested interest in lengthening these campaigns and keeping them long. If you happen to be political operative, a policy hack, a campaign finance attorney or a fundraiser you want the campaigns to start as early as possible. That's where the steady work is. It's the accountant equivilant of the tax law being changed to require we file every month. It's a wasteful exercise. Unfortunately until someone changes the incentive system for those who profit from these drawn-out debates we can look forward to more soap operas instead of serious political debate.
here is a poll that is relevant to what we have been discussing. http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26611 it is a list of characteristics people will and will not vote for. % of people who will not vote for: a black man 5% a woman 11% an atheist: 53% i wish muslim had been on the list. i'b interested to see if they are more acceptable than athiests.
All valid change starts at the grass-roots level. When the people are tired enough of two-year campaigns, they will let the parties know, let the congress know, and let the legislatures know. Change is slow, but it starts with those who question the status quo. You have no problem with that, I presume.
part of the problem is that so many stupid states want to be first. they want to to move ahead of new hampshire and get earlier and earlier, so they can make the news. the democrats have already decided they will igore any state that tries to push it even earlier. that is how it should be managed, by the parties, not the government. congress or legislatures should have nothing to do with it.
it's actually the private sector that is driving this wasteful exercise. every political strategist, lobbyist, analyst, both from consulting to in the media, have a vested interest in extending this circus. red is correct to ask for controls. every once in a while a little government interference is a good thing. can you imagine how we could have free markets without the SEC?
so don't vote for the candidates they represent. nothing is stopping us from electing who we want except ourselves. no, i dont understand how markets work well enough to say for certain that the task of the sec couldnt be accomplished by private means.
The SEC adds some value, but I think the market would find ways to adjust itself just find if the SEC didn't exist. Then again I may be bitted because they cut the financial statement filing down to 60 days.
