hocus pocus bogus caucus
we are getting down to the nitty gritty of the 08 campaign for president and we start by having the caucuses in iowa and nevada with a primary in n.h. the caucus idea is just plain anti-democratic and an idea that is so outdated that it is a genuine detriment to a fair election.
the way a caucus works is that each candidate must get people to go to a "place" at ELEVEN O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING ON A WORK DAY and stand around holding signs. the candidate that gets the most people to come stand around and hold a sign wins. well, not really, because the candidates who do not get enough people to stand around to make the cut (top three, i believe) can then have their people standing around holding signs to move over to one of the front runners and then stand around with them and hold their signs so, theoretically, the third place finisher could then get enough standingaroundersholdingsigns to move to his/her group and move up to second or first. hocus pocus.
the problems with this are so obvious that it seems inconceivable that this system is still in place. most of our voters WORK FOR A LIVING. they can't be there on a work day and stay there for the majority of the day. what happens then is that the caucuses are filled with out-of-work people, retirees, students, homeless, jobless and the workers for the various candidates they get vans and drive people to these things picking up as many people as possible and herding them to their standing place. consequently, we get no real idea of how the people in the caucus states really feel about these candidates but instead we reward the candidates who have the most success in herding people (but not necessarily voters--the demos here in nevada will register you at the caucus.) we end up with the candidates who have the best field people and that, of course, is the candidate who has the backing of the PARTY itself. the democratic party and the republican party both have organizations in place in each state. those organizations already have a list of people they can count on to blindly follow whatever they are told.
govenment of the people, by the people and for the people as lincoln so beautifully phrased it is a thing of the past. we have a govenment of the parties, by the parties and for the largest contributers.
obviously, the primary states at least give a much better idea of the people's will than the caucus states do. in the primary states, are you ready?, people VOTE. the voting goes on all day so many more people can participate.
speaking of which, why do we have voting for something as important as the president of the united states only on a tuesday? why not have it over a week-end so that literally everyone can find the opportunity to vote? by having it only on one day and that day in the middle of the week we effectively eliminate millions from voting.
oh well, i can't change it by myself and no one else seems interested.
on to more:
a couple of people have posted reasons why obama should not be my choice. you can read their posts and my answers on this blog if you want. one thing i would like to point out is that i said to each of them, "since you are so against barack obama, just whom are you for?" they did not answer that. makes me suspicious. they tell me that he would not be a good choice and that i shouldn't be recommending him but they are not willing to put their candidate up for consideration. do they have one? are they republicans who are just out there demeaning any democrat? are they just people who will never find a candidate that meets their standards? are they just arguing for the sake of argument? i don't fucking know, they won't answer. this little paragraph should draw them out though. we shall see.
this is not to say that i can't be wrong. i have been wrong before. i will be wrong again. maybe not this time, though. one of these people say that barrack obama will be just another war monger. i don't believe that and god, i hope i am not wrong.
you can write me and tell me i am an idiot and i will keep that post up. the only post i have ever erased was one that attacked my wife. she is not fair game here. i am, she is not.
oh well, i do have one new year's resolution that i will share with you. THIS IS THE YEAR I QUIT SMOKING. there ya go.
happy new year to all of you and may 08 be great for you!
rock and roll
ron
the way a caucus works is that each candidate must get people to go to a "place" at ELEVEN O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING ON A WORK DAY and stand around holding signs. the candidate that gets the most people to come stand around and hold a sign wins. well, not really, because the candidates who do not get enough people to stand around to make the cut (top three, i believe) can then have their people standing around holding signs to move over to one of the front runners and then stand around with them and hold their signs so, theoretically, the third place finisher could then get enough standingaroundersholdingsigns to move to his/her group and move up to second or first. hocus pocus.
the problems with this are so obvious that it seems inconceivable that this system is still in place. most of our voters WORK FOR A LIVING. they can't be there on a work day and stay there for the majority of the day. what happens then is that the caucuses are filled with out-of-work people, retirees, students, homeless, jobless and the workers for the various candidates they get vans and drive people to these things picking up as many people as possible and herding them to their standing place. consequently, we get no real idea of how the people in the caucus states really feel about these candidates but instead we reward the candidates who have the most success in herding people (but not necessarily voters--the demos here in nevada will register you at the caucus.) we end up with the candidates who have the best field people and that, of course, is the candidate who has the backing of the PARTY itself. the democratic party and the republican party both have organizations in place in each state. those organizations already have a list of people they can count on to blindly follow whatever they are told.
govenment of the people, by the people and for the people as lincoln so beautifully phrased it is a thing of the past. we have a govenment of the parties, by the parties and for the largest contributers.
obviously, the primary states at least give a much better idea of the people's will than the caucus states do. in the primary states, are you ready?, people VOTE. the voting goes on all day so many more people can participate.
speaking of which, why do we have voting for something as important as the president of the united states only on a tuesday? why not have it over a week-end so that literally everyone can find the opportunity to vote? by having it only on one day and that day in the middle of the week we effectively eliminate millions from voting.
oh well, i can't change it by myself and no one else seems interested.
on to more:
a couple of people have posted reasons why obama should not be my choice. you can read their posts and my answers on this blog if you want. one thing i would like to point out is that i said to each of them, "since you are so against barack obama, just whom are you for?" they did not answer that. makes me suspicious. they tell me that he would not be a good choice and that i shouldn't be recommending him but they are not willing to put their candidate up for consideration. do they have one? are they republicans who are just out there demeaning any democrat? are they just people who will never find a candidate that meets their standards? are they just arguing for the sake of argument? i don't fucking know, they won't answer. this little paragraph should draw them out though. we shall see.
this is not to say that i can't be wrong. i have been wrong before. i will be wrong again. maybe not this time, though. one of these people say that barrack obama will be just another war monger. i don't believe that and god, i hope i am not wrong.
you can write me and tell me i am an idiot and i will keep that post up. the only post i have ever erased was one that attacked my wife. she is not fair game here. i am, she is not.
oh well, i do have one new year's resolution that i will share with you. THIS IS THE YEAR I QUIT SMOKING. there ya go.
happy new year to all of you and may 08 be great for you!
rock and roll
ron
posted by Ron Shock | 9:43 AM
12 Comments:
I've never been able to figure out how the parties should pick their candidates--I don't like that the 2 majors have a lock, but I also don't think I should be allowed to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary--Neither of us is really a republican, even if we are officially at the time of the vote.
I think a better system would be to ignore political affiliation for election purposes, and use some sort of
preferential voting to decide the winners. Won't happen, because the current system favors the current incumbents and major parties.
amen. we end up, as so many people have pointed out, voting for the lesser of two evils. we get, on way too many years, twidle dee and twidle dumm so that not only are we voting for the lesser we have to hold our nose while doing it.
Its spelled candidate, not canidate.
Hi Ron. I've just discovered your blog and I'm thrilled to have found it. I've been a fan since seeing you on the comedy all star show many moons ago. As a matter of fact, my best friend and I still say "You know Myrtle, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if...." whenever something strange happens in the news. Of course something strange happens damn near every day now so you must have a lot of new material.
Anyway, enough brown-nosing and on to the point.
From what I've read so far it seems our political views aren't too far apart. As far as Obama goes, I just don't see the experience. He hasn't finished one term in the Senate and he's a democrat to boot. I see the Democrats as the socialist party and the Republicans as socialist-lite. They both want to blow up the size government so huge it blocks out the sun. I'm for smaller government and less entitlement programs. And a hell of a lot less intrusion. That's the big one. I want the government out of my wallet, out of my business, and out of my bedroom. I had to get a "permit" to have a stinkin' garage sale for crying out loud. I pay yearly taxes on property I already own. If I want to build anything on any land I own the all-powerful government will sell me a "permit" to do so. Fuck that. Enough is enough.
We have 2 trillion dollar budgets thrown around every year. I can't even wrap my head around a trillion dollar figure. Do you have any idea how much money we throw away being the worlds police department? Hell, if you dial 911 in France you get us. "Help! Help! It's the damn Germans again."
Enough already.
We have 700+ military bases in 103 foreign countries. Read this page if you want to have your eyes bug out of your head on military spending.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a strong military but could we use it to protect our own shit please?
If you want to see the real Obama, then look no further than his ideological brethren in the rest of the field. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. They all think about the same way. John Edwards is the real laugher in this pile. He's trial lawyer that got stinkin' rich by fucking physicians over and now he wants to give everyone free medical insurance. Gee-whiz John. The reason medical insurance is so high in the first place is that assholes like you made it that way by bagging your "clients" 50 million all because some doctor left a sponge inside Grandma. Edwards is part of the problem, not the solution.
And Hillary Clinton? Puhleeeze. I could type a book on that bitch but it's your blog. Suffice it to say the woman is a communist and always has been. 'Nuff said. So much for the Democrats.
Which brings us to the "conservatives". The "conservatives" are about as conservative as Brittney Spears on a drunken binge. They're going to spend us into oblivion. All but one of them. Ron Paul. This guy has my full attention. He truly is a conservative and plans to put this country back on the principles it was founded on from day one. I think if you explore Ron Paul's platform, you'll find he's your guy too.
As the campaign says: Goggle Ron Paul.
I forgot something.
Commondreams.org is about as left wing as they get but the page on military stats is spot on. I still like to read some of their stuff as well as Moveon.org and various other socialist sites. Even if it's for entertainment purposes only.
Check this out Ron...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aCilYJ9OUudI&refer=home
to anyon. i am a horrible speller and usually rhonda edits these for me...i apologize.
to j.t.
great post! one of the best i have had in the history of this blog. while our political views differ greatly, me being a democrat and all, everything you said has value. as i have said before in this post, ron paul, is the candidate (got it right that time) that i would gladly support if he had any chance at all of being elected, which he doesn't. he is for ending the so-called war on drugs, bringing our troops home now and too many other things to mention here. the republicans will shut him out and will not let his views get main stream exposure. you never, in the main stream, hear his arguments on the war on drugs for instance. oh well, the beat goes on.
Most amusing, sir, but....They are all Hitler Dums and Hitler Dees to me.
Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor
Oh crap, Ron, I just read you "Tweele Dee" thingy.
I've been doin' moi's Hitler Dum thingy for ages.
Anywho, do view moi's lill' YouTube flicks, you may dig 'em.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7iQRFP_e90
Stay on (Most) groovin' safari,
Tor
One of the best posts ever? Perhaps I overshot a wee bit. I was just aiming high enough to get your attention. It would appear that I have it.
Excellent! Let's get started.
You've had me in stitches so many times with your rapier-wit comedy that I feel like it is my duty to pull you back from the depths of socialism.
I've read a bit more since my last post and have come to the conclusion that you aren't a Democrat at all. You're not a Liberal, you're a Libertarian. You just don't know it yet.
You see, you have the same view on politics that Ron Paul and his supporters have but you just can't bring yourself to vote for him because "he can't win". Horse-hockey. This is a lot like finding yourself trapped in a gay bar and saying "I'm going to have sex with another man because that's all that's available".
It's a matter of principle. You have to stand on principle.
Our constitution was written on the principle that our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is derived from God (or whatever supreme being you believe in)
The constitution does NOT grant rights to man, it LIMITS the power of government. It was written that way for that purpose.
The Democrats don't understand this. The Democratic Party sees this the other way around. In their minds, government is what grants rights to the people and the imperial federal government tells you what you can and cannot do. They ignore the individual and file us away into little groups. The concept of the individual is lost. Personal responsibility is tossed to the curb.
This is not what the founding fathers had in mind.
And they are teaching this in what I call government indoctrination centers. Most people call them public schools but they really are government indoctrination centers. This is where the parents send their children off with all of their school supplies requested on the list and the "teacher" (under the guise of the NEA) gather them all up into one big pile and redistribute them as they see fit. Socialism taught at an early age.
My 11 year-old daughter came home with school supplies I didn't buy. It was someone else's notebook. Teaching socialism at an early age so it appears normal later in life. Your success in life doesn't rest on your own laurels, it comes later through government redistribution. You don't have to achieve because the government will take care of you no matter what.
Go ahead, Have another child you can't afford and the rest of the collective will pay for it for you. This is crazy.
It's gotten to the point that you don't even own your own body anymore. If you don't believe that, then try to rent it out for sex, auction off a kidney on ebay, put your mouth on a part of your wife's body they deem off-limits, or put an "illegal" drug in it and watch how fast they come and confiscate it.
There's an alarming trend in government nowdays where instead of investigating a crime to find a person that committed it, they investigate a person to see if they can find a crime. Even when nobody complained of a crime.
I see you enjoy a little card playing. I know enough about cards to lose big at a blackjack table. I'm from Texas and Texas hold'em confuses the shit out of me. But you know what? You live in the great state of Nevada and you can do that. You can take your income and do whatever the hell you want with it.
Not here though. The only gambling that happens in Texas is that of the state. You can buy a lottery ticket from them but you can't actually play Texas hold 'em in Texas because it's illegal. How ironic. You also can't pay a willing woman to fuck you either. I would never do something like that (Because I'm married to an all-you-can-eat buffet of a woman anyway) but by what right do I have to say that others can't?
Explore freedom, Ron.
I bet we're gonna be friends.
J.T.
Give us your tired.... your poor...what was that again?
Let's see if I can bring a tear to your eye. If you've ever visited the Statue of Liberty you will find a poem at the base. Some of the words ring in your ears but so few have ever read the whole thing in its entirety. They hide it rather well but it says this:
The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Emma Lazarus, 1883
Written by a woman. She couldn't even vote at that time, yet she wrote that. Don't ya just love having them around?
Give your wife a kiss when she least expects it. Putting up with you must be a chore. :)
Paul Krugman of the New York Times had done his readers and the progressive community a great service by documenting and critically analyzing Obama's rightward drift, but I think he chalks Obama's reactionary tilt up to the senator's "naive" desire to seem nonpartisan.
There's nothing naive about Obama: he's a cold-blooded, Chicago-based and Daley-schooled corporate opportunist who does not believe much of his own campaign drivel and imagery.
Obama is receiving many millions of election dollars from the real "special" interests that most significantly control U.S. Society, culture, politics and policy: leading global investment firms and other powerful corporate interests like Exelon (the secret to his pro-nuclear stance).
Those who pay the piper call the tune.
Post a Comment
<< Home