TFP Column: Dumb and Dumber-er in politics

As proof that there is not only a quirky, but perhaps even benignly evil bit of timing between real life and cinema, it’s hard not to notice next week’s release of a movie that would have probably have been better served by being left alone to die long ago: “Dumb and Dumber.” While it’s perhaps unfair to disparage “Dumb and Dumber To,” film that has yet to be released (although judging by the trailers already out there, not releasing it would be doing it, its producers, and the viewing public a favor).

I’m talking of course, about the occurrence and results of this week’s mid-term election, where the Republican party attempted to exhibit the real-life version of the “Dumb …” franchise by attempting to get away from the stigma of being the ‘Party of No’ by having no national concept of what it was they stood for. Dumber of course, being portrayed by the concept of Democrats attempting to show that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery by running candidates with the same predilection for ‘hoof in mouth disease’ that the Republicans did during the previous election cycle.

Proving that it’s often better to be lucky than good however, Republicans somehow managed to get re-elected a Senator who established his Kansas residency by claiming to rent a recliner from one of the constituents in his district. Democrats countered with lunacy straight out of “Mad Men” that their constituency could fight the ‘War Against Women’ by telling those of the fairer gender not to worry their pretty little heads about such complicated things as the economy, unemployment or foreign policy as long as someone in government would guarantee them a federal health subsidy for their uterus.
Republicans promoted change by running the same tired faces that they’d been showing up with since Clinton, while Democrats attempted to prove that that the American voter, while blind, misinformed and generally disinterested, seldom turns out to vote for a slate of candidates that the national party has already acknowledged as likely to lose.

Pundits on both sides may debate which candidates committed the greatest faux pas on this year’s campaign trail, and they’ll have a surprisingly large and bipartisan list to choose from. One that you won’t see, however, is the Democratic Party announcement to focus its money and effort on governors’ races to the detriment of their efforts in the Senate.  (How did that work out for you, by the way?)

The Senate Minority Leader (soon to be Majority Leader) and the President each held their press conferences Wednesday to discuss the meeting that they’re going to have later this week about the agenda of the upcoming lame duck Congressional sessions coming soon. (Only politicians consider the meetings about their meetings about their meetings of any real import.)
 
Both of these public statements continued to fulfill the promises of “Dumb and Dumber” by wasting the electorates’ time recapping what we already knew. Mitch McConnell said that he knew who the President is and vice versa  (thank you Captain Obvious). The President, meanwhile, reminded us of his continued promises to do something about the nation’s problems if Congress didn’t (difficult when both were on break to run for office). Both mentioned their willingness to compromise in such a way as to make it abundantly clear that neither really was.

Little mention was made about the money involved in this year’s election, since Democrats spent more than Republicans and (according to Fox News) that the $4 billion total was a fraction of what the nation spent on Halloween costumes and candy. The only entertainment left out of today’s session was the one never heard that: “Elections have consequences.”

Never fear however, the next sequel is just around the corner. By the end of 2015, the next election cycle will be in full swing again and most of Congress will return to becoming too busy running for their jobs again to actually do them. I hear that they’ve even got a working title for it: “Dumb and Dumber – Bush vs Clinton Again?”

The "Stuck on Stupid" Dictionary #39

In what may in fact be the real first sign of Spring, the lazy lexicographers of the SOS Dictionary have apparently come out of their hole, failed to see their collective shadows (which would have been difficult at best, considering the bloodshot conditions of their eyes), and decided to stay out in the fresh air for a bit.  (This had nothing to do with locking the door behind them after their 'temporary exit' I'm sure.)  Their efforts are at best sporadic and at worst all but nonexistent recently, and Senior Staff felt obligated to try something new.  Having given up on the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) for assistance, we have instead contacted Lindsay Lohan's people to recommend potential detox facilities.

Having all but reconciled ourselves to a level of production consistent with the output of common sense from the federal government is a bit disappointing, but not entirely unexpected.  Their chemically-induced maunderings however still manage to pass Senior Staff editorial muster; so we print 'em when we get 'em.

Such inconsistent production however, means that there may actually be those of you reading this who have somehow managed to miss previous postings on this subject (shame on you, now go back and search all of the postings under the label of  'Dictionary').  For those of you thus unfamiliar, the SOS dictionary is a reference guide to terms which nominally mean something to the rest of the English speaking world, but appears to mean something entirely different when looked at through the jaded eyes and rose colored glasses of the SOS dictionary staff.


Democrat

1.  A Member of a political party whose opinions (sometimes also called feelings) on a given issue can run from fiercely Conservative to wildly Liberal.
2.  A Member of a political Fraternity House that is indoctrinated with the concept that loyalty to their fraternity brothers and sisters is of far greater importance than that to the constituents who elected them
3.  A Member of a self-appointed aristocracy who consider themselves through such party participation to be a representative of a political elite (which they falsely like to believe is a meritocracy) that makes them far better, smarter, and prettier than the rest of those outside their group; and therefore entitled to special privileges as a consequence.
4.  A Member of political team whose largest ambition is to score more points than their opponents, regardless of consequences to fans in the stands or the condition that the field will be in when the contest is concluded.
5.  A member of a political party that is in turn part of a larger rule-making body (you know, kind of like NASCAR, the NHL, the NFL, the NBA, MLB, or the NCAA) who rule by fiat; and with the clear understanding that none of the rules they create can apply to them. 
(See Republican)

 
Republican

1.  A Member of a political party whose opinions (sometimes also called feelings) on a given issue can run from fiercely Conservative to wildly Liberal.
2.  A Member of a political Fraternity House that is indoctrinated with the concept that loyalty to their fraternity brothers and sisters is of far greater importance than that to the constituents who elected them
3.  A Member of a self-appointed aristocracy who consider themselves through such party participation to be a representative of a political elite (which they falsely like to believe is a meritocracy) that makes them far better, smarter, and prettier than the rest of those outside their group; and therefore entitled to special privileges as a consequence.
4.  A Member of political team whose largest ambition is to score more points than their opponents, regardless of consequences to fans in the stands or the condition that the field will be in when the contest is concluded.
5.  A member of a political party that is in turn part of a larger rule-making body (you know, kind of like NASCAR, the NHL, the NFL, the NBA, MLB, or the NCAA) who rule by fiat; and with the clear understanding that none of the rules they create can apply to them.
(See Democrat)

Learning From Libertarians

A few years back, I found myself born again in making a political party conversion from Republican to Libertarian.  As such conversions go, this wasn't so much of an "Ah Ha" moment as it was an "Uh huh" moment.  I had been encouraged to attend the gathering of a group that was attempting to start up a Libertarian organization in Lucas County, Ohio at which that friend of mine (Brian Wilson) was speaking.  While I knew that he was a long-time small 'L' libertarian who was more than up to the challenge of presenting the party's point of view, I was curious about those others who might also be attending.

We were a pretty mixed lot as it turned out; some strongly pursuing a single issue that was likewise held under the general principles of the party, some who were merely curious like myself, and some who were seriously trying to pursue a rational framework in which to few the world in general and government and politics in particular.  While not really much of a joiner in the past, I found myself impressed enough with what I discovered  that I decided to fill out one of the the forms that was handed out at the end of the meeting and register as a member of the Libertarian Party.  

As everyone knows who has lived through such an experience, parting with an 'Ex' is a difficult time.  Investing yourself in a relationship (even with a political party) carries with it a residual of memories and emotions that are difficult to let go of.  Having grown up in the Democratic hotbed of the Windy City, I rejected its teachings after Bobby Kennedy and while not a Nixon fan went over to the Dark Side.   I was not of age to vote until the 1976 elections however, and having Jimmy Carter pitted against Gerald Ford was an experience that damn near put me off voting for life.  Like many others however, my spirits recovered in 80 and 84 when Reagan ran for office; even though a lot of the small government ideals espoused never really came to fruition.  In ensuing years, my spirit again flagged, as the GOP ran a series of big government, 'me next' candidates (though I did have some enthusiasm for Jack Kemp).  

So I suppose that in my new found enthusiasm as a libertarian, I hoped that my 'Ex' would not only understand the reason for my desertion, but might even learn something from why it had happen; perhaps someday embracing the path that I had chosen.  Government after all, had been inexorably growing regardless of the party in the power or the number of branches in which they held sway.  Sure, Clinton could talk about the fact that "the era of big government was over", but nobody really believed it ... including him.  Now that I was truly part of a movement that truly believed in smaller, less restrictive government; where Washington spent only the money it took in, (and the less of that the better) I hoped that Lincoln's party might learn enough to once again free us from chattel service to the bloated nature of Washington (the city, not the man).

Now some of you might wonder why instead I didn't fall into lockstep behind every Libertarian candidate out there in order to promote the world I sought.  The answer however, was simple.  While libertarian beliefs were a logical and organized sense of principles, the party that espoused them was often anything but.   Something about the nature of libertarians made them inherently suspicious of a party 'organization'.  Perhaps the freedom they sought to follow their own paths and their willingness to accept personal responsibility for doing so may have made them ideal to lead the country, but it also made them as easy to get going in a single direction as a herd of cats.  

Just being a libertarian (unlike some places where just being a Democrat or Republican) did not automatically make a person the a good candidate, let alone a good elected official. In a party that prided itself in having nothing to 'trade' with big donors, libertarian candidates were often woefully short of funding as a consequence.  The long-entrenched nature of the two-party system in this country did nothing to make it easier, and rules specifically designed to leave it a two-player system made it damned near impossible for anyone else to try and play the game.  (If you don't believe me, read up some day on the struggle required to even get Libertarian candidates on ballots or count the number or recent state and national debate venues in which a libertarian candidate was allowed to participate.)

And so the libertarian was also placed in a unique position in American politics of knowing the path to be followed, but unable to guide the team.  Libertarians constantly found themselves during elections in the unenviable choice of holding fast to their principles and gaining nothing; or abandoning them to pick a 'lesser of evils' that might slow, of not stem the growing tide.  Neither choice served well, and both left one with lingering pangs of guilt.

I've discovered recently however, that without noticing it, some of the lessons of libertarians have in fact crept into mainstream Republican thinking.  Unfortunately however, they are not the ones that I hoped for.  Instead of returning to the shadow of conservative principles that they knew under Reagan (and even to an extant, under the Contract with America), what they've learned instead is a is an attempt at greater popularity through a dilution of those ideas.  Instead of enacting their own vision of a smaller government, they've learned instead cover their light in a basket of blandness lest they be called extremists and scare the children.  Instead of presenting a united front of shared beliefs in self-reliance and personal responsibility, they hide at the first resistance by the nanny state to protect single issues which by themselves are largely indefensible in the current political climate.

If you haven't figured what I'm getting at yet, what Republicans have learned from libertarians is to adopt a pattern of practiced and and almost endemic disorganization, to fail utterly in rallying and holding the troops in key issues,  and to find themselves scattered at the first sign of resistance.  Like those they often themselves cast aspersions on, they have learned a pattern of failed tactics in everything from discovering what their message is to getting their message out.  They have allowed their opponents to characterize them and their ideas (much as with libertarians, such characterization becomes about legalizing drugs and prostitution), without demanding an understanding of the core philosophy from which such ideals germinate.  Far too often, they are now forced from the debate not because of flaws in their position, but by the outmaneuvering of their opponents.

Yes, unfortunately the GOP has learned the worst of what the libertarian party has to offer, rather than accepting its best.  Perhaps its a sign that we are in fact witnessing the last days of a party in retreat and the ascension of one only now beginning to learn its way. I can't yet say for sure.  I think however that if conservative principles are to play a realistic part in the national debate however, one of the two needs to learn a better way of cat herding for both's sake.  
  

TFP Column: College Education

While I have been rather tardy in the delivery my work to the TFP lately, this week I found myself almost too early.  The implications of an issue that I had been paying minor attention over the last week struck struck a chord over the weekend after reading an article by Neil King Jr. in the Wall Street Journal; and I thought that it was something worth talking about.

You see, the Republicans had decided to meet in North Carolina, something that I'm sure had nothing to do with the fact that the weather is warmer there this time of year than in say Minneapolis; or that the Democrats had their national convention there in 2012.  It seems that like every political party does after losing an election, some of the party faithful like to get together to figure out what they did wrong and to discuss some ideas on how to do it better.  During this year's GOP gabfest, a little understood part of the system of presidential voting was getting a second look by a number of Republicans during that meeting.

Sure I could tell you about it here, but then you would miss the "College Education" that I'm happy to provide in this week's effort.  It's quite amazing what small changes on the the parts of States might make in the larger national picture.

Of course this is my second effort over just the last three or four days, and comes just barely after the distribution of the print edition.  This doesn't mean that I won't come up with something else before next weekend (in spite of it being a short week for me owing to some personal travel), but it does mean that I won't have a clue of what's coming up in either the mid-week "Star" edition or next weekend's.  So I guess you're going to have to look for yourself if you want to have a clue about what's going on in the Glass City by reading Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's best weekly paper for years ... The Toledo Free Press.

Quantity Isn't Quality

One of the joys (sarcastically speaking, of course) of writing about politics is the necessity of listening to the speeches of their national conventions. These carefully crafted efforts have often become the launching pads for future political careers, as well as defining moments in elections, and as such these opportunities are carefully awarded.

Don't worry, I'll spare you any careful analysis of the shaded truth, jingoistic wisdom, and outright lies that we were subjected to in back-to-back conventions to talk instead about the sheer abundance of rhetoric that voters were subjected to by echelons of representatives. There was plenty of analysis during the conventions after all, and thank goodness they're finally over.  As we examine the sheer volume of bloviating however let's at least not that there was indeed a hierarchy to the performers and to the time allotted to deliver 'a few well-chosen words'.

Tier 3

These are the cheerleaders encouraged to whip the crowd into a frenzy with their inspirational orations before the main act, and their time is limited. Former White House Chief of Staff and now Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emmanuel for example, delivered a speech of some 1257 well chosen words; in a modest bit of bombast; and Democratic Keynote speaker San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro delivered an effort of just less than 2100 words at the pinnacle of his convention's Tier 3 efforts.

By comparison, Republicans trotted out up-and-comer Florida Senator Marc Rubio, who graced us with 1735 words. Surprisingly (and perhaps even suspiciously), New Jersey Governor Chris Christie delivered an effort of identical length; apparently not realizing that as Keynote Speaker, he had been awarded a larger allotment. 

Speaking of suspicious, I couldn't help by notice that former Governor of Arkansas and now Fox News personality Mike Huckabee delivered a speech of exactly 1776 words (something which I'm sure should be considered simply a patriotic coincidence for those without tin-foil chapeaus).

Tier 2

These higher ranking spokespeople are normally the spouses of the candidates which are used by them to explain their significant others; and this year both delivered reasonable efforts of greater lengths. Mitt Romney's wife Ann, evidently well-versed in rhetoric and numeric protocol, delivered a pronouncement of some 2331 words. It was greater than her Tier 3 predecessors, while allowing room to grow for those to come after. 

First Lady Michelle Obama, understanding that being is more than seeking, used her slightly greater status to give us about 3034 well-chosen words on her and her husband's behalf.   (Though perhaps such length had to do with the fact that even after 3-1/2 years in office, we know less about her husband than about any other person on the planet.)

Much like the GOP in Tier 3, Democrats had a celebrity Tier 2 speaker this year in the form of former President Clinton; whose status as a former Tier 1 put him greater in this Tier 2 arena (as did his performance). Being a savvy campaigner who apparently missed the big stage, President Clinton held onto the spotlight long enough to deliver 3190 words to insure everyone understood his abilities and his stature (current and former).

Tier 1

Tier 1 is reserved for the candidates and running mates, and they were well aware of it. Mitt Romney's selection, Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan came through with an effort of some 3229 words (slightly more than Clinton even without knowing). Our current VP Joe Biden came in only slight less with 3063 words.  In spite of extensive research, I was unable to discover if this lesser number had to do with feelings of inadequacy where Ryan and Clinton were concerned, or simply the Democratic party's heroic attempt to provide Biden less opportunity to produce a gaffe that even MSNBC couldn't spin.

When the candidates at the top of the pyramid took center stage, they too seemed naturally or artificially constrained to adhere to this unwritten etiquette.  Republican Mitt Romney managed to accept his party's nomination in approximately 4108 words. President Barack Obama took center stage as an incumbent President at his party's convention to accept an uncontested nomination in slightly greater effort of 4371 words.

By now you're probably pondering this statistical barrage, perhaps mildly curious about this even being noticed, and wondering what possible meaning it could have.  Since few of these speeches from either convention were soaring rhetoric and none produced ground breaking new policy, why so much concern over their length. It's the fact that so little was spoke about however, that's the point. Being subjected to hours of null value pontification aroused my curiosity as to how it might compare with other more eloquent and historically significant bits of rhetoric or composition. Here's the short list (literally) that came from the research that I did on the subject:  

• Ronald Reagan's 1987 “Tear Down This Wall” speech … 2672 words.
• The Declaration of Independence … 1458 words.
• John F Kennedy's 1960 “Ask not ...” Inaugural Address … 1364 words.
• George Washington's first Inaugural Address … 463 words.
• And what is often conceded as the finest piece of Presidential rhetoric ever publicly delivered, Abraham Lincoln's “Gettysburg Address” … 246 words.

It seems apparent that with the passage of time and in spite of the advantages of our candidates being more well-educated professional politicians, the assistance of media savvy speech writers to help insure a well written script, and computer aided teleprompters to aid in the actual performance; our politicians seem unable to qualitatively deliver the message regardless of the quantity of their rhetoric.

Perhaps in fact, these technological advances have become a crutch rather than an aid to their efforts.  Speaking only for myself after listening to all of it, I am at pains to point out that it's not the quantity of your rhetoric that moves us, but its quality.  If you truly do understand the problems facing this nation as you would like us to believe, it shouldn't take long-winded grandiloquence to inspire us, but instead grand ideas, simply expressed and easily carried out.  So if we seemed a bit inattentive at the conventions or bored at the campaign stops, by all means do take it to heart.  It isn't quantity we ask of you after all, but quality. 

Politcal Energy Policy

Both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions are over now. (Can I get a Hallelujah from the congregation?)  There were a number of things about them that I will undoubtedly talk about as time goes on, but one that stuck in my mind almost immediately had to do with the concept of Energy.  And not the kind that comes from fossils fuels, nuclear power plants, solar arrays, and wind turbines; though they'll be touched on in a roundabout way.

That after all, is what political conventions are really all about, isn't it?  The primary process in most cases picks the candidates before the conventions begin, and gathering the party faithful is designed to generate a little attention and excitement around those chosen party representatives. While the number of delegates for each state is predetermined by each party (Democrats choose more of their own than Republicans), the methods of choosing those delegates is largely left up to the states.  Without getting too far inside baseball here, I don't think that I'd get much argument by stating that those who make the final cut are those who've shown the most energy in working for the party in general and the candidates nominated in particular. (The Ron Paul campaign, almost managed to change a part of that, but its subversion was itself subverted after all arrived in Tampa.)  

The job of those delegates is to take the energy they possess down to the Convention, exhibit it in what is sometimes seen as an almost religious frenzy, and create even more by doing so.  They're then to bring that energy back to their respective states, share it with others of the faithful who were not permitted to attend, and use it to propel their candidate to final victory in the November elections.  While it's a process that's been used successfully for many years in this country, its very reason for being (Energy), may now be its downfall.

We live in a different world these days after all.  One in which we are all striving to be more conscious of our responsibilities to each other and to the planet we live on, more accepting of the diversity inherent in the human condition, and less concerned with the often competitive nature of everyday existence ....  (Sorry, a bit of an earlier meal attempted to come back on me after writing that last bit.)  One therefore has to wonder about the energy expended in a process that is about little more than a competitive spirit that we seem to have long since foresworn.

Cities compete (rather than simply participate) to host these political conventions.  Political parties compete to have bigger, flashier, and grander events than their counterparts.  Speakers compete for greater numbers of applause pauses, soundbites, and good reviews; while simultaneously competing to see who can generate the most energy in the faithful.  (I've heard that there's a side bet going on as to the volume of natural fertilize being generated, but no one will confess to it.)  If an actual floor fight is involved to get to a nomination, even more in the way of energy is expended in choosing between candidates who must be largely the same anyway in order to have reached this stage of the process.  Parties themselves compete for the bigger polling bump that their candidate can get from the convention process.  All of this energy generated and expended however, is nothing compared to the energy that these events consumed.

While both parties eventually get around to talking about their respective energy production policies in these club meetings, neither seems to get around to talking about the energy consumed by holding them in the first place.  We never hear about the carbon footprint of delegates flying into the host cities (let alone that of the corporate jets used by politicians, corporate sponsors, and lobbyists also attending).  We don't hear about what's consumed in convention halls, hotels, restaurants, and bars as party faithful, parasitic pundits and policy influencers (lobbyists), and power seekers burn the midnight oil and both ends of the candle during these events.  Neither does either party castigate the hundreds of mainstream media outlets, each of whom insists on bringing their own power-sucking cameras, generator requiring control trailers, and ponderous staffs to the event instead of following a more efficient policy of sharing and cooperation that often try to force down our throats where everything else in life is concerned.

No one talks about reducing the carbon dioxide expended (even though the EPA would like to limit it everywhere else) nor the hot air contributing to Global Warming that's generated each day on the convention floor. As each party's party closes in the traditional manner, do they stop to consider that in the thousands non bio-degradable balloons that they drop? Will any stop to ponder the environmental impact on landfills that so many rubber-chicken dinners will have, especially after they're piled on the Mt Everest size mound of discarded Starbucks coffee cups and plastic cocktail stirring sticks.  

Neither does any of this touch on the energy expended in vitriol by each major party for the other.  In spite of being largely and surprisingly in agreement on a wide variety of issues, they choose instead to focus 'negative' energy on those subjects on which they in some minor way disagree.  Using veiled threats, horrible misrepresentations, complete mischaracterizations, and shameful character assassinations they castigate each other in ways that would be considered rude and boorish under any other circumstances; while simultaneously extolling the desire for a future spirit of cooperation and compromise.

I cannot help but conclude therefore that while both may have some form of national energy policy, neither of the two major political parties appears to have a 'Political Energy Policy'.  Either that, or neither has one that's logically consistent with publicly stated goals and behavior of their members.  Not only do they appear to be extravagant and wasteful in the use of energy for their own selfish purposes (One which, by the way, is funded in some part by money earned through the expending of energy on the part of taxpayers.), but they seem hypocritical and deceitful in doing so in what should be considered an indecorous effort and an ill-mannered fashion. One could go further to say that such events are indecorous for promoting a spirit of competition that they are trying to stifle in every other aspect of our lives.  One could go so far as to call them politically incorrect for expending so much of what they constantly tell us are precious energy resources that must be carefully conserved in such partisan political events. 

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am obligated to point out that both parties do deserve some conservation credit for recycling candidates from past elections.

        

TFP Column: Wait Until Next Year

 

I don't often get to talk about my beloved Cubbies when writing for the TFP.  So you can imagine my disappointment when I only allow myself to bring them up when they are 30 games out of first in their division with no chance to break their World Series drought (the only drought I can think of that's worse than that here in KC).  Then again, Cubs fans have been looking at disappointing seasons (and getting far too used to them) for over 100 years with a yearning in their hearts for what might have been, and what might still one day come to pass.

It was with this point of view in mind that I found myself writing of what I saw in the aftermath of the Republican Convention.  It seemed to me that just like in 2008, members of the GOP were more excited about the running mates picked and the up-and-comers giving speeches during the convention than they were about the candidate they chose for the highest office in the land.  You may not agree with me (in fact you may violently disagree with me), but it certainly seems like Republicans are to some extent, already looking at their November prospects and telling themselves "Wait Until Next Time".  

One thing you're going to have a lot more difficulty not agreeing with me on however, is that if you want to know what's going on in Toledo and Northwest Ohio, the only real way to find out is to read Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and for the fourth time its Best Weekly Newspaper, the Toledo Free Press.

  

Feeling Unconventional

The Republican Convention in Tampa has been over for a few days now and the Democratic Convention is getting ready to begin its first prime time evening as I write this. I watched only a few of the speeches from the ponderous elephantine event last week that I thought would be worthwhile (and one I'll talk about later), so it would be only fitting that I give the jackass pronouncements of this week from Charlotte much the same treatment.  

The marvels of modern technology were in fact created for things like political conventions.  It allows us to use the vast resources of the 24-hour news networks and Internet to surf past the natural fertilizer production, occasional poor writing, and sometimes even worse delivery of some of those trotted onto the national stage for their fifteen minutes; saving ourselves to watch only the Sportscenter version of scoring plays.  Except for the die-hard supporters, monomaniacal detractors, and political camp followers; there is little reason for the rest of us to know or care about in the minute-by-minute goings on at the convention.  After all, the candidates had locked up their respective nominations long before.  It's not like we're going to get a surprise ending.

Oh hell, let's just admit that political parties seem unable to recognize that these events are so boring that Network television thinks that shows about middle-aged women with too much reconstructive surgery and too little sense of shame or caricatures of human beings buying somebody's left over crap out of a storage locker are more likely to garner viewers than the selection process of the national leader. (Sadly, they're right.)  

The organizers of these events have apparently failed to keep up with the tastes of their more technically advanced audience, in spite of their condescension to this 'New America' by showing 'tweets' and talking about blogging (while carefully holding back the elitist gagging).  Where's the Red Carpet?  Where are the vacuous, but pleasant looking interviewers asking the most attractive of the delegates from which designer they got that lovely 'Uncle Sam' stovepipe hat?  And if we have to put up with the 50 state drone of the roll call vote, why can't we have the delegates from each state illustrating what their state is famous for with musical numbers performed by the cast of 'Glee' instead of attempting us to tell us in stentorian tones that they are 'the pickle state'?

And speaking of delegates, did anyone tell the Republicans that they got cheated on the size of their gathering?  Only 2,286 of them got to pick their party's winner (or loser).  The Democrats meanwhile, are going to let 5,556 vote in an election where the incumbent is running unopposed.   Does this mean that Republicans tried to reduce the budget of their convention by comparison or should this be considered a 'draconion cut' in representation?  As for Democrats, does having more than twice as many delegates make them more Democratic, or does it simply mean that their convention will have a bigger carbon footprint?  On balance however, you have to hand it to Democrats for being on point by demonstrating to the nation that letting greater numbers vote is a good thing, and inconsistent by making attendees show a picture ID (something they continue to fight for the November process) before doing so.    

As far as the soaring rhetoric that was and will be delivered in these two weeks, I still think Sam Seaborn and Toby Ziegler wrote better for "The West Wing".  I'm sure however, that those in Charlotte will perform their parts equally as well as their predecessors in Tampa.  Carefully scripted with 'applause pauses' (some of which will be missed) there will be touching stories, fire and brimstone threats, and inspirational moments enough to energize the already faithful to wave their pre-printed signs and chant what are probably well-rehearsed catchphrases (just as the camera cuts away from the speaker on stage to the party faithful).  Test audience reactions will then be carefully weighed by backstage media consultants to decide which ones will be re-used in campaign speeches in the weeks ahead.

And there will be the occasional slip.  Now don't get me wrong here because I have nothing but the greatest respect for Clint Eastwood as a writer, director, actor, and musician.  I likewise believe that the act of going on that stage with a chair as a last minute prop and without a script may have shown more courage than his Dirty Harry character ever showed in film.  I even believe he made a couple of points that needed to be made.  I also believe that Clint Eastwood the director, as a renowned artist behind the camera famous for delivering consummate visual perfection of image and dialogue can only look back at the occasionally rambling performance that he gave and want to yell, "Cut!  OK, let's reset, take it from the top, and shoot another take".   

That too however, is the nature of a political convention.  These are live shows after all, except for the visual images carefully displayed behind the speakers; images to inspire feelings of patriotism, fidelity, and reverence.  Oh yeah, and let's not forget the combination of music, equally carefully chosen so that young voters know that the party is 'hip' (Do they still use that word?); but not so hip that middle-aged and senior voters feel that they've lost touch.

No, the truth of the matter is that political conventions have become little more than poorly directed awards ceremonies.  The political faithful gather in a 'fun town' for a gathering where they can set aside complaints that there's too much money in politics long enough for them to be properly and lavishly entertained.  Each party's delegates can gather together with like-minded people to sympathize with each other about how little the other party's 'stinking, lousy, rat bastards' care about toning down the vitriol and personal attacks in political campaigns; a situation that can only fixed if their candidate kicks the shit of his P.O.S. opponent and their party takes control and shuts up their opposing opinions once and for all.  

Might I dare to suggest that if this is the way the parties are going to conduct their business in the future however, that they might want to seek out proven 'hosts' to keep things up tempo and on track, get the TV ratings back where they belong, and garner more coverage for their respective parties.  For apparently like me, most of the nation appears to be feeling decidedly unconventional.

(I'm thinking Billy Crystal's proven track record would serve the Democrats well, and Dennis Miller could well provide the answer for the Republicans.  If we have to be inspired for 2-3 evenings, the least the parties could do is give us an occasional laugh to blunt the pain.)

Less Is Most Definitely More

There's been a little sniping in the mainstream media as the 112th Congress begins its summer vacation.  Of course it's not really a summer vacation because since the middle of the Bush years, neither house of Congress likes to adjourn because it allows a sitting President to make recess appointments that might otherwise not pass the Senate.  Lately the recess appointments have been made anyway, which would seem to make the idea of staying in session to prevent it from happening rather ludicrous; but then again 'rather ludicrous' is usually a safe descriptor of Congress anyway.  But I digress ......

The apparent complaint with our National Legislative body is that it has accomplished too little in the way of passing laws, and therefore has not done its duty. Derision is cast on the 112th Congress for passing a repeal on Obamacare, something that many of those running for seats promised that they would do if elected.  Of course the fact that they passed such legislation 33 times since taking office might be a bit excessive, but could perhaps be explained as simply a reminder that occasionally political promises are kept .... even when doing so is meaningless.

Speaking of meaningless, ABC tells us that Congress has however proposed 60 bills to rename Post Offices, 38 of which passed Congress and 26 were signed into law.  Of course they failed to pass a law to fix the Post Office's indebtedness or even force it to fix itself.  As a consequence, the National Department Snail Mail defaulted on a previous Congressional mandate to pre-fund $5.5 billion in health benefits.  (I guess the check must have gotten lost in the mail.)  While I tend to agree with the assessment of ABC in the poor handling of the Post Office woes (oops sorry, felt like something was trying to come back up on me after making that statement), personally I find this lack of productivity rather refreshing.

The Washington Post disagrees however, and went even further in castigating those now on holiday by showing rather graphically the lack of legislative productivity from the most recent bunch; an illustration which must make Ohio's Speaker Boehner proud.

Courtesy of the Washington Post

Apparently being a newspaper inside the Beltway (though only just barely in the Springfield, VA facility) means that they are, like Congress itself, incapable of a proper assessment where this subject is concerned.  There are far too many laws and regulations in this country already, passed by the eager minds and overly productive hands of a group of people who always seem to legislate for everyone but themselves.  The mind numbing size of the Federal Register alone (the big book of Federal Regulations) has grown rather remarkably over the years from its humble origins of 2,620 pages during the FDR Administration.  In fact, the feds recently took this tome online as the only way to deal with its forest killing proportions, since it adds some 70,000 to 83,000 pages per year. (And probably a good deal more than that this year.)  

That being the case, perhaps we should be giving a standing ovation to lawmakers for the gridlock, deadlock, and partisanship which has characterized the 112th.  (Yeah, I know.  I find the idea of applauding politicians nauseating too.)   Maybe in their final session before the end of the year (which for some will include some lame duck time), we can get them to walk back some of the nonsense they and their predecessors have done over the years; subtracting rather than adding to the confusion of overlapping and contradictory federal, state, and local laws.

But listen, let's not stop with merely handing out kudos to the junior legislative body.  How about a shout out to those on the senior circuit with a 6 year-term to play with.  Oh sure you can talk about the arcane rules of the Senate, and how they've been manipulated to prevent real action on the floor; but one can't help but recognize a bunch of guys who haven't even managed to pass a budget mandated by law in three years.  That's non-performance on an epic scale.

So while the media seems intent on deriding Congress for less bang for the buck (understandable certainly, since it is filled with Republicans after all), I think that we can all easily recognize the debt of gratitude the we owe to the Senate Majority Leader for sitting in a cave on a rock and eating raw fish while contemplating 'his precious' ring of power, one that he may well lose for bringing his part of the national legislature almost to a standstill.  (Oh come on, admit it.  He does look like Gollem.)  Many may find Sen Reid's recent activities objectionable or even detestable, but for myself, I cannot help but recognize that a lack of new legislation equals a lack of new restriction.  While the Majority Leader may be seen by many as an obstacle to progress, I see him as a shining example of what government can do best for the people ... next to nothing.  (Though I can't help but wonder when he and his fellow Democrats will inherit 'the Party of No' mantle that they so richly deserve.)

My only disappointment in all of this is that in spite of the lack of productivity in the legislature, spending continues to increase.  Even in this apparent record level of impotence, these 435 non-union salaried employees seem to be able to throw more money away that their more productive predecessors.  I only wish it were possible to truly celebrate their lack of legislative potency with a corresponding level of frivolous monetary disbursement.  More spending, more borrowing, and more scrutiny over every aspect of our lives.  Yes it appears that were the federal government is concerned these days, even their less is definitely more.

 

The 2012 Budget Debate: Silent Surrender

Can anyone remember the heady days in the run up to the 2010 elections?  Does anyone still remember the promises made about what would happen to the size of government and the profligate level of spending being condoned in Congress if the right people were sent to represent us?  But we were going to show them, weren't we?  We were going to send a bunch REPUBLICANS to the House of Representatives and turn the ship of state around.  Rallying around their party battle cry, we were going to see $100 billion in spending cuts happen in the next budget if the GOP took control.

Well we gave the Grand Old Party their majority, at least in the House of Representatives, and what did we get in 2011 as a result?  Well for starters we got a budget with proposed cuts of only $61 billion instead of the promised $100 billion. We were disappointed of course, but after all even a cut of $61 billion out of an annual budget of over $3.7 trillion was nothing to sniff at.  (Actually it was, but we all choked down the bile, bit our tongues, and put the best face we could on it.)

That of course, was before this budget went to Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid was less than thrilled with the 'draconian cuts' that that Republicans in Congress were proposing.  He refused even to bring a vote to the Senate floor on what was purported to be an annual budget cut of 1.6%, in spite of the fact that it still would have provided more being spent than the government had spent in 2010.  (Some day, someone will have to explain the 'government-speak' that allows government to spend more than in the previous year and even use the word 'cut' in the sentence describing it, but there's no time for that today.)     
In the end, the Senate agreed to allow a vote on a 'cut' of some $38 billion dollars for the 2011 federal budget. (Now we're down to a 1% cut, but $38 is kind of  close to the original $100 billion, right?)  But wait, we're not done yet.  

According to an AP story in the Washington Post at the time, because of how long it took the House and Senate to reach an agreement and because the compromise reached for cuts was only on 'discretionary spending', the amount of the actual spending cut from the budget was in fact $352 million.  For those of you unwilling or unable to do the math for yourselves, this meant that Republican control of the House was able to bring about a total federal budget reduction of .0095%. (Are you impressed yet?)

But that was then and this is now, right?  Surely now that freshmen Republicans earned their spurs and learned a bit more how things are done in Congress, now that Ohio's own John Boehner is a bit more comfortable with his role as Speaker of the House; things would be different and real spending cuts will being made in 2012.  Not so fast, my friends ...

In a story posted in REDSTATE.com today, budget cuts recently proposed in the House by Republicans are in fact being rejected (at least in part) by the Republican majority in that legislative body:

"McClintock (R-CA) – Cuts the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program by $1.45 billion. Rejected 113-275.
Chaffetz (R-UT) – Cuts the Advanced Manufacturing Program by $74 million, to FY 2011 levels. Rejected 140-245.
McClintock (R-CA) – Eliminates nuclear energy research subsidies (saves $514 million). Rejected 106-281.
Chabot (R-OH) – Eliminates funding for the regional commissions, such as the Appalachian Regional Commission (saves $99.3 million). Rejected 141-276.
Blackburn (R-TN) – Cuts 1% across the board (would cut $321 million). Rejected 157-261.
Mulvaney (R-SC) – Brings the bill toward RSC budget levels by cutting a total of $3.1 billion across almost all accounts. Rejected 125-293.
King (R-IA) – Prohibits funding of Davis-Bacon union wage requirements. Rejected 184-235.
Flake (R-AZ) – Across the board spending cut that would keep funding at FY 2012 levels ($87.5 million savings). Rejected 144-274."

While they were at it and during this same legislative period, the House passed H.R 5882 to keep Legislative Branch Appropriations at the same level as in 2011.  So not only has the Republican majority in the House managed to reject spending cuts that have been offered by members of its own party, but it has managed to do so in an election year while drawing little or no media attention to itself.

Why is all of this important?  Because while the federal government hoped, through its last compromise, to avoid taking up the issue of raising the debt ceiling before the 2012 elections; little of that hope now remains.  After raising the debt ceiling of the country by some $2 trillion less than a year ago, this nation seems to have once again reached its legislatively mandated credit limit.  So once more the two legislative Houses will have to take up discussion as to whether we can continue to run up debt like an evil Wall Street brokerage house or irresponsible 'too big to fail' bank without consequences to those watching the nation's purse strings.

In light of the Republican party's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory the last time this debate took place, one cannot help but wonder if someone in the party's leadership will have the intestinal fortitude to take a stand (other than one imitating Custer's Last One).  One must likewise wonder what the Republican Presidential nominee's position on this debate will be, and whether he will attempt to show leadership, sit on the sidelines, or run for political cover.  Finally, one cannot help but wonder if a party attempting to rally its conservative base to keep control of the House, win control of the Senate, and send its candidate to the White House; can do so if its strategy in the debate continues to be an all but silent surrender.

   

The Lessons of Scott Walker

Having said it likely that I would wait until the weekend to post, here I am again (which I suppose  means that I am as untrustworthy as some of the politicians I write about).   I  simply found that the more I listened to the talking heads on both sides of the political spectrum discuss the Wisconsin vote, the angrier I got.  I am therefore going to weigh while the ink is still drying on the Wisconsin tallies.

One of the few things more amusing than seeing the mainstream media handed their collective butts in an election is watching the Olympic back-pedaling of the losers and the massive overreaching of the winners when the final results of such an election are finally tallied.

After Ohio's Governor Kasich took a drubbing for the failed effort in his state to gain the restrictions of public sector workers, the left was all but convinced that Governor Walker would receive a similar shellacking, especially with the numbers of signatures on the recall petitions.  In spite of the fact that Walker seemed to be consistently ahead in the polls, we were told to expect his demise.  

Well the results are in now and the reports Scott Walker's demise were apparently greatly exaggerated.  He will remain the governor of Wisconsin, by what appears to be a lead of 53% to 46% over Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.  And even as Badgers were going to the polls, the pundits were lining up with excuses and prophecies.

I for one was amazed at the amount of whine produced in Wisconsin, as those on the left quickly pointed out that Barrett, after all, was not the Union supported candidate in the Democratic primary (refusing to acknowledge that the fact that his beating of that union candidate should have been saying something).  Lest Union power and dignity suffer unduly, they were also quick to point out that outside money being spent on the left was being significantly outspent by outside money from the right. (I was curious that no mention was made about the impact of the opposite having happened in Ohio last year).  

Before the dust had settled, we were likewise reminded that Ohio and Wisconsin were different situations, since the Ohio proposal included safety workers and Walker's in Wisconsin didn't.  According to this form of spin we're supposed to believe that voters, who often have trouble distinguishing the candidate's political parties, understood the subtle shading of these arguments seven months later.  I suppose it's equally possible that we should instead believe that safety workers, having no dog in this hunt, simply threw their Union brethren under the bus; but I heard no one mention this potential.

Last but not least, we were told that in spite of the Walker win, Barack Obama was still polling better than Mitt Romney.  (This is known as the, "Oh yeah, your family has a better car, well mine has a better house.  Nyeh!" response; and is usually limited to the playground in kindergarten.)  By the time they were done, all I cold hear was John Belushi crying out to Carrie Fisher in 'The Blues Brothers', "It's not my fault!"

For their part and much like with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts a few years back, those on the Right were busy announcing the second coming of the Republican Party to the tune of "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead".  They were equally vocal (and close to being as poor a sport in winning as the left was doing in losing) in predicting that the results of this election was a mere foretelling of Republicans increasing their lead in the House, taking over the majority in the Senate, and ultimately winning the Presidency.  They were not only as excited as a new puppy, I think that in a couple cases they actually peed on the rug.

In all of this, they like their opponents were also wrong (at least in my opinion).  

Scott Walker did not become the first governor to beat a recall election because he was a Republican.  He did so because he's one of the few elected officials out there (along with members of the Wisconsin legislature) to understand what needed to be done and when, in order to balance the budget of the state in his charge.  For this, those who originally voted for him did so again. 

He knew that raising taxes was an unacceptable option, and that cutting spending was the only answer.  He knew that public sector employee health and retirement benefit programs were only going to become worse if nothing was done about them.  He likewise knew that laying off public sector employees and reducing services had to remain a last resort.  In this, he was in some ways like his counterpart in Ohio, and their contemporary Chris Christie in New Jersey.  Regardless of the path taken, all have managed to achieved a balanced budget for States under their care (unlike their ridiculous counterpart in Illinois). Unfortunately, this is not necessarily an example of Republican values when viewed on a grander scale.  

Oh don't get me wrong, Republicans will certainly talk about small government and fiscal responsibility when on the political stump, but talk is usually all you get.  (Remember the budget discussions of last year, and the 'Incredible Shrinking Budget Cuts' that resulted.)  Upon achieving national office, they mostly seem to revert to a kind with their brethren on the left.  Republicans have never had any problem spending, their difference was little more than the rate at which they did it.  We were still spending more than we were taking in when Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House.  We just hadn't loosed the deficit dogs, running up debt like a country that never expected to pay it back except by inflating a portion of it into non-existence.  (Wait, that's exactly what we we're doing ... oh, never mind.)

Social Security and Medicare were both still going broke, and the Republican answer was to add a prescription drug program to make it happen quicker.   Regulatory agency budgets at the EPA, HHS, and the Security agencies were increased annually; and added to as required when the Department of Homeland Security was formed.  As for Defense spending; of course it had to go up.  There were two wars to be fought after all.  Oh sure there was talk about shutting down the NEA, but it never amounted to anything.  There was also talk of streamlining the tax code, and with it the IRS; but nothing ever came of it but empty rhetoric.

If all of this is the case, what then can we learn from Governor Walker maintaining his office?  Perhaps it's simply that even in a state as progressive Wisconsin, sometimes people will overlook political theory and keep someone in office who's getting the job done.  It might be that people are getting tired of the way things have always been, and want real change (not hope and change).   They're sick of what has largely become an over-priced and dysfunctional form of governance and want one that understands its limited power and even more limited finances.  On the other hand, maybe this is just the acorn that the blind squirrel finds once in a while.

As for what this taught (or at least should have taught) the two major political parties, I expect neither learned anything.  They've become too bloated, too power-hungry, and too set in their ways to learn from a simple lesson right in front of their eyes in Wisconsin.  Elections are not necessarily won by greater spending, more effective bullying, or more masterful rhetoric and spin.  Ultimately they are won by those who show up to vote; and increasingly, that group is made up of people who are really pissed at both of you.


So endeth the lesson ....



  

TFP Column: Selling Stupid

When you've been around sales as long as I have, you begin to recognize who's got a good pitch and who's got a lousy one.  You also wonder how some can manage to make a great pitch with a lousy product and some make an embarrassingly horrible one with a good, or even a great product.

So it was this week, that I began to look at the upcoming November election in terms of both the product that each of the two major parties were pitching, and at the way that they had prepared and packaged their ideas for the voters that they were trying to sell. The result is this week's effort in the TFP, "Selling Stupid", a title which you will understand soon after you begin reading.

Since this effort looks to go up on the website pretty early this week, you'll understand that you have a lot to look forward to.  Not only is the mid-wee 'Star' edition covering the incredible line up of super hero movies coming out this summer, but there's little doubt that this weekend's TFP will, as always, have a few super pieces of its own.

But what else could you expect from Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's best weekly newspaper for the third straight year, the Toledo Free Press.  

Primary Education

In spite of the fact that the primary process is not over, it appears that it is.  President Obama after all, was running unopposed for the Democratic nomination, proving once again what George Ade said long ago that, "Anybody can win unless there happens to be a second entry".  In spite of a marginal approval rating and less than marginal economy, President Obama will easily receive his party's nomination to run for a second term.

After the initial assumption by Republicans that no one could beat Mitt Romney for his party's nomination, one that was proved false on more than one occasion, he now appears to be the last man standing in process that proved only slightly more entertaining than the Rosie O'Donnell Show (which the Oprah Network recently cancelled). While Romney hasn't got the delegate count required to officially end the process, even his most ardent detractors are all but conceding his victory, and beginning to fall in line in order to present a united front in time for the convention. 

Looking back at what's gone on so far however, the glaring questions in my mind aren't about the candidates (whose real test is yet before them), but about the primary process itself.  

We might start for example with the insistence on the primacy of Iowa and New Hampshire to kick off the process individually, in spite of a complete lack of credible reasoning to continue this archaic process. Other than drawing attention to states which nothing else normally does, there's no logical reason to allow it to go on.  

Immediately following, we can add in the constant shuffling of primary dates by states across the rest of the country hoping to make their own relevant.  In spite of constant threats by national parties of sanctions for doing so, this never-ending 'me first' attitude has done nothing but drag the process out.  (Isn't it amazing that this infighting doesn't make us question whether political parties who cannot seem to control their memberships are capable of accepting the leadership of a nation?)

Isn't it in fact curious that at a time when so many claim that the big problem with politics today is the money involved, they insist on a long primary process that's as much proof of a candidates ability to raise money as it is to raise the enthusiasm of his own parties political base?  Of course, we're told that as the process continues, we learn more about each candidate.  Bullshit!  All that happens over time is the candidates manage to smooth the rough edges off of stump speeches they'll eventually need in the actual election, while likewise learning to tailor them to individual audiences across the country.

Why must this process (like every other in politics) favor incumbent candidates, who either don't have to compete or spend from their war chests or have money left over from previous efforts?  Why can't this process be about the best people expressing the brightest ideas, regardless of when they hit the national stage?  Why can't those ideas be ones that they've long held and which persuaded them to run for office in the first place, instead of ones that they're only now recognizing as they "travel all across this great land of ours, talking to hard-working American people"? 

Why can't we learn from past mistakes and successes in this process?  So let's take this as an educational example of potential improvement.

Why can't we start the process on April 16, the day after the American voter truly learns what the price of democracy is (more on that later)?  It certainly seems a fitting date.  We can begin with three or four debates to give an understanding of each candidate's principles, and start the actual voting process in the middle of May.

We could then run five "Super Tuesdays" of ten states each; two weeks apart (and if Iowa and New Hampshire insist on being in the first group, that's  OK with me).  Interspersed with these primary groupings, four additional debates could be held if requested or required by circumstances.  The entire process would be over in ten weeks, and still allow Parties to hold nominating conventions in plenty of time for the election. 

Such a concentrated process would make many more of these primaries meaningful, coming as close together as they would.  They would also have the intended consequence that the process would no longer be one of who could raise enough money to last out an admittedly overlong process, but whose core principles would stand up best in this concentrated marketplace of ideas.

While were at it, why not eliminate the ones like Missouri's; which while it allows a popular vote, only allows one that has nothing to do with picking delegates or nominating a candidate.  If these states wish to hold primaries, the least that they can do for voters is to keep them from being a meaningless sham.  

Perhaps most importantly, by changing and concentrating the process, we can make the political parties themselves pay for some portion (if not all) of these private beauty contests.  I can find nothing in the Constitution which mandates the need for political parties, and nothing that therefore requires that the taxpayers of the states holding them foot the bill.  

One could (and perhaps even should) therefore demand that if taxpayers must in fact pay for any part of this party process, that all primaries be open ones in which voters are allowed a ballot regardless of prior party affiliation (or lack thereof).  It seems a violation of voting rights and a particularly egregious offense that Republicans and Democrats are capable of billing the American people for their private processes, and then refusing them the right to participate in them.

Listen, Democracy is never perfect; and even the Founding Fathers recognized the dangers of the representative republic they were creating.  Forming political parties in fact, was something that they did reluctantly.  None of what has become the primary process however, is defined or mandated in the language of the document that created this government.  

It's up to us to do what we can therefore, to see that we get the best possible candidates that we can to hand over the limited reins and responsibilities for the highest office in the land (and those of the legislature).  There's a lot about the twisted path that we find ourselves on that will be difficult to straighten out, perhaps cleaning up the primary process however could be seen as a truly 'shovel ready project'.  

Too Much Drama, Too Little Effect

I am often astonished and appalled by the increasing amount of phony drama being all but inescapably paraded before us every day.  The juvenile and farcical creation of heroes and villains, of success and failure, and of winners and losers in these awful performances are as spurious as they're sad.

No I'm not talking about the bogus build up generated during the hackneyed and unimaginative (everything but) reality shows that dominate television these days, but about the ever increasing amount frenzy that the political parties and pundits seem to want to find in the run up to the 2012 election.  Of course the campaigns have now drug on so long that perhaps the only way they feel that they can keep the voter's interest is to manufacture a bit of hysteria where each of the candidates is concerned, but the hype of such histrionics cannot be confused with actual interest.

Like a movie director frantically attempting to keep an audience on the edge of their seats for the entire ninety minutes of the movie, all they end up doing is exhausting their audience.  Unable to build higher or even maintain the necessary anxiety for months instead of minutes, they've left all but the most fervent supporters bored with the process, wishing they'd gotten a larger bucket of popcorn so they'd have something to distract themselves with, and waiting for the final credits to roll so that they can escape a theater that's become little more than a prison.

Apparently however, a media that's already gone too far down the path of synthetic stimulation in its offerings to return, and either can't see or refuses to acknowledge that their audience is now mostly unmoved by the shabby performances being given by the bad actors who've taken the stage.  Only the critics (pundits) still seem enamored of the process and able to maintain any enthusiasm (perhaps because they're paid to) for a political puppet show that's gone on for far too long already.  Their continued attempts to exploit any crumbs of excitement dropped in their path are as inept as they are futile.

Perhaps the problem is simply that in today's version of entertainment (and they've turned this process into little else), people are used to far more variety.  If you don't like the reality shows, you can watch the game shows.  If those don't tickle your fancy you can watch a mystery series, a situation comedy, or a classic movie. Food is much the same.  If a steak isn't on your menu of choice, have a cheeseburger.  If you aren't interested in chicken, go Chinese or Mexican or Thai.  The veritable cornucopia of choices laid before us in every aspect of today's society is as varied as it's vast; and even with all of this potpourri available, we often find it difficult to choose.

Not so in politics however.  Not only do many of the candidates begin to run together like the ice cream in the bottom of the bowl on a banana split, but it doesn't take long for us to realize that none of them seems to be different from the others.  The miserable morass that congeals at the bottom of the bowl becomes little more than a tired memory of flavor, little more than imagined by the media serving them.  Sadly in the end, the dish proves mostly tasteless, even while being served in heaping quantities for no other reason than disguise the lack of substance. 

For beyond the individual candidates, we're ultimately left with the same two tired choices that we've looked at for a century.  Oh there once may have been actual differences between Democrats and Republicans, but these days it all seems to taste like chicken, and rubber chicken at that. Voters, long starved of anything of substance to choose from, have finally begun to realize that regardless of which party wins the Presidency, the House, or the Senate; things are likely to go on pretty much the way that they have been. 

And why shouldn't they understand this to be the case?  Republican Administrations expand government as much as Democratic ones do.  Party majorities in the House and Senate make little difference to the mountain of debt and the growing entitlement mentality that Washington continues to embrace and expand.  The mock battles that occur on the floor of the legislature or between it and the White House, more often appear to be both badly scripted and poorly performed, with their outcome as predetermined as a wrestling match.  The dramatic but counterfeit carnage created by these supposedly epic battles proves all but bloodless, and the allegedly hard fought peace that's eventually forged seems more like pointless capitulation than the common ground compromise that the combatants celebrate with a mixture of sadness and ceremony.

While there's little surprise that a weary audience has already lost much of its interest, perhaps there's a method to this madness as well.  Perhaps it's the hope of the two great acting troupes that by wearing down even the most dedicated part of the audience, our gratitude for the process finally ending will be so great that we will at least for a while ignore the fact that nothing has really changed.  Perhaps there is a method to the madness of the lengthy performance of this tawdry play, with the directors working feverishly behind the scenes to manipulate the 'sheeple' that most have become into quietly returning to the herd.

And while some few may remain untouched, crying out in anguish at the tired melodrama that they've been subjected to for little amusement and no entertainment; most will instead gratefully return to find out which "American Idol" will next be "Dancing with the Stars", and celebrating the political actors that haven't been voted off "Survivor: Washington DC".  Few indeed will recognize that the real "Undercover Bosses" of this nation have once again worked their magic, and that it's only in their efforts that we discover that "America's Got Talent".  It may make for little more than a Bread and Circuses form of entertainment for the masses, but for me it's far to much drama for far too little effect.