Saturday, August 19, 2006

US Democrats compress presidential calendar | US News |

US Democrats compress presidential calendar | US News |

I'm not a member of a political party.

I have never been a member of a political party, I probably never will be, but I kind a wish that there was a party to which I would like to be invited. Am I missing out of some fun?

Belonging to the Republican or Democratic party these days is sort of like being a fan of a Major League Baseball team. You might get interested by one or two players or strategies, but these things by their nature will change every few years. You then stick through the winnings and losings because you're comfortable, because you know where the cleanest restrooms are, because, well, they're still in the game, aren't they?

It's particularly present in the Republican party these days - a Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, or even a Goldwater Republican wouldn't recognize the party today. The majority of the tiny minority that keeps the barely-conservative current administration in power hardly understands what the elite plans for these what's-the-matter-with-Kansas crowd. The current Rove-army is very smart at getting their people elected largely against the self-interest of many of the people who vote for them.

If the Democrats wantopinioninon, they should not take subtle strategic moves like these movements of primaries. They should require a primary, with common rules, in each of the fifty states, on the same day. Let's pick May 15.

That gives six months for their nominees to campaign - well enough. It gives the national party less influence on any one state, but I'm sure they will allocate engery, time, money, money, money, to the states where their efforts will produce candidates that will influence the national election, (did I say money?).

Let's say the Republicans do this too. In 2008. A six month presidential election. Let's say they agree that the six months will be spent with at least one joint appearance in each of the 50 states, in a large public facility, with full media coverage (every radio and TV outlet will carry this in the local area). Two presidential candidates talking to each other - discussing, debating, maybe estrategiczing, in front of a non-cherry-picked audience that would be seeing the same show, without filters.

I must say that a candidate with the obvious lack of appropriate knowledge communicationsions skills as our current president would never have made it through this process. Wouldn't you agree?

No comments: