FWIW #4: Morons...Party of 2...Morons...

          For What It's Worth

    by [e-mail]

      OK, I want a quick show of
hands...Who out there really,
really believes, at the end of the
day, that their party truly con-
sists only of all the good people
of the world while the other party
is, at best, a gang of cut-throats
who really are out to destroy our
beloved country at their very first
opportunity?
      Yeah, that's what I was afraid
of. OK...How many of you out there
are Republicans? I see...Now, how
many are Democrats? Interesting,
virtually a 50-50 split among those
who raised their hands. The few
that didn't raise your hands are
Independents, I presume? Yes, but
there are still a couple who didn't
raise your hands. That's because...
Oh, I see....it's because you feel
that siding with either party is a
humongous waste of time? Looks
like there's hope for the human
race, after all.
    Oh...I almost forgot...Of those
out there with a party affiliation,
who votes a "straight party ticket?"
In other words, who votes either
exclusively Republican or exclus-
ively Democrat regardless of
candidate qualifications and/or
public record? (In some cases,
regardless of police record, too)!
      OK, that's more than I would
have guessed (or hoped). (Actually,
even one is more than I would have
hoped). Thank you for your part-
icipation today....if we have any
further questions we'll be in touch,
OK?
      I'll bet that some of you out
there may have picked up from my
general tone that I'm not a real big
supporter of the two-party system
as currently exists in our modest
little country. And, that would be
correct. I am forever amazed at
just how defensive each side gets
whenever criticized by the other.
Even though, with amazing fre-
quency and equal distribution,
another crook is revealed on one
side or the other seemingly daily.
However, for the brief period that
the non-offending party enjoys
before somebody on their side
gets nailed, they invariably jump
up and down and point their fingers
and say, "See, they're all a bunch
of no-good common criminals!"
Then they walk around with a
"holier-than-thou" attitude for
about 30 or 40 seconds until
somebody on their side gets
popped for something similar,
or worse!
      What is it going to take for
people to realize (and acknowledge)
that both parties have a stunningly
equal share of intelligent humans
along with the political equivalent
of cow manure?
      Not only that, but how can you
honestly feel - regardless of party
affiliation - that your party really has
your best interests at heart? Never,
never think that your needs ever were,
or ever will be placed higher than
that of the party. The party has all
the power; holds all the cards. Then
the politician. Are you really naive
enough to think - even for a milli-
second - that any politician is go-
ing to lay his or her neck on the
line for a low-life like you? He's
got his career to think about, Jack.
He's also got to think about return-
ing political favors. Even within the
party, you don't think support doesn't
have a pretty heft price tag? Let's
just put it this way: If Joe Blow gave
me the political backing I needed to
further my agenda, you can bet your
sweet recall petition that I have to
support Joe Blow's agenda, even if
it compromises my principles. That's
the essence of politics right there
in a nutshell.
      Let's go back to those who vote
the straight party ticket. To me, any
person who still votes "blindly" in that
manner is the epitome of spineless-
ness. They do this and make the claim
that they have done it this way all their
lives. This way they don't have to do
any research of their own. Convenient,
huh? I have long made the statement
that you could put, for example,
Hitler (D) and Mussolini (R) vote for
one and there are a select few who
would vote the party line regardless
of the qualifications (or lack thereof)
of these two slime-balls. I know it!
These are the same deep thinkers who
but the same vehicle brand every time
they buy a new vehicle. "My daddy drove
a (brand "a"), my granddaddy drove a
(brand "a"), and I'm going to drive a
(brand "a") too, dadgumit." It's going to
be rather traumatic if brand "a" happened
to be a Pontiac, isn't it?
      What can be done to solve the two-
party nightmare? A strong third party
would be a start. Even better would be the
evolution of a fourth and fifth party, too.
The biggest difference you would see,
almost immediately, would be the end
of one party automatically denouncing the
actions of the other party (currently a
"given" with only two relevant parties).
The addition of two or three more parties
would create far more of a burden in
having to detail the inadequacies of so
many parties; it would become more
practical to simply detail how your solution
would prove superior to that of your opp-
onents. Which is how it should have been
all along.
    What a novel concept.
    What do you think?