Some Premises

I wanted to talk about how the Democrats can succeed and realistically seize the Presidency in Y2K+8. I am not really impressed with them. I normally don't identify with them. And quite frankly I detest a bunch of them based on what I've read. But, the reality is that they will be the power to contend with in January. So, since they are Americans, I want them to succeed even if I don't like them today.

Take Nancy Pelosi ((Please) )) as an example. She is about as "liberal" as they come. But being an obstructionist has nothing to do with dealing with reality. So, I hope she does those things that move America forward and succeeds. I'll help here with advice. You'll help here by discussing the advice I hope.

The first premise that I subscribe to is that our .gov doesn't work for the people. When a pol says that he "works for the people" I begin to sweat. I sweat because I sense he's lying outright or he is suffering from a stupid attack.

Remember this, we are using an employment metaphor here IRT the pols. As an employer I can hire, evaluate, discipline, and fire if I need to. As a voter the best I get is one opinion on who we should hire. If enough people vote my way, we either hired, or rehired someone. So, he doesn't work for me since I personally cannot hire him except as a member of a vast hiring committee.

Now, once we hire them (btw losing an election isn't being fired. It's the other guy getting hired) we have no more say. We can observe but we cannot discipline a politician for breaking (read my lips) a campaign promise. We can not fine him for ethical misconduct. We cannot dock a Senators pay FOR NOT SHOWING UP TO WORK. If he/she works for me or us, why can't we discipline our wayward employee? I think that our only lawful option is to keep score and refuse to rehire them. What are the odds of that in a normal election cycle? Yup, that's what I thought. So, he doesn't work for me since I personally cannot discipline him for any transgressions.

The final test of an employer/employee relationship is whether we can fire them. Some employees have contracts to protect them, but there is a performance clause. Being a realist demands that we recognize that our vote is a no-take-back situation. Because if Senator Binotz of the State of Intoxication screws the pooch neither I as a person nor we as a group can fire him. But anyway, he doesn't work for me since I personally cannot fire him. This obviously only applies to Federal Elected Crooks. Please don't flame me if you can recall the dog catcher or the govenator or the school board president.

From a different message board there is an interesting post from SecondChance that isn't gloating. The examination begins tomorrow. Hope someone is here to read it.