Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

The unending list of failures who lead America today

By DOUG THOMPSON - Capitol Hill Blue
April 29, 2013

042903noneWhen the watchers and clockers comment nowadays on the circus in Washington, the measurement is not who, if anyone, is successful.

Instead, performance depends on who is less of a failure than the next person.

Success is not an option.

There is little doubt among those with IQs above that of an average plant that Barack Obama is a monumental failure as President of the United States.  American voters took a chance on an untried and untested freshman Senator and lost.

But the option to Obama in the first election was an aging Senator with a certified flake as his vice Presidential candidate and the choice in the second election was an ex-governor with a questionable record who ran an Olympic games that raised even more questions.  His choice for vice president: A rabid right-wing wacko from Wisconsin.

Americans seldom face a choice in elections.  They are given a collection of failures who offer little or no option for a voter looking for real leadership or change.

Those who claim to offer choice or change served up failures like three-time loser Ron Paul, the oddball Texas Congressman whose only real claim to fame as a string of racist newsletters he claims he never authored but also never really refuted.

Paul may be gone but his legacy, if it can be called one, lives on in son Rand Paul, a Kentucky senator who may turn out to be even more of a failure than his old man.  Some call Rand Paul a leading contender for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2016.  If true, the party of the elephant is even more lost in the ozone than ever.

American politics has descended into a sideshow that most carnivals would shun.  Congressional leaders like John Boehner in the House and Harry Reid in the Senate are sick jokes.  Potential Presidential candidates are judged more for their celebrity status than any actual qualification as leaders.

Republicans judge success by electing extremists to office: Congress members like Eric Cantor from Virginia or Michelle Bachmann from Minnesota are considered viable elected officials.  In reality, they are miserable failures.

Same for the other side of the street.  Democrats can’t hide the fact that they want a more-extremist liberal than Obama as their next candidate for President.  Hardcore left-wingers in the party consider the current President too moderate and want someone more radical to succeed him.

Perhaps the answer lies in how the next ballots for President and Congress are structured.

It might be best to allow voters to say they don’t want any of the candidates elected to office.

So why not offer “none of the above” as a viable, and binding, ballot choice.

If “none of the above” gets more votes than any candidate, then no one is elected and a new election, with all new candidates, must be held within 60 days.

Could such a plan work?

Probably.

Will it happen?

Not a chance.

Such a change in ballot law must be passed by the very people who would lose if Americans were offered a chance to say “no” to any of the candidates.

Including the current crop of failures who occupy seats in Congress and the Oval Office.

Oh well.

___

Copyright  © 2013 Capitol Hill Blue

Enhanced by Zemanta

18 Responses to The unending list of failures who lead America today

  1. Joe Keegan

    April 29, 2013 at 6:08 am

    A choice between the lesser of two evils is no choice. It’s more like a choice between getting hit with the right hand or the left hand.

  2. Sandy Price

    April 29, 2013 at 9:23 am

    The problem, out here in the street, is that we have nothing and nobody to vote FOR.

    We continue to piss off our enemies and friends in the Islamic part of the world, and build on a false premise that America is a Christian nation facing an Islamic worldwide enemy. It always seems to come back to a war of religion.

    There is nothing wrong with religion until it takes the place of governing as a Democracy.

    Religion is a choice that covers a multitude of moral sins. It belongs in the family and no further in the world of politics.

    Can we, as Americans, ever figure out right over wrong and act on the premise that we were guided on which side of the aisle we were founded? The problem is that racist hatred has taken over the core of our political parties.

    We will continue to vote against an agenda instead of forming a new cleaner more ethical platform.

  3. Sandy Price

    April 29, 2013 at 11:02 am

    Joe, you and I have debated on several issues. Read again Doug’s words above and try to find a couple of programs that will solve any problems that we face at this time.

    Apparently there is no leadership today who can analyze even the most simple of solutions. Neither side has the desire to do anything but argue. We might has well have elected Sarah Palin into the White House.

    Every issue is debated at the most base part of our Federal government. Mention a third party at CHB and the place explodes in horror at such a stupid idea. I know this through my work for Perot. Ten years after that election, the subject of Perot was laughed at. CHB is very much like many political groups; we are unable to come up with a different approach to political actions. My work with the LP shows a lack of original thought or action on anything.

    Could it be a lack of intelligent academics? I think it is…..

    • Joe Keegan

      April 29, 2013 at 2:25 pm

      There’s no leadership. “Our” leaders represent corporate interests. A third party (actually a genuine second party) is necessary; however, our “two” party system brought the country to where we are today.

  4. Carl Nemo **==

    April 29, 2013 at 12:50 pm

    Although I heartily concur with the editor’s analysis concerning our mediocre to failed leadership; I still feel somewhat safer than having a gaggle of intensely ‘competent’ pols working in a bipartisan manner to screw “We the People” over 24/7.

    This site’s motto concerning our collective safety while Congress is in session best sums up how dangerous our government can be when there’s ‘creative’ cooperation from both sides of the aisle.

    We should feel somewhat safer in that these referenced inane pols operate in a never-ending “Tower of Babel” mode. They do enough damage as it is.

    *****

    When bad men combine, the good must associate, else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice. … Edmund Burke

    *****

    Carl Nemo **==

    • Mark Thomason

      May 2, 2013 at 12:04 am

      Yes, it could be worse. That is the one constant in our electoral system.

      I think the power to vote against them both would be a big improvement. “None of the above” could put more pressure on the politicians than the other party does.

      There are countries that use a “none of the above” vote. It works.

  5. Wayne K Dolik

    April 29, 2013 at 4:53 pm

    I vote for gridlock because everything else the politicians do lately, is wrong.

  6. Sandy Price

    April 29, 2013 at 7:45 pm

    Gosh guys, we must take full responsibility for electing those awful people we put in office. I probably am the worst offender in this regard because I believed in the platform within the GOP.

    I was horrified during the Nixon years but somehow thought it was just a bad man in a good position. That excuse wore out when I discovered President Bush (41) buying into the one world order under Jesus who would change our government from top to bottom. The plan was to quietly destroy Islam using the plans from the New Testament and repeat the Inquisition throughout the rest of the world.

    How could the GOP pull this off? It quietly removed individual freedoms from Americans of color who had no religion in their lives. I have never felt so lost.

  7. Observer

    April 30, 2013 at 7:13 am

    Doug, I agree with a lot of what you say.

    But something important has been omitted: campaign contributions.

    Running a political campaign is expensive. And the money comes almost entirely from the wealthiest individuals and companies. This means that politicians end up as lobbyists for their major campaign contributors. Votes are the nominal source of power, but money is the real source of power.

    The people who could change this – Congress and the White House – are not going to do it because they have succeeded within the present system. And the Supreme Court has just made a bad situation worse by pretending, in the “Citizens United” case, that corporations are people, entitled to free speech, and campaign contributions are actually speech. Including anonymous campaign contributions!
    (If a corporation is a person, and the corporation breaks the law, can the corporation be sent to jail? Can the corporation get the death penalty?)

    So we have “the best government money can buy” – a government lead by people whose real skill is in fooling the electorate. They’re not stupid (with some exceptions), but they’re in hock to their campaign contributors.

    • woody188

      April 30, 2013 at 3:23 pm

      You got it right. When graft became free speech all hope was lost. We are a now a country of the dollar, by the dollar, and for the dollar. Individuals and their freedoms shall not infringe on the ability of companies to turn a fast buck.

  8. Gregg Sealy

    April 30, 2013 at 11:04 am

    It’s too late.

  9. woody188

    April 30, 2013 at 10:33 pm

    This story pretty much sums up what’s wrong with the US: Medal Detector It’s stories like this that make one ashamed of what we’ve become.

  10. Joe

    May 1, 2013 at 7:59 am

    So, what to do about “Both sides suck”? Maybe start out by assigning levels of suckatude to each side. Equal is not a choice as equal never happens in the real world. It does in the nihilistic world of broad-brush painters, but never does in actuality.
    After reviewing the “suckatude-scores” you just created, then vote for the one that sucks least. That is the only choice you will ever have, as “perfect” candidates only exist in the abstract and never in reality.
    Throwing up your hands and voting “none of the above” means that you will give the choice to someone else, with you having abandoned your opportunity to participate in democracy. How does that improve the process? There will never be a collection of perfect pure white-robed politicians for you to vote for. They don’t exist and only could in a purely imaginary world.Picking the least offensive is the only choice you have. It is the only choice you will ever have under our system.
    Choosing to bail on the process, however flawed, may make you feel good and superior, but does exactly nothing to improve the situation. It is your country, flaws and all, and refusing to participate in the political process simply makes it possible for determined minorities of crazy people (Tea-Partiers, in the current case) to take over the system and impose their will.
    Declaring them all equally corrupt ignores the fact that you will get one of them. Why forfeit the chance to improve the situation, however marginally?

    • Carl Nemo **==

      May 1, 2013 at 10:23 pm

      Well said Joe… : ) Your described process of selection is called pragmatism; I.E., the choice of a candidate is predicated on possibly realistic, practical outcomes rather than unrealistic, unobtainable promises for such.

      We’ll always be stuck with ‘leaders’ for better or worse, it’s the way to the world.

      Carl Nemo **==

  11. Suzanne

    May 1, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    Thank you, Joe, for being the voice of reason in a sea of whine.

  12. ray

    May 2, 2013 at 6:49 am

    even though i must agree with some of what you say Hillary Clinton is not a rabid socialist, so your suggestion that the Democratic party wants a real leftist is without merit

  13. CA Leeson

    May 2, 2013 at 8:03 am

    I agree with Doug on the None of the above option. I, too, have been sick of the lesser of two evils option for at least the last six general election cycles.

  14. Gregg Sealy

    May 2, 2013 at 11:40 am

    How does the “None of the Above” option work without changing the policies that allow these elected officials to continue to function as they do?

    Campaign Finance needs to be changed, relationships with Lobbyists need to be substantially overhauled.

    The list of changes is long.

    Unless they core problems that make our government so diseased – are cured and not just treated – then the choice of candidates won’t really matter.

    Thanks