I read somewhere that, in the last week of the campaign, the Democratic party had hundreds of thousands of phonecalls made with pre-recorded messages, urging people to vote (and vote against the recall).
(Automated phonecalls are illegal in Holland, by the way - though I'm sure they were thinking of commercial/ad calls rather than political appeals when they banned them).
Anyway, pre-recorded messages were spoken in by such people as Clinton, Gore and ... Barbara Streisand.
Streisand. Imagine having dinner, or a quiet moment with your loved one, and being interrupted by an automated message from Barbara Streisand, telling you to vote for (or against) someone. I would sooo do the opposite, for that reason alone.
Yep - that alone would explain this month's outcome. <nods>
Both Al Gore and Martin Sheen called me! Woopee! I hung up on 'em same as someone trying to sell replacement windows....
I wouldn't give them the time of day.
Nobody really came up with a good reason to keep Davis but nobody on the other side came up with any good reason why Ahnold will be any better. It's another political changing horses in mid-stream to try and get "there" faster. There's really no way to ever attest that we are getting out of the economic doldrums because of any poltician. We'll just have some new sound bites here and there with the intent to instruct us what is good for us. The story is as old as a cavemen trying to trade spoiled meat for a hand full of rotten berries.
Whatever Ahnold is able to do with our fiscal crisis will be so nimimal as not to make any difference in the whole scheme of things. What it may have done, though, is that the politicos in Sacramento got a wake-up call to stop wasting our money - which is also a long shot. We'll have to wait and see.
Yes, I'm familiar with the wasting of money -- bureaucracy's albatross no matter who is in power. Except it always seems the one who gripes about taxes is also the one who gripes about pot holes in the roads.
truth
LW, your critque also expresses my attitude. As a beneficiary of our thriving economy (and it still is thriving compared to virtually all other societies), I gladly pay my taxes. I would even welcome increases--particularly a 10% gas tax--for all the good peacetime services for my neighbors. I consider people who are waving the flag while bitching about paying their share to be hypocrites.
Our economy is certainly "hanging in there," and the latest economic reorts seems more positive than negative, but all levels of state and local government jobs are being cut. I also like the idea of adding to our gas tax, but our legislators are afraid to participate in anything that looks and smells like a progressive tax on the poor. It's a nightmare out there, because government has never been known to spend our tax money wisely.
Government, no matter who is in power, always manages to take back tax cuts with future taxes. They are really loaning us money with a payback attached including interest. They've done it since the income tax was instituted. It will not change.
The quest for power and to hold that power guides the minds of the bureaucrats in power.
Yea, I'm burdened with the notion that I don't like any of them.
truth
I agree, LW, but I would suggest that POWER, in the political sense, is the goal primarily of political office holders. Bureaucrats want the power of security and the ability to proceed with their routine prerogatives unimpeded. I do think that the notion of "bureaucrat" has become a scapegoat term. They are criticized even by bureaucrats. We don't seem to realize that the rationalization of government procedures through bureaucratic organizatons is one of the great achievements of state societies. Granted, the rountinization of activities gives them an impersonal and indifferent look. This has to do with the quality of particular bureaucracies and can be, or should be, improved by oversight mechanisms. But, to paraphrase, we and POLITICIANS like to blame our problems on "bureaucrats" where much of the problem lies in the indifference of the public to their civic obligations and the pecados of politicians (I'm trying not to commit the same problem by stereotyping "politicians" but that's more difficult to do).
I'd have no problem stereotyping politcians and it is convenient for them to blame an abstract body of bureaucrats. They're part of the bureaucratic organization so it is really the pot calling the kettle black. There very definitely is a lust for power and status built into our society and some of its ramifications are truly disheartening. Someone new to political power like Ahnold have an ideology that eventually gets warped in the process. Or "tailored to fit" may be a better description.
LW, Both adjectives fit; "warped and tailored to fit" defines it quite nicely.
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:I agree, LW, but I would suggest that POWER, in the political sense, is the goal primarily of political office holders.
While I tend to agree with this statement, I wonder whether you might concede that in some cases a person seeks that power not for its own sake but so that the person can accomplish things he or she believes are necessary for the advancement of society.
If I have no power, how can I hope to do that which I believe must be done?
Scrat, A reasonable observation.
cicerone imposter wrote:Scrat, A reasonable observation.
It was bound to happen eventually. You know the old saying...
Given enough time and enough bullets, a redneck randomly shooting at road signs will eventually reproduce the entire works of Jeff Foxworthy, in brail. :wink:
A wannabe poltician especially, or a wannabe in a higher office politcian can begin with some noble thoughts about bettering the lives of the citizenry.
Once elected and thrown into the new machinery of any political system, they have to bend their principals and ideology to fit the system. No getting around that -- it's often not their fault. Fools rush in where mortals fear to tread.
