Here's the problem with the basic political system (two party) as I see it.

We have two parties (Republican and Democrat) who each put "the best man for the job" in their parties in major and minor positions of power. But is he or she the "best" for the position? The best for the party, so they can remain "in control"? The best for America? It's hard to tell, but it's a very important distinction, even if you are apolitical.

Different people are "best" for different positions. One thing all politicos have in common is that they are running for positions where they will supervise and/or take the blame for others. Some will supervise other politicos, some their own staff, some whole towns, cities, counties, states, regions, etc. Not everyone makes a good manager, supervisor, company president, etc. Some people are very good at finding the best people at that time to work with them. The thing here, is that politically, we may get the second best, because the best may be from the other party.

Then there are those that may be good at the ideas of the position, but not good with people.

The reverse it true, too... Some people are great with people, but lousy at management. This is where, I believe, politics goes wrong. The parties are more interested in getting all THEIR people in these positions - not the ones who would be BEST. They only care about the candidates who are good with people. This way, they can "bring in the votes". This doesn't mean they're good at the position for which they are running, but that they have the charisma and enough experience to get people to vote for them. So, that makes them best for the party.

Occasionally, charismatic people do have the skills - supervisory, management, and people - to be best for America. This doesn't happen this often. And it would not surprise me to find that many of them are apolitical. There are reasons for that.

When someone like this DOES enter the political realm, everything that he/she has ever done becomes "fair game". The press and opponents, even within their own party, will find anything they've ever done, that's considered even remotely wrong, and try to present it during campaigns in the worst possible light. And, when they can't find anything wrong, they just keep digging. AND, they point out anything the person has done that shows that they oppose their party's ideology.

I've said a number of times that even if I thought I could be a politician, I wouldn't want to be. It's not that I have done that much wrong in my life... It's that I don't want to open it up my, my family's and friends' lives to the rest of the world. We are not the type to want paparazzi and reporters chasing us everywhere we go. Does anyone remember what a big deal the press and comedians made of Clinton going to McDonalds? GEEZE! As a "public figure" you can't even EAT wherever you want without it being reported that you had a Big Mac, Fries and Shake. You go to a doctor for anything, including a check-up, and all of your stats are reported. Hell, people make copies of your x-rays, and sell them on e-Bay! And we've all heard/seen the stories of the paparazzi chasing celebrities - Diana, Lindsay Lohen, Brad, Jennifer, Tom, Katie, Nicolle, Paris, George, Anna Nicholle, the list goes on and on. Think of the stories you've seen and heard. The "questions" demanding answers. And the same "questions" arise with politicos.

Politicos have it a little easier than celebrities (how many politico stories about them having alien babies are reported in the tabloids?) Many of them have the Secret Service guarding them. Others will have government-supplied guards. And, of course, the parties will help them find speechwriters, assistants, guards, etc., not to mention "handlers", which, I assume means someone who walks the "party line", who is on the politico's staff, attempting to "keep them in line" with party ideals.

I've also noted before, that many (not all) of the negative ads are from the parties' national committees. I'm also beginning (days before the mid-term election) to see ads by other organizations. MANY of them are endorsed by the candidates themselves. In fact, the other day, flyers about one of our local candidates began appearing in the local mailboxes, purportedly playing the "race card" against the black candidate. (The incumbent is black, too.) The candidate's opponent, did not authorize it, and publically apologized. They appeared, surprisingly, on an Indianapolis radio show, where the candidate stated that any negative ad against his opponent was just wrong. They had a national committee spokesman on the phone. He was asked if HE'D apologize for the attack, and he flat out said "NO". Apparently, the mailings are to continue.

It's interesting to note that some say a candidate is "too liberal" or "too conservative" for Indiana. First of all, how would the NATIONAL committee know. I realize it's their job to KNOW, but isn't this a bit much?

Some of the ads attack a former or incumbent candidate's voting record. I know I've stated before, too, that many times, laws that house and senate members vote for, have had other provisions and completely unrelated laws added to them. If you think about it, that could be WHY some of them are added, so the National Committee can later say "such-and-such voted for pork-barrel spending," or, if they voted AGAINST the law because of the additions, it can be said "such-and-such voted AGAINST" things like tax-cuts, minimum-wage hikes, etc. (BTW: Those additions are why Presidents and Governors want "line-item veto" powers.)

So, without real information on all of the candidates, we are to decide in a couple of days who is to lead us (town, city, county, state, country) for the next few years. Remember a couple of things - 1) A lot can happen in a very few years. (And you thought Russian Roulette was dangerous!) and 2) We get to replace those we feel we screwed up on every few years.

Oh... And the ads for the politicos without opponents? I think it's like government departments getting money - If you don't spend it, you won't get that much next year/time.

No matter the party to which you belong, no matter the candidate you prefer, no matter if you feel you can only select the "better of two evils", no matter what... If you don't vote, you have no right to complain. So, get out there and VOTE!

by Bill Sanders © November 03, 2006 - email:
 

Send email to Bill Sanders ()
with questions or comments about this page or site.

This site, all text and graphics (unless otherwise noted) on it
were designed, developed and published by Bill Sanders of Orange Frog Productions.
It and it's CSS was validated and complies with both the: CSS and HTML 4.01 validators from W3C.
NOTE: All CSS validates except the "New Window Buttons" which include some invalid code (ie: hacks),
added PicoSearch Tables, and warnings for using transparent backgrounds when color foregrounds defined.
Copyright © 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 by Bill Sanders / Full site last modified: October 21, 2006
Any reproduction, printing, or selling of this content is prohibited without express written consent from William D. Sanders.