I do like it when the polls go my way...

Having already argued here, for the 3 to 5 people who've actually seen this blog, that we need a nationwide one-day primary, I was heartened to find out via Wonkette pointing to a NYTimes poll that a majority of Americans agree with me on wanting a nationwide one-day primary.

Thank you, my fellow Americans. Now if I can get that 3/4ths of the nation to actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT... :)

Thanks W., You've Just Killed the Rule of Law

From Firedoglake: Bush commutes Scooter Libby's sentence to no jail time.

Ever since before the trial, people knew this outcome was coming. Bush would never allow any of his top insider people see the inside of a jail cell (they know too much: one hour of jail and you know these babies would be blabbing their heads off for leniency). And while the Scootster had been convicted months ago, it wasn't until the recent appellate rejection of Libby's request to await final ruling on bail that Bush realized Scooter could be jailed soon and so... this.

And while the GOP elite will be celebrating that one of their own is free, refusing to recognize their hypocrisy, their self-serving greed and illegality, that their party now has no shred of integrity left, the rest of us who have to abide by the laws of the land will have to just sit here and vote them out of office next year.

Oh, there are things we can do: we can push harder for impeachment proceedings against Cheney and Bush; we can call the Congressional Judiciary committees and demand further investigations into Bush's criminality; we can go (we OUGHT to go, where the hell is everybody?) into the streets to protest. But it's not really going to do much to change the fact that Bush, Cheney and their cronies have broken nearly every security law on the books, and shredded the legal system in the process.

One thing this action has done, it has highlighted one of the absolute powers that a President has: to issue pardons and clemency except in cases of impeachment. This is one of the few powers where Congress has no say, where they cannot pass legislation limiting who and when a President can invoke this right. This is one of the few powers that the courts cannot block, if the President pardons or commutes someone's sentence that's it end of the case.

The only thing that can limit the President's power of pardon is the Constitution itself. Which needs to be done in one very specific area: limiting the ability to pardon your own friends, cronies, and underlings.

This happens often enough, and I didn't even think first about the pardon Ford issued Nixon regarding Watergate, which was the last time a pardon created massive political backlash (it cost Ford his own election in 1976). There's also been:

• Bush the Elder's pardoning of people, including friends and coworkers, for their roles in Iran-Contra.
• Bill Clinton's pardoning of colleagues of his brother-in-law (the Gregorys), Susan MacDougal from the Whitewater scandal, and Marc Rich a wealthy fugitive whose wife made large campaign contributions to the Clintons.

I was sure Lyndon B. Johnson would have questionable pardons under his belt, but dang I guess all his cronies got off scot-free.

Something to point out with the Iran-Contra pardons and the Clinton pardons was how many of those benefiting from this Presidential power were close allies to the same President who issued the pardons, commutations, and other acts of clemency. Which smacks of two things: cronyism and conflicts of interest. It's a great way for a President to commit criminal acts:
1) get your buddy underlings to do something illegal;
2) when the crime leaks to the press, blame said underlings;
3) manipulate the investigation one way or another to ensure the whole truth never comes out, leaving said underlings held responsible;
4) wait out the trials to see if your buddies get off;
5) if they get convicted, use your power of pardon to clear their records and close the investigation.

This needs to end. The President and his administration must always be held accountable to the law. He, and his friends, should not benefit from a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. There needs to be an amendment to the Constitution spelling this out:

• The President's power to issue pardons and other acts of clemency cannot be granted to people who worked for that President's administration at any level, nor to people who financially contributed to any political campaign run by that President at any time.

If people from the White House break the law, they're going to have to pray for mercy from future administrations: they should not have to count on an easy exit from their patron when the bill comes due. It should be that simple. And now is a good time to pursue this much-needed correction to the Constitution to ensure all future Presidents respect the Rule of Law.

Needs To Be Said Dept: Romney

I normally don't want to blog about current news as much, since I want to be more about tossing out ideas. But I couldn't let this pass:

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney once tied his family's dog to the roof of a car for a 14-hour roadtrip.

The dog ended up pooping all over the pet carrier and onto the car itself, whereupon Romney got out, cleaned off the poop, and kept driving with the dog on top.

Two things here, boss: 1) if your dog is pooping everywhere, don't you think you ought to at least take the dog in somewhere for a checkup? And 2) Being tied onto the roof of a speeding car can make anyone, man and dog, literally sh-tless.

And his excuses now? Now that his wonderful little anecdote he tried telling as a way of showing his level-headed decision-making skills is making negative waves? "OH, the Dog LOVES being on the roof of the car!" Excuse me, boss: when someone takes a sh-t on something, that person ain't enjoying a damn thing.

Swear to Dog. There is no WAY now any dog owner, hell any pet owner, is going to vote for this slimeball.


/rant

Redistricting: destroying all mankind through map editing

I just caught this during a surf of political websites, many thanks to Charging RINO for highlighting this. Theres a site called Redistricting Game that, okay once you get past the Flash movie that opens it, allows you to mess around with communities in fictional states to show just how devastating gerrymandering can be to our political system.

I suggest you take a look, play the game, and read up on the reform proposals offered. This is a big issue that needs serious reform, and this demonstrates it better than any quick one-sentence amendment proposal I can come up with (which I can: the amendment idea would be to just get rid of districts and have the whole state population choose all their House representatives. It would have the effect of eliminating 'safe' incumbent seats, force candidates to appeal to a broader range of voters, and... well give me a moment I'm going to have to think this out a little further...).

Summer Checklist 2007

I just want to take this opportunity to establish some of the amendment ideas I've brought up before continuing, just so I can keep track of what's p-ssing me off the most at various moments.

• First up, an amendment securing the checks and balances between the three branches of government, above all spelling out that the President is NOT above the law.
• Second, limiting elections from these ongoing, always-in-cycle eternal campaigns down to campaigns that can only be held and funded in that one year that the election actually takes place.
• Third, anger over campaign mudslinging, and the overall deceit of elected officials and their mouthpieces, brought up the fix that lying is not protected speech. I feel I will need to come back to this issue later.
• Next, seriously (if we look past the silliness of my Christmas wish list), came an amendment proposal to fix the elections primary chaos and improve the odds of electing a Presidential candidate who represents the whole nation instead of just representing New Hampshire and South Carolina.
• The last one I just posted went into the horrific lapses of memory by certain "Loyal Bushies" and that if anyone has that kind of problems remembering their own jobs they ought to be pushed out for their and our own good.

So there we stand on amendment ideas. It'd be nice if people could take note, and also take note that they can resolve these issues themselves, but still. I have a few more amendment ideas to table, such as tweaking the war powers responsibilities of both the Congress and the White House, or something about eliminating the office of the Vice President, or something to get rid of fleas I hope... no wait...

Total Recall Amendment

This has been brewing in my head for some time, ever since Attorney Doofus Alberto Gonzales testified before Congress about the partisan US Attorney firings... and didn't testify to much because he kept saying "I Don't Recall" or variations to that effect.

71 times. 71 "I Don't Recalls". I've known Alzheimer's patients with better memories (many thanks to the Marine who kept count).

We've now got another Dept. of Justice employee, some guy named Schlozman, with such poor memory you gotta wonder what's in their diet. This "I Don't Recall" problem is growing, spreading like a virus among our elected elite to where we may have all of them suffering from severe memory loss. Hey wait... maybe if they forget how to get out of beds in the mornings... hmmmmm...

Of course, there's really nothing wrong with their memories. Not at all. It's just these guys are getting caught now committing all these sins that when brought up to testify under oath they're not about to tell the truth (because it will get them arrested) and since they don't want to get caught lying (because that will also get them arrested) they take the third route: ACTING STUPID. It's the Middle Schooler Defense: trust me, catch a 7th grader in the act and their immediate response is "I don't knowwwww..."

So here's a wonderful little Amendment proposal I've got, which is something I'm sure Congress would love:

• Any person called to testify before Congress, regardless of being under oath, who answers any question with "I Don't Recall" or in any way feigns ignorance or cluelessness, shall immediately lose their employment, and will be barred from any federal employment, as their poor memory will clearly hamper their performance.
• Their position shall immediately be filled by someone from an opposing political party. At double salary and benefits.
• Dunce Caps will be optional.

I think that ought to ensure people at least testify like they're supposed to.

Florida is moving up their primary. Again.

Post was edited as soon as it was published. I noticed I missed a link.

The state of Florida is looking to move up their Presidential Primary again, as part of a race between all the states to try and dictate the outcomes of the elections. Currently Florida is looking at a January 29 date, trying to move ahead of South Carolina. And while a part of me is thrilled that a small extremist state won't be able to dictate the early standings of the primary, I'm still horrified by the fact that our election process has been so corrupted, twisted, complex, to the point of near collapse.

I'd argued before that individual states should not hold separate primaries. Because it gives one candidate an undue early lead if he can convince the extremists in one state to choose him before the extremists in other states chose another. Whoever gets an early lead along with the most money tends to be the winner (winning the first state sometimes not, but the second and third ones, you get those you pretty much win the whole thing). Because early winners can say one thing to win in the early states and then flip-flop in the other more moderate states while the early voters get screwed by the betrayals. Because no one state should choose before another.

The problem now is that we've got the Primary equivalent of an arms race. Now South Carolina is threatening to go to the first week in January. Michigan is looking at January as well. New Hampshire is looking at Thanksgiving of THIS year. Iowa, I've heard, is looking into temporal quantum mechanics to see about getting their primary held in 1876.

The political parties are also threatening to block any primary electors if Florida hosts the primary before Feb. 5th. Also to punish any candidates who campaign in Florida before Feb. 5th as well.

Will someone finally recognize the Primary system is broken and flawed and needs replacing? It may be better than the smoke-filled backroom dealings of previous election cycles, but this isn't democracy. It's pre-packaged failure of choices. We need to replace it with these elements:

• No election campaigning, fundraising, or ANYTHING until the actual year of election for all elected offices. It'll cut down on these prolonged drawn-out mudslinging wars (and replace them with swifter weapons of mass distraction instead, I know...).
• All Presidential primaries to be held on the same day in June. Gives people six months to campaign from January on, well enough time to establish how much of a crook everyone else is.
• All Presidential candidates must campaign evenly in all states and districts that are able to provide Primary representation. They can't ignore New Hampshire or North Dakota and focus on California, Texas and/or Florida. ALL states need to see the candidates and choose. And for all the small staters who can complain that this hurts their representation, let me note: you get representation from your Senators, and your Congresspersons. The President represents THE WHOLE COUNTRY. So the WHOLE COUNTRY should have an equal say.
• Another idea tacked on: The Presidential candidate determined by their party's primary system cannot choose his/her own Vice-President. That is to be determined from the convention attendees. And no nominations: all write-in votes. It won't stop people from campaigning for the job at the convention, but at least it'll make the convention interesting. And it may provide a nice hiccup to one wing of a party taking over the whole campaign: The Presidential candidate could well choose someone like-minded, to the detriment of others in the party (for example, Cheney choosing HIMSELF for the Veep role. THAT should have sent up red flags immediately, but noooooo.). This gives the other wings (moderates, fringers, single-issue manaics, whoever didn't get their boy elected to the top post) a chance to have a say in who's running. Say if we get another Clinton for the Democrats (please let it be Chelsea, please let it be Chelsea), those in the Democratic groups who didn't support her could team together and force a Veep candidate like a Howard Dean to keep the liberals involved. Of course, whoever wins the write-in could well turn it down, as is their right. Still, like I said this would make the conventions more interesting than they are now.

I've beaten this drum already a few times. I seriously think we ought to push for this. If not at the national level then certainly the state one. Please post comments. If there's anyone out there...

Amendment Suggestion: Dealing with Primary Chaos

I spotted recently in my local paper this opinion piece from the Washington Post:

By this time next year, the races for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations are likely to be over. Bemoaning the front-loaded primary calendar has become a quadrennial event, but this campaign could be more speeded up than ever and even less healthful for the democratic process. Under the plan, the Democrats' 2008 sprint starts with caucuses in Iowa (Jan. 14) and Nevada (Jan. 19), followed by primaries in New Hampshire (Jan. 22) and South Carolina (Jan. 29). New Hampshire, angry that its first-in-the-nation status is being threatened, could move its contest even earlier, to 2007.

But the worst news is that a number of larger states, including California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Florida, are considering moving their primaries to Feb. 5, the first permissible date for other states to hold contests. On the part of each individual state, this is a rational act: Why should voters from smaller states determine the outcome while big-state voters are shut out? But the overall result will be a worsening of all the ill effects of front-loading, and for both parties: In most states, the Republican primary is held the same day.

I'd argued this before: it made little sense for the smaller states like New Hampshire or South Carolina to start the calendar for Presidential primaries. The reason why was front-loading (thanks, Post, I was wondering what word could be used to describe this):

Front-loading benefits better-known candidates with big bank accounts more than it does dark horses who might be able to do well and gain momentum in a more rationally paced system. It deprives most voters in most states of having a say in who their party's nominee will be. It short-circuits a process that could test candidates' capacities for connecting with voters and conveying their views.

The Post's editorial finished off with this note:

The National Association of Secretaries of State has proposed a calendar that would allow Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, followed by four regional primaries held every month from March through June. The regions would rotate their positions on the primary calendar each cycle. We supported the plan in 2000, when it seemed the process couldn't become much crazier. Now, when that campaign looks sedate by the standards of 2008, we agree more than ever.

The problem is this still doesn't fix the problem of front-loading. Whoever wins Iowa and New Hampshire will have momentum going into the regional primaries. You'll have candidates dropping out between NH and Regional One. And whoever wins the first regional primary still gets massive momentum, with only a quarter of the nation having any real say. And you'll have more candidates drop out. By the Regional Two, there's no contest. No real choice. And it will still be unfair to those voters and those states that didn't get to go first.

There is honestly only one true solution:

• Amendment Idea Number Three: All primary voting for political parties choosing their Presidential candidate must be held in all states at the same time.

All primary votes all on the same day, mid-June (Flag Day!). All parties with primary candidates doing it on the same day. Why, do you ask, is this the one true solution?

Think of the President in terms of who and what he/she represents. Compare the President to say a Congressman. Congressman represents a district. Senator represents a whole state. President represents the whole nation. So the whole nation should get to say who should be their choice to run for President.

The argument against individual states running their own primaries at their own times has already been made: why should South Carolina get to choose before California? Why should California choose before Texas? Why should Hawaii choose before Indiana? Why should any one state's primary winner get the momentum over the other candidates, if only because that winning candidate does well in that one state? That winning candidate may appeal to voters in New York, but he/she may not sell well in Arizona, Oregon, Alabama and Minnesota.

I keep harping on the 2000 GOP Primary, because it was when I realized how screwed the primary system was. I was, back then, a McCain supporter. I took one look at Dubya and knew that guy should get nowhere near the White House. Now, McCain won New Hampshire, and this was in spite of the massive fundraising Dubya had going for him, so I was hoping that the right candidate would be getting a shot at securing the nomination. And then South Carolina happened. And while I've got major issues about mudslinging that will be discussed elsewhere in a later post, I realized someone like McCain didn't sell well in a socially conservative state like SC (which explains why McCain is now so desperately sucking up to the religious right for 2008). By the time McCain had a shot for Florida (which was soon after), he had basically dropped from the race and was no longer actively campaigning (he left his name on the ballot but had stopped stumping). He had to: the party money was already backing the Shrub, and with South Carolina McCain had lost his Mo.

What happened to McCain in South Carolina got me mad: I screamed aloud "Why does a state like South Carolina get to decide?" I noted how large-populated states like Florida, Texas and California didn't even get a chance to make a true choice. I thought, even with the Jeb Bush political machine in Florida, that McCain had a true shot at winning Florida (it was more of a hope: like I just noted, with Jeb here his brother George pretty much had this state in the bag). I knew Texas wouldn't vote against their own Favored Son, but I knew McCain would have done well out West and would have gotten California. If only...

Ever since then, I don't want any one state getting to choose who wins any early primary, not even Florida, or even California: it's simply unfair to all other states if one state gets to give the Big Mo to one candidate over any other. So the simplest and best and most fair solution is to have all states run one primary at the same time.

But, say the naysayers and status quoers, having ALL states at the same time is blatantly unfair to the small-population states, whose votes won't count compared to the large states. You'll have candidates focusing on the ten biggest states at the expense of the ten smallest. How is any of that fair?

Those are solid complaints; however, they can be fixed by additional passages in the amendment, such as this one:

• All candidates for President must campaign evenly among all states. This will include spending, advertising, personal appearances, and any other methods that are used in campaigning.

This is clear: if you want to run for President, you run in all 50 states. You can't pick and choose: you can't just focus on California and Texas and Florida and New York and expect to secure enough primary convention seats to claim victory. You gotta make plays in North Dakota and Montana and Wyoming and Delaware and Alaska too.

This should do a couple of things:

• It will ensure a consistent message from a candidate during the campaign.

Even in this day of instant global news, and of YouTubing, candidates go from primary to primary changing their messages and campaign slogans and topics of interest. You goto New Hampshire and talk up labor and job protection. Then you go to South Carolina and talk God and immigration reform. Then you go to Florida and talk tourism and beach erosion. Then you go to Texas and talk oil drilling and the evils of sodomy. And you don't have to worry if you flip-flop from any earlier statements: If you've already run and won in an early primary, those states can't reneg on you if you change your campaign focus in the later states. If you run one big national campaign, it will get to be tougher to 'massage' your messages and flip-flop from state to state. What say if you do a big thing about how 'Sodomy Is EVIL' in Texas and 10 minutes later your opponent gets to shred you in front of voters in sodomy-friendly New York, who now get to vote at the same time as Texas? It will really hurt if your opponent gets to shred you in New York without alienating the voters in Texas. As a result, campaigning candidates will have to get real careful about what they say in one state, else they worry about the votes they lose in other states. You'll see candidates focusing more on the Big Picture items that Presidents need to focus on anyway, rather than bouncing from topic to topic that would only be of interest to specific states (and that could even be detrimental to the nation as a whole).

• Another thing is that it will ensure getting candidates who appeal nationwide, rather than those who would appeal to the states that would vote early.

The current system of primaries favor the extremist wings of the parties. The early primaries for the Democrats in 2008 are set for Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina (interesting in that NH doesn't go first this time, although Iowa has had informal Caucuses before the Hampshire primaries before). Small population states, each one. And in these states, even a socially conservative state like South Carolina, the Democratic voters are going to skew to the more extreme far left. Small states tend to have specific issues, which have a polarizing effect. Large population states tend to have greater diversity regarding issues because there are more topics of interest, and with more people providing differing views. With small states, all you need is one candidate who sells well on one topic. With large states, you need a candidate able to appeal to a broader scope over more topics. With the whole nation on the clock, you need a candidate able to appeal to all issues, something that the more extreme far right and far left candidates never do. You should get, hopefully, a better quality of candidates when you require them to appeal to the whole nation rather than to the regional/state extremes.

There is, of course, one negative to requiring that a candidate campaign evenly among all 50 states: that guy is gonna need a sh-tload of money to spend evenly between Maine and Hawaii and all states inbetween. That's why it's important that we include this amendment along with Amendment Idea Number Two: if we cap the campaigning to that specific year of election, it will prevent the candidates from raising any early massive warchest. No one candidate will have an advantage or momentum over another as of Jan. 2nd. They will have, since the primary will be held off until June, six months to cover all 50 states, roughly the amount of time they campaign already from state-to-state. Combine this with additional legislation providing for equal fund sharing (publicly-paid campaign funding is an idea bounced about), and this ought to fix any issue relating to fundraising nationwide.

An all-at-once primary campaign is one of the best ways to fix our broken nominating process for choosing Presidents. It will prevent front-runners who are good at fund-raising within the party and appealing to single-issue extremist voters but lousy at actual leadership from outpacing other candidates who are honestly more qualified but lack the money, momentum, and partisanship that exists with the current system.

The only other option is to remove the primary system altogether and replace it with a reality T.V. show: Who Wants to Be President? with voters calling a 1-800 number to cast their vote, or send a text message to vote because phone companies make more money that way. I think the all-at-once Primary is more honorable...

Amendments Wish List 2006

Tis the season to worship mass production and mass consumption. Um, wait.

Tis the season to watch A Charlie Brown Christmas and do the Snoopy dance to that wicked awesome jazz score. Ah, better.

And now, for my note to Sanity Clause.

Dear Santa:

I have been extra good this year and voted to make Katherine Harris pine for the days of 2000. I hope all is well at the North Pole and that you're planning a sweet vacation to Jamaica when December 26 rolls around.

I hope it's alright if I send you a wish list of amendments I'd like to see passed by this new Congress and sent around to the states for ratification. A lot of these are ones I know are kinda frivilous, but if passed they could really improve our lives in subtle and moving ways.

• I'd like an amendment that anyone making accusations of others acting in a treasonous fashion without hard evidence as required by the Constitution be ever after labeled a douchebag, even to where such label gets put on that person's driver's license, resume, business card, phone listing, blog, byline, what have you. Hello, Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Coulter/Malkin/Savage/God knows how many other right wingnuts out there. you're gonna have to find other ways of insulting liberals, moderates, progressives, libertarians, antiwar supporters, basically the 60 percent and growing population out there...
• I'd like an amendment that anyone decrying 'San Francisco Values' be forced to travel to Colma, the Necropolis of San Francisco, and pay their respects to the Emperor Norton. Afterwards, that person will be required to eat Rice-A-Roni the San Franciso Treat for the rest of his/her natural life.
• A neat amendment would be a requirement that all organized team sports that sells tickets for persons to attend their games use a postseason playoff system of no less than 4 teams. While this won't do a thing to nearly every team sport out there, this will finally force the NCAA to get rid of that godawful B(C)S system and go with a playoff system that would really settle the college football national champion issue ONCE AND FOR ALL. Sheesh. P.S. Go Gators. Actually, this year, Go Boise State! Stay undefeated and claim the title when Florida whomps Ohio State...
• An amendment to get Esquire magazine editors to admit they don't worship Jennfier Connelly for her eyebrows, but for her breasts.
• An amendment to make all Beltway talking heads to relocate to Billings Montana and work the weekly farm reports after 4 years of service. There ought to be a term limit for media hogs more so than for politicans. At least we can vote out the idiot pols.
• An amendment to make Hugh Hefner date a woman the same age he is. Or at least mix his harem with brunettes. Dammit man, all those blondes, you're gonna go blind from the peroxide shine!
• An amendment to make Dennis Miller funny again.
• An amendment to get Tom Tancredo to say those things about Miami right in the middle of Little Havana.
• An amendment requiring that the political party that votes with greater numbers for a war have its college-level supporters go fight that war.
• An amendment changing our national anthem from 'Star Spangled Banner' to 'Theme from Shaft.' Oh cmon, the Olympics will get that much funkier.
• An amendment allowing people to have their cable companies and satellite dish providers allow them to pick and choose which channels to have sent into their homes. That means you can trade in a worthless network like FOX News for something more relevant like, oh, the Anime Network (um, have they gotten Girls Bravo yet?).

And Santa, oh please let me have this one amendment idea for sure this Christmas time:

• An amendment making Bill O'Reilly celebrate Mithras instead of Christmas. He'll have to pay for his own bull to sacrifice, too.

What The Democrats Should Do The Next Two Years

Well, I had gotten caught up in a few other projects, namely a National Novel Writing Contest that naturally I'm not going to finish in time (sigh). I had tried writing up a post just before the Nov. 2006 midterm election about the horrific amount of mudslinging and election-day dirty tricks that had been going on, and any suggestions on how to fix our electoral system so that our elections are honest, fair and smudge-free. It's still on my draft board, and someday I'll get around to it.

Instead, with the election over and with the Democratic Party now in firm control of both houses of Congress, the big topic inside the Beltway has been "How evil and backstabbing" that mean ole Wicked Witch of the West Nancy Pelosi is. Sigh. Some things don't change, do they? Seriously, the big topic has been "What will the Dems do with their control of Congress?"

Some issues are unavoidable. Iraq has become such a mess that 'Civil War' is now the only way to describe the situation there.

Some issues are so easy to highlight. One example: Raising the minimum wage was practically the only nation-wide campaign theme the Dems had going. Considering that at the state level EVERY STATE that had a Minimum Wage Increase referendum passed their referendums (meaning that this is something voters across the board WANT), you know the Dems will be voting a national wage increase first chance they get.

Some issues had been stealthy. No one wanted to talk about how a Democrat-controlled Congress will fare against a Bush Administration that had gotten used to doing things their way under the last 6 years of One-Party-Rule. But now it's here. And now you have to consider the increase in congressional subpoenas that are going to head down Pennsylvania Ave come January...

So, here it is, my laundry list suggestion of things the Democrats should, and could, do now they have control of Congress.

I've divided this up into three sections: Domestic Issues, Foreign Policy Issues, and Reform Issues.

Domestic Issues:

• Obviously, boost the minimum wage. Nearly every newspaper editor, TV pundit, and street-corner prophet knows the Dems will make this a signature opening move on Day One. You may hear screams from the pro-CEO crowd that increasing wages will force companies to raise prices (eek! Inflation!). But things have been increasing in price already without the salary adjustments to average American wages since the last wage increase. Businesses haven't been including Cost-Of-Living increases to people's Annual Evaluation increases (or in some cases the other way around) in the last 25 years, whereas before both COLAs and Evaluation increases used to be the way of things in the 1950s and 1960s, back when wages really meant something. There ought to be ways to ensure that the coming wage increase won't affect inflation. The priority is to improve people's wage earnings: there are far too many families sliding toward or are now under that Poverty Line...
• Another suggestion I have is add a Salary Cap to CEOs. Oooooooh, that's gonna touch a nerve. Back in the 1950s, CEOs were making roughly 20 times more than the average middle class worker. Today: it's over 200 times more. CEOs and upper management get massive salaries not to mention perks that average workers don't get, and along with that they also get better Annual Evaluation boosts to their earnings (I saw an USA Today article, swear I did, that showed CEOs getting 25 percent increases where the average worker got a 2-5 percent increase. I am still looking for that article and will cite ASAP). If companies are serious about holding down costs, why don't they do something about how expensive their top employees really are? Oh, right, we'd be taking away their ability to pay for that 5th executive golf course country club they joined yesterday. And that 5-car garage mansion with 10 extra dining rooms they never use but love to show off. So here's my suggestion: Put a Cap on any CEO/President of a company employing more than 100 people to where said CEO/President's salary (combined with perks such as stock options, performance bonuses, company-owned items like cars planes and vacation homes) is 20 times more than the average non-management level employee. It should do two things: cut down on high-priced CEO salaries, and increase the employees' wages so that their average wage goes up to give said CEO justalittlebitmoremoney. Don't call me a communist: Call me a fan of the NFL. Thank you Pete Rozelle. Woot.
• Do something about Medicare. The 'reform' package passed under Bush's watch has proved too expensive (that they lied about the costs to Congress before the bill passed remains one of my major grievances with the Bushies). The costs of pills, one of the biggest items on any bill for those on Medicare, have not gone down. There are serious flaws in the Medicare program, and while a majority of Americans don't see it as a higher priority (Iraq, Iraq, and oh yeah Britney's impending divorce) they still feel it's a major problem in need of fixing. Personally, I'd suggest doing something to lower prescription costs, again doing it in a way that the costs don't get shifted somewhere else; I'd also do something about the increased bureaucracy and cut back on that. And there's something about how Plan B on Medicare got twisted to where it will collapse on itself by the next decade: That doesn't sound good.
• Alternate Energy Programs: Very simple reasoning. Let's get rid of dependence on foreign fuel. We're in the Middle East because of oil: we want peace in the region to improve our access to it (and there are some who want war in the region to hinder our access and increase the value of the oil we can get). We wouldn't care much about Venezuela being run by an egomanaic if there wasn't oil there. Oh, and a lot of the renewable 'alternate energy' resources don't pollute as much as oil and coal and nuclear power do.

Foreign Policy Issues:

• Obviously. Iraq. Oh, yes, let's talk about cutting and running. Because that's pretty much the only option left to us. There may be a blue-ribbon committee coming out with its recommendations soon, but what options we have aren't healthy ones. We can't stay, that much is obvious, and sooner or later our troops need to exit Iraq (and head back to Afghanistan where we're losing the one real victory Bush had against the Taliban and Al Qaida). Other options include partitioning Iraq, effectively Balkanizing the nation into its three ethnic sections: North Iraq becomes Kurdistan; Central Iraq for the Sunnis; South Iraq for the Shia. Problems with that? Most times a nation gets split up like that, the surviving new nations hate each other with a vengeance (try India and Pakistan) and immediately go to war on each other (hello, what's left of Yugoslavia!), especially when they'll be stoked to anger by their neighbors (wanna trust the Sunni nation to Syria and the Shia nation to Iran?). Plus, Turkey will not be thrilled with a Kurdish state at their border while Kurdish insurgents inside their nation will be pumped with the urge to have their parts of Turkey annexed to the new Kurd nation. Our other options would include getting other nations to take over the rebuilding process (no one will want the job); increase our troop deployment and go back to waging a full-time war against the insurgents and outside agitators (we don't have the manpower anymore: the Two-Front Army planned for years has finally been stretched too thin); a more drastic option would be to spread the war to the nations most likely supporting the failures in Iraq as a way of cutting back the horrors in Iraq (meaning invading Iran and/or Syria, which would inflame more Islamic extremists across Asia and Africa into thinking this is a full-out Christian Crusade against Islam). One option that makes the most sense is getting Iran and Syria into direct negotiations and barter out a deal to end their support of the insurgency. My suggestion would be to bring in all Middle East nations to such a summit: Turkey, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Qatar, UAB, even Egypt and some of the former Russia-stans in the region. I wouldn't bring in Israel or Gaza Palestine into it, either in discussion or by inviting them to said summit: we do that and Syria and Iran will go out of their way to make Israel their bogeyman issue and intentionally fail the talks. I'd bring Lebanon into the mix, but their issues with Syria right now would prove distracting, so that one I'm not sure about. We have got to get all the Middle East nations to recognize that a stable united Iraq is in their mutual best interests. And if it means we have to flat-out bribe some of them into supporting a stable Iraq, well then we'll need to invite China because they've got all our money right now.
• It's not much, but Congress could do something to improve our international image, which isn't much right now thankyouverymuchGeorge. I dunno, maybe send all the other nations a nice whipped-cream-topping cake, or hey cupcakes from magnolias Bakery mmmmm that ought to work...

Reform Issues:
Corruption turned out to be a major voter-turnout issue, not surprising seeing how the GOP-led Congress was filled to the rafters with lobbyist payoffs, nespotic-like incompetence, self-serving greed, blind ignorance to the criminal activities of colleagues, etc. Now with the GOP out of favor, what can the Dems do?

• Go back to the Roberts Rule of Order! The GOP during its tenure of power had been very naughty ignoring committee protocols, hiding meetings, refusing to follow voting procedures, what have you. Enforcing rules of order, even on themselves, will go a long way toward making voters trust Congress more than they do now.
• Strengthen the Ethics Committee. While the Ethics committee for Congress has been notoriously lax in enforcing any kind of ethics on their fellow legislators, under the Gingrinch/DeLay years (forget Hastert, he was following DeLay's lead more often than not) the committee became a flat-out joke. When DeLay got caught committing major infractions no one could ignore, his buddy Hastert simply got rid of the committee members they didn't trust and installed lackeys who would look the other way. There were a handful of other things the Ethics Committee never got around to facing, and Abramoff was at the center of most of it. If there was anything the Ethics Committee did right... it was probably in their selection of what breakfast pastries to have at their morning sessions. If I were the Democrats, even though this might come back to bite their own party on their collective ass, I would grant the Ethics Committee more independence from Congress to prevent tampering the way DeLay/Hastert did; I would grant them greater investigation enforcement powers, and the ability to issue criminal charges where warranted; I would do whatever it took to end all of the blatantly criminal activities going on between congresspersons and lobbyists, and even all the subtle sh-t too.
• Make no-bid contracts illegal. Investigate the existing no-bid contracted companies and make sure they stop ripping us taxpayers off.
• Protect the Constitution from Bush/Cheney's attempt to seize all the power under the Executive branch. Make the White House accountable to the law. That does mean subpoenas and investigations into a lot of the criminal activity, and yes it is criminal what they are trying to do.

There. That's my laundry list. Now, back to figuring out how to end mudslinging without destroying the First Amendment...

What amendment could stop mudslinging?

I had started writing this before the November 2006 election, but had gotten distracted by RL issues. This is a continuation post-election, with concerns about how negative campaigning will affect the 2008 elections:

The closer we get to an Election Day, the more negative advertisements you get on your televisions. And your radios. And your telephones. If the campaigns had a way to broadcast directly into your heads, we'd be having psychic mudslinging 24/7.

Here's a set of examples from 2006:

• Incumbent Mike DeWine (R) running an ad claiming his opponent Sherrod Brown (D) hadn't paid unemployment taxes years ago... whichwas false (the tax lien was paid but the paperwork on it wasn't filed by the government until recently). Even after the facts were laid out, the GOP refused to back down from the claim.
• In Tennessee, well if I just say "Tennessee bimbo" you'll immediately recognize the infamous race-baiting ad that Republican Bob Corker had running that insinuated his African-American Democratic opponent Harold Ford had a thing for white women. (Sidenote: the SOB responsible for the ad, Terry Nelson, had been hired by John McCain to assist on McCain's 2008 Presidential bid. One more reason I no longer support McCain).
• In Connecticut, Joe Lieberman pulled out a cartoon bear that attacked his primary opponent Ned Lamont of association with Lieberman's ancient opponent Lowell Weicker, implying that Lamont will share Weicker's weaknesses (absenteeism, wacky voting record, stealing people's picnic baskets, etc.).
• Here's a site factcheck.org which has a list of some of the worst mudslinging across the nation, from both Republicans and Democrats.

And these are just the ones I can fit here. There's bad blood in nearly every state in nearly every election.

I'm not the only one complaining about this: here's a link to a Slate commentary on it. Pick your choice of newspaper and you're bound to find an editorial comment decrying the mudslinging and how worse it's become. Because, sad to say it, this sort of crap has been flung about ever since the parties came into existence here...

Let's go back to the first true open election, the one in 1796 when George Washington refused to serve a third term. For the love of all that's holy, we had mudslinging back then between the Federalists and the Republicans (they would evolve into Democrats waaaaaay later). And that was just the beginning of open partisan politics.

• The election in 1800 was worse than that. Sally Hemmings *is* the original scandal girl.
• Let's try 1824, with the mudslinging directed at Andrew Jackson, and specifically at his wife: her divorce hadn't been finalized when they married, so critics accused them of bigamy. She died during the election year, and Jackson believed those mudslingers had killed her.
  
• Try 1860 and 1864. Southerners burned Lincoln in effigy in 1860, which kinda made it tough for him to campaign in those states. Race-baiting Democrats for the 1864 election, in the midst of the Civil War, actually invented a new word miscegenation to accuse Republicans of wanting black men to marry white daughters.
• Try the greatest election scandal ever in 1884 when Grover Cleveland was running for the White House: "Ma! Ma! Where's my Pa?" Which the Republicans were using to hide the fact that their candidate Blaine was caught in business and financial scandals. Mark Twain famously noted that as Cleveland was honest in politics and Blaine honest in private life that Cleveland should be elected to public office and Blaine left to the private life.
• Try 1964. LBJ's campaign painting Goldwater as a nutcase. The infamous Daisy ad, implying Goldwater would call down a nuclear countdown, the crowning achievement of mudslinging advertisements.
• Try 1988. Willie Horton.
• Try the Clinton years. Oh ye Gods. The Republicans are still throwing mud at Slick Willy, and he's not even in office anymore.

And again, I could go on.

And the problem is, how in God's name can we stop this?

Mudslinging may be traditional but it's a horrible one: it forces voters to look at the negatives, and sometimes those negatives are fabricated or unrelated to the issues at hand. Why worry about failing schools and low wages and almost no job security when you could worry instead about the snuke in Hilary's crotch?

The problem is, for all intents, this gets up close to the First Amendment if not fully under its protective umbrella. The rules allowing for free speech, for the right to assemble, to petition grievances. You have the right to point out the flaws of others, and especially the right to point out the flaws of potential political leaders. But honestly, does that give the right to insult and defame, which is all we really get anymore?

One possible solution at hand is to point out that not all speech is protected: Speech that could could form a clear and present danger, for example, any speech that would incite violence or rioting - that's not protected speech. Calling out 'FIRE' in a crowded theater when there is no fire, almost certain to cause a stampede of doom, is certainly not protected speech. We should extend that a little further:

• Lying is not protected speech.

That should be a given anyway. Hell, aren't we getting hammered for the need to put the Ten Commandments into our courtrooms and classrooms and offices and all? Isn't there a Commandment against false witness? Gee, you'd think a lot of politicians would support an effort to make false witness/lying a crime in all circumstances, right...?

The judicial system has penalties in place for things like Obstruction, Perjury, and Lying to investigators. We need something like that in the public arena of the media and in official political statements. Libel and slander laws don't seem to cut it anymore. We need laws that say a politician, or a spokesperson, cannot make statements that can be proven false. If we do have a law like that on the books (and why does it look like we don't?), then it needs to be renewed, reinforced, re-established. With succifient penalties to back it up.

If you think that would force politicians into revealing state secrets, relax. They can always rely on a truthful statement like "I cannot comment on that." There. Truthful without having to say anything. Of course, if your spokesman has to keep saying "No Comment," you're going to have problems of some kind anyway so...

All I'm saying is: If we can penalize those in office who lie, or those running for office who lie, that should have the proper effect of reducing a lot of the mudslinging and negative campaigning out there. Less mudslinging = more positivie campaigns = more voters with a positive view of elections and commitment to civic duties.

UPDATE: Oh great this is originally showing the post-date of October 2006, when I first started writing it, rather than the date I finally got around to finishing it (April 12, 2007). Wonder if this updating will fix it...

Amendment Suggestion 2: this is one I've offered before

This was something I'd posted at my WittyLibrarian site last year...

• No candidate for elected office can announce, raise funding for, or organize a campaign until the first month of that year of election.

This was the original point I'd made then, and it's still relevant today:

This is a response to how the Presidental campaign has devolved. When you've got Senators and Governors already polling and setting up campaign groups for 2008, three years from now (Hell, we've had Ah-nold campaigning since 2003 for an amendment to let him run for President), then we've got problems. Problems in the form of money that they need to keep these campaigns afloat for so long; ergo, problems in the form of political dealing they make to keep that money coming in.
This is an attempt to shorten the campaign process, and to lessen the costs of an extended campaign. It's to keep campaigns focused, and interesting: people lose interest after two straight years of nudging and posturing and mudslinging and flat-out campaigning. By November of a three-year campaign, people are tired of it. By November of a one-year campaign, there's (with hope) only mild fatigue.
There are no problems to having a shortened, one-year campaign: in this day of instant media across the whole planet, there is no need for extended times to ensure the word gets out. The California Recall (NOTE: dang, was that 2003?) proves that a short, three month campaign at a state level was doable: a nationwide year long campaign should work as well if not moreso. England and other countries are able to hold elections within months of declaring for one.
The only ones who benefit from a multi-year 'campaign' are those who fund them, the lobbyists and deep-pocket groups that want to use their money to buy the influence they need to stay in power. ADDENDUM: The idea is that, the smaller the warchest, the fewer numbers of Quid Pro Quos the elected official will have to pay back. Everyone else benefits (even the candidates, who have to be under serious stress from the greet and meet, see how many of the good ones burn out from the extensive campaigning) from a shortened campaign period. This ought to be a no-brainer amendment to pass...except that the status quo will fight it to the last dollar...

When you look at politicans today, they are in a constant mode of Campaigning. Constantly asking for funds. Constantly building up warchests. Even in years they are not running for office. All that money, all that need for money, can put even the most noble political wonk in serious debt to people who are going to expect their money's worth. If there is any way to cut back on that, we ought to take it.

Also, this amendment should add a second item:

• No funds collected from previous years, either directly by the candidate or by any group or party that would seek to fund that candidate, can be used in that year's election.

This means that any warchest saved over from previous elections no longer exist. This means the deep pockets can't hold in escrow or in any kind of saving account or lock box (sorry, Al, had to borrow the symbol) for their favorite friends running for office. Everyone starts from scratch at the same spot: zero.

And as I noted before, the status quo is going to fight this amendment idea tooth and nail. The buying of politicians is how they reap billions later from the earmarks and the pork barrels and the tax cuts and the favorable anti-union, deregulatory decisions and... yeah, keep adding. That's what they do.

Amendment Suggestion 1: Checks and Balances

Here's the first amendment idea I want to toss out there:

1. The President of the United States is NOT above the law.
2. The checks and balances established in the Constitution of the United States shall be upheld at ALL TIMES.

The George W. Bush administration has, in its last 6 years of operation, gone out of its way to assume, take, and seize political power and authority away from not only the two other branches of government but also from the states. This is a product of the last 40 years of Republican planning: ever since the era of Nixon, hell even before, the GOP had its factions obsessed with Authoritarianism, of having power reside in a powerful unyielding Chief Executive who would never have to answer to the whims of a crowded noisy Congress or an intrusive, 'activist' Court. Think back to what Nixon said to David Frost in the post-Watergate interview he gave in which he expressed the theory: "If the President does it, it's not illegal." See, if a Senator does it, it's illegal. If a soldier does it, it's illegal. If an average citizen does it, it's illegal. But if the President does it, for him and him alone, it's legal.
Under that theory, the President can suspend habeus corpus, not Congress, and the Courts will have nothing to say about it because without habeus there's nothing they CAN say. The President can ignore any treaty he feels like, without the Senate raising a stink. The President can ignore any law Congress passes without even worrying about the Constitutional requirement of a Veto, simply by signing a statement on how he interprets the law as he sees fit. The President can knock over gas stations if he felt like it, under this idea of the President being Above The Law.
This theory is best found under the title of Unitary Executive Theory: that the President is vested by Article II of the Constitution to 'Take care' that the laws are faithfully executed. But if you read that wiki article I linked to, you will see that at nearly every time the President used that theory to expand powers, the Courts struck it down or limited that administration's reach. In the few times that the Courts failed to enforce their ruling, such as when Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court's ruling that he could not force Indians out of their tribal lands, the results were inhumane and ended up being a dark stain in our nation's history.
If you do look at the history of when the President overreached his authority - Jefferson's refusal to seat Adams' midnight judges that led to the Marbury v. Madison; Andrew Jackson's explusion of the Cherokee from Georgia that led to decades of wrongs committed against the Native Americans; Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus that led to Ex Parte Milligan; FDR's internment of Japanese Americans that led to reparation payments after the war; Truman's strike-breaking effort that led to the Youngstown decision; Nixon's domestic spying abuses - there is something wrong with this whole idea of a super-powerful Executive. And as you see there's been a pattern of abuse by these previous administrations, all overshadowed by the horrific excesses of the current administration, that shows something, ANYTHING, needs to be spelled out in black-and-white.
This amendment is meant to spell it out: The President has his limits, and it's the law. Anything defined as illegal by Congress, he can't do, period. Anything ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, he can't do, period. This is a reminder that power is shared in this government, that there is a series of checks and balances, that the President cannot make the law or define the law, he just enforces it and does his job and does it right.
The second part of this amendment idea is that the laws are to be upheld at all times under all circumstances. John Yoo, George W. Bush's legal defender on authoritarianism, argues that during wartime power shifts to the Executive branch. The problem is that becomes an excuse to use the powers as he sees fit, even if they don't relate to the War Effort. And legal history has proved Yoo wrong: Lincoln's suspension of Habeus during the Civil War was ruled Unconstitutional; Truman's strike-break efforts were during the Korean War, again was ruled Unconstitutional. The Courts, interpreting the Constitution as is their authority to do so, has determined that the President cannot claim wartime as an excuse to override the laws of the land. The second part of my amendment spells that out clearly, so there will be no confusion or deception regarding this: THE PRESIDENT IS NOT SHOULD NOT WILL NOT BE ABOVE THE LAW. EVER.
This isn't the best legal argument anyone can make: but it's the right argument to speak for.

Apologies

I've been busy in the real world with a move to a new job and a new home.

I've also been swamped by the thought of figuring which amendment idea I'd like to toss out there first. Given the sheer scope of stupidity and criminality going on out there, it was hard to think on which amendment would be a surefire argument starter that will get me branded as a traitor or delusional.

I think I've got a good one to start. See you tomorrow with it.

What the People Can Do...

So, as stated, if the federal government can't respond to the people's need for much-needed reforms, the states could do so through the Constitutional Amendment process. The next big question is, how can the people get the state governments to respond?

Well, in the immortal words of Fredrick Douglass, Agitate.

Better ways to describe 'agitating' would be:

1) Constant street-level protests focusing on a single topic of needed reform around the state capital until the state lege capitulates and passes a motion to have a convention held on that proposed amendment. It helps to focus on just one topic to a) prevent confusion and b) encourage the state(s) that call for the convention to ensure that convention will stay focused on that reform and not dabble in more divisive amendment proposals.

2) This being an election year, you can see about greeting and meeting the state representatives and state senators running for election. If enough people confront them on getting specific reform amendments passed, that ought to leave an impression on them that people are going to pay attention to what they do, and should encourage them to push for those amendments.

3) Some, probably most, hopefully all, states should have a system of voters submitting referenda and/or amendments at the state level that circumvent the offices of the lege and the governors, and would compel the state government to act on issues the elected officials would rather avoid. In my state of Florida, for example, we have an amendment system in place where voters directly vote on amendments to the Florida Constitution: some of those amendments are added to the ballot via petition-signing campaigns run by single-issue advocates. Some that passed involved an amendment adding a dollar to the current federal minimum wage, an amendment protecting the rights of pregnant pigs, an amendment restricting class sizes in schools (an attempt to reduce overcrowding in classrooms), and a massively controversial amendment forcing the construction of high-speed rail services between the major cities (that amendment was killed off by another amendment that abolished it). A possible *state* amendment that could pass would require the Florida government to automatically push for a federal convention on a particular reform topic.

4) Constant calling and emailing of state legislators. As long as it's done politely, and by the etiquettes of letter-writing and phone-calling, as well as with individual flourishes (they hate cookie-cutter form letters), if enough people submit their concerns that an amendment convention is needed the legislators should respond appropriately.

You may notice something about all 4) items on that checklist: they each require action on your part - our part - to get something done. Agitation is best done with deeds rather than words. It's easy to sit here and type this stuff up: it takes effort to actually go and *do* it.

The impressive thing about the recent wave of protests held predominantly by the Latino communities over the sudden concerns on illegal immigration is that they've actually done it. Considering the level of anger and hostility in this country over Bush's and the GOP Congress's mishandling of affairs (messy and mismanaged war effort, growing deficits from bloated earmarks spending, bribery and corruption across the board, warrantless wiretapping and increasing violations of citizen's civil liberties, cronyism to where loyalty trumps competency, all of that), there haven't been massive protests in this country since the start of the Iraqi war. Where are the anti-war protestors today? Where's the massive crowds of angry libertarians shouting about pork barrel spending bankrupting our childrens' futures? It's one thing to talk the talk: it's better still to walk the walk.

We need action. We need passion in the streets. We need a focus on which to gather our interest. Pushing for reform amendments is a good step in that process.

So. What amendments should we push for?

More to follow...

How the States Can Help Pass Reform Amendments

Can the normal citizenry of the United States enact reforms on their own when those in power, in Congress and in the White House, fail to achieve such needed reforms themselves? Yes, but it will take work. It would entail using the state legislatures, the power at the local level, to do it. By getting the states to call for amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The Founders, when creating the Constitution, left the power to change that Constitution through the Amendment process (Article 5). There were two ways to propose an amendment: either two-thirds of both Houses of Congress proposed an Amendment; or two-thirds of state legislatures move to have a convention called to create an Amendment.

States do have that power, although there has never been an opportunity to achieve such a moment under the Constitution itself. Every time the states came close to meeting the limit, Congress took it upon themselves, out of fear, to pass that Amendment and prevent the states from calling that convention. The best example was when there was a reform push for direct election of Senators to replace the corrupt cronyist practice of having Senators indirectly placed through state governments (I know there seems a lot of irony involved in how that issue was resolved). The Senate had been blocking that reform for years, but when enough states came close to calling a convention for it, that amendment passed Congress and was later approved as the Seventeenth Amendment.

That fear Congress has for the state-nominated convention is legitimate, however, and I would be negligent if I ignored mentioning it. While having the states call such a Convention would circumvent a recalcitrant Congress (like the one we have now that refuses to consider legitimate political reform), it would also open up a Pandora's box in that such a Convention could do anything it wants and end up submitting a slew of unwanted and divisive amendments for ratification. It could even rewrite the whole Constitution and submit a new one. That's the big fear. Because it's happened before.

THIS Constitution came about because the original Articles of Confederation holding the U.S. together was failing: state powers were being abused, the federal powers were barely existing, there were no controls on business and commerce, or on taxation, or on a respect for law from state to state. So the states were talked into sending representatives to a Convention on the point of amending and fixing the existing Articles. The end results of that Convention was a brand new federated Constitution that noone (except for Hamilton and a few others) expected going into that gathering.

The big fear is that something like this would happen again: Even if the current government passed federal laws defining how any such state-formed convention would run itself, there would be no true guarantees that the convention would stick to an agenda. We could go in with a handful of reform amendments to fix elections and campaigning, and to fix lobbyists' access to politicans, but we could end up with a hundred amendments on every divisive issue from Abortion to School Prayer to Gay Marriage. The convention itself could collapse on such issues without resolving anything.

There are only two things that should encourage us to consider this as a route to genuine reform: One, that if enough states get close to push for this convention on a specific amendment platform (for example, creating an Amendment limiting campaign times to a single year rather than the current near-constant campaigning we have now), it could force Congress to pass their own version to avoid the potential disaster; and Two, that if there are enough people committed to genuine reform involved in this process, we could assure through consensus (a 'Gentleperson's Agreement') that the divisive issues be left to Congress and the decisive issues be handled in the Convention.

So then the question becomes, what can we as ordinary citizens do to get the states to consider these Amendment reform ideas?

More to follow...

Introductions are in order

Welcome to my political blog of ranting and snarkery. Insert smirk here.
My intent with this blog is to insert some positive and constructive suggestions to all the yelling taunting and screaming going on in the current political scene. Oh, I'll add my own yelling and taunting, but I will endeavor to add items of merit to the 'discussions.'
My primary outrage is directed at the current shabby lack of ethics: the corruption as highlighted by Congress Quid Pro Quo-ing with K Street and the Lobbyists, the open lying with BushCheneyCo.'s push into Iraq and methodical destruction of the Constitution's checks and balances, the bullying of media talking heads declaring 'evil' and 'treason' toward anyone showing a modicum of independent and logical thought... Yeah, fun times.
Just today, for example, the House passed a reform bill that essentially had no teeth to it. The New York Times article gives better detail on what is and isn't in the package:

After Mr. Abramoff's plea, Mr. Dreier and (Speaker Hastert) endorsed the idea of barring members of Congress and their aides from accepting trips paid with private money. But the bill the House passed Wednesday would not ban the trips. Rather, it calls for the House ethics committee to draft trip rules by June 15. Before then, privately financed trips will require advance approval from two-thirds of the ethics panel.

Unlike the measure approved by the Senate, the bill does not address the "revolving door," the Capitol Hill term for lawmakers and aides who leave Congress to become lobbyists. The Senate bill aims to rein in that practice by requiring lawmakers and senior aides to refrain from lobbying former colleagues for two years, instead of the current one year.

And there could be so much more added to create genuine reform and end the cycle of greed and mismanaged spending that have turned the last 5 years of Congressional budgeting into one of the biggest deficits this nation has ever seen, one that is threatening the fiscal stability of the United States well into the 21st Century. But noone's pursuing any of that.

Finding genuine reformers in elected office is viciously rare these days: the only way to get elected anymore is with stockpiles of money, and the only way to get those stockpiles is to suck up to whatever special interests and their lobbyists can cough up that dough for you. And those special interests/lobbyists are going to expect their money's worth once you get in. Expecting Congress to reform itself is like expecting Paris Hilton to become a nun (wait, is she Catholic btw...?).

No, in this regard, the American people - the middle class (what's left of it), the poor, the average American that doesn't have $2 million to donate to the Congressman's wife-run charity - are going to have to make the reforms themselves.

And the only way to do that is to get a Constitutional Convention going.

more to follow...