New York Times starts crying
Oh, the agony! Such a deep, deep sadness has come over Jay Sullivan and David Schanzer that they are compelled to write this article: CANCEL THE MIDTERMS. Here's the key paragraph, in my opinion:
The realities of the modern election cycle are that we spend almost two years selecting a president with a well-developed agenda, but then, less than two years after the inauguration, the midterm election cripples that same president’s ability to advance that agenda.
How absurd. Could it be that the crippling of the agenda is possibly the fault of selected president? If the star receiver is selected to catch the ball on the final play and he drops it, should we cancel the football game? I'm pretty sure there was no similar article written for the Times in 2006.
Republican wonks like to talk about political capital, but I think the concept of the Divine Right is operative among liberals and democrats. The way most of us see it is that Obama has burnt all his capital, squandered his good will and used most of his trump cards. If you are one of the leftists at the New York Times you shout "Not fair! He gets a do over!" If you're a conservative you simply say "Well, time to punt, big guy."
"...the midterm election cripples that same president’s ability to advance that agenda...."
ReplyDeleteThose wascally voters!! How dare they do that Democracy Thing?
That would be Diane Kamer....posting as my son (not on purpose).
ReplyDeleteOh, good; Rush Limbaugh just start talking about this article. Hilarity ensues....
ReplyDeleteThe token lib at the WSJ wrote a piece last week (behind paywall, so no link) saying the same thing by suggesting that House terms be four years, and also urging that the parties scrap their primary systems for choosing presidential candidates. Because the current system rewards talented campaigners (like McCain and Romney, I guess?) rather than those who can govern. Oh, and that we should have mandatory voting.
ReplyDeleteOn another point, we received a new voter registration card for our now-married and moved-out daughter. Mrs. Pik and I discussed that, prior to Voter ID here in Texas, Mrs. Pik could have used that card to vote twice -- once for herself and once for daughter. One can only wonder how many times that's been done in the pre-voter-ID past.
P.S. I intend to use my concealed handgun license as ID when I vote tomorrow. Because the lefties down here scream "a concealed handgun license is good enough ID to vote but a college ID is not" as tho that is a bad thing.
I would like to see a regularized electoral calendar with quadrennial terms as a default. I do not see that it benefits one party over the other. The reaction I've seen to this idea on Republican blogs has been dismayingly reflexive and often silly. Right now ballots are a mess with an unpredictable jumble of offices up every year.
ReplyDeleteTwo-year terms are now atypical though common in the country at large. Regarding the federal Congress, short terms provide an edge for politicians less adverse to spending gobs of time fundraising and campaigning; it lowers the quality of public official. What we would really benefit from would be rotation in office (say, no more than 8 years in 12 in a given office), mandatory retirement at a given age (say, 76, so no more Robert Byrds), and high age threshholds to run for office (say 39 for any supralocal office or executive position). Replacement of the one-man-one-vote strictures with a practice manual for drawing electoral constituencies would help. Ordinal balloting would help.