The Bernoulli Effect

If America knows what is good for itself, it will not elect Clinton. That's a really big "if". More sad than true...

Mark Floyd's words on this: if liberals take over the White House then you might want to think about a visit to your priest, rabbi, or whatever religious leader you look up to. That is, of course, unless you follow Islam's jihad - then you can rejoice because your sick kind is bringing about the end of all human existence. Floyd thinks that destroying all of humanity in order to lay your hands on 72 afterlife virgins is about as retarded as religious beliefs get.

Will humanity end if Hitlery Clinton becomes the first female President? Will humanity be saved if Giuliani becomes the next President? Can Americans accept a President Newt? Does any of it matter, or are we already set for the shite heap?

A co-worker and I were discussing this very issue this morning, but from a slightly different perspective, i.e., would or should either one of us actually cast a vote for the "position" of the Presidencey in '08. Of course, he noted the infantile argument that if you don't vote you can't complain which I reasonably countered with the NuVo (Null Vote)argument, i.e. not voting is a vote not to vote and consequently a vote to deny either or any "winner" of the position a mandate, to which I then addressed the question of whether or not denying a "President" a mandate would actually matter. We agreed probably not and he pointed out that in hindsight he'd embarrased himself by voting Bush the first time thinking that no one in that job can do us much harm because they can't get much done. That sparked the recollection that the reason that we're in the mess we're in today is because of the Congressional approval of the blunder into Iraq and that wouldn't have happened if one party hadn't controlled both the Presidency and the Congress. And there lies my answer. Considering the power of the office of the Presidency to do awful things with our tax money, unless and until we defang the office altogether our best bet is a split government that bogs down in gridlock and can accomplish little to nothing. The only long term solution is a drastic overhaul of the entire system with a focus in my opinnion, on a meaningful diminishment of the authority of the central gov't and a return to Federalism.

My general answer to "gut the federal government" kinds of arguments has always been this: You are basing your argument on the hope that local government (including the states) is somehow going to be more virtuous than the federal. People are people, and they'll screw up their city council (or church organizations or PTA) just as stupidly and selfishly as they do in Washington.

And to gut the power of the president seems counterproductive, if not an outright reorganization of the intentions of the Founders. I don't think we can effeitively govern this modern society of 300 million by distributing power back to local communties. The Articles of Confederation didn't work in 1780; they surely wouldn't work now.

I do agree with you that the "nulllification vote" theory seems to be a dead end. You see this a lot with the suggestion that the supposed "social conservatives" are planning to stay home if McCain or Giuliani is nominated. If they'd really rather have their no-vote protest at the cost of someone like Hillary in the WH, then good luck to them. There'll be an awful lot of evangelicals running around with no noses and spited faces.