I don't know, is this irony or honesty or just another shovel load?

Not that he's wrong, mind you, just that our electoral system has been hijacked and is augering into the ground at speed.

Is this irony? Not that he's wrong.

PS. Comments are still messed up. I "posted" one and it vaporized (which is a bummer because it was much snappier than this one).

testing, one, two...tree frog.

It seems to me that ten candidates on each side of aisle, campaigning for nearly a full two years prior to the election is completely disruptive to the integrity of the politcal system.

I'm not sure if high-jacked is the right idea. It sure seems that the progression of the election cycle has taken a severe turn for the worse in the last ten years. I'm not sure of the Crossfire-type format of political discourse is the cause or the symptom. Either way, it sure seems that politics has crept closer to entertainment. More and more, I see people waving red or blue flags and chanting talking points like there were some kind of goddamm fight song.

Not only is the the political discourse distributed by MSM intellectually bankrupt, spare a few excpetions, the audiences cannot even pay attention to a topic long enough to establish a well founded opinion. The result is a growing population of parrots that gather around bird-bath forums.

I'm trying to type that I agree with Newt but my fingers keep on curling into fists and punching my head when I try.

And FYI, I'll be coming into Chi town tomorrow. The girls will be at the American Girl store stimulating the economic upturn. I plan to do my part in a bar nearby. I'll send my cell # to Seed.

Somewhat off context, but I firmly believe an easy step towards repairing the process wuold be to remove the option for a second term and put the president in office for one six year term. It has always bothered me that the leader of our democracy should be taken away from affairs of state to worry about re-election.

Of course, it would remove a bit of the incentive to work for the people for those first four years, but I think the benefit would out weigh the cost.

I don't know that I have an answer to this, but it seems that the way we frame our politcal discussions in the media is part of the problem. Small, bite-sized nuggets are great for news items. In three minutes you can findout that a hurricane is on it's way to Hawaii, the miners have yet to be heard from in seven days, and they are still digging bodies out from under the bridge in Minnesota.

When we apply the same format to complex politcal subjects we are at a disservice. It take more than a drive-by to understand the context of Plame/Wilson, or FEMA/Katrina, or Obama's comments toward Pakistan. Bite-sized pieces, and a lack of attention to the entre story, creates a bunch of parrots.

For example: There was a local story last week about how Chicago is well over budget, and one way City Hall is filling the hole is by producing parking tickets. There have been many that have received tickets that are somewhat suspect, to say the least. Well, my mother-in-law told the story about four times over the weekend, every time she aquaked the headline... They're filling the hole, they're filling the hole. Now, granted there may not be a great deal of nuance to that particular story. But she tends have that approach to other topics that might require more attention.

At this point I am wondering if the candidates are simply a product of the format the media gives us. Why does Bush sound like a broken record... liberty, freedom, liberty, freedom? Why are candidates' remarks so carefully constructed by commitee?

The 30-second sound byte might have more to do with it than you think.