On the other hand, what’s this about “punishing” the Senator? Majority Leader Reid seems to indicate that loyalty to party is more important than pushing an agenda that’s right for the country.

I don’t want you to think that I think Lieberman is doing any such thing. But if he believes it, that’s good enough for me–and then it’s up to his constituents to agree with him and keep him in office, or disagree and kick him out.

The idea that party machinery can exact revenge of sorts by throwing him out of leadership positions (by denying him committee chairmanship, for example) is outrageous. Committees have as their first moral duty the imperative to do the business of the nation, without regard to party allegiance or conformity to ideology. To deny a duly-elected representative the tools to do her job (or his, in this case) in order to exact revenge is outrageous.

This is just another example of how the dupolistic tendencies of major political parties hurts the same people it claims to advocate for.

That’s exactly what the term limits law in New York City is about–deliberately sacrificing “choice” in favor of upholding a shot at real representation. Almost half of our City Council is minority, and, under the old rule, would have to flourish elsewhere at the end of their two terms.

Christine Quinn–who was against term limits, flipped, and has now flipped back–dressed up this particular pig in colors of choice. With that kind of flip record, I need to remind the young Ms. Quinn that term limits are designed to protect the electorate from politicians like her. What do you say about a person who says one thing and then does another? Go ahead and call Ms. Quinn what she is.

My own City Councilman, David Yassky, was mum on his vote just a week ago. I will call his office and demand an explanation later today. I’ll put in an account of his reasoning as soon as I can get a hold of someone who will be quoted.

I was talking the other day to some friends about this project and have been fielding a lot of questions. A lot of this blogging is self-advertisement, you know, and I’m sticking “Bull Mooser” in to just about every sentence I can speak with out driving everyone crazy. Anyway, from memory, I’ve attempted to list them all here. They’re paraphrased, of course.

————————————————————————————–

Hey. What’s the plan?

The plan, Stan, (may I call you Stan?) is to begin aggregating power in a new, national voting bloc.

Isn’t that spelled b-l-o-c-k?

It looks better spelled without the ‘k’.

Why not a party?

We could go that way in the future. In fact, it might be necessary. However, for now, we maintain that the problem with politics is that it’s dominated by parties, which are necessarily a narrow distillation of political sentiment in this country. 

What’s the problem with that? You’re not suggesting a Swiss direct democracy, are you?

We don’t know if the Swiss have a magic formula or not. What we do know is that voting as a bloc (like the Satmar and Hasidic Jews, for example) can bring to bear a headlock kind of force upon an opponent.

Jesus. This isn’t wrestling.

Yes it is. The proper place of government is to live in fear of its citizenry, not the other way around.

Sounds kind of too macho.

There are people in this country who want to control how you live–whom you marry, what your kids learn in school, and how Christian you are. We think those impulses are kind of macho. Care to fight that with hugs and bunnies? Maybe we could rustle up a crying clown and a rainbow or two.

So your attitude is, use the same tactics that your ‘enemy’ does.

Basically. The ends are different, but we’re basically going to hit you over the head until you listen to our demands.

Sounds like a hostage situation.

Have you been asleep for the past eight years? Yes, it’s a hostage situation. The whole point is that we take everything apart–all the layers of institutional nonsense and party corruption that have kept power from ordinary people out there and people like you who think you’re somehow above everything and can “always move to Canada” like you threaten but never actually do.

Moving to Canada would actually be a more effective method of change, actually, than continuing on.

Okay, so how do you intend to affect change?

Threats, mainly.  You know, “Do your job or we’ll vote you out.”

You say you want to maximize power and freedom for individuals. What if my religion prevents me from wanting to allow people to do certain things, like use stem cells for research?

Then you’re a damn busybody.

So my religious values/culture don’t count?

They count, but only for you. Everyone else gets to choose. You don’t get to make laws based on your values for everyone else.

So this is all like, ‘Free to be you and me’?

Yes. Do you prefer ‘Free to be like me’?

Aren’t our laws based on someone’s faith and religion?

As presently written, yes. However, belief in a transcendent, pan-dimensional superbeing isn’t required to think that murder is a bad thing, or stealing from pensioners ought to be illegal. You don’t need any religion to outlaw those things in good conscience.

You keep talking about “breaking” everything. Do you actually have any constructive beliefs?  

Sure, but to institute those beliefs we need to jackhammer the knuckleheads out of the tree. Sorry, bad metaphor. Anyway, we believe in:

Government’s role: is to help or get out of the way. Government, through its offices and budget, can foster a national technological and materials strategy. It can pave the way for exports to other countries, and insist on a level playing field in the international currency market.

Government must never: grow beyond its AMC (Absolute Minimum Capacity) to accomplish its goals

Government doesn’t know how to spend citizens’ money better than its citizens

Government serves at the pleasure, whim, and convenience, of the citizens.

Government’s mandate is to maximize and protect the freedom of individual expression and capacity.

A vote should be a positive choice, not a defensive reaction. You should be voting for your hopes, rather than your fears.

This seems to be the message the mainstream media, and a lot of uninformed Americans, have for Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He’s that guy–you know, the ‘former Obama pastor’ who’s been makin’ a ruckus, Bull Moose style, if I may say so.

We love this guy. In fact, we’ve decided to award the Reverend Jeremiah Wright the Inaugural Bull Mooser award for speaking truth to power, rockin’ the boat, and fighting the good fight.

Yes, we know, he was pretty cocky and arrogant during that press conference those weeks ago. But who wouldn’t be, after enduring all those slings and arrows? 

Passionate, outspoken, and not afraid to be not 100% right before he stands up–yes, we’re referring to those whackadoo comments about the US Gov’t and HIV. He tried to back down and off, and then remembered that the government has perpetrated outrages before, and got back up on his soapbox. So it wasn’t enough? Personally we can forgive the man that failing. The core of his message is what counted that day, and he delivered–strongly. It was a bully speech.

As I get more technologically ‘with it’, this spot will become a meeting spot (I hope) for those who are young, old, and committed to creating a third-party based change in the United States. For now, you can get more details by going to bullmooser.com where I have begun assembling the opening salvo of our mission. It’s not much, but it’s a start.

I’m naive and idealistic in an age which denigrates both qualities. I would remind those who feel that way that America was once a naive, idealistic dream, and that no patriotism worth having was ever underwritten by cynicism. If you’re not afraid to be a dreamer, and you feel passionately that we’ve got to change our country, then perhaps we should meet here sometime.  Who knows. Maybe we could even do something for our country.

Yours,

Julian