Radical Change
The House is too small. There is not enough floor space in the White House for all the shoes that are dropping.
One more hit the floor since last week. This one involves White House personnel cavorting with prostitutes.
Normally, a little hanky-panky between adults will not be newsworthy, even if one of the fun lovers is high profile. This one, however, is different. Here is yet another lie and coverup by the White House.
Two years ago, two dozen members of President Obama’s advance team for his visit to Cartagena, Columbia, were fired or disciplined for cavorting with prostitutes. Those were Secret Service and military personnel.
One member of the group, however, slipped under the radar. This was Jonathan Dach, a presidential advance team aide and son of a prominent Obama supporter. Although he was identified as a participant at the time, investigators were told to leave his name off the list and the White House denied that he was one of the participants. Today, Dach is a Policy Advisor at the State Department.
Last week The Washington Post broke the story and labeled it a coverup.
White House spokesmen immediately denied the story by claiming there was “no proof” that Dach had entertained a prostitute in his hotel room.
If this story had broken on a FOX News source, some could have written it off as more propaganda from a political rag. Unfortunately for Obama, however, this source is The Washington Post, the newspaper second only to The New York Times as apologists and enablers for class warriors of all stripes.
If a criticism of Obama comes from either The Post or The Times, it must be true.
This, then, is the tip of the iceberg that was touted seven years ago as being the Administration of CHANGE and the most transparent Administration in history.
Without question, there has been change. The U.S. changed from being the respected leader of the so-called free world to an aimless country looking for a leader. It also changed by sinking deeper into a society of denials, coverups, and unabashed lies.
With this dismal record, some are asking, “How can we change back?”
Unfortunately, the only way back for the next two years is through the lengthy and cumbersome impeachment procedure. That, unfortunately, will never be possible because it requires allegations of high crimes and misdemeanors. Incompetence, lies, and coverups do not fit under either crime.
So, under current procedures, Obama is virtually guaranteed the use of the White House as a base for fundraising and golf trips for another two years and 90 days.
That dismal future raises the question of whether there is a better way to select and remove the President of the United States. Today, the President is selected by a majority vote of the Electoral College. Technically, the final decision of the Electoral College may not reflect the majority of the votes cast at polling places and, once elected or selected, the President can be removed from office only by impeachment.
Today, the President is a Democrat, but Congress is dominated by Republicans--233 in the House and 45 in the Senate for a total of 278 compared with a total of 252 Democrats. This disparity is, at least, partly responsible for the stalemate plaguing the nation.
This fiasco prompts consideration of an alternative. Do our political roots offer a better alternative?
In England, the Prime Minister (an office roughly equivalent to that of the U.S. Presidency) is selected by the party or coalition of parties with a majority of the members of Parliament. He can be removed from office by a simple vote of no confidence by a majority of the members who appointed him to office.
Consider that as a model for amending the U.S. Constitution. This would eliminate the long, expensive, and sometimes boring campaigns for the Presidency. A name at the top of ballots that encouraged straight party voting would also disappear.
Races for the House of Representatives and Senate would then become paramount. Once it was determined which party had a total of 269 or more members in both houses of Congress, those members would caucus and select a President, CEO, or whatever the leader might be called. If or when the leader became widely unpopular, as is currently the case, the caucus could be reconvened to determine whether he should be removed from office.
This procedure might also stimulate the organization and growth of new political parties to accommodate those turned off by the extreme positions of both of the current parties. Members of the new party could elect which of the two old timers they would caucus with to select a national leader.
So here’s the perspective.
Most adults do not like change in any form or fashion. The above suggestion is for not only change, but for a radical change. Accordingly, its chance of serious consideration is nil.
So let it simmer. Some things, like wine, get better with age.
enough
