The Call -- Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

Tonight I received the call -- one of those calls from one of those national Republican reelection committees -- telling me that I needed to support the Republican party because Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Harry Reid will destroy America.  I asked them how the trifecta could be any worse than the previous 6 years with Republican control of the Congress.  Since both national parties like to tax and spend and deficit spend, and since both parties are morally, socially, politically, and fiscally bankrupt, what's the difference?

It wasn't the response they were anticipating.  Likewise I didn't receive any kind of meaningful response.  No admittance of past errors.  No sense of remorse or regret.  No promise, vision, or contract of how they intend to correct past abuses (or to just get out of the way).  Just a lot of toe tapping (hopefully not from a restroom stall).

Any idea how I can get them to put me on their Do Not Call list?

Comments

[Voice of Utah]

Funny. I would probably say similar things if the Dems called me.

[Jesse Harris]

My father-in-law tells them that once they do something meaningful about illegal immigration, he'll start sending them checks again. he does the same thing with the donation envelopes that come in the mail. To date, he hasn't gotten meaningful responses either. This is among the many reasons I'm non-partisan.

[Misty Fowler]

Fear is no reason to support anyone.

[JM Bell]

I got the call from my folks as well. I used phrases like "lack of testicular fortitude" and "ineffectual Habeas Corpus restoration efforts."

Sadly, politik'n is exempt from the Do Not Call List.

[Rob Latham]

You know what to do when you're frustrated enough to introduce a bill to help break up the two-party duopoly, John.

Contact FairVote or visit its web site -- http://www.fairvote.org -- for model legislation.

If competition is good for education, why not politics?

[John Dougall]

Rob: Perhaps you could provide an example of how you would restructure the elections for federal office within Utah, per the FairVote initiative you reference, with 2 senators and 3 congressmen.

[Rob Latham]

John: Changing elections for the U.S. House of Representatives would require changing federal law, but not the U.S. Constitution, which mandates that states use single-member districts.

But starting the same kind of change needed -- which involves the use of the single transferable vote and the creation of multi-member districts -- at the state and local level may drive the changes needed at the federal level.

However, U.S. Senators are statewide elections. FairVote recommends using the SIngel Tranferable Vote for such jurisdiction-wide elections. State law could be changed to make this change without changing federal law.

FairVote recommends replacing single-member districts with the Single Transferable Vote and multi-member districts for the U.S. House of Representatives.

The links below (I tried to embed these links above, but they were scrubbed out after I clicked on "Preview") to animations illustrating these election methods suggest how Utah's federal offices could be elected, both in the U.S. Senate (STV) and the U.S. House of Representatives (STV with multi-member districts).

http://www.sfelections.org/demo/

http://citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/flash/bc-stv-full.swf

[Obi wan liberali]

The person you talked to was most likely just a paid call center employee. They had a script to go by and I seriously doubt that the employee in question concerned themselves with economic theories regarding deficit spending and tax policy.

I am encouraged to see you talking about deficit spending. There's an old saying, "if you are spending too much money, it isn't wise to quit your night job."