Rusted Sky

Ronald Reagan, Jerry?

Hard to see any Reaganesque folks in the current political circus. There might be some, but they're staying pretty low.

J.

Not my point here, Jerry.

Reagan was 69 when he was first sworn in. Your 'No one over 65' criterion would have disqualified him.

Are you sure you want to do this?

The past is the past, Ron. My problem is that the 'sell by' date on a lot of our current crop of politicians has passed long ago, and as age takes hold a certain lack of flexibility and ability to respond to emergencies sets in. That lack isn't terribly noticeable in we vast unwashed, but when you're in a position where the country is under your control (so to speak) it may seem a kindness to keep a fellow senator or representative in office if their mental faculties aren't up to the task, but in the long run it's not good for either him or the country.

If we had cognitive function tests, or even testing for Altzheimers and dementia, with certain levels set for the ability to run for office past the age of 60 or so, I think we'd be a lot better off.

But we don't, and it's not likely we'll get them.

J.

So you won't be supporting McCain for '08, I guess.

Remember McCain-Feingold, Jason? I wouldn't vote for McCain for dogcatcher.

It's pretty unlikely, Jason. I'm kind of ambivalent about the Republican side - though I'll admit that Giuliani's got my interest a bit. Age is...

Sigh.

I'm afraid I've got to take it as a given that most of the Presidential candidates are going to be of a certain age - since that's pretty much necessary in political circles to both accumulate enough pull to run for President and get the experience to actually be able to run both with a chance of success and the ability to realistically perform in office, 'cause it's a real killer of a job if the shit hits the fan. Posturing fools might make it to the election, but it ain't all about getting elected, it's what they'll do afterward. We've made it through Warren G. Harding, Jimmy Carter, and depending on your political leanings either Clinton or Bush, but we can't afford another President who thinks it's a game and his responsibility and accountability cease the day after he's sworn in.

So, though I'd LOVE to see Presidential candidates under 65 - I'm going to examine what's offered and vote accordingly.

But McCain? As John pointed out, McCain-Feingold is enough to rule him out for me. Not that I wouldn't vote for him if he makes it through the horse race that's shaping up as this cycle's run, but I won't vote for him in the primary.

J.

Reagan was born Feb 6, 1911, that made him 69 when he was elected in Nov. 1980. He turned 70 two weeks after he was inaugurated in 1981.

Fred Thompson was born Aug. 19, 1942. He'll only be 66 on election day '08.

That'll put him about 2 1/2 years younger than Reagan at the start of his first term.

Hmmmm, a TV actor president, bright, articulate, centrist conservative, young enough to do the job, and old enough to know how to get it done.

I like it.

otpu

They are Royalty, Upon the Hill. In their safely manicured and gerrymandered Princedoms and Fiefdoms, with only a nudge here and there a bit one way or another every decade or so. Fathers and then sons and daughters, then grandsons and grand-daughters, all that feel the 'will to power' and 'carry on the family tradition' and act like petty Nobility. Yes, indeed that is so wonderful that it takes the census to do any shaking up of things because districts are so large that demographics do not shift quickly at that scale.

Of course Congress set the Law that way.

In 1911.

Set the size of the House because, by 1940, it would be 'unwieldy' and 'hard to manage' with the ghastly sum of 600 members! Mind you that was *in* the era of: telegraph, telephone, cross-continent train travel. Yes, indeed, 600 was far too large for an era that would see: plane travel, cheaper telephones, automobiles in abundance, faster trains, radio and even the beginning of television.

Way, way too unwieldy to let the House expand with the population so that Representatives could be held accountable to small districts.

What is that proportion today? 1 to 550,000? In that neighborhood on average. And what does the Constitution put forth as the *maximum* size for the House? 1 to 30,000. In an era with telecomm, internet, wikis, bulletin boards, cooperative document generation and editing, and online just about anything you can think of, why, praytell, are we stuck with a House suited to the pre-industrial era?

To me the problem of 'money in politics' is *not* too much money, but not enough politicians! Think of a House with nearly 10,000 members. Who ya gonna bribe? And then you have nearly 10,000 watchdogs on the look out for: pork barrel politics, loopholes in the tax code and other things, like the federal regulations. Say, divide the tax code by 10,000 and you get 6 pages! Redline and collaborative document that baby. It will be down to a flat tax in no time. Ditto the Federal Regulations.

Also that makes being a member of the House a *job* not an adventure to future politics.

And district size? Small town size? A large urban neighborhood of a few blocks? You mean you might get a *neighbor* as your Representative? Someone you could *meet* and talk to? As in a 'Representative' not beholden to lobbyists and getting political perks from them? Scary concept, that.

Almost sounds like democracy.

I support a 1:30,000 House. Take away their staffs, network it out via existing military networks and secure it from the internet, but use tools from the internet and one-way feeds out and secure feeds in. Leave the fossils in the Senate where they belong. Let *them* try to deal with a 10,000 member House.

That becomes a job in and of itself.

As it was meant to be.

The job of Citizens representing Citizens.

Representative government was never meant to be: quick, easy, nor 'manageable'. Those things are Communist and Fascist, when not outright Autocratic. Very manageable, those things. Democracy was never, ever meant to be *that*. All the 19th century complaints about getting government to do *anything* was actually showing the system *worked* as designed.

I like that design, very much.

Maybe, someday, we can have that in America.

Again.