I for one no longer have any patience for those “esteemed” leaders like Diane Feinstein who make noise and gum up the works when they don’t get a “courtesy call” from Obama when he chooses someone for a cabinet position. Hey Feinstein…Obama is not required to ask your permission or check with you first about any nomination. Your job as Senator is to simply vote yes or no when the time comes for you to do so. Enough of this petty nonsense from people who are supposed to be adults. News flash for you politicians…you too could be looking for a new job if you don’t change your ways.

Call it a leap of faith, but for me, this presidential election was about more than just finally ending the disastrous course set by Bush and his criminal cronies. It was about bringing real change to our nation’s politics by ending the old way of doing things. Granted, I’ve been less than thrilled about the team Obama has been putting together-too many “old timers” in there for my taste, especially when the goal is to change the order of business. (I mean how much change can you expect to get from people who have spent decades mired in pay to play politics?) But for now, I’m still willing to believe that Obama will drive this ship in a new direction, and in order to avoid running aground, he decided to hire on a seasoned crew rather than a bunch of greenhorns. But so long as Obama is the one driving the ship and calling the shots, the names of those hoisting the sails and manning the jib is somewhat less important provided they follow the directions given to them and don’t fall into old habits that would sink their boss’s best intentions.

But does this hope for change we all signed up for stand any real chance of succeeding? We all know that a president can only do so much on his own, despite the disgusting trend crafted by the Bush-Cheney team. If Obama reverts to a more traditional interpretation of the office of President, then reliance on a rational, adult Congress is key to any success he may achieve for this country. Unfortunately, that’s not the Congress we gave him, or at least, it isn’t looking that way in the beginning. Obama is saying and trying to do all the right things to be able to hit the ground running. But the Congress continues its petty infighting, it’s unearned displays of individual grandeur, and it’s incessant partisanship. With leadership like that, Obama could be supernatural and still get stymied while playing by the inane rules of yesterday’s political playbook.

I am optimistic that Obama will have not only the vision, but the assistance he needs from a rationally behaving Congress to put America on more solid footing and towards a better tomorrow. Clearly the task is daunting. And as Obama has been saying, things will probably get worse before they take a better turn. But a better future is possible, if Americans really want it. Many of us may think that the battle for rational government has been won simply by electing Obama. It is a mistake to think that. The first skirmish was won, but the battle looms large ahead. We must all have the fortitude to stay engaged, to pressure petulant lawmakers to do better, to think beyond themselves, to behave like real leaders. If they do not, we must have the will to remove them from office. If WE do not, then the mess we lay in will be of our own making. Politicians will listen to people if we speak loudly enough. But if we simply sit back and pretend that our task is done because we got Obama into the White House, we will fail. And we will deserve to fail.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Taking a cue from the King of Made-Up Reality, George W. Bush, the GOP and their candidates have unleashed an alternate reality that they want all Americans to believe.

King George has spent the last 8 years not listening to reality. According to Bush, the economy is fine, Iraq was the best place to target terrorism, nepotism makes for the best government, drilling for off shore oil will bring gas prices down immediately, and massive debt is what future generations of Americans really want and need.

GOP heir-apparent John McCain has so much trouble with the truth that he hasn’t spoken realistically for months. According to McCain, the middle class consists of people who make about $250,000 a year, being a maverick means bucking the party line as much as 10% of the time, POW and POTUS are really interchangable, and his VP choice is someone who hates earmarks as much as he claims to.

The newest member of the GOP glamour gang is Sarah Palin who wouldn’t know reality if it bit her in the knee. According to Palin, abstinance education really works and is the only method worth teaching, God rejoices over pipelines, and that shooting animals from an airplane is the only sporting way to hunt for your trophies.

SEE NO REALITY.  HEAR NO REALITY.  SPEAK NO REALITY.

Better yet…just make up your own reality and repeat it over and over and over again.

You want reality? Here is the reality that the 21st century GOP has brought to America.

Iraq War…torture…gross mismanagement of funds…record deficits…corporate malfeasance…Dick Cheney…Katrina…cronyism…Donald Rumsfeld…economic meltdown…anti-science…politicization of government agencies…Terry Schiavo fiasco…Alberto Gonzales…high unemployment…outsourcing to mercenaries…swiftboating of politics…Iranian nukes…tension with Russia…John Ashcroft…Walter Reed Medical Center…domestic spying…massive future debt…Condi Rice…bankrupted state treasuries…national security theater…Samuel Alito…billions of dollars sent to Pakistan and nothing to show for it…bin Laden still at large…skyrocketing energy costs…widening income gap between rich and poor…Harriet Myers…suspended endangered species act…denial of environmental crisis…The Bridge To Nowhere…foreign distrust…falling dollar value…Karl Rove…tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans…nuclear proliferation…biggest expansion of government in generations and nothing to show for it…Tom DeLay…attorneygate…power to the lobbyists…religious disharmony…

And that’s just the “easy to identify” list. Some say reality is what you make it. This is the reality that the GOP has made in America. Is this the reality you want for another four years or more?

McCain/Palin are now promising change. They lie. The only change they seek is more regressive social and economic policies for Americans. The only change they desire is more debt and war and religiously based laws. The only change we can count on from them is even more government bullying and lies. That is the reality they can promise and that you can expect from the GOP.

If reality really is what we make it, it’s time for a new reality.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

A recent AP-Yahoo poll shows that consumers don’t have a rosy outlook for their financial futures any time soon. Because of high gas prices.

From cancelled vacations to finding new jobs, people are struggling to cope with the high price of fuel. And they don’t think that current high prices are going to reverse course anytime soon.

“Do you think there’s an end in sight? I don’t,” 33-year-old Angela Crawford, a Dallas homemaker, said in an interview. “It’s depressing and it makes you nervous.”

“We just don’t do as much,” said William Fisk, 39, a former dishwasher in Freeport, Maine. “We used to go out to have dinner, but we’re cutting way back on that.”

“My parents said, ‘Come down, spend a week with us,’” said Julie Jacobs, 35. “But when you add on the expense of gas, it’s just not worth it.”

In fact, things are getting so tight, that some Nevada businesses are offering customers gas cards as incentives to keep coming in.

Oil price hikes are a direct result of the Bush policies in the Middle East. They are also a result of higher demand for oil in developing nations. They are also high as a result of financial speculators. The beating of war drums around Iran now has gas prices soaring higher.

The era of cheap transportation based on oil is coming to an end, and may be here already. The transition will cause us all to rethink many things about the way we live our lives. We are woefully unprepared as a nation.

Happy Monday.

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

I’ve got an idea though, and it’s something that I’ve said before. There is a fundamental difference between the campaign of Clinton and Obama, but you have to listen carefully to really hear it. It’s not so much in their policy ideas- both want to help average Americans with health care and the economy; they both talk about developing energy independence and protecting the environment; they both talk about schools and jobs and retirement concerns. And with some minor detail differences, it’s tough to distinguish one message from the other. But there is an overriding difference, and that difference could make all the difference in the world.

The difference is simple- in speech after speech, Clinton’s main focus is what she will do for you. Take a look at her pre-State of the Union remarks today and you will find a whole lot of “I believe this” and “I will do that.” Clinton is so ensconced in the politics of one doing it all for the many that she is missing the driving force behind the Obama candidacy, and the force that is energizing voters in ways not seen in decades. That force is the simple inclusion of us all.

Obama, after his win in South Carollina took some time to thank supporters and stump for the next big contest. Take a peek– notice the almost near absense of the word “I”? Instead, Obama talks about what WE can do, things WE can fix, change WE can make. Obama knows that America is tired of the special interests that tie politicians to corporations, leaving out the American people. We are tired of politics that make the politician and their sinuous ties to corporate money the most important piece of the puzzle. We are finished with the pay to play mentality that all of DC is immersed in. We are ready for a real change, and Obama alone is talking the talk that puts average Americans at the front of that change.

Look, I’m no fool. I know that the kind of change Obama presents won’t magically occur when Obama take the oath of office. That would be but the start. Once elected, he would still face the same intransigent system he is railing against. But is he used his office effectively, and the bully pulpit as well, he could ask the American people to continue the change they began and turn out all the politicians who won’t evolve. He could energize the voters to put new people in place who would feel the need to change the corruption so endemic to our national politics. And to do that, he needs all of us- the “we” he speaks of so much.

Change will not come to American politics unless American voters fight for it and toss the bums out who insist on keeping things as they are. Hillary Clinton’s campaign focus on herself and her abilities is just more of the same- big brother politics that say Americans can’t handle the tasks of government without the “pro’s” running the show. Well Hillary- we’ve seen how badly the “pro’s” have screwed things up. It’s time for a change. And Obama is the only one offering the kind of change we really want and need. The difference between old politics and new politics is easy to spot when you know what to look for. See if you can tell the difference yourself…

From Hillary:

“If you will stand with me, if you here in Connecticut will support me on
February 5th, I promise you that I will get up every single day and wage a
winning campaign against whomever the Republicans nominate.I’ve been up against
Republicans for a very long time now. I was thinking the other day, wouldn’t it
be nice if they just announced that they were embarrassed about what happened to
the country and they weren’t going to run for the White House again? Somehow I
don’t think that is going to happen. I think we will have to wage a vigorous and
winning campaign. Since I have been on the receiving end of their incoming fire
for all of these years and much to their dismay, I am still standing here, I
think I know how to take us to victory in November.”

From Obama:

“Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can seize our future. And as we leave
this great state with a new wind at our backs, and we take this journey across
this great country, a country we love, with the message we’ve carried from the
plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire, from the Nevada desert to the
South Carolina coast, the same message we had when we were up and when we were
down, that out of many we are one, that while we breathe we will hope, and where
we are met with cynicism and doubt and fear and those who tell us that we can’t,
we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of the American
people in three simple words: Yes, we can. “

Now ask yourself this question: Do you want a government that views you as a partner or one that views you as a dependent. Because that is the real difference between these two candidates. And that is what you need to think about.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

For the record, I’m an “independent voter,” meaning I have no official registered political affiliation. (I must be one of those folks that the pundits like to deride- just not partisan enough for their liking it seems.) My regular readers know that I lean liberal-progressive on social issues, moderately conservative on fiscal matters, and try to take a rational approach to foreign affairs. I vote mostly Democrat, but have voted for Republicans more than once. More often than not, the choice of candidates given leaves me holding my nose with one hand while marking the ballot with the other. I am weary of the stink that is American politics, but am even more loathe to succumb to apathy as so many across this land have. Yet it is apathy that Barack Obama and his candidacy seem to be taking on headfirst. So while the pundits and political foes take turns telling us why Obama shouldn’t be America’s next president, I want to move beyond the “professional king makers” and their opinions and really try to understand the dynamics that have led this little known former state legislator to seek the highest office in the land. Even more, to decide for myself whether his message of hope and change can become reality under his leadership or if his is just a well polished message, taking advantage of the disappointment in American government to get one man elected who will ultimately be like so many before him- full of promise and short on delivery.

The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the
same Washington players and expecting a different result. And that’s a risk we
can’t take. Not this year. Not when the stakes are this high. – Barack
Obama, Des Moines, IA- 12/27/07

No man (or woman for that matter) is one-dimensional. By this I mean, that certain qualities can be possessed by multiple individuals, but when combined with other attributes, these qualities create either positive or negative outcomes. For instance, political inexperience is frequently thrown onto the list of Obama negatives. But how negative is it really? After all, being a “Washington outsider” was considered a plus for George W. Bush, remember? Clearly, labels can be both objective and subjective. Objectively here because both men have had a relatively short political career before heading towards the Big Chair®. But subjectively because what the Republicans once saw as a positive they now seek to portray as a negative in another. Obama’s Democratic opponents portray his lack of political experience in a slightly different way, but with a similar result. In their case, other candidates do have longer government careers on the resume, and more varied experience at that. But when one takes into account the totality of Obama’s message of hope and change, it is just this kind of entrenched experience that perpetuates the problems with government. As they paint him to be a novice, he paints them all as jaded sell-outs.

For my money, I already know what the status-quo politicos have to offer, no matter what color lipstick they put on the pig. Obama’s political inexperience doesn’t bother me much. He has the kinds of life experiences that build empathy, tolerance, and realistic understanding of the plights of average folks that our current presidential novice never had or will have. Were Obama more Bush-like with regards to his background, I’d never have given him another look. As it is, the lack of political experience is about the only trait they share. In Bush’s case, lack of political experience coupled with arrogance and disinterest to create a maelstrom of mayhem around the world and across this country. In Obama’s case the lack of political experience may be the will that could break the chains of bondage that our democracy has been bound with, reminding Americans that this country is ours to guide into the future, not just for ourselves, but for our children and grandchildren and their future generations.

(But) this is about more than George Bush. He’s just the beginning of the change
that we need. These problems didn’t start when he came to office and they won’t
end just because he’s leaving. We’re not going to reclaim that dream unless we
put an end to the politics of polarization and division that is holding this
country back; unless we stand up to the corporate lobbyists that have stood in
the way of progress; unless we have leadership that doesn’t just tell people
what they want to hear – but tells everyone what they need to know. That’s the
change we need.- Barack
Obama, Bettendorf, IA- 11/7/07

Hope and Change. Not all that original when it comes to campaign slogans. Every politician says they’ll make a change. They all offer hope in one form or another. What does Obama mean when he talks about hope and change. Surely he knows that one man can’t change the whole course of a country by himself. Even Bush couldn’t have so drastically changed American politics and world standing without a compliant Congress and battered public. Obama isn’t an idiot, so either his message is just typical political rhetoric or it isn’t. But how to tell the difference? Again, this is the crux of the matter.

But wait a minute…Obama isn’t telling us that HE is going to do all the changing, but that WE need to work together to change. He is saying that we need to put down our petty partisanship to solve the things that need to be solved now, today, things that can’t afford to be ignored any longer. He is telling us that we need to change our outlook from one of fear to one of action. He is reminding us that American’s have more in common that not, more shared goals than not, and a larger sense of justice than most. Obama isn’t offering us change in a Magic Eight Ball, he’s telling us that change comes from within. He knows it won’t happen overnight, but he also knows that until the halls of Congress are filled with a new breed of American politician- a generation of leaders empowered by necessity, forced to make tough decisions to benefit the many over the few, left to clean up the mess of their elders- that change is just a word. At this moment in time, Obama is a mere cheerleader for change, and he must know it. But if elected to the office of president, he could be a bullhorn for change, forcing politicians to adapt or depart. This still sounds like rhetoric, but it’s a far cry more hopeful than most rhetoric I hear. And in this case, if the electorate elected like-minded members to Congress, the rhetoric could transform into reality. This is the message- change is possible. He wants to lead it. But we have to want it.

But his message, while popular, doesn’t strike me as populist in nature. While exciting and inspiring, telling Americans they need to be the ones to change politics (of all thi
ngs) isn’t exactly a crowd pleaser. Americans are lazy, apathetical, and ignorant of their government. In a country where more people are incensed by seeing Janet Jackson’s nipple than they are by a senseless war, asking folks to find and elect people who will really turn America around isn’t likely to make you popular. At least not when they realize you really want them to get involved. Obama is a great speaker, and may indeed get more people involved in politics, but for most folks, they need to see results before jumping on board. In this aspect, there certainly seems to be an aura of naïveté about the message.

So there is rhetoric. And there is naïveté. But there is also the promise of something else, something that if realized would turn naïve into common sense. Something that if achieved would turn rhetoric into reality. I guess the answer is “all of the above.” But no other candidate in either party holds the kind of promise, the kind of vision that Obama professes to have. No other candidate is as far from the entrapments of political entrenchment as Obama is, and thus none can truly wish to dismantle that which gives them such power. No other candidate has been able to generate such a cross section of excitement. And no other candidate has had their loyalty to America called into question in the way he has and been able to maintain the dignity to ignore it.

Barack Obama isn’t a saint. He isn’t a hero. He isn’t the next best thing since sliced bread. But he does seem to be something unique in American politics, something we don’t get to see all that often- a candidate that has bright visions for America and the ability to energize the public to act.

Could Obama really bridge the partisan divide? Consider this: Two of America’s greatest presidents were related. One was a Republican and the other was a Democrat. The Republican fought for environmental protection and against big corporations. The Democrat fought against world tyranny and economic depression. Funny how things turn, isn’t it. Americans aren’t really that far apart on most things they want and value, just in how they get or keep them. As you can see, history shows the parties themselves flip-flopping more than once.

Hope and change. Just words? Or words with meaning? I think that in this case, the messages of hope and change represent what could be as well as what will be, if only enough of us remember what kind of government we have. One that is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Now, in the wake of the Abramoff scandal, we are seeing both parties scramble to out-do each other and reform ethics rules in the House and Senate. The biggest problem is the access of lobbyists to lawmakers, and the perks they toss around for getting favorable legislation passed. Early indications show that this will have little or no effect as the proposals don’t really cut off access, they merely attach new rules, like the Republicans demanding campaign contributions in addition to the other perks they already receive and the Democrats saying that they have the ability to “just say no.” Make no mistake, both parties are skirting the real issues and simply trying to look good in the eyes of voters in an election year. Reform measures are pointless so long as those entrusted to follow them are only concerned about getting and keeping their seats of power.

Still, reforms are vital to the future health of our nation and efforts to make needed reforms should not be taken so lightly. Instead of vilifying each other in the press while quietly seeking ways to make the fewest changes necessary, politicians need to step up and show some real integrity. Among the most vital areas ripe for reform are the rules that govern how business is done in the halls of government.

Specifically at issue are the matters of adding amendments to bills and the fact that most lawmakers don’t even know what it is they are actually voting on.

First things first. If you’ve ever read an actual bill that is headed to the floor for a vote, the first thing to stand out is the extraordinary length and legalese that makes legislation nearly impossible to digest. A primary reason for this is the policy that allows legislators to delegate the actual writing of bill language to their staff, which in turn team up with whomever is advocating for the bill in the first place. Believe it or not, the act of crafting actual legislation is the prime reason we have representatives. This task, above all else, is their primary job. But in our world of influence buying and constant campaigning, our elected officials turn over the task of writing legislation to their unelected aids, many of whom are more than happy to add a little here and add a little there depending on what their own goals and interests may be. Sometimes this is a conscious effort to subvert the original intentions of a bills sponsor (supposedly the legislator themselves, but often a corporate or special interest hack). Other times it is not. In either case, what comes out is something far more complex than is needed and often too long and confusing for the legislator to understand, even though they may think the bill is what they originally asked for. What could easily be a couple of paragraphs turns into a 40-page document, leaving elected lawmakers to shake their heads and hope for the best. This problem is especially rampant in appropriations bills and a major reason why so much pork is thrown into our budgets.

To rectify this problem, and to ensure that bills that make it to the committee’s or to the floor are what they were intended to be, we must pressure the Congress to adopt rules banning this practice. Any legislation to come up for consideration should be written by an elected official, and be limited in scope to address a specific, concise issue. It’s fine to use staff members to conduct research and flesh out grammatical errors, but actual legislation should come from the hands of the elected people and not their staffs.

Secondly, due to the nature of bills being so incredibly complex, most lawmakers do not actually take the time to read the bills they are offering before they submit them for consideration. This has the unfortunate consequence of lawmakers voting for something without really knowing what they are voting for. For this reason, we need to insist that Congress adopt rules that make it mandatory for all legislators to read and understand the contents of any bill they present or intend to vote on. An immediate effect of such a rule would be that bills would be much less complicated and even ordinary people would be able to understand what laws are being made. It would mean an end to the nuanced interpretations of specious segments of legislation, especially if lawmakers were held accountable for their votes by a public who could understand what the verbiage of the bill was. It would make eliminate the whole “flip-flopping” issue as an excuse for voting for bad legislation.

Another much needed reform is the process that allows for unrelated amendments to be added to bills in the effort to gain passage. Too often, laws are made not because they can stand the test of necessity or common sense, but because legislators engage in a kind of back scratching affair. Politicians who are trying to get less than necessary legislation on the books are able to trade votes by tacking on things they want to another piece of legislation. Such actions do not serve the best interest of the tax paying public in any way. If indeed a bill is valuable enough and necessary enough to be passed into federal law, it should have the ability to stand on its own merit. If it can’t do that, the chances are that it is not a good bill for the country, even thought it may be good for a particular district, or more likely, for a particular political benefactor. Congress must be pressured to end the act of allowing unrelated amendments to bills in exchange for support during the vote.

Of course, opponents of these ideas will say that I am naive. They will say that the only way to get things done in Washington is through the very kind of horse-trading schemes that have been going on for decades. I reject that line of argument though as little more than an admission that most of what they do is not really necessary for the average American citizen or is so convoluted that any one with common sense would reject it outright. We do not elect politicians to play games with our money and our lives, yet the current way of doing things does just that. Real leadership is about identifying real problems and solving those problems in the most efficient, most fair, and most reasonable way possible without complicating the matter so much that the solution can never be realized in the real world.

Reforming congressional ethics is important, but we already have a lot of good rules for that on the books. Rather, it is the class of politicians we need to change to restore ethical behavior to the halls of government. Reforming campaign financing is valuable too, and the people of this great country can manage a large bulk of that themselves by giving their political donations not to the party coffers or special interest groups, but directly to the candidates committees themselves. The laws forbidding corporate donations are there, they just need to be policed and enforced. (See also some suggestions for campaign reform in Fixing the Vote I & II) But the way that Congress does its business is where real reform is needed if we are ever to break out of the corrupt system we are locked into today. The imbalance of the two party
system can be reduced by reforming the very way that laws are written, read, and passed and that is where real leaders should be forcing changes. Until we get Congress to change the rules of engagement, all other reforms will have little effect on the actual business taking place in the name of American citizens and we will continue to languish under bad law, wasteful spending, and legislative abuse of power.

I began writing for Common Sense almost a year ago as a place to formalize my own political and social beliefs. It was important for me, as an individual, to really examine the issues of the day and come to some sort of conclusion about how I felt about them. But as I wrote each essay for myself, it became apparent that I needed to share my thoughts with other people, partly to get some feedback from people I didn’t know and partly because the act of writing solely for oneself can lead to abandoning the project entirely. I didn’t want to stop writing, so I began the blog. I thought that if people began to read what I wrote, and offer comments and their own ideas, then I would have the momentum to complete what has become, for lack of a better term, my political platform. Surprisingly, it worked out pretty well. And to each and every one of my readers, I offer my thanks.

I always knew that a day would come when the underlying political philosophy that I was developing would be completed and I would have to decide what I would do next. Somewhere along the line, I decided to try and turn these essays into an actual book, with the hope that I could find a publisher who could help launch my thoughts for reform to a larger audience. In that vein, I have been diligently compiling essays, putting them into manuscript form, preparing proposals and researching agents and publishers. There is still some work to do, but if all goes well, I should be ready to begin shopping Common Sense around within the next few weeks. I have no idea how far I will get, but if the comments from readers are any indication, there is not only a market for these ideas, there is a desire for reform that is not being met by the political masters of the day.

But as I come to the conclusion of this particular project, I am left asking myself “What next?” Writing for the blog, and conversing with all of you through the comment sections, has been as enjoyable as it has been energizing. But I think that all my writings about reform and change could become little more than hollow meanderings if I simply let it stop here. With that in mind, the answer to my question became clear. It is time to move from simply writing about change to actually working for change.

What does that mean? Well, for starters, I have begun a project with some other political bloggers who also sense a need for political reform. This project is still in its infancy, but our goal is to create a vocal presence in communities across the country, in an effort to stoke the embers of reform. There is growing unrest among average citizens about the direction of our government, but little being talked about with regards to reform. The Republican Party is awash with scandal and corruption and has become little more than a PR firm for ultra-religious conservatism or corporate hegemony. The policies of the ruling political party is not leading America to a better place, but only serving to divide us for their own power-hungry aims. But the Democrats seem to have fallen down on the job too, failing to offer any kind of rebuttal to the Republicans. They are cruising on a wave of old ideas and little else, and of course, are also corrupted by the hordes of special interest money that comes their way. America needs a new voice, a voice of reform and hope that seeks to give the people what they deserve- a government that truly works for them. We are hoping to begin in earnest with our planning and goals soon, and when that day comes, you’ll be able to hear about it here. At some point soon, you’ll even have an opportunity to join us in our cause, an opportunity I hope you’ll take advantage of.

Secondly, I am toying with the idea of becoming a political candidate in 2006. As an independent, there are many barriers erected to keep people like you and me out of the political realm. These barriers include higher signature thresholds for ballot qualification and a lack of financial support, among other things. I’m not one to let barriers stop me though, and will make a final determination sometime during the upcoming holidays. If I do indeed decide to throw my hat in a ring somewhere, you can be sure that I will go all out to succeed. If I decide not to actually run though, I will likely throw my support and my time behind a candidate who I can believe in, thus becoming more politically active in that regard.

What will this mean for this blog called Common Sense? Well, a couple of things. The biggest difference to you the reader and me the writer will be a changed course for future posts. Up to now, my essays have been longer than most other blog entries, in large part because I wanted to fully enunciate my thoughts for reform. My posts have also tended to focus on the bigger picture, as a political platform should do. But having completed, to a large extent, this part of my entry into political discourse, I can now turn my attention to the topical issues of the day, framing them in ways that illustrate the positions I have formed over the last year. There is so much to address specifically, and from here on out, Common Sense essays will likely be shorter and more targeted towards a current topic or problem. For those with a short attention span, these newer, shorter posts will hopefully draw more voices into the discussion. I don’t want Common Sense to become a “cut and paste” online newspaper so much as I want to interject my own views on current issues. As always, your comments will be valued and answered, so please keep them coming. Hopefully, the shorter format will allow me to post more frequently, but with the other avenues I’m exploring, it may not change my posting schedule much at all. However, there will likely be more to talk about than ever before.

I look forward to this next phase of Common Sense and the peripheral projects I mentioned above. I hope you’ll stay along for the ride.