I would support GOOOH but _____

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-274049748618077551.post-81515204581749718032008-03-04T22:33:00.007-06:002008-03-23T17:49:46.597-05:00I would support GOOOH but ______ (by Tim Cox)We have heard from thousands of people who say they love GOOOH, but we are also hearing from a few who say, "I would support GOOOH, but __________." This article is for those who have filled in the blank. We don’t claim the system is perfect and we hope you won’t allow an issue or two prevent you from supporting a system that addresses more than a hundred others. Recognize the challenge of trying to get every person to agree with every item, particularly when politics are involved: it's not likely. Some have said they don’t agree with term limits. Others don't like that we have proposed excluding practicing lawyers and men of "excessive" wealth. A few don't like our exclusion of ACLU supporters. I have yet to hear anybody voice a concern that we are excluding politicians… There are those who don't like that we ask questions about amending the Constitution, wonder why we ask about the FairTax instead of a flat tax, or don’t believe the Commitment Agreement is viable. A few even say the agreement is a bad idea. Some have complained I am shamelessly trying to sell books. And of course there are those who can’t believe we would be doing this for the right reason and go as far as falsely accusing us of running a get-rich-quick scheme. There are those who, without even understanding how the system works, feel obligated to explain why it will fail, what should be done differently, why they don't like it, or the most incredulous of all, that they can't support the system because it also opposes Ron Paul’s single seat. Some say they don’t want “everyday” Americans in office, not recognizing that the people who rise to the top of this process will be anything but a “common” man. Others have already concluded that our newly elected representatives will be no better than the politicians in power today. And then there are those who simply ignore what we are doing because they don’t care about their children or the future of our country. I can only sigh. Long and loud. As an aside, I laughed out loud when a member suggested we also exclude those whose more appropriate blogging name would be Eyeore, but I truly appreciate the sentiment of her thought. But what I haven’t heard is a question about the need for what we are doing. We take with a grain of salt those who complain, accuse, or fail to offer alternatives, but we continue to listen and search for ways to improve. We are confident we have built a system that will achieve its stated goal: to put accountable representatives of the people in office without the influence of special interest groups or political parties. To those who do not understand how the system works, please recognize that we are not proposing to change the Constitution just because we ask questions about changing it. We are not saying a FairTax is better than a flat tax, or even that either is preferred, simply because we ask if you support the FairTax. We are not saying that there should be a limit on the money a person can inherit because we ask such a question. The goal is for each candidate to declare what they believe so their peers can determine who they favor. Taken together, the questions will provide a thorough voting profile of each participant. To those who object to the Commitment Agreement, or argue it won't hold up in court, look at it from a different perspective. Do you not want your representative to vote as he said he would? Consider the impact such an agreement will have on a candidate who says he'll vote one way, in writing, and then votes the other. The point is not merely can we legally force a candidate to resign from office (and we think we can), it is whether or not we can get candidates to do what they promise. There are also a few who have called the $1,000 “liar fee” silly or unenforceable, but I wonder who would intentionally lie knowing they would be in the wrong in small claims court. We are not saying the wealthy or lawyers are bad people, but we are saying they are over-represented today, or in some cases, have a clear conflict of interest. These groups make up less than 1/2 of 1% of the population, yet they hold 50% of the seats. We want change, and if we continue to elect nothing but lawyers, multi-millionaires and members of political families, we fear we will get the exact same results we get today. That is not what we are after. Further, how many times do we have to watch Representatives like Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, a lawyer, slide a pharmaceutical bill through Congress at 2 a.m. then go to work for the very lobbyist or law firm that benefitted from the legislation? Here’s a <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/2004-12-15-drugs-usat_x.htm">link to the story</a> if you haven't read it before. We’re not saying these people can’t run for office, we’re simply suggesting we give others a chance. We do ask that every American compare the existing system with GOOOH. Consider the results of the current system. Would GOOOH change things? Absolutely! GOOOH is not a perfect system, on that we can agree. But it has a chance to take the money out of politics and put accountability back in. It has a chance to fix some very important things the politicians can or will not. For those who want to support us but find something they dislike about the system, we hope you will look at the bigger picture. Offer suggestions for improving where you can, and give thought to how your words will impact others. Ask yourself, “Do I want to be part of the problem or part of the solution?”GOOOH Partyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05608103348084244354noreply@blogger.com