They are talking about Nicholas Kristof's editorial in the New York Times today, called "No More Sham Elections."
Kristof's suggestions are.
1) have a nonpartisan group redraw house districts after each census
2) get rid of the electoral college
3) have donations funneled through a blind trust so politicians don't know who's ass to kiss
This guy uses a highlighter, unlike Brian Lamb. I have to admit that I think underlining in pen is a little less "high school."
Maryland, who sounds like he is calling while riding a horse, hahhaha, this guy is great, He called the third suggestions "crazy as all get out." He also says "there is no such thing as nonpartisan, that is so stupid, you don't stick your finger in the air and see which way the wind blows." I'm not sure I see the connection. Plus, even a partisan committee would still be less partisan than someone like Tom DeLay.
Utah just led his call with "Thank you C-Span." I think that's partly because, like me, he doesn't know what the hosts name is, but still, it's a nice sentiment.
This isn't on C-Span, but I think it's an important story from the times. Yesterday in Congress negotiators added an abortion clause to a must-pass spending bill. The clause would make it illegal for government agencies to withold money from health care providers that refuse to: offer abortions, pay for abortions, or provide abortion counseling or referrals. In other words government agencies are currently allowed to withhold funding from health care providers that refuse to provide one of these services. The current law only privides "conscience protection" to doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training.
That whole issue is too complicated for me to sort out though. Individual doctors currently get federal funding? Would this pertain to health care providers that refuse to do all of those things, or just one of them? And what exactly is a health care provider?
I think it's kind of a travesty that C-span is talking about this Kristof article instead of this abortion thing. Whether you agree with the clause or disagree with it, that is a piece of news that indicates the current political climate.
A lady from Kansas just called The New York Times a manual for liberals. hahahah. She said C-Span should try using conservative papers. "Which would you suggest?" the host said. "... well, surely there are some out there." Surely. Why don't you go read one and then call back next month? Ok, that was mean. I take that back. Because really, I don't blame people for not having the time to read newspapers and surf the internet looking for the ones they like. The only reason I have the time to do that is because I'm practically an invalid in terms of getting a job. That's what so sad, that being uninformed is often an indicator of how busy someone is just trying to make ends meet. So it's really not fair of me to make fun of uninformed people, unless I know for a fact they are unemployed and live with their parents.
The host is looking very ADD now while this reporter from Cleveland, Mark Naymik from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, is talking. I wish I knew the name of this damn host. Why doesn't C-Span show his name again? I'm going to see if C-span has a profile of him on their web site.
Ah-ha! A caller from Houston just said, "Hi, Pedro how you doing today?" Yeah! Two points for Texas! This guy is pretty good. He said he wants to thank C-span for what they are doing, but that when C-Span is highlighting an editorial they should say who the columnist voted for. I mean, that's not necessarily possible, but I think it would be fair to talk for a little bit about the where the writer has historally tended to fall on the political spectrum. Why not, you know?
A guy from Kentucky just called and said he thinks all three of Kristof's ideas are good. Yeah! Way to keep it realy Kentucky!