[sohmer]

It’s not surprising lately that my mind is rather stuck on politics, seeing as it’s about that time for both American and Canadian elections.

I’ve been following both events religiously, trying to browse as many news outlets as possible in an attempt to gain perspective from multiple points of view. It’s been an enlightening experience, to say the least. Once you wade through the crap that comes along with internet anonymity, it’s amazing what you can dig up.

One of the things I’ve seen come up too many times to count, is the dissatisfaction the voting public seems to have with the debate. I’m forced to agree.

I don’t want to hear why your opponent should not be president. I don’t want to hear how past associations makes the other guy dangerous.

I want to hear why you should be prime minister. I want to know how you’ll address the economy. I want to know how you’ll make the world a little bit safer for our children. I want to see your track record in keeping your word. I want to know what change entails. I want to know who you’ll bring with you to run our nation. I want to see your plans for getting us off our oil dependence and moving towards clean energy. I want to know what you’ll do, why you should lead. I want you to speak clearly, concisely and intelligently. I want you to speak to the smartest of us, not the most ignorant.

I demand to know how you’ll improve our education system, how you’ll prevent Beverly Hills Chihuahua from being the #1 movie in the box office, how you’ll stop us from watching ridiculous reality programming.

I want to know what you’ll do, why you should lead.

Whatever lines you might find yourself on, I believe it’s something we should all demand from our leaders.

In addition to this, I feel compelled to express my distaste in the negative tones all campaigns are picking up. I personally find it a disgusting practice and would love to see any candidate rise above it.

Should I ever run for elected office, my first statement would be the following:

“I can detail my strengths without focusing on your weaknesses. I can answer a question without making assumptions on your behalf. I can hold a political rally to detail my plans for government without spouting endless rhetoric to rouse a mob.

I can disagree with you without hating you.”

We’re the voters and we should approve that message.

- Because I can.

Quote of the Day

“I’m trying to tell you something about my life
Maybe give me insight between black and white
And the best thing you've ever done for me
Is to help me take my life less seriously
It’s only life after all”
-Closer to Fine, by Indigo Girls

[Ozymandous]

I agree with you in theory, but here's the real world reality...

Most people are stupid.

Not saying that to assume some mantle of superiority or to claim that I am massively intelligent, but seriously, why do you think Beverly Hills Chihuahua was #1? Why do you think reality shows, which IMHO are nothing but a lot of people who try to 'win' by being as lying, conniving, sneaky and out-right unscrupulous as possible, are so highly rated?

The average "Joe/Joette six-pack" love gossip, love to hear the bad qualities of people, hell, they are so infatuated with "celebrity" (at least here in the US) that all it takes is one person with good public speaking skills, regardless of how great or disastrous having them in charge could be, and BOOM they are in charge. Perhaps one day, when there is some sort of IQ test that has to be passed before someone can have kids, or genetic engineering enables every child to have an IQ of 120 or above via manipilation before birth, can we have leaders as you state.

With all that said, every now and then we have great leaders, but typically the more intelligent they are the more radical they are in their solutions (see Jimmy Carter and soon to be Obama for examples of this) and they tend to not understand how things change when 'concept' meets 'reality'. Having grand ideas is fantastic as long as 1) they are economicallly feasible and 2) they don't bankrupt or otherwise destroy the economic, social or moral fabric of a country. FOr example, having clean energy is fantastic, but real world thinkers understand it will have to be a gradual process, not an overnight one, unless you want to have tne entire economy (built on fossil fuels) grind to a halt and then turmoil appears.

Basically, I'd dearly love to have a leader as you describe Sohmer, but I doubt it will happen. That makes me sad.

[STGBleatCNU]

I agree on every point with you Sohmer. To take Ozymandous's first point to it next logical step, stupid people form mobs. Whenever the people actually get to vote, they do not make informed opinions, they flock to whichever candidate they believe will be best for them based on rhetoric and faulty campaign promises. Politicians pander to the mob and will do everything in their power to hold onto their support. Political rallies scare me, especially the people who attend.
The United States is so significantly polarized that we are going to tear each other apart (figuratively, I hope albeit literally is still a possibility). Regardless, I think that whoever gets elected should treat elected officials with the respect their office is due. We have witnessed the Democrat kneejerk reaction to all things George W. Bush, just as we have seen the Republican kneejerk reaction to Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. "A house divided cannot stand." In the 1860's the United States fought a war to reunite the country. I pray that we do not have another based on ideology rather than geography. If my candidate looses, I will support the winner come innauguration day through the end of his term for the good of my country. I may not like him or his policies, but I will endeavor to treat him with the respect he is due, and that goes for the Vice Presidential Candidate as well.

[agilemania]

I demand to know how you’ll improve our education system, how you’ll prevent Beverly Hills Chihuahua from being the #1 movie in the box office, how you’ll stop us from watching ridiculous reality programming.

The fact that Beverly Hills Chihuahua is the top box office movie seems to be more closely related to the other issues you mention than it appears at first. The AP article announcing the box office results for the weekend indicates that "An adorable talking dog remained just the sort of escapist movie hero audiences wanted after a week of awful economic news."

"Beverly Hills Chihuahua" is the only light comedy in a market heavy on drama. Chuck Viane, Disney's head of distribution, said movie-goers may be turning to the perky pooch to help forget the market free-fall on Wall Street.

"This is only word-of-mouth coming back to us from theaters. I don't have any statistical proof. But they're telling us we're getting more unaccompanied-by-children adults coming on their own. They're looking for a little entertainment," Viane said. "The axiom we've always lived by is funny is money. People come out for comedy. They love to sit back and let someone give them a couple of hours of escapism."

[Half-A-Cookie]

I registered just so i could respond to you Ozymandous. It is possible for politicians to focus on the issues instead of making the other guy look bad. Politicians in my country (The Netherlands) have been doing it for a while now. Obviously they aren't perfect, there are minor personal insults. But their campaign doesn't revolve around making the other guy look bad.
They focus on the issues and discuss about that, not so much as rampaging on about how the other guy once killed a cat or because that guy shops here he is bad... They actually try to convince you that their point of view is right, and they want the best for their country.
America is a bit different from where i live obviously, for one, the country is waaay bigger and thus way more people in it. Also compared to the general dutch views, the American views are very liberal (extremely), even the Democrats.

If i were an American i would feel rather insulted by the politicians, they act the way they do cause they expect you to not understand their points. They degrade themselves to personal attacks and insults. Just so it's good tv and people might actually watch it.

Perhaps fixing the educational system in America would inspire the politicians to focus more on the issues instead of the opponent.

[Macer]

Sohmer for PM 2009!!!

[M1rth]

I hate to disagree and on the tenor of your post, but I will counter your point:

What you will do (and your qualifications, and what you're lying about, etc) is at least as important as the other guy's. Therefore, you do need to compare yourself to the other guy at some point.

The voting public is disgusted with both "mainstream" candidates because quite frankly, both of them are WRONG (as in, running on a position that 90% of the public disagrees with) on at least 60% of the issues. The voting public is then left voting on the basis of the 40% of the issues on which the "mainstream" candidates actually disagree.

Take, for example, the economy. Both of the two boobs running for office in the US have basically the same plan. Both of these two imbeciles voted for the disgusting bailout bill, and both of them show that they have NO conception of history, because the timeline is frighteningly similar.

In the 1920s, right before the "Depression" hit, the richest 1% owned more than 40% of the nation's wealth. Take a look at today: we've surpassed that. Just as in the 1920s, as REAL disposable per-capita income for the lowest 90% has dropped and dropped, "credit" has been used to shore up the economy.

On October 30, 1929, the Rockefellers waltzed through the market and threw cash everywhere, buying up almost every stock in sight, trying to show "confidence in the market."
On October 3, 2008, the US Congress and President Shrub waltzed through the market and threw cash around, desperate to "restore confidence in the market."

Neither of these worked, because (a) it wasn't the solution to desperately needed fixes in economic policy and ( anyone with half a brain could see through it as the sham it was.

You're right - the public is disgusted with the politicians. But it's not because they don't touch on REAL salient points, like McCain's sordid Keating past or Obama's friendliness with terrorist and racist groups like Hamas and ACORN. Those are indeed relevant.

We're disgusted because we know the sad truth - that on those 60% of the issues where these two boobs are in agreement, they are BOTH WRONG, and NEITHER of them is paying attention to the lessons of history and NEITHER of them is actually producing a real plan to fix the actual problems we face. We're disgusted because instead of being able to elect a real leader, the best we seem to have been able to do is try to decide which guy's "leadership" will be less painful.

[ReNaVisum]

Thank you, Mr. Sohmer, for typing out exactly what I've felt since I've been old enough to understand the basics of politics.

I do not believe that this current "bash the other guy" method is a harsh unavoidable reality like many seem to be saying. I think that we believe that only because it is all we've ever known. (If Half-A-Cookie's statement is true, then we already do know that it's possible.) Sohmer's opening statement as a candidate was exactly what we should want in a possible president/prime minister, and if I saw that statement made, you would certainly have my attention.

If we sit here and continue to believe that this almost tabloid approach we take to politics is forever unavoidable, then you're right, it absolutely will be around forever. However, if we can all demand the opposite, then it is certainly a possibility for change to arise.

I also like how Sohmer demands they speak to the most intelligent of us. It makes sense to me. Rather than dumbing down one of the most important decisions a democracy can have, why not raise the bar and force the average voter to come and meet them on their level? They'd have no choice but to fix the education system then.

I'm rambling now, but the bottom line is that I registered just to tell you how much I appreciate this particular post, and that more people certainly need to express the same desire as your own.

[Arkhanno]

Every society, no matter what it is, must have the 'lower class' to do the menial jobs. Earlier in history they were the poor and weak, now it is idiots. The intelligent are too busy working as doctors, scientists, researchers, etc. etc. to run in gov't, and when we do get the rare intelligent person who can actually do good for our country (I'm talking about Canada and the US, here) most of our population usually screws us over and go for the guy that is like them, an idiot, because they relate to him. This is why some of the greatest philosophers said that an aristocracy (Ruled by the wise) is better than most other forms of gov't, including a democracy (Ruled by the people).

When we get an idiot in office, most of the country will probably dislike him/her because of the poor decisions, but they don't do anything about it. Most people don't even know what an impeachment is anymore. This is why people like Bush stay in office... But not the full reason. The other half is because people are too afraid to do anything. They are afraid that they will lose their job and hurt the ones they love if they rise up against the gov't. This is why we didn't see people charging into Bush's office to tell him to shape up or to get the hell out of office. (Note: that last one was mostly a metaphorical 'charge in'. If they literally did that, they would be shot, which is too bad. Then again, if they got enough people, they could, theoretically, go in there and throw Bush out of office.)

I really hope we get public genetic manipulation going soon so we can stop the idiocy era and start the intelligence era.

[blizzarddemon]

Thats sorta the grand scheme of politics; setup what your going to do in the primaries, then spend the rest of your election once your elected picking out what your opponent has said that can be used against him.

Its BS I know, but its sorta a tradition politicians don't wanna break.

[Akusu]

I'm not 100% clear on how the U.S. Elections work (Other than holy crap at all the hubbub just choosing the damned candidates to begin with). Here in Canada, the party decides amongst themselves who they want to lead them. They have a silent election, and the general public finds out, "hey, the Liberals have a new leader" or whatever.

In Canada we don't vote people into office, we vote people out. Our election was spurred on by the instability of the current minority government and the hope is that we'll come out with the same Prime Minister, just with a Majority Government. Here's hoping that's the case. Progress doesn't seem to exist in a minority government, but then again, last time we had a majority government was 2 elections ago.

Unfortunately, the tactic does seem to simply be to try and tear Stephen Harper's reputation apart, and his reaction is to avoid smear and try to look good for himself. Everyone else is like "oh, this person will be horrible for our economy". Well guess what? Our economy is just fine, except that our incredible dependence on the U.S. state of being is hurting us big time, like it always does. The U.S. Economy seems to rule the world, which is why I'm quite frightened by the prospect of either U.S. candidate being voted into office.

Overall, this is the kind of behavior that disgusts Canadians and Americans alike, and I'm not sure that it's not on purpose. I have half a mind not to vote at all Tuesday, mainly because I'm not willing to wade through the absolute crap that get's spewed out by the candidates for P.M while the M.P.'s stay silent. It's very difficult to figure out who to vote for when voting for the right person in your riding may result in the wrong PM and party in power. And they wonder why people don't vote.

This post has been edited by Akusu: 13 October 2008 - 11:47 AM

[Slackmaster]

It's largely for the reasons outlined by Sohmer and others, combined with general voter apathy that I'm in favour of mandatory voting. I'm curious if there's any readers in Australia where they practice this, who could tell us about the electoral process there. Apparently they have a 97% voter turnout, so in theory the involvement in the political process is that much greater.

My own take is that it's time for a revolution. But I'm an idealist.

Whenever the people actually get to vote, they do not make informed opinions, they flock to whichever candidate they believe will be best for them based on rhetoric and faulty campaign promises. Politicians pander to the mob and will do everything in their power to hold onto their support. Political rallies scare me, especially the people who attend.

Religious rallies and sermons can often be far more scary IMHO, particularly since they translate into the political realm. In rallies based purely on politics, you can often see support ebb and flow depending on performance of the politicain, current political climate, etc. Add religion into that, and you have a static, if not growing powerbase that as we've seen, weilds a rather big club.

I will support the winner come innauguration day through the end of his term for the good of my country. I may not like him or his policies, but I will endeavor to treat him with the respect he is due, and that goes for the Vice Presidential Candidate as well.

The problem with doing this is it robs Democracy of its power. If you only become politically active every four years, that's four years of political impunity for these people. People think that if you rally, march, challenge the government on every little issue that chaos ensues. Maybe this is true, but it's Democracy and it's an ongoing process, not something that you mark on your calendar every so often.

I have half a mind not to vote at all Tuesday, mainly because I'm not willing to wade through the absolute crap that get's spewed out by the candidates for P.M while the M.P.'s stay silent.

You should totally get out there and vote, even if only to spoil your ballot in disgust. There should really be a tally of spoiled ballots so we can see how people really do view the system. And if you want to see your M.P.s talk, you have to turn on your local news stations, your community tv stations. Find out where and when they're holding local debates. Yes, it means taking it upon yourself to get involved.

[bells.and.whistels]

Not voting is another thing. People in America are forced to choose the lesser of two evils anymore because there are only the two major parties. I mean really, who's gonna vote for Nader, anyway. Even if I didn't want to choose between McCain and Obama, I wouldn't vote for Nader because I don't know his beliefs and if enough people did it, we might end up with some fascist in the White House. That's exaggerating, I know Nader's not a fascist, but that's about all I know about him or the Green party.

I'm so glad I wasn't registered at the time of the last election because I would have stayed home. Part of me doesn't really want to vote in this election because I can't reconcile McCain or Palin as my leaders, and sending such a young, new guy to the top kind of goes against my grain, but I agree with Slackmaster - mandatory voting sounds like a good idea.

Both sides need to trim down the rhetoric because they come off as sounding more passionate about shit than they really are. McCain spouts all this vitriol at Obama being a terrorist or whatever and then when people come up to his rallies afterwards and say "I'm afraid of Obama in the White House" he turns around and tells them Nono, he's a good guy.

[Ithiaca]

The issue at hand in American politics is that no one goes out and learns about their candidates or the fact that there is more then just Republicans and Democrats. Even our own Media hides this issue, cause heaven forbid there actually may be a qualified person running for office of President of the United States. At this point I have voted (early ballot voting here in Colorado) and I voted for The Libertarian Party and Bob Barr and his running mate Wayne Allen Root. Why you ask? Cause I am not voting for the lesser of two weasels...er....evils. Neither Republican nor Democrat candidate appeals to me... One has been raised to an almost Messiah like status while the other is playing the 'I'm A War Hero' card.

War hero's worked back in the 30's, 40's and 50's not anymore, we need more. We also do not need a slick packing of 'The Jefferson's' or 'Good Times' to make us feel good. We need to get back control of our Government. Sadly my candidate will probably not win on Nov 4th, but research, look hell try this site for a good review of all the candidates (www.ontheissues.org) it has their quotes, where they stand and sights to go to. Research learn then vote for your conscience not the same old party lines.

[TheDarkJay]

It has to be said: American political rallies seem to be focused more on getting the crown riled up and ready to go out and kill the other side of the debate, and less on actually...you know, debating.

I definately prefer Englands political system, but then again our right-wing views would be considered very left-wing in America.

This post has been edited by TheDarkJay: 13 October 2008 - 01:58 PM

[STGBleatCNU]

Religious rallies and sermons can often be far more scary IMHO, particularly since they translate into the political realm. In rallies based purely on politics, you can often see support ebb and flow depending on performance of the politicain, current political climate, etc. Add religion into that, and you have a static, if not growing powerbase that as we've seen, weilds a rather big club.

1. Religious troubles plague both sides. People on the left fear Christian Conservatives, while people on the right fear Jeramiah Wright and his ilk. Hatred, and by extension politics, does not beling in the pulpit. I am quite pleased with my religion in that the pastors do not and are forbidden to abuse their pulpit regarding political candidates. It is one of the quickest ways for them to be defrocked.
2. Any gathering of motivated and rabid extremists is a frightful concept. Political rallies frighten me more because secular authority actually weilds military might. Should any faction of the Christian church take up arms in a nationwide movement, how long do you think they would actually last against the rest of the nation.
3. Everywhere in the United States media, religion is mocked. This has, to a degree, prevented the number of Christian Conservatives from growing at the same rate as say antireligious groups that feel the need to harass their opposition moreso than in reverse.

I will support the winner come innauguration day through the end of his term for the good of my country. I may not like him or his policies, but I will endeavor to treat him with the respect he is due, and that goes for the Vice Presidential Candidate as well.

The problem with doing this is it robs Democracy of its power. If you only become politically active every four years, that's four years of political impunity for these people. People think that if you rally, march, challenge the government on every little issue that chaos ensues. Maybe this is true, but it's Democracy and it's an ongoing process, not something that you mark on your calendar every so often.

There is such a thing called respectful dissent. I am not saying do not engage the government regarding your opinions. What I am saying is that statements like 'He's not my President;' 'I hope he dies soon;' 'He is the single biggest threat to liberty;' etc. are not necessary and counterproductive. Rallying, marching, challenging, etc. do not necessarily promote chaos and are protected under our consitution. Basically, my point is that while people should not roll over and fail to participate except every four years, they ought to have greater respect for the people running the country. Rather than offering strict criticism just because you do not like the guy in office, offer alternatives to policies. Respectful dissent is not something practiced by either side and its absence has contributed to the polarization of country.

[MausuZ]

I totally agree about the negative ads, Sohmer. The negative advertising drives me nuts. It's not that politicians don't have the right to attack their opponents. It's just that I really hate that in the last few elections that's what they have done PREDOMINANTLY! (Last few in Canada anyway. I know in the US there's been a longer running tradition of negative ads.) Every time I turn on the TV there's another attack ad. When I watch or listen to debates it's 85-90% or more attack, attack, and attack again. As I write this 2 attack ads have 'graced' my TV screen.

How am I supposed to make a fully informed decision if all I have to go by is what they think of each other? How do I get to figure out what I think of them for myself if that's all I have, if I have little of how they see themselves and what they want to do?

All the negativity just makes me loose confidence in EVERYONE, not just the people making the attack and those being attacked, but all those that allow the negativity to continue unchecked. It makes me want to spoil my ballot. It really does.

[Ronin Penguin]

I think that it was surprising that John McCain actually defended Obama when people at his rally started saying things like "Kill Him" during his speech. He even said that Obama was a "Good Man".

I still can't vote for the guy, mostly because of his running mate, but I have to give him props for trying to do something that he felt is right.

To bad his party is the one encouraging the crowds.

[slvhwke]

Australia checking in.

I believe our voting system is similar to Canada. We have various parties (with two mega parties - Labour & Liberal) who select their own leader. So we have no say in who gets to run for PM. Which irritates me to no end.

Australia seems to lack a lot of the hoopla that American politics seems to garner. Every 4 years - when election time rolls around - we start getting spammed to death with political ads. There is some media coverage of the various candidates doing some trail-blazing - usually a debate (sometimes with that hilarious worm and sometimes not) and then we're done. We do have the rallies and speeches - but I have never seen it build to the frenzy that America hits - and I am pretty damn sure that American's don't see our debates on tv (Correct me if I am wrong though)

Public mud-slinging tends to vary. Last years election really showed that Howard was on his way out - his campaign was far more negative than Rudd's. He tried to drag Rudd's economic experience and his ties with Unions through the proverbial mud. Rudd sticked to some couter-attacking and ran with the "He's out of touch with blue collar workers" theme.

Last years election was possibly the most I have seen the Australian public involved - there had been a wave of resentment building up towards John Howard that finally burst and Kevin Rudd was practically carried into office.

One thing about American politics I do envy is their limited term rules - over here - the PM can stay in office as long as he is re-elected. Which is a horrible thought when you have someone in power who you cannot stand.

Hrmm looking back on my post - it all sounds rather apathetic and I am sorry to say it is. I maintain that Howard was able to stay in power for so long as most Australians don't seem terribly fussed either way. Elections come - people trudge to the booths- cast a vote and go home. It always feels like there is little thought or bother really given by Average Joe in casting that vote.

The experience may vary for other states - but QLD being a total Labour stronghold - most of the people vote Labour with little thought. (I think Labour would have to start sacrificing virgins to lose support )

Hrmm I seem to haved waded off-track here. Basically the problem with mandatory voting imo - is that with anything you "have to do" - you seem to not care about it as much. When its something you choose to do - it seems to bring out a lot more passion in people. Which is likely why American politics seem a lot more frenzied and alive.

I would say only 50% of Australia (if that) - think about who to vote for, follow leaders and get involved. The rest just vote for who they always vote for. My grandfather will vote Labour until the day he dies - for the simple reason that its the only party he ever votes for. Policy changes, leaders etc etc - pays no attention to them. He was just taught that Labour is who you vote for. A lot of Australians seem to follow a similar trend - vote for who they were taught to vote for - without ever really knowing why.

This post has been edited by slvhwke: 13 October 2008 - 08:24 PM

[Freckles]

Hi all. I'm from the land down under (Australia) and I registered just for you Slackmaster

Although slvhwke has beaten me to it, I thought I'd just mention that Australia's electoral process is the Alternative Vote system. Not being able to summarise it well myself, you can find out about it at: http://www.idea.int/...glossary.cfm#AV along with many other forms of electoral systems (it is safe for work, unless "politics" is a dirty word).

In theory, mandatory voting is a great thing. Everyone over the age of 18 can have a say of who they want to run the place they live in. However, there are a few practical issues with this. One being that the onus is on you to enroll and vote. So if you don't enroll, you don't vote, and people at our electoral commission are none the wiser. My friend's friend's mum who's in her mid-30s only enrolled recently because it was part of her job requirement, otherwise she wouldn't have done it. For those enrolled who don't vote, all they have to do, from my knowledge anyway, is pay a fine and that's it.

Another issue with mandatory voting is that some people end up doing what we call "donkey votes". They don't particularly care about voting, they just don't want to pay the fine, and so just number it from 1 to whatever from top to bottom. Thankfully, these votes don't count otherwise the person at the top would get all the votes. However, every vote counts and it seems like such a waste to be doing "donkey votes".

Also, as slvhwke mentioned, I do too find that most people will vote for one party until the day they die. Although I find that this is usually with the older generation or people from non-English speaking backgrounds.

Other than those issues, I don't particularly see any other major problem with mandatory voting. It sort of forces you to take a bit of interest in politics, even though it'll only be for a brief period of time.

Now, I'm not big on politics so I can't guarantee if I'm on the mark here or not. Like all voting systems, they are great in theory. An issue I find with the alternative vote system is that candidates get to choose where their votes are reallocated if they are unsuccessful. For example, I vote for Bob, but he doesn't get the majority vote so all his votes goes to Bob's friend (let's be honest, he won't be giving his votes to the direct opposition). More often than not, the voters are unaware of where their votes will go if their chosen candidate doesn't get elected through majority vote. It's not something that's advertised.

And on the topic of advertisements, we too are unfortunately subjected to listen to why "the other guy shouldn't win". While I do agree with your ideals on what we should demand, Sohmer, I believe people just find it harder to convince people to like them and that it's easier to convince people to dislike someone else. It's unfortunate and bad practice, I know.

However, I guess I should be fortunate that we do have the occasional debate where candidates do speak about their policies and what they hope to achieve by being in office. Come election time we have radio stations and TV shows that invite the major candidates on to talk about their policies.

Side tracking a little, I personally think that Howard was in for so long because people saw no better alternative at the time of our elections. It's a shame that we sometimes vote for who we think is the lesser evil.

The experience does vary from state to state here and no doubt in the US. I live in NSW and most of the northern suburbs (think "upper class") were predominantly Liberal (the neo-conservatives, so go figure). After last year's election, the tables turned and now it's all Labor.

But back to Sohmer's 'first statement', I think that was beautifully worded and that it should be some sort of oath that all people entering politics should take, but that's just me being idealistic .