I apologize in advance for what is going to be one of those uncommon but inevitable "throw away" BLOG entry. I am not about to say anything of any particular worth or that achieves any notable level of profundity. My inability to find a suitable topic on which to rant and rave is due to the fact that the current political environment is becoming more and more staid and predictable. How can you work up a productive sense of outrage and get the emotional (read: creative) "juices" flowing (usually, with me, manifested by rage, frustration and despair) when everything appears to be so tediously scripted? As Samuel Johnson wrote: "If the changes we fear be thus irresistible, what remains but to acquiesce with silence, as in the other insurmountable distresses of humanity? It remains that we retard what we cannot repel, that we palliate what we cannot cure." [A Dictionary of the English Language, 1755]

I refer, with this particular quote, to the phenomenon on display currently in the arena of the presidential campaigning which I shall hereafter refer to as "spaghetti politics ©." This term, which I believe to be a completely novel and, quite probably, copyright-worthy conjunction of seemingly unrelated words, is my creation to describe a predictable phenomenon in political rhetoric. This particular form of election gamesmanship happens every four years (every two years if you even bother to listen to Congressional stump speeches) and is not a new experience for anyone schooled in such shenanigans. However, with the crowded field of nags running in the unique 2007-2008 Derby, the slapstick has become so laughable that it cries out for at least its own term. I, therefore, have endeavored to answer this cry.

My definition of spaghetti politics© is intimately linked to the ancient kitchen technique which was used, apparently, to tell if the stringy noodles have been adequately cooked. Though I cannot conceive of anyone actually using this maneuver, the notion is that one takes a strand of the boiling spaghetti from the pot and hurls it against the kitchen wall. If the noodle is sufficiently cooked - and, therefore, pliable - it will stick to the wall. If it requires additional hydration it will, conversely, bounce off the wall. I am not cognizant of where the test originated (perhaps, Italy?) or with what commonality it is in use today (hopefully, very rarely) but, for our purposes, it will suffice as a descriptive picture if nothing else.

To pair up with the visual image of the spaghetti sticking to the wall of the kitchen, we have the comical oxymoron, "political rhetoric." As anyone knows who has studied the typical campaigning of any presidential hopeful over the past century, the prevailing rule seems to be: promise anything, promise everything and promise often. This has proven, over decades of refinement, to be a safe practice because candidates and speech writers are well aware that the attention span of the typical voter is shorter than Paris Hilton’s average incarceration. By the time the election actually rolls around, voters cannot recall who promised what or to whom and generally vote for whomever they think is the cutest or sexiest or has the best teeth. It is a horse race, after all.

Thus, we have the recipe for spaghetti politics©: depending on the composition and/or allegiances of your audience, promise whatever they traditionally like to hear, smile and see if anything you throw against the wall actually sticks. If a candidate is speaking before a predominantly black audience, they are likely to discuss urban renewal, increased funding for pre-school programs and a renewed "war on poverty." Income tax reform is also a common topic for the urban audience with an emphasis on reducing taxes on the low-to-middle class families and increases in taxes for the "rich." [N.B. This is commonly known in economic terms as "income redistribution" but this term will never be spoken in a public forum regardless of the audience.] If you are speaking to a suburban, Southern audience that is likely to be predominantly WASP (white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants), you must talk about family values, your opposition to gay marriage and gun control. And so it goes. One tailors the menu to the tastes of the diners at hand. It doesn’t actually matter what you personally believe just so the audience hears you speak and comes away with the notion that you "care about the same things they care about."

For example, in South Carolina in June 15, 2007, Senator Barack Obama (D) uttered these stirring words:

In June, 2006, Senator Clinton (D) said this awe-inspiring snippet at a meeting of Christian Democrats at the Sojourners "Covenant For A New America" about poverty:

While not yet a declared candidate, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) addressed the Urban League in St. Louis on July 25, 2007 with this sophistry about education:

"The federal government should commit to a significant increase in new federal funding, including for higher teacher salaries, but cities and states could only receive it if they began implementing the reforms I’ve outlined today."

With rhetoric such as this, consisting of nothing more that unsatisfying and unnourishing swill from the mouths of the currents candidates (I must add, candidates from all parties are equally guilty) and the same retread, non-offensive "answers" to the same old problems, is it any reason no one has much hope for the future of this nation or its leadership? The ability to predict, before they even take the podium, the words that will come out of the mouths of politicians is even more irksome because, in such a crowded field of nags running in this particular presidential sweepstakes, one would think that one of more of the them would attempt to propose something novel or innovative or, God Forbid!, controversial if for no other reason than to separate themselves from the faceless, one-size-fits-all crowd of drones. But, at least at this stage of the jockeying for position, all the ponies seem content to stay in the pack and not make an early move to break away. None of the candidates want to take the lead; they all seem perfectly happy to stay bunched and merely keep the same pace.

So, to continue the spirit of prognostication, I would like to list a few phrases that I foresee you will never hear spoken by any candidate for President in the near future, if ever:

1. "We need to get back to the ideals that made America great, namely, self-dependence and a deep-seated, passionate and individual drive for success. I still believe there is nothing that you cannot accomplish in America if you are driven to succeed and are willing to work and practice self-control and self-denial to achieve that goal."
2. "Our citizens need to end the pervasive and destructive mentality that dependence on government spending will solve all our problems. Only through self-reliance and personal sacrifice can we ever hope to build the future we want and deserve for both ourselves and our families."
3. "More government is not the answer to the problems of the individual citizens in our great country. The solution to our problems lies within ourselves and is centered in personal responsibility and initiative."
4. "Instead of demanding government to spend more money on education we, as parents, need to take a greater interest and involvement in what our children are learning and demand from our children a higher sense of dedication and hard work. We need to start in our own homes and with investing our own time in teaching our children what we - each parent - knows our kids need to know to prepare them to compete in the modern world. Take the iPods out of their ears and start filling them with your voices."
5. "The federal government cannot solve all the problems of the inner cities and the ‘working poor.’ We need to work, within our own communities and through the programs that are already in place, to help provide services to lift up our fellow citizens to the levels of training and education that will help them get better, higher paying jobs."
6. "Street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, we can and must take back our cities from the drug dealers and the pervasive addiction on government handouts and strive to make our neighbors and our youth self-sufficient and responsible for their behavior and their destinies."
7. "We do not need new immigration laws or a multi-billion dollar fence to protect our borders and our citizens. We need a legal system that will enforce - to the letter of the law - our existing laws and punish those who flaunt their ability to circumvent the system that already exists. If someone hires an illegal alien, they should be punished to the degree - including jail time for first offenses - that they will not do it again. When the jobs dry up, mass illegal immigration will also."
8. "We should demand, as parents and concerned citizens, that teachers stop hiding behind their unions and their ideas about "protective tenure" and start holding themselves accountable for teaching excellence. If they do not do so voluntarily, then their unions should be decertified and a competitive system of promotion and pay should be instituted to protect our great resource - our children’s education."

I challenge you: Throw any one of those pieces of spaghetti against the wall and see if any of them stick. I suspect that most will fall, sadly and unceremoniously, to the floor. Grievously, this particular brand of political spaghetti is not very appealing to the typical American voters. They prefer 1-minute cooking times, easy digestability and sauce that is made from ingredients that do not include self-sacrifice, personal responsibility or self-determination.