Abetted by the wisdom of this pair of chevaliers, I have determined the following:
Both candidates should initiate their campaign w/ a short, comprehensive statement of the major events and accomplishments of their lives, following the stock yet effective formula, “from rags to riches.” These statements should begin w/ an account of a humble birth, move on to describe the travails suffered along the way, and end with an account of eventual success, achieved through heroic and/or audacious expedient. Nothing is more important to a successful campaign than a candidate’s “story.”
Given the prevailing opinion that producing a coherent foreign policy is the sine qua non of any viable candidate for the highest office in the land, both gentlemen must furnish full, candid, reliable, scrupulous statements re their war records.
Though it might appear to some that both should furnish full, candid, etc., statements re other matters—major policy points, histories of the aborning political party under which the two are purveying their ideas, notions, etc., answers to scurrilous charges, family trees containing diversity re ethnicity, gender, etcetera, religious beliefs, sexual history—my counsel is that these statements, though on the whole necessary to any successful political campaign, should be apportioned logically, i.e., according to the principle of relevance. That is as much as to say that each candidate should give statements on matters of his own choosing.
Following this principle, and after my interviews w/ both gentlemen, I propose, in nuce, the following.
As the head of the ticket, Mr. Ennis should (1) set forth the argument for granting the franchise to talking American parrots who/that have attained majority; (2) compose a concise history of the Dead Rights Party (DRiP), and (3) answer scurrilous charges by persons, named or anonymous, whose “opposition research” has been biased, faulty, or otherwise fallacious.
As the running mate cum “second fiddle” in this election, Mr. Slack should be content to “fill in the gaps,” so to speak, that have been left to him. He might, for example, choose to give an account of his religious beliefs (if any); and/or “come clean” on the matter of his sexual indiscretions, real, imagined, or, not quite impossibly, nonexistent.
Nor is this all. Another member of the KRT might see fit to present the platform of the DRiP to a skeptical electorate; the logical choice would seem to be the worthy chairman or, preferably, chairperson, Mr. Arthur Unknown. He, or someone of his choosing, might also conduct a poll of likely voters, or perhaps delegate this task to another or others, thus lending a modicum of legitimacy to the campaign under discussion. Yet again, he might arrange for the inclusion of the DRiP candidates in the presidential debates that are traditionally held post-Olympics.
In order to avoid any error that might be deleterious to the integrity of this enterprise, I deem it wise that the two candidates solicit critical comments re their statements from the other members of the Kachina Round Table, as well as from the two aforementioned employees of the Hôtel AdiósWatering Hole when available and eager to contribute. Put differently, all statements should be thoroughly vetted by the compeers of the candidates before publication.
Both candidates should initiate their campaign w/ a short, comprehensive statement of the major events and accomplishments of their lives, following the stock yet effective formula, “from rags to riches.” These statements should begin w/ an account of a humble birth, move on to describe the travails suffered along the way, and end with an account of eventual success, achieved through heroic and/or audacious expedient. Nothing is more important to a successful campaign than a candidate’s “story.”
Given the prevailing opinion that producing a coherent foreign policy is the sine qua non of any viable candidate for the highest office in the land, both gentlemen must furnish full, candid, reliable, scrupulous statements re their war records.
Though it might appear to some that both should furnish full, candid, etc., statements re other matters—major policy points, histories of the aborning political party under which the two are purveying their ideas, notions, etc., answers to scurrilous charges, family trees containing diversity re ethnicity, gender, etcetera, religious beliefs, sexual history—my counsel is that these statements, though on the whole necessary to any successful political campaign, should be apportioned logically, i.e., according to the principle of relevance. That is as much as to say that each candidate should give statements on matters of his own choosing.
Following this principle, and after my interviews w/ both gentlemen, I propose, in nuce, the following.
As the head of the ticket, Mr. Ennis should (1) set forth the argument for granting the franchise to talking American parrots who/that have attained majority; (2) compose a concise history of the Dead Rights Party (DRiP), and (3) answer scurrilous charges by persons, named or anonymous, whose “opposition research” has been biased, faulty, or otherwise fallacious.
As the running mate cum “second fiddle” in this election, Mr. Slack should be content to “fill in the gaps,” so to speak, that have been left to him. He might, for example, choose to give an account of his religious beliefs (if any); and/or “come clean” on the matter of his sexual indiscretions, real, imagined, or, not quite impossibly, nonexistent.
Nor is this all. Another member of the KRT might see fit to present the platform of the DRiP to a skeptical electorate; the logical choice would seem to be the worthy chairman or, preferably, chairperson, Mr. Arthur Unknown. He, or someone of his choosing, might also conduct a poll of likely voters, or perhaps delegate this task to another or others, thus lending a modicum of legitimacy to the campaign under discussion. Yet again, he might arrange for the inclusion of the DRiP candidates in the presidential debates that are traditionally held post-Olympics.
In order to avoid any error that might be deleterious to the integrity of this enterprise, I deem it wise that the two candidates solicit critical comments re their statements from the other members of the Kachina Round Table, as well as from the two aforementioned employees of the Hôtel AdiósWatering Hole when available and eager to contribute. Put differently, all statements should be thoroughly vetted by the compeers of the candidates before publication.
RSS Feed