Shot through the heart!

So my friend and I were talking about assassinations today... Ok, I think I need to put this in context before the gestapo come knocking down my door. Let me start by saying that my political belief system is a bit odd. The only term I've come up with is anapolitical. Existentially apolitical technically covers it but it's so specific a system of political theory that I feel it could use it's own term. The short version is that I don't believe any political system is sustainable. This is different than anarchy because they think that living in a world where there is no centralized government is ideal. I think that anarchists are so eager to start a revolution that they never got around to figuring out what to fight for or against. Me? I think that any form of government is a losing battle but there's no alternative. Imagine living in a city that is completely below sea level and there's no other land in the world. The dams around the city start to crumble. Do you hand people more sandbags to help or run away? The sandbag is a futile effort but where the hell can you run to? That's how I see it. All that was meant to let you know that I look at politics more as a set of human efforts and results rather than a working ideal to aspire to. It's more like physics to me than anything else. So the following is hypothetical. Everything between the lines are ideas and none are meant to be 'plans' or suggestions. I'm not advocating any of the following plans. They are merely hypothesis followed though with a thought experiment. It's a common thing in science to do this. I don't know about political theory, but my background is science. That's how my brain works. The film Death of a President does the same thing. It analyzes a concept and does not incite action towards the concept. So to the SS men outside my door, lighten up. As much as I'm not a democrat (I tried to register Discordian but they wouldn't take it) I do like the constitution. I've also been studying "the founding fathers" and how they actually weren't all about religion. In context they were downright, dare I say, revolutionary. They'd probably have the current administration lined up to ship off. So the question was "What sort of situation for an assassination would help the democrats the most?" Here's what my friend and I came up with:

---

1. The most obvious is to hypothetically shoot Bush now. Though it sounds quite shocking unless you're a hard line Republican. Then you might be used to talk like that. Surely you've heard people joke that if you shot Bush, Cheney would probably have a heart attack. Two birds with one stone. But I digress. It may look good for the democrats at first, but not for long. About 2 hours into the coverage Bush would pretty much be an unofficial saint. His policy would become untouchable canon and no matter who did the shooting it would be announced as a terrorist attack. Right wing agenda fills the house and senate and freedom is though. So that's no good.
2. Hypothetically shoot him after he's out of office. Well, it would make one person feel good but wouldn't accomplish much. How can he have his Paris Hilton prison breakdown if he's dead?
3. Democrat gets elected and goes after Bush for any of his many crimes. Hypothetically, the new president gets shot. This would create a Rabin type backlash against the war and push support for whatever the democratic platform was on the way out. Bush would get put in jail, the platform would fly through and the future would look bright and happy, just like in the second Bill and Ted movie. *WINNER*

Of course it'd never work out that way in reality. People are already in a "give up rights and be a xenophobe" mentality. Odds are it's peace all the way. Anything even remotely hostile like that would drive people back to the right. Especially when there's no chance of Bush coming back. Not to sound like the horror twist at the end of a ghost story, but there's always Giuliani.

---

Thought experiment over. Here's one real comment at the end to chew on. It's not that I don't like Hillary. I think she'd be OK in other situations. But to split a party that is now notorious for having to uniting thesis other than "Well, we're not Bush!" is stupid beyond all conception. I thought she was smart so I assumed she wouldn't run. It's be nice if someone actually put the country before their political career. Nader, I'm looking at you too! Just because you can run (and no one is saying you can't) does not mean it would be best to do so now. When you were younger, did you ever wait for your parents to get home and then bug them to go out somewhere to eat? Then they said yes and you kept pushing for more, like to get a toy or a new book or something? Did you ever keep pushing until they snapped at you and then you get nothing? I think that's how America is holding up right now.