October 04, 1996

It's getting close. Soon the entire people of these United States of A., the best people in the world, will swarm to the polls (at least 35% of them) to elect their White House Chef who will cook our next four years. It is perhaps appropriate to review how this household voted four years ago; not me personally since I am one of those Martian aliens, but Jan, whose full fledged American citizenship cannot be doubted. Here is, described in a letter written at that time, how she proceeded to select the ideal candidate: QUOTE

November 17, 1992

Hello Janet:

Who would have believed last January that Billie would be our next president! He looked so much more like the perfect candidate for an ad campaign selling SmartCuts hairdo or some cold medicine than the next president of the United States. But after Reagan I should not have been surprised... Hollywood and Madison Avenue have become the General Motors of post-modernism - what is good for one is good for the country and vice versa. Everything is in the packaging of the product, not the product itself... Mind you, I am not complaining... I am much too happy to be done with twelve years of social reaction! Yet the question of the right candidate was a matter of serious interest here. You see, Jan could not resolve herself to vote for Clinton. She felt like the other 57% of the voters that he was not the right man. Of course, she did not want to hear of four more years and she despised the demagoguery and authoritarian propensity of the self-made Texan. In the depths of her quagmire to find the exceptional individual deserving to lead this nation toward the traditional future made of transcendental values from sea to shining sea - God-Bless-Us-All - we sat down together and went through the most rigorous selection that this country has ever seen. I'll let you be the judge.

First, she wanted someone who would not be all politics as usual. He or she would therefore have to come from a different background. In other words, she was longing for real change, not simply a new packaging of the same old paradigm. Second, she was looking for someone with a long experience of human endeavors, yet young enough to be daring, to incorporate the future into a set of fresh policies. Third, tired of the repetitive hidden blunders of our policy makers (Iraqgate, S&L mess, and the like), that person needed to be wise and she defined this character issue as the ability to change one's mind as often as required to acknowledge and correct one's potential errors. Fourth, she demanded a strong leader who could recognize that the best defense was not to attack in the first place. Fifth, realizing that we live in a global world, she wanted someone who had an acute understanding of diversity to design an internationalist foreign policy. Sixth, she expected such an individual to be environmentally correct. Seventh, closely related to the preceding prerequisite and believing that 5% of the world population cannot continue to consume more than 25% of the world's resources, she looked for someone who could redirect our economic and business priorities. Eighth, convinced that our country was indeed founded on a series of core values, she requested that the next president strongly favor these values, from family to life, from choice to education, from health to art, etc., without making his or her daily obligation to define them in us-versus-them-kind-of-terms, but to know that between the strong and the weak, between the poor and the wealthy, it is the law that frees people and public money that proportionalizes the equal development of unequal faculties. Ninth, she asked for someone who would sponsor a strong anti-crime bill that would be against the death penalty and the NRA, and would favor drug rehabilitation, education, and job formation over prosecution, and housing over jailing. Tenth, She felt that it was about time that our next leader be chosen among a minority representing an absolute majority for whatever this is worth. Eleventh, she wanted someone who would never accept, not even for strategic interests or for any other specious reasons, the subjugation of one people by another, from Bosnia and East Timor, to South Africa and Israel, thus placing human rights before convenience in his or her administration. Twelfth, this precious individual would have to possess a pretty strong and serious sense of humor not to take himself or herself too strongly seriously. Thirteenth, she positively insisted on an individual who would not pander to religious advocates, whatever their chapel. Fourteenth and finally, she decided that each selected name would be evaluated according to a final and subjective reason that did not necessarily have to pertain to the thirteen primary criteria.

Then, we summarized the list of requirements and looked for personalities, including, for the purpose of fairness, the major three official candidates, who could potentially pass this rigorous and testing selection process. Furthermore, we built a fact sheet where we answered each requirement by a yes, or a no, or a question mark when we were unable to select one or the other. Each yes was scored with a one (1), each no with a negative one (-1), and each question mark with a zero (0). When all was said and done with the essential democratic business of finding the right individual for the best of times and the worst of times, we finally discovered l'oiseau rare, that is to say the candidate with the highest score.

Here is the summary:

# 1 Real change, not politics as usual.
# 2 Young enough but with long experience.
# 3 The wisdom to change one's mind.
# 4 A strong but not an aggressive leader.
# 5 An international vision based on the recognition of diversity.
# 6 A strong proponent of the defense of our environment.
# 7 The change of our economic and business priorities.
# 8 Pro family/life/choice/national education/health/art/public financing...
# 9 A crime bill discarding death penalty/NRA/jails.
# 10 A representative of the majority issued from a minority if ever possible.
# 11 Human rights before convenience in the world.
# 12 A serious sense of humor.
# 13 No religious backing.
# 14 Subjective and personal criteria not belonging to the preceding 13 requirements.

And, my dear Janet, the result did overwhelmingly direct Jan toward the one an only person worth voting for... You!!! In the eyes of this writer at least, there could not have been a better choice! And she voted accordingly! Herein enclosed are the fact sheet, the explanation of the last reason, and a photocopy of her ballot...

You see, even the New Yorker did not think of that one!

Ross Perot ---> A Texan hustler, a demagogic midget...
Bill Clinton ---> Can't be everything to everybody, Bill! Or can you?
G. Bush ---> No comment!
M. Cuomo ---> We like your intellect, Mario. But, please, loosen up!
W. Buckley ---> Refreshing brilliance and humor in spite of beliefs... But sit up straight, Bill!
B. Moyers --->A wishy-washy would-be vulgarizer...
L. Pavarotti ---> With such a voice the world and us are at your feet!
G. Steinem ---> A pedant and arrogant DOB (daughter of a bitch)...
P. Schroeder --> Ah, the Virgin Mary... when she smiles at you, watch out!
W. Safire ---> Only because of his mastery of the English language...
Madonna ---> American legend or latest faddish American fantasy? The latter, we guess...
J. Jackson ---> Oh well, watch your diction and keep hope alive!
Ed Koch ---> A true SOB... A mummy-I-wanna-be-has-been!
M. Johnson ---> But for goodness sake, who does he think he is?
B. Streisand ---> Nice voice but not part of the elite (hopefully!), just journeying to egomania!
S. Donaldson ---> Would love his hair piece if he could keep his big mouth shut just once!
J. Helms ---> The epitome of bad taste and racist bigotry...
Abraham ---> The forefather of all our mess!
Jesus ---> Vade retro papanas! And do not come back!
Mohammed ---> Inch Allah and Holy Jihad, we enjoy too much pork and alcohol!
Janet Wolfe ---> You are the best, Janet, and we love you! Also, wouldn't it be a lot of fun...?

Note: These comments are presented to you under the strict protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. We gracefully acknowledge that Ms. Wolfe, having undergone a nose job at the hands of a now-deceased communist surgeon, may be disqualified for the highest office of the land. But we know Ms. Wolfe. Ms. Wolfe is our friend. And no other candidate has a nicer nose! There is no expressed or implied guarantee of objectivity. Fitness to use is in the eyes of the beholder. All rights are reserved except as permitted in writing according to the law and regulations of the city of Menlo Park, California.

© 1992 Gilles d'Aymery

UNQUOTE