Coyote Ugly

Our government is composed of three distinct segments, the head of state (foreign policy and national defense), and head of government (economic, regulatory services and public), and head of the society (social problems).

To be sure, each of these domains overlaps the other at various points, but the areas are, by necessity, for the most distinct. They represent the diversity and complexity of a political culture, and in fact, are clearly in the spirit of the founding fathers when they signed the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

A political agenda a success is anyone able to process the greatest amount of concern in many areas for the longest period of time. And successful political leaders, at least nationally, are those that are perceived as representing the interests of the majority in each area.

We could apply this theory to every president since Dwight Eisenhower, who would be fun, but it is not the point of this article. The aim of this paper is to have a realistic perspective on what happened in the '06 midterms.

In American politics, each of these areas has its own interests, both political and economic. Clearly, the military-industrial special interests have an enormous motivation to promote the agenda by the Head of State is the best a costly military stronghold, for example. Similarly, corporate America is primarily interested in the head of the agenda of the government that corporate profits and fuel economic expansion. And the head of the society agenda is a great concern to religious interests and human rights groups. These examples are not all inclusive, but they emphasize different sources of support a particular political party agenda might receive.

It is not unusual for the interests that support a domain to be in contradiction with the interests that support a different domain. For example, a defense contractor may be very gung-ho about prosecuting a war (head of state domain), because it means a lot of dollars are spent on stuff that blows up buildings. But fiscal conservatives can seriously object, since such a commitment can undermine the trade or public services (ruler domain). These are the different interests that we want to watch, because that is the Coyote Ugly rears its ... thus, the ugly head.

If you think the coyote ugly phrase has it origin in a culture dating back to pick up unsightly one sexual partner in a bar or another equally drunk environment. The definition is that when you wake up one morning and see your one-night stand in the clear light of morning, peacefully asleep in your arms, the person is so ugly, disgusting or otherwise, that you prefer chew your arm off than to risk waking up as you slink out of bed. Yes, yes, disgusting, I know. But, on the spot for this analogy.

You see, a state of mind wandering often prevails when one tries to attract the opposite sex. In this spirit, people tend to make choices they would prefer not having to deal with later, often choices that are embarrassing or hypocritical. Later, when forced to face the imprudence and folly of their choice, they must resort to some form of "chewing their arms" to get out of the alliance indulgent and carefree they done.

If you do not put it all together yet, "pushing the opposite sex" part is synonymous with "getting elected" or "make the political weight of its agenda." And just as the confrontation between rage and indignation hormone rational thought, special interest groups sometimes wake up and find themselves in bed with a totally undesirable partner. Gulp.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" "In the political arena, there is a high tolerance for ind.