I really shouldn’t write so much on politics. The other night, I had some friends over and an interview with Dick Cheney was on the TV in the background. I made some comment about the news media catching our Vice President in a flip-flop snafu of his own, and my roommate exclaims, “Oh, so that’s who that is!”
“You really don’t pay attention to politics, do you?” And my comment was followed by all those present in the room admitting their own lack of attention to this year’s election. If this is the case with all my peers, then perhaps my readership has gone down; besides, I’m sure politics isn’t nearly funny at all.
That said, I wanted to mention this overly verbose point: I’m growing dreadfully weary of the cliché Democratic counterstrikes that are in constant assail this hunting season. Whereas before November 2000 most people were perfectly content with the current elections process, the Electoral College, mere mention of it now makes the ABB (anyone but Bush) supporter blow their fuse. Apparently, when the Electoral College provides the function is was intended to perform it is cause for the losing team to throw their ball caps in the dirt and pitch a good ole fashioned hissy. Without the Electoral College, when would candidates ever leave California, Texas, or New York to campaign in the smaller states like Iowa or New Hampshire? With the Electoral College, the voices of residents of smaller states are amplified. Besides, if the Electoral College were really as big a quagmire as the whiners claim, why hasn’t any serious legislation on doing away with it even been considered?
“Well I’d just rather have it so that I’m electing the President, not so the Supreme Court picks him. You know who most people voted for!” Sorry sweetheart, it’s never been like that in the U.S. You’ve never picked the President, all you did was tell the elector who you’d like him to vote for (and he’s legally bound to vote as the populous requests in Tennessee, but that’s not the case in all states). Oh, and there’s the tired, sour grapes complaint about the Supreme Court choosing the President. You must have seen Moore’s film. It seems that he forgot to mention that it was Gore, not Bush, who filed repeated lawsuits for a recount. The only way Gore was going to pull through with a ‘W’ in his column for that election was by re-assigning votes for Buchanan to himself by ‘guessing’ the intention of the voter, which a slightly more than illegal. The Supreme Court simply did not allow the re-recounts to continue past the legal deadline. I suppose that obviously means they’re in bed with the Bushes.
“BUSH LIED TO AMERICA!” Geez, lady, a breathmint offered should always be accepted. So all the best intelligence from 4 major world intelligence agencies suggested one thing, and the President is not supposed to act on it? Isn’t that what he’s being accused of doing before September 11? What was he supposed to do? If Bush lied, then so did Kerry and the rest of our congressmen who voted for the war in Iraq. They were all privy to a wealth of intelligence, and the majority came to the same conclusion as Bush. I would assume, therefore, that Kerry would’ve arrived at the same decision as he did as a senator were he to have been leading the country at that time. The obvious difference would be that Kerry would see no other path than to kick the Saddam Grovelometer up a couple more notches.
Loading ...