Dissolve into Evergreens
Whose your daddy? (Warning: Sacrilegious post) ...
A guy with a website... Scott Teresi
Helping out Tonight was fun. I had a chance to ...
New thoughts, get them while they're hot! I've ...
Things I know, things I suspect Conservatives a...
Sunday, Meet the Pres. MSNBC - Find "Meet the P...
Lost in Translation This is a movie review of s...
Do you take this women...? Marriage is a sacred...
Trees are pretty! What a pair.
Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and...
The Flaming Lips
The New Radicals
Death Cab for Cutie
Badly Drawn Boy
Coheed and Cambria
Atom Site Feed
For those with limited thinking skills
Just because I dis Bush for being an inept president...
... does not make me a Clinton supporter
Read that again, slowly if you have to, I know its a difficult thing for partisan hacks to grasp. I can in fact be critical of Bush and not be a Clinton supporter. I know your little black and white view of the world says that if I'm not a Republican I must therefore be a Democrat. But that is not the case. Some of us are indeed free thinkers on matters of politics. If it helps you can write yourself a little note and stick it to your monitor.
Not all Bush bashers are Democrats.
I will be pulling the lever for a Democrat this next election. Not because I have some robotic fealty to that party and all it stands for. But simply because in our winner-take-all two party system I can either vote to re-elect Bush by voting for him directly, or I can vote to re-elect Bush by not voting at all. The only way I have of getting Bush out of office is to vote for the Democrat. And I want Bush out of office. Trust me, if there was a proportional representative government in place here, I would be supporting candidates that actually reflect my opinions, not just those that can strategically get rid of ones that don't.
Wouldn't it be great if there was a "no confidence" vote that you could cast that says in effect "I'm not voting for anyone but I want THIS GUY out". If the majority of people vote no confidence both guys get thrown out and we start all over again. Why should we live with substandard leaders because of a screwed up system that rewards a candidate that can squeak through without even getting the majority of support? Does winning less than 50% of 50% really qualify as a mandate for leadership? The votes of 50 million in a nation of nearly 300 million can allow you to claim that you represent "the American people". Nearly 4 million people voted for other candidates than Bush or Gore in the 2000 election, that's four times as many votes cast in Oklahoma, nearly as many cast in Michigan (worth 18 electoral votes). Those 4 million people get no representation. The rest of got Bush. I feel like Charlie Brown on Halloween.
To all those organizations telling people to vote I got a clue for ya:
GIVE US BETTER CHOICES!!!
I don't care much for the political party system. It means that even if we elect an individual to work in our state interests what we really get is an individual that works for the party's interests instead. So why do we even bother selecting a candidate? Why don't we just cut out that process and select which party will represent our state. Then they can continue going about their merry business of doing party work. The candidates themselves are trojan horses for the party faithful. Who would have thought that electing George W. Bush would bring in a flock of old Nixon people? Did you see that one coming?
I think Inhofe is a perfect example of a party man. Right now he is up there in DC chairing some committee on environmental issues. He's busy spreading the word that 99% of scientists are wrong about global warming and that there's no need to regulate industries that contribute to the problem. This stance has dubious worth to the state of Oklahoma but it helps the GOP shore up support from the energy industry that wants to avoid costly regulations. Keep an eye on the votes of your local congressman and senators, you will be (or not) surprised by the insane levels of party unity.
One of the reasons I'm dismayed at the (D)'s choice of Kerry to be the presidential nominee is for this precise reason. As a senator he has been working to strengthen the Democratic party. Which means that his votes in the senate will most likely NOT represent his own personal convictions but the wishes and whims of the party as they have sparred with the Republicans over this and that bill. There is no doubt that at some point in his career the Democratic leadership knocked on his door and said something to the effect that "We need you to vote this way to help candidate X in wherever" or "We need you to vote like this keep us from looking bad'. So what we get with Senators is a history of compromise and political maneuvering. This looks bad when you say one thing but your votes reflect another.
But Kerry's electable!
Dissolve into Evergreens