2000 election
Posted By: dee on 2005-07-21
In Reply to: Goes on all the time. - DixieDew
Yes, Bush did win only one election. The first election was handed to him by the Supreme Court Five. If it had been handled properly and fairly, Gore would have won as he had the popular vote.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I just hope we don't have a repeat of the 2000 election...sm
Whoever wins, let them win by a wide enough margin that the is no question. To this day I do not know how Bush et AL got away with that one. Talk about stupid democrats!
By trying to address 2000 and 2004 election corruption
nm
2000 dead: How many is
2000 Dead: How Many Is Too Many?
By Mike Hoffman
When I left for the Middle East in February 2003 with a Marine artillery unit, I was told Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, had been assisting Al Qaeda, was partly responsible for 9/11 and was an imminent threat to the United States and Iraq’s neighbors.
We destroyed Iraq’s under-equipped and demoralized military – the imminent threat to our nation -- in a little over a month. Since the invasion, no weapons inspection team has found evidence of any weapons of mass destruction and the claims that Saddam Hussein was working with Al Qaeda have been shown to be nonsense. When I left Iraq for home in May 2003, after President Bush told us “Mission Accomplished,” 139 Americans had died.
After the invasion was over and the occupation began, Iraqis didn’t throw flowers and candy at our feet. Instead roadside bombs and ambushes awaited us down every street. The administration said we were about to turn a corner. We were told that once Saddam and his sons were captured or killed the insurgents would give up, demoralized by the loss of their leader; peace would reign. By the time Saddam was captured in December 2003, 463 Americans had died in Iraq.
The capture of Saddam had no effect, and daily attacks against American forces and Iraqi security forces continued. It was during this time that the bloody Shiite Rebellion occurred. This was some of the fiercest fighting yet in Iraq. Even with this rebellion happening, we were told there was still hope. Sovereignty would soon be handed over to the Iraqis and another corner would be turned. But we needed to stay and provide the Iraqis security until we could “officially” turn the country back over to them. This would empower the Iraqis and end the Insurgency. By then, June 2004, 958 had come home in boxes.
Most Iraqis didn’t seem to care they had sovereignty, since we still occupied their country. They were still without electricity and faced an average unemployment rate of 70%. Every time US soldiers walked outside the wire they were still taking their lives in their hands. Then, we were told, elections would fix this. The Iraqis would have their own government in place and begin drafting a constitution. This would demoralize the terrorists and end the fighting. On the day of the elections, January 30, 2005, the U.S. death toll was 1,537.
What’s wrong with this picture?
The first time we were told the war was over we had lost 139 American; now we have lost 2,000 American lives in Iraq. Time and time again we are told things are getting better, that we have “turned a corner.”
In the Viet Nam War we didn’t “turn corners;” instead policy makers talked about the “light at the end of the tunnel.” We know now that by 1968 President Johnson knew there was no light at the end of the tunnel; he knew his war was lost. The Pentagon Papers showed this; Robert McNamara admits it today. Over 22,000 American troops died in Viet Nam after 1968 in a war our leaders knew was hopeless and just piling up American and Asian bodies.
Again, there is no light at the end of the tunnel, and we’ve turned so many corners we’re going in circles. Our leaders know they can’t win this war, but, like Johnson and McNamara, they refuse to admit it to the American people. Meanwhile, our troops remain a huge provocative force in the region and each individual soldier a prized target. Failure to face this reality is exacerbating the current chaos in Iraq and preventing real regional diplomatic solutions.
So the question falls to ordinary Americans: How many more brave men and women are we willing to sacrifice before we force our leaders to bring the troops home? I pray that it does not take another 56,000 like it did in Viet Nam.
Mike Hoffman was a lance corporal in a Marine artillery unit during the invasion of Iraq. He is a member of Iraq Veterans Against The War.
2000 yrs ago? Try 6000....
not looking for any kind of attention - you are awfully presuming/assuming for a public board/forum poster....you know nothing about me...
please do not respond to any of my posts if you don't like them - you DO have that choice.
I have never been called since 2000
to be included in a national poll. I'm Democrat. I answer all phone calls JUST to have my voice heard. Why haven't they called me?
Stolen, just like in 2000
I guess it is alright if the Republicans steal an election, but not the Dems???
The $2000 debit card sm
has provisions that state the card cannot be used for alcohol or cigarettes. They will get no cash back on any purchase.
The government has already thought of all these things. The card can only be used for food, personal items, etc.
I can't believe it matters. 2000 or 6000, what's... sm
The difference? It's still an ancient piece of fiction written by primitive, superstitious people from a corner of a long-dead empire. Why anyone in the present day would chose to believe any of it, let alone feel compelled to organize their life around it (or believe that it predicts the future, of all things!) is beyond me.
Here is the lastest immigration law, 2000. sm
http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=80
Then you'll just have to do what the dems did since 2000
Suck it up, tune him out and go on about your business.
Then you'll just have to do what the dems did since 2000
Suck it up, tune him out and go on about your business. He's not going anywhere anytime soon.
Another look at the 2000 Bush v. Gore debate.
I wonder if Bush would still have won if voters knew the extent to which he blatantly lied during this debate. To find the TRUTH, all someone has to do is take just about EVERYTHING Bush said, REVERSE IT (with the possible exception of the comment: "I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place." I didn't understand it in 2000 and still don't know what it means. And why did he only focus on "our friends in the Middle East?") I know this isn’t new news, but I found it interesting to take a second look at this. Hindsight being 20/20, I'm amazed at how good Gore is suddenly starting to look!
From www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html
MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?
BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.
MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, one minute.
GORE: I want to make it clear, our military is the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the world and in the history of the world. Nobody should have any doubt about that, least of all our adversaries or potential adversaries. If you entrust me with the presidency, I will do whatever is necessary in order to make sure our forces stay the strongest in the world. In fact, in my ten-year budget proposal I've set aside more than twice as much for this purpose as Governor Bush has in his proposal. Now, I think we should be reluctant to get involved in someplace in a foreign country. But if our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we've tried every other course, if we're sure military action will succeed, and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits, we should get involved. Now, just because we don't want to get involved everywhere doesn't mean we should back off anywhere it comes up. I disagree with the proposal that maybe only when oil supplies are at stake that our national security is at risk. I think that there are situations like in Bosnia or Kosovo where there's a genocide, where our national security is at stake there.
BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it's going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration.
Pot meets kettle. You mean like Tom Delay's 2000-2001
We are still dealing with the aftermath. But hey, he was just trying to help out the shrub and the rest of the GOP good ole boys.
This person was talking about the 2000 debit cards and calling them handouts...sm
Now is not the time to be talking about handups in the midst of a national disaster like the one in NO. In a time like this it is too late for that and inappropriate. But enlighten me, what kind of handup has the republican party offered the displaced NO citizens?
These people NEED HANDOUTS AND YESTERDAY, until they can regain some type of normal existence and then handups would be good. Some people can't stand to see a person get anything. I've learned that's just how some people are. Even though they are cush in front of their computers posting away, they think if I'm not getting 2000 dollars from the government neither should they. And then there's the, I got mine croud. They feel that these people should have educated themselves, worked harder and they wouldn't be in this position, so let em' stay in the astrodome until they can figure something out.
I don't agree and think these compasionate conservative Christians who think this way should ask themselves WWJD?
rhetoric rhetoric - just tell people what they want to hear, it worked in 2000 and 2004 right?
xx
I only lost $1000 so far-Hubby lost $2000 in a week (sm)
so, I called his financial advisor yesterday and told him to put hubby in a "safe" plan. It's now in a money market fund that is part of his IRA.
I have no choice. I have to stay where I am. I have no "safe" available. Neither of us will be able to retire on what is now in our 401Ks and you're not the only one. We couldn't buy a car with Both our 401Ks, let alone live on it.
We are late starters for retirement not until our late 40s funds (most of our employers did not offer pensions). We are now of the first retirement tier and although we own our home outright, if we live until we are 90, there is no way we can live off retirement 401Ks or SS.
My husband's father told him back in the 50s that we would experience something like what is happening today and stated it would be worse than the ཙ crash. It is sure starting to look that way, but we will survive some way, I hope.
We need to pray for the people on SS now that cannot survive. I, for one, would love to help them, but can't help ourselves at this moment.
Not about the election.
As I have stated before, I am pro-life, but am just appalled at the things that extremists do--on both sides of this issue. I went to my OB/GYN the other day for a prenatal exam and my 2-year-old son found a business card with pictures of bloody pieces of fetuses on it that said that anyone who has an abortion will go to...well, you get the picture. While I am not entirely sure that this is not true, I am disgusted that someone would leave such a thing lying around where small children can find it. Luckily, my son just turned two and really did not realize what it was he was seeing, but just think if an older child had found such a thing. Sometimes I think that people get in their own ways when trying to make their points. I am sure that I am guilty of this, as are many others on this board. I actually just wanted to vent a little. Hope everyone is having a good afternoon!
No way did JFK's dad buy the election
I live in the same town as the Kennedys and they are notorious for not paying for things.
Election Day
A large group of my neighbors will be walking down the street together at 7:00 a.m. Tuesday morning to cast our votes for Barack Obama. It will probably end up being like a little block party in celebration of Obama.
No matter who wins this election, it will be a thrilling race and a shocking result!
LOL! Maybe next election!
*
One day before the election. This is so sad.n/m
x
election
If you mean McCain and Palin and "best man and best woman", I don't think so. Not unless you are super rich or, if middle class, you would care to get stomped on again, like we have been for the last eight years?!
Another example....if the election had gone the other way....
would you just have dropped all your concerns about McCain and started supporting him on this board? Of course you wouldn't. Don't act like you would. Geez. LOL.
What are you saying here? Before and after the election and
x
LOL...the dow has been going down since before the end of the election (nm)
x
When they come up for re-election
we will be provided the usual substandard party-approved (both parties) candidates to choose from - if it is an actual contested election. How often does a rogue candidate even get past the primaries in this country? And how effective could this hypothetical nonpartisan candidate be if elected, when the other kids in the House and Senate won't let him play?
Most candidates don't stand much chance against any incumbent. Seems that we vote based on 'name recognition' and don't much care in what context we recognize the name. Has to be the explanation for how some of these guys (and gals) stay in office term after term despite the fact that we despise them. Nobody can unseat them without party approval. And if you spend enough advertising bucks in the several weeks before election we'd vote for Genghis Khan.
Same theory as they use in product advertising. Say the name and slogan enough times on TV and when we get to the stores we'll recognize it on the shelf and figure it must be okay. See? All the hard decision-making has been done for us!
Obama was anointed by the democrats; McCain was anointed by the republicans, and I did not see a whole lot of difference between them. Both promised to take us in the same direction at slightly different speeds. So I voted for the lesser of two evils (lot of good it did me). And when you do that, it's easy to forget you still voted for evil.
Sad to say, we seem to get the candidates and products we deserve. We vote for whoever the party runs, buy the products that spend most on advertising, and that's pretty much that.
I am at a complete loss as to how to change any of this because it all seems to be one big interconnected system. Throwing the bums out is a great idea, but replace them with what? More party clones? I don't think a true populist candidate stands much chance against the two party machines we have.
the election is
Unless you own an oil well, I would not get too worked up about it.
So will the next election when we
xx
Were you like on Mars during the election? SM
Here's a clue, no one really listens to hatred. You need to cozy it up a bit, put a little whipped cream on it, disguise it a little. All the personal attacks and name-calling, while typical of you libbies, isn't very palatable. KnowwhatImeanVern?
Election my foot.
You still believe the last 2 elections were legit? Oh of course you do. You still can't get it through your thick head that Saddam had nothing to do with 911. Go back to your board. You people cannot stay off ours - why is that? Scared?
Kerry would win if election was now
Poll: Kerry Would Top Bush Today
NEW YORK, Nov. 5, 2005
 President Bush delivers his speech after being sworn into office for a second term, as Sen. John Kerry looks on, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Jan. 22, 2005. (AP) |
|
(CBS) If last year’s presidential election were being held today, the results might well be different than the results of a year ago. 41% of registered voters say that if the 2004 election were being held today, they would cast their ballot for Democratic candidate John Kerry, while 36% say they would vote for President George W. Bush. 13% say they would vote for someone else, and 6% wouldn’t vote at all. IF 2004 ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY…
(Registered Voters) John Kerry  41% George W. Bush 36% Someone else 13% Not vote 6% In this poll, 12% of registered voters said they didn’t vote in 2004. Among those who did vote, 45% said they voted for Kerry last year, and 46% said they voted for President Bush. 2% reported voting for Nader, and 7% won’t say for whom they voted. If the election were held this year, both candidates would retain more than eight in ten of the voters who supported them last year, according to this poll. But President Bush would lose about 3% of those who said they voted for him last year to his Democratic opponent. And although none of those who supported Kerry last year would now vote for Bush, 13% say they would support another candidate. But among voters who either didn’t vote in 2004 or voted for another candidate, or refused to say for whom they voted, Kerry leads Bush by 34% to 11%. IF 2004 ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY…
(Registered Voters) In 2004, voted for: Kerry John Kerry 81% George W. Bush - Someone else 13% Not vote 4% In 2004, voted for: Bush John Kerry 3% George W. Bush 84% Someone else 7% Not vote 3% In 2004, voted for: Other/didn't vote John Kerry 34% George W. Bush 11% Someone else 23% Not vote 16%
For detailed information on how CBS News conducts public opinion surveys, click here.This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 936 adults, including 828 registered voters, interviewed by telephone October 30-November 1, 2005. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample and the sample of registered voters could be plus or minus three percentage points.
i'm so sorry to hear that. Maybe after this election
you will be an INSURED American :)
Well, I try. I did it all through the election process
and I still have many questions on his election, his "pals", etc., but until I find (or should I say the news media finds) some really stick-to-his-rib issues, I'm still willing to give it a try. I also don't think he's really on the up and up, but.....I try keep an open mind, and let me tell you, it's been very hard. 
Yep...happens every election cycle...
but seems worse this time.
Still time before election
to migrate to alaska. Ms. Palin will be returning there in Nov permanently. They have been expecting a massive Rapture-induced influx of people, so they probably won't shoot you unless you are wearing a fur coat. You might as well go, coz you are gonna be totally miserable for the next 4 years as Barack begins the long journey of righting the sinking ship called U.S.
Has the election already been held?
And the answer is - Most definitely NOT. You and your pompous dems that say Obama WILL be the next president. You don't know. Me, I don't care. Whoever gets in gets in. If its Obama fine, if its McCain fine. But the truth of the matter is the election has not been held, we still have a few weeks and nobody knows. This election is very very close. Are you planning to do something personally that is illegal that will throw the election to Obama? Even the guy who is in charge of polls (Mr. Rasmussen) said because the polls are so close that goes to show you that anything can happen. So with that said - No election yet, no winner yet!
You may say your going to write in Lou Dobbs, but I believe that is just a smoke screen to make people think you are not for Obama, but your message shows strongly who you want to win.
It's the Obama supporters who are saying he WILL be the next president, he has WON already. Then you bash McCain while in the same breathing saying McCain supporters are picking on you.
So once again let me repeat myself....no election yet, no winner yet.
What if they gave an election and nobody came?
Do you think this will be a high voter turn-out year? Voter registrations are waaaay up this year. (Barring, of course, the fraudulent registrations which will hopefully have been resoved by election day.)
It's certainly been the most hotly contested campaign season I can recall - and I've been voting since the late 70s. There's so much bravado and blustering coming from both camps, and the media clearly chose their darling many moons ago, it seems like people will either be so sick of it, or apathetic about the outcome, that a lot of folks simply won't bother to show up.
I know there's been a massive push to register young voters. Our college campus has been crawling with people trying to stir up support for a certain candidate. My daughter and her friends are apporached every time they attend an event, from football games to local band open mic nights. But do you think everyone will actually turn up on election day?
And this may be totally UN-PC, but I'm not so sure everybody SHOULD vote. I mean, if you're too lazy to register, are you really going to be doing your due diligence and educating yourself about each candidate's policies and proposals?
What do you all think about it?
In your mind - the election is not over - sm
Well everyone can definite tell you are a democrat. I'm sure before the debate even began you had decided that Obama had won.
I think McCain did quite well. If you believe the slick lawyer talk of Obama then so be it but a lot of us are not fooled. McCain was strong. He finally listened to the people who told him to be strong, stand up for us, point out what is wrong with Obama's policies - you know that little tidbit Obama talks about called "redistribution of wealth". It also did not help Obama that he told the plumber guy that he needs to pay more in taxes so that the person who doesn't have anything will have something. Socialism at its finest!
Well, you're right about the election almost being over...sm
but the hatefest will continue, regardless of who gets in the White House. I mean, doesn't it always? If Obama wins, Republicans will be going on for four years about what he's doing wrong or not doing at all and if McCain wins, Democrats will go on for four years about how nothing has changed and it's Bush's third term, so on and so on. It's sad, but it's true - this board will just see more of the same.
If anyone is trying to steal this election, it's O's
nm
Tell me the last election that a person who is not
a natural born citizen ran for president. I was born in 1960 so maybe there were some before my time, but I thought every election the candidate was a natural born citizen.
Election 2008
This is a great post. The facts speak for themselves. These are the facts. Sarah Palin is out for herself and her family. Does anyone really think she cares about the country when she is busy charging the state for her trips to ritzy hotels with her children. How many of us can do that? Some of these were $200.00 per night hotels. There are kids in this country going to bed hungry. Here the majority of us are cutting coupons to make ends meet. John McCain owns over 7 expensive homes. Cindy McCain wore a $300,000 dollar outfit to the convention. Do you really think the McCain/Palin ticket has empathy for struggling American families?
I'm so old I just hope I'm around next election. LOL
x
If you think all that's gonna end after the election,
.
Election's over. You lost.
Get over yourself. This is dead-end rhetoric.
Don't they know the election is over and OBAMA WON?
HOW FUNNY!
Are we far enough removed from the election
I wish this was original (I'm not this smart) and I'm sorry if you've all already received it in your email but I thought it was great (you KNOW I'm a republican--you may not know that I love Condoleeza Rice and would have taken to the streets to support her in a bid for the presidency).
It has been suggested that if we really wanted to tick-off the dems, the party should get GWB to step down, now, as president, leaving Chaney as president. Chaney could then could ask for Condoleeza Rice to serve as his vice president (certainly not out of the question, given her position). Then CHeny could step down, thus producing the first Black Female president---and she'd be a republican!!!!
What a stitch!
We WILL have an election in 2012 - that is what most go by
The audacity to automatically assume Obama will serve until 2017 is what is going to get you in trouble.
Since you don't understand the simple concept let me explain it for you. Please read slowly so you can grasp reality.
Since America has had it's first president we have had elections every four years. Therefore, seeing as we have just had an election in 2008 and Obama takes office in 2009, our next election will be in 2012.
Your antics and rhetoric of just assuming that Obama will be in there for a second term I would say is a bit premature. Let's let him at least get sworn in and see what kind of a job he does as president. A lot can happen in four years. If he survives then in four years he can think of running again. If Bill Clinton had done half the stuff he did in his second term when he was in his first term he might have not had a second term. We don't know yet if Obama will be keeping his campaign promises or what kind of President he will be.
Here's some reality for you. Obama may turn out to be an absolutely fantastic president. We can all hope for that. So...he could turn out to be a good president and then again he may not be a good president. We won't know until after he has served in the role. Also, you are assuming that because GW was not a good president that every single other living republican would not be a good president and that is just not true. If you believe that then you have a very distorted viewpoint of politics. There are some very good republicans and there are some very good democrats. Just like there are some very bad republicans and there are some very bad democrats. Obama is too new and we don't know what category he falls into yet.
The truth of the matter is that we WILL have another election in four years. Which means the republican party has got four years to really get it together and pick someone that is decent to run against whoever the next democratic nominee will be, whether it is Obama or if he doesn't last whoever else they are going to put in there.
Also we have the congress/senate/house to think of - you know all those people who vote on issues and who have gotten our country in the trouble it is in now (I'm not blaming either side alone - there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides). No, sorry to burst your bubble but GW didn't crap on this country all by his little ol self. The people in the senate who vote on issues did that. So...if for the next four years we see a continuation of the decline of our country, America will probably say, enough with the democrats, we need to bring back a republican president. Not very many people are keen on the idea that every single thing is now being run by one political side. We do need a balance to our government.
One other factor to think about is all the people that Obama is appointing to his cabinet. I'm seeing on this board by a lot of posts that there are a lot of people who, while they are enthusiastic and excited that Obama was elected, they are way not excited that he keeps bringing the old Clinton people back and people who have no experience. Those were the same people who made a mess of things back then and now he's bringing them back in. What he owes them I have no idea but for him to campaign that he is the ONLY candidate who can unite the two parties and he will hire both sides to evenly balance things, that is the first campaign promise he has broken.
Lastly, without any doubt there are some scandals looming about. These are not fabrications. It's just the truth. People he was involved with and are still involved with. Who he owes favors to, the BC thing (whether or not it will get resolved is another story). There is just too much to be ignored. I do understand the loathing that people have for Bush and they would have rather elected a dog rather than another republican, therefore most were saying, so what and tried to bebunk a lot of the issues, however, the issues are real and will not be going away. Not saying that GW doesn't have his share of issues, but I'm not writing a post about GW. Anyway...with the issues that Obama has, one just doesn't know what the next four years will bring for us.
So, taking all that in account, a better approach would be to just say you hope Obama is a good president (as we all do because we want to see our country succeed) and in four years if he turns out to be good then he will be up for re-election. However to just say that its a fact that he will be in for 8 years is a bit arrogant (and nauseating).
Of course there will be an election in 2012
and with the GOP ensconced in this kind of denial and its party still in shambles, the results are a foregone conclusion. Thus, the 2929 count continues. The OP is the only prescription the GOP has to even hope to have a noticeable presence in 2012.
AMEN! You mean the guy who WON the election?
If the election hadn't been stolen, our country wouldn't be in the predicament it is now.
This last election has proven
that the majority of us do not bother to educate ourselves on a candidate or an issue. We just grab at something shiny: Ooh, ooh! That one speaks well and looks good!
In any election, if there are candidates or issues I don't know enough about to vote on (judgeships, etc.) I actually leave that item blank rather than just put just anybody's name in there! Candidates actually fight to have their name placed at the top, because they know that some voters will just select the first one they see. Or they go for name recogition, and vote for the one who'se spent the most on advertising. Horrifying to think this is how some candidates get elected.
In the election before that I was aghast when a friend that I thought was intelligent said of Bush/Kerry. ''We've tried it one way for four years. Time to try give somebody else a chance.'' When asked, she could not name any area in which Kerry was better; he was just ''different.'' Oh, well, if it's somebody else's turn.......
And that's the main problem with our political system. We seldom get a candidate that really inspires us and too often we just end up voting for the one we hate least, or the one whose name is listed first. Or we get bamboozled by flashy packaging with absolutely nothing inside.
So I have no idea how we make people pay attention and vote responsibly in order to change all this.
|
