Well I was going to say pretty much the same thing, except Xeno said it about 50 times more eloquently. Instead I’ll just add that he, and London, are spot on.
You miss the point, which was that the system in Britain permitted what some of you are calling a witch hunt. Very hard to imagine NPR (less influential force that it is in America) ever being the target of something like that.
“Plutocratic forces”? Band name?
We’ve had good and bad presidents. This bad one is more unfortunate because he’s in office at such a critical time. Moaning and self-flagellating because of “the system” is futile and self-deceiving. It’s not perfect, just better than anything else.
Get off your duffs, work for change, and vote.
One wonders how much the anti-Bush hysteria will get people on the fence to vote for him just out of disgust for the doom-shouters. And it is tempting.
Nah, not really.
Now that makes you sound very arrogant.
You’re familiar enough with all the other forms of Western Democracy to make such a statement I take it?
For example you know all about the system of PR that Ireland has as opposed to Holland and how this changes the nature of our democracies?
I’m not saying that any system is better BTW as I’m not that familiar with a lot of them to say. You however seem to be so why don’t you start a great debate about it and show me my it’s better than every other system.
Don’t you think “Civic Malady” would appeal to the kids better?
Consider me thick, but the wording of this scares me, and I don’t even really know what he’s insinuating. Can someone help enlighten me?
Sorry babe.
Can’t be half as arrogant, though, as someone’s proclaiming (based on a loftily ignorant perch across the Atlantic) that GWB’s presence in office confirms the fundamental failure of the American system.
I feel no compelling urge to convince you.
I have great respect for Holland, however. Canals, cheese and legalized drugs and prostitution? What a trifecta! Come 2012, if I’m not locked away in some gulag by Jeb Bush, I plan to make it over there for the next Floriade.
So for those who are saying it is a problem with the system, what exactly is that problem? Even in the best system, if it relies upon a choice of the people, there is going to be GWB every couple generations. How do you eliminate this as a possibility? Just because I lose the lottery doesn’t mean it’s fixed.
Let me clarify that last statement as I can see people jumping all over me for it. My point is that just because the outcome isn’t what you want does not mean the system does not work. Better example, five people want to go out to dinner together and decide to vote on a restaurant. I pick a nice restaurant, but the others each decide that they haven’t been to McDonald’s in a while and would like to go there. Yes, it sucks, and yes, it is dumb, but that is what we decided.
From my point of view, the system is perfect for weeding out the best candidates. Essentially, the “skills” and resources needed to become president, and to be president are quite different. In one you need to be a fast talking salesman, and the other you need to reasoned decision maker. Then throw in that you need at least $100 million, and the people you are most likely to get it from, then you have some real problems.
I neglected to mention partisan bickering too. Most of these people have to be against what the other side says, even if the otherside has a good idea.
From this thread
[quote]
I just wanted to add a sample of a president admitting a mistake:
Quote:
The word spread quickly around the globe that the United States had made an unprovoked attack on a tiny Latin neighbor. It was a fiasco, the worst defeat of JFK’s career.
Yet Kennedy did not pretend that all was well and walk away from his obligation to the fighters and to history.
He issued stern warnings to Castro to keep the prisoners alive and launched negotiations to free them. Twenty months later, they were freed in exchange for $53 million in American medicines and other provisions.
At his press conference accepting full blame, Kennedy uttered one of his most famous statements: “Victory has a hundred fathers, and defeat is an orphan.” Then he embraced the orphan with words that Bush has yet to utter: “I am the responsible officer of the government.”
Only if Diebold lets us.
Or if Nader drops out.
I might be persuaded to, as would others I’m sure, except for the small problem of the loathsome prick running on the Democratic ticket as his opposition. My apologies.
I will take Kerry, or anyone else over Bush, any day of the week.
Fuck, I’ll vote for a potato.
Then you can empathize with how I feel about Kerry. It’s that simple.
Actually no I can’t. I feel that Kerry is an idiot and I don’t really like him, but I have to say Bush is far more dangerous as he’s turning the world against us. What damage do you envision Kerry doing?
Well all right then, here’s your guy.
Don’t come crying to me when he gets just enough of the vote to throw Idaho and Maine to Bush.
Not that the linked site is very good - I just enjoy the irony of his misspelling ‘Quayle’…
I’ve already stated my willingness to vote for a ham sandwich. And I’ll accept a potato as its running mate, as long as it’s not German potato salad.
You know, I really hate it when people I otherwise tend to agree with say stuff like this. I hate it because it is simply not true. The system was followed every step of the way, with great vigor, determination and cut-throat mentality from both sides. The most that can be said is that the Supreme Court should have said “None of our fucking business - it’s Florida’s electoral laws that hold sway here, and Florida’s Supreme Court decision stands.” But it is the Supreme Court, and pretty much by definition what is says is the way it is.
I find it hard to respect an attribute-less ruling that says “Here’s our decision, but don’t use it for establishing precedent in the future.”
What the fuck is the use of a judicial decision if the judges don’t have the cojones to stand by it?