“Bush is a cokehead!”, “Gore is a compulsive Liar”, “Nader eats Veal”
WTF?
Last time I checked, politics were about deciding policies and implementing strategies for running a country. This latest DUI thing about Bush is just rediculous. it appears that people will vote for a candidate because “he looks good” or “he speaks so well” “he believes in this God”. What do any of these things have to do with running your country? Any of the coverage I have seen or heard of your election race is mostly glam shots and sound bites.
Nader seems to be the only one who is running his campaign on what he plans to do. and what happens? He’ll struggle to get 5% of the vote. I sincerely hope he does, so that in future there will be a viable 3rd party to vote for. (In fairness to Browne, I haven’t read alot about him, so I cannot comment.
The “issues” seem to be pushed down to being no. 3 in both main candidates platform. It goes along the following plan of A) I’m Great! and B) you’re not!
Are the American voters that shallow? I hope not.
Disclaimer: I know, I know, this happens in all elections. but The USA seems to lead in the Platformless Election stakes.
Ha! See, the worst thing you could think of about NAder is that he eats veal. (Of course, he probably doesn’t…)
It seems to always have been a popularity contest.
WHo looks better?
Who’s more lovable?
Hardly a “leak,” Delta.
You’re right, Twist. But if it’s any consolation, there are some US citizens who try as hard as possible to ignore the fluff and vote on issues.
True, but it is unfortunatley a small portion of the voting public. And I say “voting” public becuase it is estimated that only 50% of eligible voters will even bother to go to the polls this year, down from 55% a couple elections ago, when the econmy was a hot button topic (and 55% was considered good).
The sad part is that we do elect our presidents based largely on popularity. The candidates know this, and that’s why they downplay their stances on devisive issues as much as they can so as not to scrare off the undecided voters. Political platforms recently have come to resemble TV show marketing: Remove everything controversial and appeal to the lowest common denominator. Give 'em what they want and don’t scare 'em too much, and maybe they’ll pick you over the other guy.
The thing that gets me is: how can there even be undecided voters? If you take the time to read about the issues and each candidate’s stance and related plans, you should have a pretty clear idea of who you would rather see running the country. The fact that elections can be won or lost based on some trivial personal factoid speaks to the apathy and lack of real information possesed by the majority of voters. It saddens me when I hear people like my mother-in-law making their election decisions on the basis of TV ads.
If there’s one thing you need to learn, it’s that Politicians are usually the least qualified of people to run a country. And they know it. So all they have is their personalities.
So there you go. It’s the way it always has been - vote for the nicest smile.
Then again, I think The Onion got it right a couple of issues ago: “‘Decision 2000’ Actually Made In Smoke-Filled Room In 1997”
Well, the two main candidates WERE selected with little input (of consequence) from the american public, right?
Sorry to disappoint you, Twist, but yes, they are. What gets me is that people think there’s any discernible difference between the two main candidates. There isn’t, not really, they each just have different ways of running your life. It’s pathetic. I’ve been arguing with some diehard Gore supporters on another board who actually believe he’s good for the country. Not merely the lesser of two evils, but good. The hypocritical double-standard is appalling.
Perhaps if the average voter showed any real interest, or even that they possessed two brain cells to knock together, we’d get better candidates. I’m not holding my breath, though…
Makes you wish for the old-time politicians, doesn’t it?
Reagan could give a rousing speech full of air but making everyone take sides. Clinton could make news just by denying things and find enough to talk about to still get elected. And the primaries had lots of fur flying. That’s probably the trouble - we got the leftovers from that - a couple of cold slices of pizza with the only benefit that they never had enough anchovies to get tossed out.
And speaking of mixed metaphors, Ross Perot could get the crowd shouting without saying anything but “I don’t have to make specific proposals- it’s just plumb time for a change.”
If Bush had stolen his pack of index cards last month, he’d be 20 points ahead by now.
Of course they were. The American political system is not set up so that meaningful political input can be given by drug-addled losers divorced from their third spouses who are channel-surfing whilst eating Cheesy Puffs, hoping that their creditors will be carjacked and dumped on the side of the road. They’d actually have to get up off the couch, miss an episode of Friends, and go do something. Moreover, in the course of so doing (if they could stand the mental effort necessary to drive their flabby, calloused asses down to local party headquarters – assuming that they have a vague idea of where that is), they might discover that there are actually people who disagree with them – which might be too much of a shock for their fragile self-esteem to overcome.
(No, kiddies, there really isn’t a “silent majority” with the exact same political views as yours out there, waiting for just the right inspired leadership to rise up, storm the barricades, overthrow the evil Republicrats, and bring on the libertarian/socialist/environmentalist/whatever utopia. Deal with it.)
Originally posted by Max the Immortal
Then again, I think The Onion got it right a couple of issues ago: “‘Decision 2000’ Actually Made In Smoke-Filled Room In 1997”
Well, the two main candidates WERE selected with little input (of consequence) from the american public, right?
“I don’t give a damn who does the electin’ so long as I do the nominatin’.” Boss Tweed, Tamanay Hall.
To add a little spice to the elections we should decapitate the loser.
BTW what issues? If you want to vote based on issues you should be voting for senators not the presiden’t. The presiden’t can only deny things he doesen’t like and he can only do that part of the time. The presiden’t is mainly a leader which is why its a contest of personalities.
