I'm actually kind of intrigued by this election. I can't help feeling like Bush and Gore are two different versions of the same underlying thing, and so America just tossed a coin to pick it's next President. And it landed right on its edge. That's something you don't see every day. Feels about right too. I don't want either of those jokers as President, so maybe we can just drag this recount out for four years and be done with it. I keep hearing from the news media that this is an historical moment, but isn't it just that neither candidate could generate even one bit of interest or momentum, and therefore it was only a "close race" in the sense that two winless teams fighting to stay out of last place is a "close race" - it's close, sure, but that doesn't make it interesting, nor does it make it a good game.
good point, i dont think either is going to help "us" out, bush may be better for as robert hunter said "the harder you fall the higher you bounce"
Well put, and dissected. But since I said I thought this race was "interesting" in response to one of Bill's comments, I feel the need to defend my use of the word since you are saying, for you, this is not an interesting game. But I can't put it in words any better than you just did so maybe this is a case where you say tomahtoe (intriguing) and I say tomaytoe (interesting). Intriguing is the better word. And truly, niether word applies to either candidate.
Well, I am finding it interesting too, but hedging my stance would have made the post too long, and I was just trying to make the point that the closeness of the race doesn't mean that somehow Gore and Bush are going to go down in history or anything. It might be true that the closeness is historically interesting, but I feel like Gore and Bush (and especially Bush) are somehow inferring that this makes them special (as candidates.) And I think clearly the opposite is the case. Also, since I'm elaborating, I also want to heartily agree with drat fink that Bush is coming off very poorly in his public reactions to all this compared to Gore. It almost appears that he cannot read very well. It's like he just reads one word at a time, and this leaves him often surprised (or confounded) at any unexpected twists a sentence may take. It's like he won't know he is reading a sentence that is a question, and then when he gets to the end and sees the question mark he doesn't know what to do. Very awkward. I think if he is elected he should be forced to read parts of Ulysses out loud on Bloomsday (as long as I'm not forced to listen.) Most competent readers (especially public readers/speakers) scan ahead as they are reading. Bush doesn't seem to be able to do this, and worse, he apparently doesn't compensates by preparing more before hand. Should be good for a few laughs, if nothing else, but that's not really the role you what you want your President to fill.
"It almost appears that he cannot read very well." That made me laugh. And the feeling that brings makes me rethink it all. Maybe that is what we want in the White House. Or if not, and the final tally gives Bush the honor, then we can always hope for a "faithless elector," or two.
"faithless elector"? I'm not familiar with this phrase. But clearly there is an upside to incompetant politicians, and gridlocked government. We don't want any of these guys to actually be able to accomplish much. I was joking earlier today with a friend, saying that this electoral delay is the greatest thing because it is giving the American people a feel for not having a President. Surely we are not ready yet, but someday maybe we won't need people to rule over us. If I was a politician (or one of those spooky people behind the scenes) I would get this thing decided quick fast in a hurry before people realize they kind of like not having a president.
Faithless elector. Got it. Yeah, this thing is really getting weird. What a strange system.
interesting comments on the presidency. i dont have a firm grasp but i think the modern president is far more powerful than was originally intended by those gents in powdered wigs. faithless electors i read elsewhere today must be getting the buzz along with constitutional crisis and mandate. it refers to the actual electors who are endowed with the power of our vote. each state has electors for gore and bush equivalent to the states electoral votes and whoever wins the state his electors are then empowered. the elector isnt bound by law to cast his vote for the candidate he represents. for instance, one elector for dukakis flipped the ticket and put his running mate sen lloyd bentsen on top and dukakis as vice president. also a ford elector voted for reagan in the 1976 election. so perhaps if an elector or a group of electors thought an injustice had been done he could essentially vote for whomever or so is my understanding.
is it possible i worked for a man whom was an elector?? it was in hollywood and his name was nick musky(sp?). he owned producers film center where i worked at 19. i was in charge of shipping all the lassie and lone ranger shows to tv stations (i started by inspecting them and learning to repair them too). he was hard core hollywood republican and he said that to me. i told him i loved jerry brown and hoped tim leary would be president. he eventually fired by ass for being too stoned when i forgot to ship a couple stations the lone ranger films. THIS IS AN OPEN APOLAGEE TO ALL YOU PEOPLE WHOM DIDNT SEE YOUR LONE RANGER FILM THAT NIGHT IN THE SPRING OF 1980:<(
That was you? Damn you man. The gap you caused in my TV viewing was the impetus that my mother needed to suggest I get a summer job, and boy did that ruin my life. Well, no, that's not right, 1980?, I guess I was by then a two-time consecutive U-Texas dropout in Austin, or perhaps by '80 I had temporarily left that city and its demanding psychotropics for the grueling days of east Texas oil field work (I became a doodlebugger). And all this thanks to you, no, I guess thats still not true, so about all I have left to say to you is--keep up the good work.
Not to flog a dead horse, but Salon has a piece up now making the same point I was trying to make. "The close presidential contest illustrates the triumph of the test-marketed candidacy."
|
- jim 11-09-2000 2:34 pm
good point, i dont think either is going to help "us" out, bush may be better for as robert hunter said "the harder you fall the higher you bounce"
- Skinny 11-09-2000 3:07 pm
Well put, and dissected. But since I said I thought this race was "interesting" in response to one of Bill's comments, I feel the need to defend my use of the word since you are saying, for you, this is not an interesting game. But I can't put it in words any better than you just did so maybe this is a case where you say tomahtoe (intriguing) and I say tomaytoe (interesting). Intriguing is the better word. And truly, niether word applies to either candidate.
- jimlouis 11-09-2000 9:26 pm
Well, I am finding it interesting too, but hedging my stance would have made the post too long, and I was just trying to make the point that the closeness of the race doesn't mean that somehow Gore and Bush are going to go down in history or anything. It might be true that the closeness is historically interesting, but I feel like Gore and Bush (and especially Bush) are somehow inferring that this makes them special (as candidates.) And I think clearly the opposite is the case. Also, since I'm elaborating, I also want to heartily agree with drat fink that Bush is coming off very poorly in his public reactions to all this compared to Gore. It almost appears that he cannot read very well. It's like he just reads one word at a time, and this leaves him often surprised (or confounded) at any unexpected twists a sentence may take. It's like he won't know he is reading a sentence that is a question, and then when he gets to the end and sees the question mark he doesn't know what to do. Very awkward. I think if he is elected he should be forced to read parts of Ulysses out loud on Bloomsday (as long as I'm not forced to listen.) Most competent readers (especially public readers/speakers) scan ahead as they are reading. Bush doesn't seem to be able to do this, and worse, he apparently doesn't compensates by preparing more before hand. Should be good for a few laughs, if nothing else, but that's not really the role you what you want your President to fill.
- jim 11-10-2000 12:47 am
"It almost appears that he cannot read very well." That made me laugh. And the feeling that brings makes me rethink it all. Maybe that is what we want in the White House. Or if not, and the final tally gives Bush the honor, then we can always hope for a "faithless elector," or two.
- jimlouis 11-10-2000 12:56 am
"faithless elector"? I'm not familiar with this phrase. But clearly there is an upside to incompetant politicians, and gridlocked government. We don't want any of these guys to actually be able to accomplish much. I was joking earlier today with a friend, saying that this electoral delay is the greatest thing because it is giving the American people a feel for not having a President. Surely we are not ready yet, but someday maybe we won't need people to rule over us. If I was a politician (or one of those spooky people behind the scenes) I would get this thing decided quick fast in a hurry before people realize they kind of like not having a president.
- jim 11-10-2000 1:06 am
Faithless elector. Got it. Yeah, this thing is really getting weird. What a strange system.
- jim 11-10-2000 1:39 am
interesting comments on the presidency. i dont have a firm grasp but i think the modern president is far more powerful than was originally intended by those gents in powdered wigs. faithless electors i read elsewhere today must be getting the buzz along with constitutional crisis and mandate. it refers to the actual electors who are endowed with the power of our vote. each state has electors for gore and bush equivalent to the states electoral votes and whoever wins the state his electors are then empowered. the elector isnt bound by law to cast his vote for the candidate he represents. for instance, one elector for dukakis flipped the ticket and put his running mate sen lloyd bentsen on top and dukakis as vice president. also a ford elector voted for reagan in the 1976 election. so perhaps if an elector or a group of electors thought an injustice had been done he could essentially vote for whomever or so is my understanding.
- dave 11-10-2000 1:52 am
is it possible i worked for a man whom was an elector?? it was in hollywood and his name was nick musky(sp?). he owned producers film center where i worked at 19. i was in charge of shipping all the lassie and lone ranger shows to tv stations (i started by inspecting them and learning to repair them too). he was hard core hollywood republican and he said that to me. i told him i loved jerry brown and hoped tim leary would be president. he eventually fired by ass for being too stoned when i forgot to ship a couple stations the lone ranger films. THIS IS AN OPEN APOLAGEE TO ALL YOU PEOPLE WHOM DIDNT SEE YOUR LONE RANGER FILM THAT NIGHT IN THE SPRING OF 1980:<(
- Skinny 11-10-2000 4:30 am
That was you? Damn you man. The gap you caused in my TV viewing was the impetus that my mother needed to suggest I get a summer job, and boy did that ruin my life. Well, no, that's not right, 1980?, I guess I was by then a two-time consecutive U-Texas dropout in Austin, or perhaps by '80 I had temporarily left that city and its demanding psychotropics for the grueling days of east Texas oil field work (I became a doodlebugger). And all this thanks to you, no, I guess thats still not true, so about all I have left to say to you is--keep up the good work.
- jimlouis 11-10-2000 4:28 pm
Not to flog a dead horse, but Salon has a piece up now making the same point I was trying to make. "The close presidential contest illustrates the triumph of the test-marketed candidacy."
- jim 11-13-2000 5:31 pm