Larry:
It appears that the older I get the more I seem to forget. I thought I recalled
that President Bush was elected by the popular vote the second time around. Oh
wait, I just remembered ... that doesn't mean anything to those who are
convinced that Bush "stole" the first election, does it? If it had gone the
other way, would you agree that Gore "stole" the election? Talk about sour
grapes. It's time to get over that. It was eight years ago. And it isn't as
though he is the first nominee to win a close race with unexpected help ...
from whatever source.
Look at what is happening currently with a certain nominee who has been
"romanced" by the media rather than being critically examined as most past
nominees have been. No major media interests have critically examined his
present or past radical associations. None have critically examined his past
political accomplishments, or lack thereof. None have critically examined his
political experience (a mere three years). None have critically examined his
foreign policy. None have called attention to the fact that he is known as one
of the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate. None have attempted to pin him
down as to what "changes" he plans for the country should he be elected? What's
up with that? Talk about trying to help someone "steal" an election.
As for what Bush has supposedly done behind the scenes, you don't really think
that he is the first and only President to engage in behind-the-scenes
political maneuvering, do you? I doubt you are that politically naive. That is
what politicians do ... all of them. The next one will do it too. (I'm not
approving, just stating the obvious.) Bush is not the best President we have
ever had. He's not the worst either. He does seem to be one of the most reviled
by the opposing party. But, a lot of that is merely politics in play ... at
least within the inner circle. It is a sad thing when party members "outside
the circle" begin to believe all the political rhetoric.
I confess that I am curious as to the reason you express such bitterness toward
President Bush. It sounds a bit rabid to me. There seems to be more than mere
concern for political justice, as it were. Judging by the depth of feeling in
your words, it appears that you have a deep personal dislike for a man you have
most likely never met. I get the impression that feel as though you have been
betrayed by him in some way(s). What were you expecting from him that he didn't
provide for you? What did he neglect to provide that his predecessor provided
to you? Or that you hope his successor might?
Is President Bush really your intended target, or is he merely a whipping boy,
a convenient stand-in for all those others that you intensely dislike, such as
the "comfortably well-off corporate A-personality types" you mentioned? Does
your deep dissatisfaction with the President have to do with unfulfilled
personal or family needs? Where have he and others others failed you? Where do
you think the solutions lie? Is that realistic. (Nuts. I have slipped into my
counselor persona. I don't expect answers. These are rhetorical questions. I
have more, but I'll stop here.)
As I said in my earlier e-mail, I expressed my opinions. YMMV. Obviously, you
don't agree with me. That's all right. For what it's worth, I think opinions
are like noses. Everyone has one and they're meant to be used. ;o)
Regards,
Robert
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry <halpert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, June 19, 2008 22:05
Subject: [OM] [way OT] Re: How high's the water/presidential rant
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> Nice proud fervently patriotic rant, but not really the case in
> practice. There is a lot of
> misinformation, and behind the scenes crap going on controlled
> by Bush that affects what
> congress does, and knows. If this idiotic president is sneaky
> enough to work to control
> this so votes in congress get him what he wants at all costs,
> then he will do it. He and
> his "party" did it 8 years ago in getting the inaccurate Florida
> voting stopped and
> sleaze Bush in to begin with, and recently a lot has come out on
> the incredible crap
> fed out by Bush and his staff just so they could do the things
> they wanted working the
> shortcomings of the system. The electoral college "the way its
> designed" excuse is moot,
> because that's the system that was "worked" to begin with
> however necessary to get Bush
> in. He didn't just righteously become the exalted president
> because Florida respectfully
> voted him in, giving him Florida's electoral points - he didn't
> win Florida. It was a
> sham, and only the blindly hyper-patriotic could keep a straight
> face believing anything
> else. The recent press secretary's book, and Richard Clarke's
> knowledge and Bush quotes
> show only a small part of it, and the staunchly ignorant have
> found ways to dismiss
> even those comprehensive accounts of Bush manipulation of a
> system "working as it
> was designed". Its the corporate A-personality stepping-on-the-
> rules to get ahead crap
> that so impresses those doing comfortably in the corporate world
> (and supporting Bush)
> thing that Bush does to get what he wants. It taints both worlds.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|