On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:55:14 -0500, Skip King
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On 7 Nov 2002 at 14:19, Jason Ross wrote:
>> I don't understand politics...
>> Why is it that most discussions on politics focus around making the
>> other guy look as stupid as possible?  I'd be much more likely to be
>> interested in the whole thing if people talked about the good things
>> they have done / will do instead of the bad things the other guy has
>> done / will do.
>The age old cry.  And the fact is this:  the trash talking
>goes on because it works.  Nobody likes it, or claims to.
>But both parties are equally willing to trot it out.  And
>they've done so since.. oh, at least seventeen-seventy-
>Know what?  For all the rancor and enmity the last election
>appears to have caused, it's kid stuff compared to some of
>the shenanigans that have gone on in this country in the
>past.  There was a very interesting editorial in the Wall
>Street Journal in the past day or two pointing out some
>dramatic similarities between the current
>Presidency/midterm and that of John Kennedy - i.e., there
>were those who believed Kennedy stole the election, that
>his party was out to destroy the US, that he was neither
>very smart nor sufficiently experienced to hold that office.
>Sound familiar?
>Kennedy, too, got a midterm boost in the congressional
>elections.  Let us hope that what happened later in his
>term isn't repeated.
>As long as our rather raucous style of selecting our leaders
>has been around, there has been nastiness, mudslinging,
>pathetically low levels of discourse, inflamed passions and
>outright fraud.  But the fact is that the system DOES work.
>It is self-leveling, and has done so for more than 200
>years.  Even if you hate the current administration, marvel
>in this concept:  you just witnessed a peaceful transition of
>power, requested by the majority of the citizens of this
>country, in a manner that was determined by the laws of
>the nation (I am NOT interested in debating the idea that
>the  Supreme Court elected Bush.  It's a fallacious
>argument, and I ignore such).  Back to point:  peaceful
>transitions are something that this nation has done
>numerous times - and in fact, ours is one of a tiny handful
>of nations on earth capable of doing so.  We keep doing it,
>Sure, there are those who think this is a bad thing. Some
>cite the Patriot Act - apparently forgetting that we're truly
>living in wartime; there were other occasions in our history
>where considerably more obtrusive policies were put in
>place for the duration of an armed conflict - but only for the
>duration; they were removed when the threat was over.
> Others cite political influence of corporations ignoring the
>fact that of the top 20 donors to political races, unions -
>including government employee and teachers unions ,
>hold the majority of slots and gave all their dough to the
>Democratic Party (or that the largest corporate donors
>were media companies that went solidly democratic with
>their donations (source: and that the
>much reviled "greedy corporations" may tilt towards
>Republican donations, but typically send at least 40% of
>their donations to Democratic candidates.  Smart
>businesses butter their toast on both sides.
>But for all the hand wringing, watch what really happens.
>The ship of state has sailed a remarkably steady course
>for the past 200 years, and there is nothing - NOTHING -
>in the last election that would suggest a sudden change of
>And that's my last word on the elections.  Unless someone
>baits me really cleverly, that is. ;->
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.
>To unsubscribe, visit

Skip -

You ah wicked smaht!!


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit