Doesn't it trouble you folks even a little bit, that I'm correct in my assertions?
* That it's easy to manipulate the electoral process via low voter turnout?
* That we elect the same people over and over? That candidates are virtually framed into their positions as nominees?
* That it becomes a game of lowballing (negative campaigning), within the confines of a limited participatory process, where more than not the most money wins?
These issues should trouble you. Unfortunately, neither George W. Bush nor Albert Gore will do much, if anything, to improve all of the above.
But in this lesser of two evils-type conflict, I see Gore more a senatorial candidate; and Bush--even though he's a sitting governor--I see more as a state rep candidate.
When it comes to knowledge, grasp of issues, willingness to take courageous stances, etc., Bush fails miserably. And were I wrongly accused, the last thing I'd want is a Bush-appointed judge.
Unfortunately, both Gore and Bush are more into money and power than they are the needs of people. Sorry folks. But that's just the way I see it.
As a side note, although I disagree with a lot of the John McCain's stances, I did view his candidacy as a breath of fresh air. |
