A Fanciful Discourse On The American Political System|
[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 13 most recent journal entries recorded in
Modern American Politics' LiveJournal:
|Friday, June 3rd, 2005|
|Friday, April 8th, 2005|
|Thursday, March 3rd, 2005|
A few days ago, the thought popped into my head...
"Why are they called the Grand Old Party" when the only other party they care about is older than them?"
So I'm pretty lazy, but I'm also curious. I looked it up. So, if you were wondering the same thing (and why would you?) I have the answer, I guess...http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=759048
|Thursday, November 4th, 2004|
Well, ptuu. It seems CNN already fixed the little thing from last night. If you were too late to see it, last night it read "asshole.jpg" as the file name.
move to seattle
I am very pleased by three things I see today.
1) Gregoire finally pulled ahead of Rossi. Let's hope it stays that way.
2) In Washington, women voted 57%-42% in favor of Kerry. Hooray for Washington ladies! Men voted 51%-47% in favor of Bush.
3) In Washington, Kerry won 53%-46%. In King county, he won 65%-34%. Best county in the best state. Move to Seattle. Current Mood: okay
|Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004|
and right click on the picture of Laura and Bush. Go to "Properties" and see what the picture is called.
Another reason I love CNN. Although I hope this doesn't end up in an unfortunate firing.
|Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004|
Is anyone else freaking out? My tummy hurts, though I don't know if it's from anxiety over today's election or if I'm actually just sick. Current Mood: sick
|Monday, October 18th, 2004|
my stupid idea
I think we should eliminate the electoral college. The presidential election should be decided by popular vote alone. Most states are always expected to vote a certain way, and in those states votes don't count for nearly as much as votes in swing states. That's messed up. That's not democracy.
The voting process should be standardized. Every state should have the same ballot format with the same candidates listed. Registration and voting should be the same for everyone. I think this would help reduce confusing ballots, and registration and voting fraud.
If we did these two things, we could have more than just two parties, and politicians would be held more accountable. With the current system, every election is viewed by a lot of people as a "lesser of two evils" choice. If we elected the president by popular vote, more people would vote for who they REALLY want elected, not just the one who won't screw things up quite as much.
This could also help reduce the influence lobbyists have on politicians. If a politician is obviously pandering to one group to get more funding from them, we'll still have plenty of choices to replace them. Politicians will be held accountable to the voter, not to any corporation or organization.
Like I said, this is just my stupid idea. I don't really know anything, and I don't know if this would work. Current Mood: cynical
|Monday, October 11th, 2004|
|Saturday, October 9th, 2004|
I am continuously surprised at just how stupid they are
Cheney said to check it out: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=268.html
Endlessly Changing Positions?
The charge that Kerry is "endlessly changing positions on Iraq" is without factual support. In fact, Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that Bush should not have gone to war without greater international support, and without making greater efforts at diplomacy backed by the threat of force.
Here's what Kerry said on the Senate floor before voting to give Bush the authority:
Kerry (Oct. 9, 2002) Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him (Saddam) by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.
That's consistent with Kerry's later criticism of Bush for failing -- as Kerry sees it -- to secure enough help and support from other countries. And that's been Kerry's position ever since.
Kerry did vote against $87 billion in emergency funds for Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003, and was criticized for inconsistency at the time even by Democratic rivals Lieberman and Gephardt. But Kerry has never advocated a quick withdrawal from Iraq as some of his other Democratic rivals did.
When the San Francisco Chronicle combed through 200 of Kerry's speeches and statements on Iraq, it found instances of "clumsy phrases and tortuously long explanations" that made Kerry's position difficult to follow. But it also found that "taken as a whole, Kerry has offered the same message ever since talk of attacking Iraq became a national conversation more than two years ago." Current Mood: annoyed
|Thursday, October 7th, 2004|
"The first excuse conservatives provide is that Bush can't possibly be expected to have time to go to church, what with being leader of the free world and all. Yet, during Jimmy Carter's four years in the White House, he found time not only to attend a Baptist church in the Washington, D.C., area, but to teach Sunday school there as well. For a presidential delegator like Bush--who has freed up enough time to spend approximately one-third of his presidency on vacation--finding a few hours for church should be a snap
."http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=vKO1twmWG2Uvnyi2qoWQfW%3D%3D Current Mood: amused
|Tuesday, October 5th, 2004|