so i was listening to the news
and ihave to say it sort of bothers me that so many presidential appointees are the same from presidency to presidency. I mean y eah the presidents are different, but this week Bush appointed someone (i forget what post now) who had served under Nixon, father bush and clinton. some of these advisors have a lot of pull. i don't think we should vote on these appointments by any means....but why do they stay the same for so long? like condoleeze rice, however you feel about her, the point is that she worked for Bush Sr as well. that makes more sense of course, because both republican presidents are going to have similar interests and so the same advisors is logical. but i guess i would expect more change from cabinet to cabinet.
and someone from nixon's time until now who has served both dems and repubs? makes you wonder how just how much influence these advisors have. if they were just advisors then i guess it makes sense to keep the same ones because they are experts on whatever topic...but if they strongly influence a president's policy...shouldn't they change along with new presidents.
OH- and i'm really upset about this mess with the mayor's race. i understand they want to sue because of primary race legalities. but i don't think that should make donna frye not mayor. I mean, aren't you really disenfranchising a LOT of voters if she has the majority or a close tie with dick murphy? in a country where every vote is supposed to be equal, a complaint against write-in votes like this really makes it seem like it isn't up to us to decide. the real bullshit is that there are arguments about whether or not to count ballots for frye if they wrote in frye, but didn't fill in the bubble next to it. jesus. that is ridiculous! how can you really have any doubt that the ballot was intended for Frye?! how does someone take the time and effort to write in d-o-n-n-a-f-r-y-e and not mean it because they didn't fill in the bubble. bullshit. this is nothing like florida's chads that were only partially punched and blah blah. maybe you shouldn't count it if someone wrote "don" but if they wrote the entire name and didn't fill in a bubble for murphy or the other guy (i'm blanking, is it roberts?) how can you doubt that voter's intention? the write in box is there because we're allowed to write people in. you can't put the box there and then post-election question it validity. Its like the write-in is there to give you a sense of power but no one is actually supposed to win with it??
i don't know sometimes. is farsical a word? farce-i-cal? ridiculous is.
and someone from nixon's time until now who has served both dems and repubs? makes you wonder how just how much influence these advisors have. if they were just advisors then i guess it makes sense to keep the same ones because they are experts on whatever topic...but if they strongly influence a president's policy...shouldn't they change along with new presidents.
OH- and i'm really upset about this mess with the mayor's race. i understand they want to sue because of primary race legalities. but i don't think that should make donna frye not mayor. I mean, aren't you really disenfranchising a LOT of voters if she has the majority or a close tie with dick murphy? in a country where every vote is supposed to be equal, a complaint against write-in votes like this really makes it seem like it isn't up to us to decide. the real bullshit is that there are arguments about whether or not to count ballots for frye if they wrote in frye, but didn't fill in the bubble next to it. jesus. that is ridiculous! how can you really have any doubt that the ballot was intended for Frye?! how does someone take the time and effort to write in d-o-n-n-a-f-r-y-e and not mean it because they didn't fill in the bubble. bullshit. this is nothing like florida's chads that were only partially punched and blah blah. maybe you shouldn't count it if someone wrote "don" but if they wrote the entire name and didn't fill in a bubble for murphy or the other guy (i'm blanking, is it roberts?) how can you doubt that voter's intention? the write in box is there because we're allowed to write people in. you can't put the box there and then post-election question it validity. Its like the write-in is there to give you a sense of power but no one is actually supposed to win with it??
i don't know sometimes. is farsical a word? farce-i-cal? ridiculous is.