Thursday, May 8, 2008
...makes our nation the big loser.
I'm opposed to winner-take-all politics. When winner takes all, we get the likes of a George Bush for president. Because Bush initially won the presidency by the slimmest of margins. He didn't even have a majority of the popular vote. He held the edge in the complicated electoral vote. So, in one sense, Bush won by sort of a fluke. In a nation more or less evenly divided over political philosophies. But since Bush decided that he was the decider, he decided against uniting the country and against steering a moderate course. Instead, he went full speed ahead with his flaky conservative agenda and war-mongering. Entering us into an ungodly and obscene pre-emptive war and into a spending spree and tax-cuts-for-the-rich that have left the nation with the biggest budget deficit ever. Yes, the winner-takes-all approach makes our nation the big loser. --Jim Broede
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
One thing we've learned from the Bush Era is how corrupt the USA government has become due lack of over-sight and accountabilty by the people---
Bush is but a MIRROR image of the true desires of most people in government---Bush like McCain equal the pain of Hillary being the Repulican choice and Obama being the last hope of rational in the next 20 years. We are left with little options being so few a people with such an international appeal.
I would consider Ron Paul as vice president.
Hey, klcoucil, another interesting choice for vice president on the Democratic ticket would be Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. He at least has the good sense to oppose Bush's obscene conduct of the Iraq war. --Jim Broede
Post a Comment