Quote:
Originally Posted by DucDave  I am a little challenged trying to interpret your double negative...but I think you are suggesting that your perception is that past elections offered real, quality choices. However, you may have been saying, as bigred took it, that the choices have always been bad!
Virtually every conversation I recall having about Bush/Gore AND Bush/Kerry was prefaced with 'They both suck...'
In both cases, lots of votes were cast AGAINST a candidate...not for one. At least that's how I remember it. (And I, assuredly, am not to young to remember...) |
So, wait - two days ago I wasn't worth speaking to because I'm from Vermont.
But today, you are correcting my slightly overly verbose post with your own overly verbose post that basically says, "Yep, its your imagination." Holy schnikes Batman, you're a little bit wacky, but I forgive you.
But since you've opened that box, and spoken to the stupid Vermonter, tell me more. I'm intrigued. Was politics always this way? Was it always all or nothing?
I remember thinking that both candidates sucked in the Bush Jr./Kerry election, but not in the Bush Jr./Gore election (aka before 9/11 and before Gore went off the deep end with his concern for the environment). In fact, I was quite torn before Bush and Gore, because I didn't *mind* either one, and both had issues that irritated me. But I dont remember being blatantly frightened of being led by either one.
I dont very well remember either Clinton elections, because I was barely of voting age, but I also dont remember my parents freaking out about either candidate. (My father is a hardcore Democrat, my mother a retarded Republican who just votes for whoever the Republican party puts up.)