Election Day!

In Connecticut.. here's hoping Lamont has a nice victory, but I'm conditioned to always being disapointed. Nobody ever lost money betting on the stupidity of others, eh? Still.. would be nice if I could vote in the election. I've only ever lived in areas with really stupid people that vote for the wrong person. I grew up in Arizona.. Remember Evan Mecham - bat shit crazy mormon car salesman?

During his time as governor, he was plagued by controversy and became the first U.S. governor to simultaneously face removal from office through impeachment, a scheduled recall election, and felony indictment.

How about J. Fife Symington the 3rd? Just the name alone makes you want to punch him in the face..

Symington was the subject of an investigation over his involvement with Southwest Savings and Loan, a failed Phoenix thrift, but he was later cleared, and won reelection in 1994. Later, he was indicted on charges of extortion and making false financial statements, and of bank fraud. He was convicted of bank fraud in 1997.

On February 4, 2005, in an interview with the Arizona Republic, Symington expressed interest in running for governor in 2006 against Democrat Janet Napolitano, setting the state political landscape abuzz.

Both Republican slime.. and now I live in Texas - the land that gave the world a fucking chimpanzee as our president.

But this wouldn't be a political election without the media totally fucking up the coverage.

This is typical;

Lieberman's instincts for collegiality and bipartisanship, once regarded as virtues, are now seen as virtual disqualifications by his critics here and nationally.

Supposedly one would need to be pretty smart to write for the national media. One would have to have some common sense, so I can only conclude that the media is totally fucking this up intentionally - and the distinctions are important.

Lieberman’s problem is not his "instincts for collegiality and bipartisanship". His problem was that he was "bipartisan" on really bad policy. If the Republicans put forth a good idea, then yes, be "bipartisan" to move it forward. But the media is putting the spin on the story that to be "bipartisan" is good, and to oppose policy (regardless what the policy is) is bad.

Does that make sense? In other words, if Ric Santorum offered up a bill that said "All poor people are to be rounded up and bussed off to Mexico", it would be a bad thing in the eyes of the media to not be "bipartisan" and oppose it.

The media simply cannot get it through their heads that the reason why so many voters want Lamont and not Lieberman is because of Lieberman’s decisions to support really fucked up policies. That's all there is to it.

Yet - there you go again - stupid fucks in the media.. either not getting that, or deliberately trying to undermine people powered politics.

Fuck you.