ENOUGH!!!

[Marta]

We had a discussion a few weeks ago about the inconvenience of Election Day on a Tuesday in November. For those of you who find this not to be a problem, I say - lucky you. But for the rest of us, it's a drag.

Apparently, I'm not the only one who feels this way, and yet another bill is before Congress to change our voting day to a weekend. This appears in today's Op-Ed page of the NY Times (which has endorsed Sen. Obama today in an unusually long editorial. For those of you who may not know, I would point out that The Times is traditionally a Republican newspaper, albeit a very liberal one):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opini ... ef=opinion

Why would they change it to a weekend? Would that make it easier at all? I don't see how it would to be honest.

[mrsl]

Thank you Marta, I am feeling better.

Judith, all I can see is it making things more congested and confusing. Personally though, I believe the vote for the President should be done by itself, not along with judges, mayors and dog catchers. I firmly believe it should be a hand written carbon copied card which you could keep for verification if there were any kind of mishap, where the original would be put into a locked drop box. If the vote were for only the Pres., the count would not be so difficult, and I Don't think it should be left to machines to tally, that's where our trouble came from last time.

Anne

[jdb1]

Why would they change it to a weekend? Would that make it easier at all? I don't see how it would to be honest.

Marta, read back on this thread to see the discussion of low voter turnout in the US in relation to the inconvenience factor. Some of us here feel that it isn't an issue, but I most emphatically do. Most of us are not given time off to vote as we were in the past, which means, in big cities like New York, that you are faced with long lines in the hours before and after the workday. Many people of my acquaintance simply don't bother to vote, because they don't like the burdensome idea of having to rush around to fit casting a vote into their normal workday. Our past record of voter turnout has been appalling. Sad, but true.

Election Day used to be something of a holiday, and in a way it should be -- it's a very important part of citizenship. Nowadays, for too many it's just another pain in the neck we have to try to make time for. I'd like to approach the selection of a president with more gravitas than that.

Some Americans work on the weekends, but most of us do not. If an election were held on a Saturday and/or Sunday, I feel that my fellow citizens would be a lot more favorably disposed toward voting in it. And I believe that the proposed bill described in the Times article provides for alternate days for those who might have objections to voting on the weekends on religious grounds.

However . . . . I am sensing all around me an interest and enthusiasm for the process that I haven't felt since the 1960s, when everybody was "political." I think we are going to see a very respectable turnout this time, but it took a major financial crisis (and crises of other natures as well) to make it happen. It never fails: they don't really feel it 'til you hit 'em in the pocketbook.

[silentscreen]

I have ceased to be excited by this election process. I don't care for either candidate, and am left once again to be voting for the lesser of two evils. And I could care less what Sarah Palin wears! That's really what's important isn't it?

[mrsl]

I know a lot of you, like me, have Yahoo for your home page, and those that do, there is a section in the 'todays' news' part that says something about Ron Howard and reprising both Opie and Richie C with assistance from the Fonz. If you have this, click on it just for the nostalgic giggle of seeing Ron, dressed like Opie going fishing with Pa (Andy Griffith), or seeing Richie and the Fonz leaning on a red 57 Chevy talking about his date with triplets. The whole thing is geared toward voting, but it's good for a cheerful start to the day.

Silent Screen: I don't care what Palin wears either, but she has no right using campaign donations to purchase her clothes, and then to claim that all along it was planned to donate the stuff after the election. Tell me, what homeless person needs a suit from Neiman-Marcus when you could get twenty sweaters and slacks from K-Mart for what one suit cost? Secondly, who would get these donated clothes? Would it be homeless people from Alaska, or possibly from Ohio, maybe Florida? That's why it's such big news - not that she needed clothes, but she used campaign funds, and who profits after the election? Also, did anyone see the comparison photo of Obama sitting at his desk, with his feet up on the desk showing holes in both shoes, and the run down heels?

Finally, I had pretty well worn down my body by the time my fourth kid was born, and my husband was asked to sign a paper agreeing to save the baby if it became a choice between her or me, and he refused because we had three others at home (ages 1,3 and 4), and if they didn't save me, who was going to take care of them, so he could work to make a living for them (not that he did!). So Grandpa McCain really got my goat with his ditto marks regarding the 'health of the mother'. Does he think every birth is perfect with no problems? What a moron

Anne

[silentscreen]

Anne,

The problem I have is with the bias and hypocricy with which the press treats Palin. If she had holes in her shoes, they would be all over her with sarcasm. The example I'll use is the negative remarks they used once about describing her hoop earrings as being "trailer trash." She can't win with them no matter what she does! Now, would they do that with a man?The answer is NO! And they certainly never say anything negative about Obama, who's the obvious favorite, and has been from day one. They did some similar things with Hillary and her pantsuits. If we're going to spread the wealth around, then in a free democracy, we should spread the fairness around too, and it hasn't been done in this election cycle.

[charliechaplinfan]

Hoop earrings = trailer trash

I hope not. I've just had my ears pierced for the second time so that I can wear some hoops with the studs that hubby bought me when Libby was born. Please don't tell him I look like trailer trash

I've seen Sarah's picture in the weekend papers in various outfits. She does wear clothes very well. I can understand the annoyance at public money being used to dress her but I do feel that she'd be condemned whatever she did. I'm no fan of hers but I couldn't see headlines being made if the candidate was a male dressed in the best money could buy.

Women candidates do get greater personal criticism. I've never known why. As women do we not sound as convincing? Can we not be taken as seriously? Is there something wrong with us for wanting political power or for wanting to do something visible to make a difference to our countries?

[silentscreen]

You go Alison! My feelings exactly! I don't think Palin is Presidential material by any means, but I dislike the double standard that still goes on. Another thing is that the Democrats are all for women working outside the home, and balancing work with a family, but they think Christian women aren't supposed to. This is simply not a belief held by the Christian community as evidenced by the support Palin recieved from the party. Apparently a woman having children and working is not allowed if she's from the other party, or has different beliefs from yours. If we can elect an African American president, and have crossed that barrier, why are we as a nation still prejudiced against women and faith? Is it not part of the Constitution to be able worship as you choose, and still run for office without being persecuted? You can't be balanced and fair if you treat one side different than the other, even if that person has a special needs child.

[mrsl]

No argument against your 'bias' comments. The media is extra biased against women, but that is not really new. Jack and Jackie took a lot of heat during their campaigns, he was too young and Oh My God - Catholic. Her face looked pushed in and 'sure you can look like that when you marry into one of the riches families in the nation', and her little pillbox hats never changed except for color. Then Mom Bush had her pearls, and Ladybug had her nick name. Politics is a 'good old boys world' which is slowly being torn down, but I still maintain a woman with 5 kids is short-changing either her family or her government, which is why it's always been men. As I said before, Hillary has one grown daughter, she can contribute all her time to the Senate if she so chooses, but if Palin prefers to be in conference when her kids are sick, that is also her choice, she just doesn't get my admiration, or respect for it.

Anne

[movieman1957]

Palin would seem to be every feminists dream. She has a career and a family and has managed to do pretty well with both. At the very least she hasn't let one side get in the way of the other. However, for them, generally speaking, she is of the wrong political philosophy so she is going to get grief at worst or at best, ignored.

[silentscreen]

Palin would seem to be every feminists dream. She has a career and a family and has managed to do pretty well with both. At the very least she hasn't let one side get in the way of the other. However, for them, generally speaking, she is of the wrong political philosophy so she is going to get grief at worst or at best, ignored.

And that's a shame. Our country still has a long way to go regarding the rights of women. We didn't get the right to vote unil what, 1920? Who can say with a certainty who has the wrong political philosophy? She is a Washington outsider, Hillary is not. She had the bad luck of being backed by the Bush people, and now realizes it , but can do nothing.Yet because she is a woman, and not one who is on the popular political side of the moment, she is dismissed? Sarah has become the new Ugly American or underdog, and I wouldn't underestimate her for 2012, because I don't think with our country in it's current state that even Obama can satisfy in the long run. I don't think McCain can either, that's why I'm not excited by either one.

[charliechaplinfan]

I'm glad I'm not alone in noticing the bias against women. I noticed it here about Hillary too when she was in the running for Democratic candidate. It's not confined to America either, Margaret Thatcher had to put up with her fair share of vicious comments. Is it just in politics that this happens? It's a pity that a woman hasn't climbed again to the top of the political tree in this country. It doesn't sound that many of you have anytime for Sarah Palin but you can be proud that you have both an African American and a woman on the ticket for high office.

[movieman1957]

Who can say with a certainty who has the wrong political philosophy?

It really isn't about whether Palin's political philosophy is right or wrong but it is all about the fact that it is different from theirs. If she doesn't fit completely then it doesn't matter.

I would disagree about her political future. If she and McCain lose I bet she just goes back to Alaska and continues life there and leave 2012 to someone else. History is not on her side for losing vice presidential candidates.

[silentscreen]

Yes, you are probably right Chris. McCain has pretty well messed her up except perhaps in her own state. I can see Romney running again though, or maybe Jindal. Or if she does try again, it will be 2016.

[movieman1957]

Whether she is messed up or not may not be as big a part as the fact that she will be back in Alaska and mostly out of the public eye for four years may be her biggest hurdle.

Jindal will have a better chance as he is as conservative but he'll be more front and center because he is in Louisiana and there are bound to be hurricanes between now and then. I heard a lot of people really like him so we'll see then.