 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
||
 |
 |
|
||
|
||||
 |
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Election DayJanuary 19, 2010 If you're living within hailing distance of a U.S. news source, you probably already know that it's election day in Massachusetts. If you're not within hailing distance of a U.S. news source, would you let me know where you live? I'd like to move there. On second thought, if you're reading this blog, you're within hailing distance of a U.S. news source. Nice thought, though. So we're going to the polls to elect a successor to our late senior senator, Ted Kennedy. His seat was virtually uncontested for decades, and the commonwealth is rarely, rarely, rarely a swing state. When the rest of the country flushes itself down the toilet -- uh, when it goes for the Republican in a landslide -- Massachusetts and the District of Columbia stand proudly on the Democratic side of the ledger. So the national attention we're getting for the race between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown is unusual. I'm within hailing distance of numerous U.S. news sources, but I've managed to ignore most of the run-up to this election. I didn't vote in the primary, mostly because I forgot to stop by the polls -- West Tisbury votes at the "new" fire station -- on the way home from the barn and was too lazy to go out again once I'd taken my boots off. In my adult life, I've probably sat out almost as many elections as I've voted in, in part because I've spent the overwhelming majority of my adult years in either Massachusetts or D.C. But I'm going to vote in this one. No, I don't think Martha Coakley is anything to write home about. The Democratic Party's performance over the last couple of decades hasn't been impressive either. I think President Obama is doing as well as anyone could given the circumstances, but the circumstances, to put it bluntly, suck. Yes, the Republicans are largely responsible for these circumstances, but when I consider what the Democratic Party could have done to mitigate and even reverse them, I want to throw up. I don't know much about Scott Brown. He opposes several things that I'm for, like reproductive rights, but he seems a competent enough guy. That, however, isn't all that important. What is important is that anyone who thinks he's an independent voice is delusional, and anyone who thinks he's "against the system" doesn't understand what the system is. The money behind Scott Brown is the money that brought about the sucky circumstances in which we are currently submerged to our eyeballs: two stupid wars, a crashed economy, and obsession with a "terrorist threat" that is far down the list of the country's real troubles. Giving aid and comfort to the Republican Party is a bad idea. If Republicans didn't have so much money, no working person would be voting for Scott Brown. I'm holding my nose and voting for Coakley. In case you hadn't guessed.
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
 |
|
|||
 |
|
|||
Home - Writing - Editing - About Susanna - Bloggery - Articles - Poems - Contact Copyright ©
Susanna J. Sturgis. All rights reserved. |
||||