A few years back an enthusiastic segment of the electorate thought that voting John Rowland back into office was a smashing idea. At the time I thought that people would get what they asked for. And they did. With almost all of the current Washington crowd’s policies either in disarray or coming under critique and with numerous quackish chums turning their heads toward the squeak of the law’s leather shoes, it seems that there may be political parallels.
Return salvo ;-)
Remove “John Rowland” and insert “Bill Clinton” and I would say that “all’s fair…”.
In addition, I will fire another salvo at this issue and say that embarassing an entire nation easily eclipses embarassing a state. But of course the latter gets more press because the former was committed by one of the media’s favourite sons.
You’re talking about George Bush as the media’s favorite son, right?
I’m not quite clear what you’re defending here.
By the way, good luck with the convention. Hopefully it will rock, dude.
lol “Dub-ya” as the media’s favorite son?
The internet really is a horrible place to debate politics :-P
“But of course the latter [Rowland’s dishonour] gets more press because the former [Clinton’s dishnour] was committed by one of the mediaâ€™s favourite sons [Clinton].”
All I’m saying is that if CT got what it asked for in voting Rowland back in, then the U.S. got what it asked for when Clinton was voted back from his infamous secon term. In both cases, neither CT nor the U.S. should have much to be proud of.
At least in Connecticut’s defence, the state was smart enough not to elect Curry to anything.
As for the convention.. Thanks for the well-wishes, and for your role support in getting this thing at Tunxis in the first place! It will definitely rock.