Sunday, October 7, 2007

Election coincidence

Less than hearty congratulations are due to Pakistan's Gen. Pervez Musharraf for yesterday's election triumph in which the incumbent president/general was returned to office for another term at the head of his troubled country. The voting by the 1,170 outgoing federal and provincial parliament lawmakers was bizarre; nearly 500 lawmakers belonging to opposition parties boycotted the vote. Musharraf got 671 votes and applauded himself on being re-elected, as did the National Security Council in Washington. Of course, the election still could be invalidated by Pakistan's Supreme Court, which still is deciding whether Musharraf is even eligible to run. But if Pakistan's Supreme Court is anything like the U.S. Supreme Court, forget about it. Remember, our own court ruled after the 2000 election that the best way to determine who won the balloting in Florida was to not count the rest of the votes. How could they ever have reached a result like that? Maybe the Pakistanis have something to show the rest of us.


Your old pal said...

Sorry, I don't know crap about politics... maybe if you dumb it down a tad I could contribute more. Actually, don't dumb it down, just throw out an occasional controversial issue that I can spout off
about without making my brain hurt. I'm very opinionated, truly I am... I'm just too damned lazy to figure out what you're talking about half the time. I know there was something about the Children's Health Insurance thing but I totally disagree with you on that; it's not as simple as Bush doesn't care about sick kids. I don't like Bush and I don't agree with him about much but IMO he was absolutely right to veto the bill. For crying out loud, shouldn't we be encouraging people to quit smoking instead of using smokers to fund this program? I quit smoking 10 years ago and it was the hardest thing I've ever done. I know there are millions of people who really want to quit and wouldn't it be nice if our public officials said, "we want smokers to quit smoking, even if it means a loss of tax revenue"? And hey, what's wrong with people figuring our how they're going to provide for their kids before they have em?

Anonymous said...

You go, girl