Quote:
For the past two decades I have not lived in Tennessee full time. I have lived in various places in Asia, mostly in Japan (7 and a half years - I'm hoping this will get some solidarity with Grace sympathy) and Thailand (hoping for some "awe, she works with impoverished kids" sympathy)
(edit: Since Grace is with Gilda and not Host, I'm hoping that I will get Gilda/Grace sympathy by proxy )
|
Grace was born in Hawaii. I'd be happy to sympathize if our belief systems overlapped a bit more, but alas, I'm afraid this is not so, and I think I can safely say that Grace would feel the same.
After a bit of research on Ford and Corker, I've concluded that Ford is quite a bit too conservative for my taste, and if I were in Tennessee, I'd likely be voting for a third party candidate, probably a Green, depending on what his/her platform was.
I'm not a party loyalist by any means. For example, my family is not a big fan of FDR for the obvious reasons.
I also noticed in your response a reference to Gore being "boring". This isn't a direct response to your line, but I do find this comment interesting. This was always the line of attack comedians took regarding him, and while true, I'm not sure why it's relevant. He's stiff and boring. So what? Where does this enter into his ability to do the job? Why would anybody take this into account when voting? I thought the guy was dull as dirt, but still voted for for him because I thought him more qualified than Bush and found his policies to be more in line with where I thought the country should be headed.
Bush is certainly more colorful and interesting, but that makes him more entertaining, not a better president.
Note, this isn't a commentary on Gore v. Bush, but on why a candidate being "boring" is a bad thing.
Gilda