Why Ohio? Why not us?
The winner of the election has always been decided before our polls have even closedSome voters are wondering how the Republicans ignominiously lost the presidential election and gave up some seats in Congress.
The answer appears very simple to me.
The Pubbies sat back on their over-stuffed backsides, thinking that Romney was a shoe-in and didn't bother casting their votes. NO VOTES.
During this time, the Dems were energizing their early voters to put Obama back in office for another four years. As the bard would have said, "Stuff happens." It would seem that the "47 percent" on the dole are the louder voices.
We all now know the results. The Dems whupped the Pubbie's bottoms once again.
One would think the Pubbies would (as my pappy used to say), "Wake up and die right."
Gentlemanliness isn't the answer. The Pubbies needed an attack dog not unlike what the Dems trotted out with Obama and his minions. But... the Pubbies played the gentleman part beautifully ... they probably should have been nominated for an Oscar as a result of their performance.
Some voters won't attempt to hide their disappointment at the way the election was concluded. It's only too bad that a bunch of wheat farmers and corn growers in Ohio had an overly-important sway in the election outcome.
Who or what made them so important? Why not Idaho? They grow some fantastic spuds. Why not Wyoming, with its 72 residents or Montana and their sheeples?
It's pretty obvious that the election decisions made in Washington, Oregon and California have historically had zero effect on the outcome of national elections. The winner of the election has always been decided before our polls have even closed.
But... ignominious Ohio? That's plumb disgustipating. But it's a foregone conclusion that the West Coast has always been predictable in their liberal bent. Why is beyond me but it makes it easy for the prognosticators to categorize them.
Hawaii? Who's kidding whom? They might as well burn their ballots. They mean zilch in the grand scheme of things.
Anyway ... it's all over and we'll have to wait another four years to park somebody else's hoop shooting, beer drinking, movie star embracing carcass in our nation's White House.
Such is life... or... as the French would say, "C'est la vie."
I kinda prefer to adopt the slogan of the Seattle Seahawks, "Wait'll next year."
Mr. Pierre should stick to local issues; his comments on national politics are out of place, confused, and insulting – just so many more sour grapes after an election that didn’t go the way he thought it should.
It is hard to tell just what he is trying to say. That 47% of Americans are freeloaders? That only freeloaders voted for the other guy? That Republicans are all gentlemen and that’s why they lost? That there’s no point in voting? That West Coast liberals are beyond comprehension?
One of the rules of good writing is to make ONE point in an essay, and stick to it.
Those of us who have never been on the dole and voted for the other guy are chopped liver? Those of us who thought Mr. Pierre’s candidate didn’t stand for anything are less independent? Those of us who thought the Democrats simply ran a better campaign are deluded?
One of the rules of effective journalism is not to insult the other side of the argument.
However all that may be, and whatever point Mr. Pierre was trying to make, “park somebody else's hoop shooting, beer drinking, movie star embracing carcass in our nation's White House” is downright insulting to the majority of Americans who voted for the President, and disrespectful to the office he occupies. Mr. Pierre oversteps propriety with this sort of sour grapes and simplistic grumbling. He does neither the Beacon nor himself any credit.
Now let’s move along and find common solutions to common problems. Mr. Pierre seems to want to polarize us. But that’s not the way forward. Does Mr. Pierre have anything positive and useful to say? Any real advice, wisdom? Even leadership? I think we’d all be glad to hear it from someone with his experience and knowledge - but this isn't it.
I agree with Mr. Brown's overall assessment of Mr. Pierre's rambling in this particular column submission. But, I hope that Mr. Brown will also take on a little of his own advice, specifically, "One of the rules of effective journalism is not to insult the other side of the argument." Recently, his comment to Mr. Page’s Letter to the Editor that “I also give as generously as I can to various charities (I assume from what you say about "riders" that you don.t?)” is insulting and needlessly impugns the character of “the other side.”
I don’t see either of these approaches as beneficial to effective discussion and solving problems.