Go to If I get smart with you....how will you know?
- Add a comment
- Go to Finally, a sensible court ruling.......
Schatz
Amen.....thanks for stopping by....
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on October 31, 2006 at 6:38 AM
| link to this | reply
It's good that the voters are being informed truthfully.
Politics can be such a dirty game. I hate to say it, but how many Floridians (is that the proper term, really? Man, it sounds like a race of aliens!) will vote off or not vote at all because they don't want to have to 'vote for Foley'. There are a lot of elderly folks there, and like wise people with too much sun and tequila under their hat. I hope it comes out ok in the end. I don't know much about either candidate, but may the best man win.
posted by
Schatz
on October 31, 2006 at 6:35 AM
| link to this | reply
too much sun and margaritas in florida
posted by
ladychardonnay
on October 31, 2006 at 5:26 AM
| link to this | reply
If you're refering to Mahoney.....
I'm sure that was an attempt to give the perception of total neutrality......we must have statements explaining the process for both parties......
On the other.......People would be going to the polls wanting to vote for Negron....but there would be no information explaining the situation with the ballots having Foley's name on them instead of Negron's........and in Florida of all places where people have a history of not understand the process........
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on October 31, 2006 at 5:24 AM
| link to this | reply
Corbin,
the first decision was asinine, flies in the face of reason and was certainly arrived at by a judge determined to give the Dems an unbeatable advantage!
The second decision is is obviously an improvement, but it still baffles me. People have to be told that a vote for xyz is a vote for xyz unless otherwise informed?
posted by
Nautikos
on October 31, 2006 at 5:16 AM
| link to this | reply
It's sad that they have to rely on tricks
instead of the candidate's strengths.
posted by
SuccessWarrior
on October 31, 2006 at 5:01 AM
| link to this | reply