Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
That is a good point. Just because a person was a successful CEO, it doesn't mean they will make a good Senator. But by the same token, who else do we vote for? I would have to choose a successful person and hope they could make the transition rather than picking a person that has never succeeded at anything.
|
I actually don't know what can be expected. Pretty much you've got a 50/50 split in many states (especially on fiscal issues.) This is a Democracy that doesn't involve a main tribe. It's not like we have real similiar blood, and we want to spend money for the good of that blood. So, if you don't like the Gov't here, then you're likely to hate the Gov't more than if you were at least part of a common tribe that money was being spent on. So, in a 2 party Democracy that is often 50/50, this Democracy is in no way winner take all. The side in the minority has a big say. So, please tell me how a successful business person fits in. They aren't used to having to deal with having almost 50% of everyone being against a project they want to do. You better really like the issues, because you're gunna be fighting over them a lot. Most of the time, business people are real interested in making money, and not paying much tax on that money. Do they really care that much about all the issues they're gunna have to deal with?...... No.... Who does? Political junkies do. Do I really think these 2 business women in California care about Politics that much? I'm almost certain Meg Whitman doesn't. Fiorino might, but she's not nearly as smart. Maybe "combined" these 2 could do one of these jobs well. These jobs really need people who love politics. Not just people who don't want to pay taxes. There are many more problems that they will need to work on. Notice I didn't say solve. If they don't really love Politics, then it won't take long to see that.
06-11-2010, 04:38 PM
Hybrid Mode
