--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I didn't spend a lot of time studying the candidates in the > > > primaries because I really only care about who we have to > > > choose from now. > > > > That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard > > you say. If you'd paid attention, you could have > > had a *voice* in who we have to choose from now. > > I know my limitations Judy. I don't really think my voice in > politics is important.
No single voter's voice in politics is "important" except maybe in very local elections. But if all voters "knew their limitations," we wouldn't have an electorate. And why bother voting in the general election if you don't think your voice in the primary is important enough to vote? You have even *less* of a voice in the general. I have my pet issues and try to focus on them. But the > time to really understand all the candidates in the primaries > to be informed enough just doesn't make the time/payback cut > for me. Working on issues is a fine thing, but you'll be a lot more effective if you have simpatico people as your elected officials. If you can't walk and chew gum at the same time, the answer isn't to do nothing but chewing gum or nothing but walking; it's to spend appropriate time walking and then switch to chewing gum for a while when that becomes important, IMHO. Like > you, I wasn't overly impressed with Obama in the primaries. But > I wasn't behind Hillary either, so I let them slug it out. My > bias is anti-republican. Yes, so was that of most people who voted for either Obama or Hillary in the primaries. > Let me put it this way. You spent a lot of time and had > your "voice", and now you have Obama. So do I. But without the voice. But my time has been spent on the > specific issues that I can more directly effect. I think that's a poor choice if it excludes working for a primary candidate.
