In article
<194227e7-1105-4eed-b32b-08d568049d14@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, vello
<vellokala@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 11, 12:38=A0am, hol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Eugene Holman) wrote:
> > In article
> > <f8eb194f-9586-4134-9ad6-bac011c4f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
vello=
>
> >
> > <vellok...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > <deletions>
> >
> > > It's up to american voters do they prefere Bushmans or not as
> > > presidents. American practice is to ELECT presidents
> >
> > G. W. Bush "elected" in 1999? Al Gore got half a million more popular
> > votes than GWB did, but the election was decided when a Suoreme Court
> > decision was made to stop counting the votes in Floriada, where G. W.
> > Bush's brother and associates were in charge of things, and declare
Bush
> > the winner.
>
> Well, we talk about possible comparison between US and Russia. So to
> make ends meet we had to imagine that Clinton just orders Gore as his
> successor :-)
The corruption in the American system is somewhat more subtle than that.
Nevertheless, Gore was the choice of more than half a million American
voters than Bush was, but Bush won the election on a technicality anyway.
A technicality that turned out to be an error after the situation on
Florida that seemingly tipped things in his favor was finally reviewed.
Now American voters are facing a situation in which a serious effort is
being made by the person sup****ted by the second largest number of voters
in the Democratic primaries to convince the party that she, not the person
who received the most sup****t, should nevertheless be the presidential
candidate. Seeing that her husband is a former president who has made it
clear that they work as a team, this is as cynical a move as anything that
the Russians have done. Indeed, it is even more so when we consider that,
if she wins the candidacy and goes on to be president, over the past
generation the United States will seem to be a country ruled by two
dynasties:
Bush I
Clinton I
Bush II
Clinton II + Clinton II 1/2
<deletions>
> > Maybe so, but the overwhelming majority - about 70% - of the Russian
> > electorate sup****ts Putin's politics and choice of successor because
they
> > understand that it is hard to argue with success. The American
electorate
> > is not equally keen on GWB and his legacy, since never in the history
of
> > American polling has an in***bant president received such a low (29%)
> > approvsl rating.
> >
> Yeah, thats the weak side of democracy - to success you had to really
> run fast, not just put media to glorify your imaginable world records.
> I don't think Bush is top president for US just I'm sad about fate of
> democracy in russia.
The glass is either half full or half empty. Within twenty years, one
generation, Russia has evolved from a one-party dictator****p into a
country that, for the first time in a thousand years of recorded hitory,
has a had a completely peaceful transfer of power. Not everything is
perfect, and a real multiparty system , although in place and evolving, is
still at a primitive stage (us, the right-wing clowns, or the left-wing
bastards). Early experiments with too much democracy applied too quickly
resulted in chaos, poverty, robber-baronism, and widespread attitudes
among the public that "democracy" is really "dermocracy" ('****ocracy'). A
slower approach has meant some cutbacks in freedoms that we take for
granted in the West, but the general trend is definitely towards an
approximation of a Western system. Most im****tantly, as I see it, the
Russian economy is now able to produce enough sustained prosperity for a
genuine middle-class, the group that is of crucial im****tance to
fine-tuning and sustaining democracy because they have the most to gain
from it if it is successful, and the most to lose if it fails, to
establish itself.
As former Estonian President Lennart Meri once said, it is far easier for
a kayak to reverse its course than for an oil tanker.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
|
