The WTF moment of the day

Dear. Lord.

I weighed in at 130 pounds this morning. This was the first time in a while that I'd weighed myself. I'd been holding steady at 128 for a good while.

The thing is? I only weighed myself because of the fact that clothes that fit last night were suddenly impossible to zip today.

Two pounds. That somehow went to my waist. There is a strong possibility it's water retention, because I do have PMS and I have been drinking large amounts of water lately. But...two pounds in twelve hours? How? How can that much *anything* store up in my body?

So guess what I'm doing at lunch...running the stairs. *sigh* Exercise time! Gotta be a good girl.

Gore wanted to be dictator, not president.

You know, and believe me, I'm as guilty as the next person, but have you ever noticed that politicians, for the most part, understand one thing that the general public doesn't seem to (well, except for Ted Kennedy)?

That whatever you may think about an individual in politics, never ever ever imply or flat out say to the public that only idiots would vote for that person.

Because then they will.

Or saying that everything that politician does is wrong? Or that the party of that politician is too (insert appropriate adjective) and not good for the people, merely trying to destroy our society by taking us back to the dark ages/becoming too lose in their morals and too extreme?

The offended group will jump in and vote.

In the last few days I've seen lots and lots of talk on TV about Reagan where the opposing parties have been playing it smart. As many Democrats have put it, while they didn't agree with his policy, they genuinely liked and respected him. Reagan's "no party affiliations after 6:00" mantra was often quoted.

The Democrats are being very, very smart on that right now. They know this is an election year. They know that any maligning of Reagan could have a disastrous result for them...because maligning Reagan would be seen as an attack by the left, therefore that equals a vote for Bush.

Personally? Considering I'm voting third party I find it interesting.

But on editorial pages across the country you'll see people arguing the point. Believe me, I've heard the same arguments about JFK, and it's been *years* since his death. People on opposite ends of the political spectrum will always, always disagree. The problem with argument in a public spectrum is that, even if you make valid points about policy, delivery and party affiliation will always sway people toward an extreme. Politicians are trained to be tactful (well, most of them are) by their handlers. The public isn't. Heck, the media doesn't make any bones about taking sides themselves sometimes. They've been notoriously harsh to First Ladies in recent years (Nancy and Hillary being prime examples).

What I'm trying to say is, I don't think the pundits arguing back and forth on network television are going to be the deciding factor come November in *any* political race. Party affiliation plays a strong part for many, and perceived negative attitude to any candidate will play a part. I bet you that we, the people, in what we say to each other and how we say it, will play the greater part.

In regards to the presidential race, I have a theory. If the Democrats go on a major attack really close to election time, it may have an impact that swings their way. If they attack too early, it might swing Bush's way. If they attack *wrong* by going after Republicans and anyone with conservative values, they stand a strong chance of losing to Bush. If Kerry sits back and just keeps his name in the media, I bet he can win.

If anyone who's a Democrat says anything really inflammatory about Reagan, the Democrats will be up shit creek without a paddle and sinking fast. The only bit of luck for the Democrats is that Reagan died in June, not October.

***

I kind of like an idea my mother had, because she has major issues with a president campaigning for office while doing the job. It takes the focus off the needs of the country. Her thought, or one she's heard suggested, is that the president needs to have a 6 year term with no chance for reelection. It extends the time in office but takes away any distractions.

I myself see the merits of that. Granted, a bad president would then be in office longer and a really good one would be in shorter. But term limits were set for only two terms as it is in this last century. (Oh god, don't get me started on term limits, because I'm *so* for them. And why is it that the President of the United States has term limits, but Congress, which in many ways has more power over a long haul, doesn't?)