In the aftermath of the 2006 election, I've been waiting to see reports or comments somewhere on the topic of electronic voting, the great potential for fraud, etc., but have seen next to nothing, either nationally or locally.

Along with many others who suffered through the trauma of the 2000 and 2004 elections (in my case, from the vantage point of Ohio, where 2004 was especially horrible), and as a person who watched last week's frightening HBO documentary on electronic voting problems, I can only say this:

WHEW!

There really didn't appear to have been any effort to tamper with voting results, did there? I was as paranoid as the next person, fearing that someone (Ken Blackwell? Diebold? Name your suspects here!) would manipulate something, somewhere to tip the election to the Republicans.

Let me be among the first to say this: My worst, most paranoid fantasies were WRONG. The system WORKED. No, it may not have been perfect -- people did have unnecessary difficulty voting in various regions, and more traditional dirty tricks were attempted -- but by and large, NOTHING BAD HAPPENED!

Let's all celebrate this fact. It MUST be a fact, or there is no way that Democrats would have surged into majorities in both houses of Congress, and Ohio wouldn't have seen a near-sweep of all statewide offices.

So, Rev. Sheldon is content with the thought that no one died during the electoral revolution on Nov. 7? He ignores the fact that the national spasm against Bush must actually be considered a counter-revolution against the Bush era's rolling revolution of 2000 and 2004.

Given that Bush came into office with the express (if secret) intention of toppling Saddam Hussein, no matter what -- which has been confirmed by various insiders who know this to be true -- the Current Occupant is certainly responsible for countless thousands of unneeded deaths.

The toll on U.S. forces is bad enough, but considering the civilian carnage in Iraq itself (estimated at 150,000 by one of their own leaders earlier this week), our President has barrels of blood on HIS hands.

To correct Rev. Sheldon's words, "We've just been through a bloodless counter-revolution, but unfortunately, MANY were killed due to the revolution itself."

Is there any careful observer of U.S. politics so gullible as to believe people like Gingrich are sincere about everything they say, every candidate they back, or every issue they push?

COME ON, NOW! Most politicians -- and I will resist saying ALL politicians, because that would be too depressing to consider -- are interested in themselves and their further advancement over ANYTHING else. As a result, they'll hitch their wagon to whoever they believe can be helpful, at that moment and in future; they'll also support ideas they don't fully accept if it helps their re-election and advancement.

Once the usefulness of Person A (e.g., Dubya) has vanished for Politician B (e.g., Newt Gingrich), Person A will be trashed quicker than a used Kleenex. Newt doesn't need the President any more; in fact, the quicker he removes himself from such a radioactive personality, the better.

The same is true for a given political strategy -- the scorched earth policy employed by Republicans during this 2006 campaign didn't work in the end, so Dubya espouses a "new" cooperative approach in his post-election news conference. I don't honestly think most Republican politicians truly believed that Democrats, as a whole or even in large part, are TRAITORS to this country. Sad that Bush can only admit that AFTER this poisonous campaign.

Look how fast Dubya abandons his "stay the course" pseudo-strategy after it lost the Congress for him! His experience in 2004 wrongly led him to conclude it would win again for him, so NOW he can jettison it and his Secretary of War.

Say, how about if this Congress changed the official cabinet office title from Sec. of Defense back to the old Sec. of War? THAT'S a GREAT idea, don't you think? It's sure more truthful, and doesn't obscure the reality of what the office seems to be about these days!

The old saying is that there's no honor among thieves. Sadly, there's even LESS honor, honesty and candor among politicians. Is it any wonder that the public becomes cynical about politics, when politicians destroy themselves and their opponents by their own cynical, manipulative antics?

Excuse me for recycling one of my own ideas, but it strikes me immodestly as a GREAT thought.

In an earlier item posted here I suggested something which makes TONS of sense:

The next Congress should legislate a return to the old name for the position now known as "Secretary of Defense" -- it should go back to being "Secretary of War".

Language is powerful, obviously -- and a healthy dose of realism about that job would be refreshing! It might even serve as a way to rein in some of the war-like impulses of people like Cheney and his cabal of neo-cons.

The idea of having a "Secretary of Peace" has also been floated for many years, but would serve as nothing more than a punching bag for right-wing blowhards who would say, "We already have that; he's the U.N. Secretary-General".

How about it? Any "Secretary of War" might be a little less inclined to START a war, don't you think?

...that the vice presidency wasn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

Then again, neither is the current occupant of that office, Vice President Richard B. Cheney. Seems like a perfect match, don't you think?

...I expect you're exactly correct, kb3edk. I didn't try to research Garner's quote in depth, and the usual version you hear is of course "spit".

My real dilemma was, should I post something that changed the word "spit" to another very familiar word that rhymes with it...I don't like to stoop that low, although you could argue that Cheney has dragged the office of VP, the White House and this whole country into the crapper right along with him.