With only a couple of weeks to go until the Presidential election things are hotting up and reminding me of everything that is bad about politics the world over.
The mudslinging is relentless and the arms of the slingers are rotating like those of a cartoon character throwing, well mud at a wall. I was chatting to an old friend at lunchtime yesterday about the imminent general election here in the UK and was I remarked on how governments, Prime Ministers and Presidents are voted out, never in.
Some would jump up and say that Barack Obama was voted in, but I beg to differ. Dubya was voted out for bad grammar, we all know that.
MR's campaign is seemingly being paid for by state funds and based around pointing out the things that are so wrong about SF. SF's campaign isn't being paid for by state funds and largely consists of saying bad things about the Rajapaksas.
And then we all know that the few positive election promises made by both of them will be reneged upon anyway. The MR supporters tell people not to vote for SF as he'll never actually abolish the executive presidency as he has promised to do, but MR promised and failed on that count too. So it's better to vote for the chap who's failed on one count than on the one who'll no doubt fail on the same count if he gets the chance.
I'm glad I'm not eligible to vote. It would be a Hobson's choice for me; do I vote for the bloke who has never really run a country during peacetime or do I vote for the other one? Do I vote for the crook or the patriot? I'm as confused as a fart in a colander.
Vut too dooo?
Which way to go?
I know, I'd vote for the one with the moustache.