Thailand's PM Abhisit 'Rowing The Boat For Bandits'

[webfact]

SPECIAL REPORT

Abhisit 'rowing the boat for bandits'

By The Nation

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has come under a barrage of complaints about corruption scandals in his Democrat-led coalition government and his alleged 'lack of leadership' when it comes to making hard decisions. The Nation's Kornchanok Raksaseri talked to some politicians and academics to find out what's the real problem for Abhisit and whether he could handle things better.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has been recently criticised for not being decisive in fixing problems, leaving them to drag on and on.

A senior and highly respected figure, who asked not to be named, said Abhisit was too worried about his office.

"He should have decided better on some issues. But it's like he's trapped in Thai politics." He also said Abhisit's ego is part of the problem.

A veteran politician, who also asked not to be named, said plainly questionable projects such as the NGV buses and reshuffles hound Abhisit's government more than any other. He said Abhisit was too laid-back, so in a way he was "rowing the boat for the bandits".

The appointment of Mongkol Surasajja as the new permanent secretary of the Interior Ministry, who has been attacked for lack of seniority - on the other hand - was braked by the computer corruption scandal.

The strain in the diplomatic relations between Thailand and Saudi Arabia might have reached a boiling point had Pol Lt-General Somkid Boonthanom not decided to turn down a promotion to assistant police chief. The offer was made to him even though the people involved could foresee possible problems due to the sensitivity of the move.

The conflict between the residents in Map Ta Phut and heavy industry persist after the Cabinet decided to list just 11 industrial activities, as recommended by the National Environment Board, as likely to be hazardous to people's health or the environment instead of the 18 activities proposed by a panel of stakeholders.

The 3G phone auction was suspended. The bill on establishing the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission is still stuck in Parliament while legislators did not expedite passing the law earlier and still cannot agree on its contents.

Abhisit defends himself by saying he respects the courts and follows the law.

Academics point out that the problems are rooted in the political system. Since Abhisit cannot form a one-party government, he has to depend heavily on many groups and then is hemmed in by many factors.

Political analyst Sukhum Nualsakul said Abhisit is working in restricted conditions. The laws and administrative systems still have conflicts and sometimes lead to a deadlock.

"People criticise him because they're disappointed. But a prime minister cannot do everything and be a superman," he said.

Sukhum Chaloeysap of Suan Dusit Rajabhat University said Abhisit needs support from many groups within and outside his party to stay as prime minister. He cannot stand only by his principles.

Abhisit's strength is his image as a straightforward and honest leader. However, those characteristics cannot help him make a great leap forward.

"Abhisit lacks political tactics. And in general, he cannot escape his own shadow, people's anticipation and Thaksin's shadow, like the populism policies which he used to attack. People are used to guileful politicians. Considering Abhisit's careful and principled style, his popularity might not rise dramatically," Sukhum said.

"People expect a lot from Abhisit. But he might be in a position where he can't say anything or make a big move. The Democrat Party might have made an agreement during the government's formation not to interfere in coalition parties' authority, but it unavoidably hurts the government itself," Sukhum said.

"I think Abhisit knows and keeps up with the political game. But sometimes he must subdue his potential for the survival of the government or his party," Sukhum said. "Ideology is easier to say than to practice."

The academics showed compassion for Abhisit, but they could not hide their "hopelessness" towards politics.

Trakul Meechai, a Chulalongkorn University political scientist, said politics is only heading downhill and will reach a critical point before some changes can happen.

However, problems and obstacles are not excuses for politicians,

especially for Abhisit as a prime

minister, who has vowed to bring about reform for the sake of the country.

Abhisit should not let the people down; they have high expectations of him. And he cannot wait until a critical point arrives.

If Abhisit is working hard, then maybe he has to work even harder to bring some improvements and some hope to the people, he added.

-- The Nation 2010-10-11

[Hardback]

[chantorn]

Mark has already achieved much more than all the other Dems PM put together.

(Maths quiz: What is the product of Infinity multiply by zero?)

[random]

At last, someone has spoken out agaisnt this charlatan, the guy is more interested in what the international community than what the voters think, basically since he was handed power/ bought other parties he has done nothing for the good of Thailand, maybe this is why the voters have not voted the dems into power for many elections, they know they are not there for the people and know they are basically a lame duck.

[Buchholz]

By all means, let's install the good and decent Chalerm as PM and allow his three good and decent sons "row the boat."

[whybother]

At last, someone has spoken out agaisnt this charlatan, the guy is more interested in what the international community than what the voters think, basically since he was handed power/ bought other parties he has done nothing for the good of Thailand, maybe this is why the voters have not voted the dems into power for many elections, they know they are not there for the people and know they are basically a lame duck.

The PM is worried what his supporters and the supporters of the majority of MPs (ie the majority of voters) think.

[random]

A veteran politician, who also asked not to be named, said plainly questionable projects such as the NGV buses and reshuffles hound Abhisit's government more than any other.

"more than any other"?

Is this veteran politician one of the banned Thai Rak Thai Party officials?

A brief recent review of their boss:

Bad Exes

Most ex-presidents and former prime ministers devote their lives to making a positive difference in the world, or at least fade away into obscurity. Here are five former leaders who have done neither.

THAKSIN SHINAWATRA

Old job: Prime minister of Thailand, 2001-2006

New image: Since being deposed in a 2006 coup amid allegations of graft and human rights abuses, Thaksin has lived a peripatetic existence. The former billionaire businessman has served as a "special ambassador" for Nicaragua and an economic advisor in Cambodia, and was briefly owner of the Manchester City* soccer club. Thaksin reportedly lived under a false name in Germany for more than a year and has used illegally received passports from a number of other countries as well. He now makes his home in Dubai.

This year, Thaksin's supporters, known as "red shirts," occupied central Bangkok and stormed government buildings throughout the country in an effort to force the government to step down. Around 90 people were killed in the ensuing clashes between often-armed protesters and police before the two sides agreed to a cease-fire. Thai courts charged Thaksin in absentia for his role in fomenting the protests. Although Thaksin was vocally supportive of the red shirts -- he once called into a rally and promised "to make all Thais rich" if his supporters were able to regain political power -- he denies funding their efforts. He has also been convicted on additional corruption charges since going into exile, though he maintains that those charges are politically motivated.

Continues:

http://www.foreignpo...d_exes?page=0,4

Foreign Policy Magazine - October 1, 2010

I think if he was a banned politician he would not be so worried about anonymity, it is more likely it is an active politician, but I guess any oppourtunity to get your digs in at Thaksin eh?

I look forward to a thread about service at McDonalds which will allow you to tell us how one time you saw a red shirt in mcds which will then allow you to write more about Thaksin, How you have managed to turn a thread about the inabilities of abhisit into a thread bashing Thaksin is beyond me, if this were the other way round I am sure you would have something to say. The fact remains that under Thaksin Thailand was more stable then under this charlatan, a man promoted beyond his capacity.

Do you think if the line had said, for example,

Banned Thai Rak Thai Party executive and Thaksin sister, Yaowapa Wangsawat, said plainly questionable projects such as the NGV buses and reshuffles hound Abhisit's government more than any other.

that the credibility of that perspective might not be a bit tainted and that that person would prefer to identify themselves in that manner instead of a "veteran politician who asked not to be named"?

The reason I posted the article on Thaksin was to specifically counter the ludicrous notion put forth in the OP that the Abhisit administration is more corrupt "than any other." It would seem people like yourself have forgotten how corrupt things were under his regime.

We are not discussing the old regime, we are discussing the new regime and trying to highlight a past one as an example really proves nothing. The fact is we are living under the current regime, which is corrupt and inefficient, even the coup leader General Sonthi (why do I always want to call him General Disarray) recently said the biggest mistake made post coup was not following the populist policies set up by Thaksin, but people conveniently forget this things in their haste to put the boot in. The article makes no comment that this administration is more corrupt than the last so why do you assume that it is hinting that way. The simple fact is this current administration is corrupt and inept.

I get your point about the anonymity, but to assume straight away it a banned politician was clearly for your own ends, and to then post the article about Thaksin, who this is not about, it is about Abhisit and his failings, please don't go down the Thai avenue of 'two wrongs make a right', it is very kindergarten and reeks of 'well he did it first'.

Back on Topic, the fact is the in the past decade at least, the dems have not been able to win an election or form a government until the court disbanded the current government for vote buying, a crime the dems were themselves guilty of, this allowed them to BUY the coalition (yes they bought the coalition partners, it was never disputed),. My question would be why the people have not voted them into power, was their a belief that they were no good, they had no experience, they were just as corrupt as the others, was the leader a man clealry promoted beyong his ability, was it the perceived link to the yellows and the military? The fact is they got power through the back door, the leader is either inefficient or is having to pay back too many debts to the people that put him there, in my opinion it is a mixture of them both.

[Buchholz]

We are not discussing the old regime, we are discussing the new regime and trying to highlight a past one as an example really proves nothing.

I was discussing a portion of the article that implied the current administration was more corrupt than any other. I didn't contend that this coalition government has not had corruption cases, but sought to keep it perspective by refuting the notion that it was more than any other.

The article makes no comment that this administration is more corrupt than the last so why do you assume that it is hinting that way.

The passage referred to 2 corruption-related incidents and then went on to state that those practices "hound the government more than any other". To me, that's more than "hinting" that this government is more corrupt "than any other". What do you interpret that passage to mean?

I get your point about the anonymity, but to assume straight away it a banned politician was clearly for your own ends

I didn't "assume straight away it a banned politician", but merely asked if it might be as an explanation of why the "veteran politician" preferred to remain anonymous. That's what the use of the word "is" and a question mark at the end of my question would indicate.

and to then post the article about Thaksin, who this is not about, it is about Abhisit and his failings, please don't go down the Thai avenue of 'two wrongs make a right'

I never said that. I only contended the comment regarding "more than any other" which I think most rationale people would agree with.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Buchholz

[whybother]

We are not discussing the old regime, we are discussing the new regime and trying to highlight a past one as an example really proves nothing. The fact is we are living under the current regime, which is corrupt and inefficient, even the coup leader General Sonthi (why do I always want to call him General Disarray) recently said the biggest mistake made post coup was not following the populist policies set up by Thaksin, but people conveniently forget this things in their haste to put the boot in. The article makes no comment that this administration is more corrupt than the last so why do you assume that it is hinting that way. The simple fact is this current administration is corrupt and inept.

The people usually commenting on the corruption in the current government are the ones that want to bring back Thaksin. I 100% agree that there is corruption in the current government. I don't believe Abhisit is corrupt though, and I don't believe he is inept. He just has a lot of crap to deal with, in his own party, in the coalition parties and particularly with the opposition.

Back on Topic, the fact is the in the past decade at least, the dems have not been able to win an election or form a government until the court disbanded the current government for vote buying, a crime the dems were themselves guilty of, this allowed them to BUY the coalition (yes they bought the coalition partners, it was never disputed),. My question would be why the people have not voted them into power, was their a belief that they were no good, they had no experience, they were just as corrupt as the others, was the leader a man clealry promoted beyong his ability, was it the perceived link to the yellows and the military? The fact is they got power through the back door, the leader is either inefficient or is having to pay back too many debts to the people that put him there, in my opinion it is a mixture of them both.

How exactly did the PPP get into power in 2007? They didn't win the election. They needed to buy smaller parties to get a majority.

Even in the previous elections, in 2001 the TRT needed to buy the coalition parties to get into government, and in 2005 they bought the smaller parties before the election.

How did the current Aus and UK governments get into power. They needed to buy the support of smaller parties or independents.

[hanuman1]

I get your point about the anonymity, but to assume straight away it a banned politician was clearly for your own ends, and to then post the article about Thaksin, who this is not about, it is about Abhisit and his failings, please don't go down the Thai avenue of 'two wrongs make a right', it is very kindergarten and reeks of 'well he did it first'.

Thanks for saving me the time to make this point myself.

But don't be too hard on Buchholz. It is his inalienable human right to obsess about Taksin and ceaselessly try to prove to everyone via the goodness of newspaper articles what everyone already knows about him.

[Buchholz]

I get your point about the anonymity, but to assume straight away it a banned politician was clearly for your own ends, and to then post the article about Thaksin, who this is not about, it is about Abhisit and his failings, please don't go down the Thai avenue of 'two wrongs make a right', it is very kindergarten and reeks of 'well he did it first'.

Thanks for saving me the time to make this point myself.

But don't be too hard on Buchholz. It is his inalienable human right to obsess about Taksin and ceaselessly try to prove to everyone via the goodness of newspaper articles what everyone already knows about him.

Quite why some would attempt to make apologies for the man that continues to cause so much turmoil for this country is perplexing.

Why some would object to a legitimate counter comment or examination of an inaccurate depiction contained in the OP is equally perplexing.

If you would like to examine why the post I made was relevant, please refer to my explanation given to random. Please note also the corrections that were made to his erroneous assumptions regarding "two wrongs make a right".

Edited October 11, 2010 by Buchholz

[Englander]

By all means, let's install the good and decent Chalerm as PM and allow his three good and decent sons "row the boat."

Can you not give it a rest every article that mildly criticises the Prime Minister or his govt. you seem the need to turn it on its head and blame Taksin or one of his minions.

Can you not get a life and stopped being so obsessed John. Try going outside its sunny you might like it.

[Buchholz]

By all means, let's install the good and decent Chalerm as PM and allow his three good and decent sons "row the boat."

Can you not give it a rest every article that mildly criticises the Prime Minister or his govt. you seem the need to turn it on its head and blame Taksin or one of his minions.

I didn't blame Thaksin nor his minions with this post, but what I did do is offer up a very real possibility as to the alternative to the current administration.

If you have other possibilities, I'd be happy to discuss them.

[Englander]

By all means, let's install the good and decent Chalerm as PM and allow his three good and decent sons "row the boat."

Can you not give it a rest every article that mildly criticises the Prime Minister or his govt. you seem the need to turn it on its head and blame Taksin or one of his minions.

I didn't blame Thaksin nor his minions with this post, but what I did do is offer up a very real possibility as to the alternative to the current administration.

If you have other possibilities, I'd be happy to discuss them.

Yes ive given you an alternative go outside, get some sun, maybe go for a massage, eat some food, have a beer, go for a run, take some Xanax but stop being so f'en obsessed by Taksin, youre so obsessed you cant even see how off topic you are.

[random]

I get your point about the anonymity, but to assume straight away it a banned politician was clearly for your own ends, and to then post the article about Thaksin, who this is not about, it is about Abhisit and his failings, please don't go down the Thai avenue of 'two wrongs make a right', it is very kindergarten and reeks of 'well he did it first'.

Thanks for saving me the time to make this point myself.

But don't be too hard on Buchholz. It is his inalienable human right to obsess about Taksin and ceaselessly try to prove to everyone via the goodness of newspaper articles what everyone already knows about him.

Quite why some would attempt to make apologies for the man that continues to cause so much turmoil for this country is perplexing.

Why some would object to a legitimate counter comment or examination of an inaccurate depiction contained in the OP is equally perplexing.

If you would like to examine why the post I made was relevant, please refer to my explanation given to random. Please note also the corrections that were made to his erroneous assumptions regarding "two wrongs make a right".

Erroneous? Really?

It seems very much to me that you are condoning Abhisits failings by pointing out Thaksins failings, therefore if Thaksin was corrupt then it is ok for Abhisit to also be corrupt, therefore the two wrongs making it right, in your opinion anyway.

The thread is about Abhisit and his failings, clearly you have no counter argument to this or you would have used it to defend him, rather than try smoke and mirrors and shift blame onto one of his predecessors. I had never noticed you before as a poster but as highlighted by others it is clear you have an obsession with him, that is at least one think you have in common with Abhisit, and however you wish to dress this up he is deeply in Thaksins shadow.

Even you signature refers to Thaksin.

Why don't you show us all that we are wrong and give us a post about the failings of Abhisit, either agreeing with them or dispute them with facts, after all this thread is about Abhisit, or rather it was until you tried to derail it and turn it into a thread about Thaksin, lets see if you can give an answer without referring to Thaksin.

[Buchholz]

@Englander:

I guess I was neglectful for not adding the caveat, "if you can tone down the accompanying inflammatory commentary", when I said I would be happy to discuss them.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

Quite why some would attempt to make apologies for the man that continues to cause so much turmoil for this country is perplexing.

Why some would object to a legitimate counter comment or examination of an inaccurate depiction contained in the OP is equally perplexing.

If you would like to examine why the post I made was relevant, please refer to my explanation given to random. Please note also the corrections that were made to his erroneous assumptions regarding "two wrongs make a right".

Erroneous? Really?

It seems very much to me that you are condoning Abhisits failings by pointing out Thaksins failings, therefore if Thaksin was corrupt then it is ok for Abhisit to also be corrupt, therefore the two wrongs making it right, in your opinion anyway.

To reiterate, I never said those things and it is not my "opinion anyway", so yes, they were erroneous assumptions on your part.

this thread is about Abhisit, or rather it was until you tried to derail it

This thread is open to discuss any and all passages contain in the OP, to which my post did. If by correcting an erroneous passage within it is considered "derailing", than I would respectfully disagree. Some others might also want to consider respecting their fellow members when addressing them if that's possible.

[yellow1red1]

Mark has already achieved much more than all the other Dems PM put together.

(Maths quiz: What is the product of Infinity multiply by zero?)

A senior and highly respected figure

no such animal exists

(infinity - 1 = the largest possible finite number)

[random]

Quite why some would attempt to make apologies for the man that continues to cause so much turmoil for this country is perplexing.

Why some would object to a legitimate counter comment or examination of an inaccurate depiction contained in the OP is equally perplexing.

If you would like to examine why the post I made was relevant, please refer to my explanation given to random. Please note also the corrections that were made to his erroneous assumptions regarding "two wrongs make a right".

Erroneous? Really?

It seems very much to me that you are condoning Abhisits failings by pointing out Thaksins failings, therefore if Thaksin was corrupt then it is ok for Abhisit to also be corrupt, therefore the two wrongs making it right, in your opinion anyway.

To reiterate, I never said those things and it is not my "opinion anyway", so yes, they were erroneous assumptions on your part.

this thread is about Abhisit, or rather it was until you tried to derail it

This thread is open to discuss any and all passages contain in the OP, to which my post did. If by correcting an erroneous passage within it is considered "derailing", than I would respectfully disagree. Some others might also want to consider respecting their fellow members when addressing them if that's possible.

So you are not prepared to discuss the failings of Abhisit?

This speaks volumes

actually i will edit my post to add this question:

Do you agree that Abhisit has many failings? If you agree maybe we can discuss them on their own without reference to a previous PM, if you disagree and think he has no failings then say so.

Edited October 11, 2010 by random

[hanuman1]

Erroneous? Really?

It seems very much to me that you are condoning Abhisits failings by pointing out Thaksins failings, therefore if Thaksin was corrupt then it is ok for Abhisit to also be corrupt, therefore the two wrongs making it right, in your opinion anyway.

To reiterate, I never said those things and it is not my "opinion anyway", so yes, they were erroneous assumptions on your part.

this thread is about Abhisit, or rather it was until you tried to derail it

This thread is open to discuss any and all passages contain in the OP, to which my post did. If by correcting an erroneous passage within it is considered "derailing", than I would respectfully disagree. Some others might also want to consider respecting their fellow members when addressing them if that's possible.

So you are not prepared to discuss the failings of Abhisit?

This speaks volumes

Give him time. It's not easy to find a newspaper article that says Abhisit's doing everything right.

[Scott]

I would suggest that posters stay on the topic of the OP.

[asiawatcher]

At last, someone has spoken out agaisnt this charlatan, the guy is more interested in what the international community than what the voters think, basically since he was handed power/ bought other parties he has done nothing for the good of Thailand, maybe this is why the voters have not voted the dems into power for many elections, they know they are not there for the people and know they are basically a lame duck.

What a crock of crap. The man is no charlatan and certainly has the ability and honesty but is hog-tied by politicians within his own party who cannot, and never will, reach a consensus unless they can scam for themselves or the nepotistic connections, financial or futuristic rewards. He has never been given a clear mandate or opportunity to 'run' the country. Perhaps before making such ridiculous statements do some BG research on the man and what he has achieved to be able to get to where he is and he is young enough to lead this country out of its scandalous quagmire. He has changed a lot for this country since taking office within his power which you obviously have not researched but unless he gets support then yes, he can and will step down - most likely shaking his head in disbelief of the wasted effort to even think he had a chance of making substantial changes! Label him a lame duck? Get a life.

[Robby nz]

Wow the anti govt (red supporters) have really come out in force on this one.

They seem to see it as an attack on Abhisit but if you read the article carefully you will see it is quite complementary to him personaly.

Political analyst Sukhum Nualsakul said Abhisit is working in restricted conditions. The laws and administrative systems still have conflicts and sometimes lead to a deadlock.

"People criticise him because they're disappointed. But a prime minister cannot do everything and be a superman," he said

Nowhere does it say he is corrupt but rightly points out he has to put up with a lot of suspect people around him.

Academics point out that the problems are rooted in the political system. Since Abhisit cannot form a one-party government, he has to depend heavily on many groups and then is hemmed in by many factors.

Sukhum Chaloeysap of Suan Dusit Rajabhat University said Abhisit needs support from many groups within and outside his party to stay as prime minister. He cannot stand only by his principles.

Yet we have a poster who claims he and his Govt is as corrupt as previous Govt’s.

I have never seen anywhere evidence that he is corrupt, perhaps those who are claiming him to be corrupt could post their proof?

It has also been claimed he is a charlatan.

Yet we see those quoted in the article saying:

"I think Abhisit knows and keeps up with the political game. But sometimes he must subdue his potential for the survival of the government or his party," Sukhum said. "Ideology is easier to say than to practice."

The academics showed compassion for Abhisit, but they could not hide their "hopelessness" towards politics.

It is also pointed out that:

"People expect a lot from Abhisit. But he might be in a position where he can't say anything or make a big move. The Democrat Party might have made an agreement during the government's formation not to interfere in coalition parties' authority, but it unavoidably hurts the government itself," Sukhum said.

I also note that those who are against Abhisit have resorted to abuse in several posts, what does that tell us I wonder?

[whybother]

Wow the anti govt (red supporters) have really come out in force on this one.

They seem to see it as an attack on Abhisit but if you read the article carefully you will see it is quite complementary to him personaly.

<snip>

I also note that those who are against Abhisit have resorted to abuse in several posts, what does that tell us I wonder?

Where's the green thingy when you want it ....

[SergeiY]

^^

Yawn.

Should be allowed to criticize the PM and the article definitely does not praise him or just blame others.

[Mitker]

By all means, let's install the good and decent Chalerm as PM and allow his three good and decent sons "row the boat."

Can you not give it a rest every article that mildly criticises the Prime Minister or his govt. you seem the need to turn it on its head and blame Taksin or one of his minions.

Can you not get a life and stopped being so obsessed John. Try going outside its sunny you might like it.

Actually, I do understand Buchholz's point since it looks like the Thai political arena is definitely determined by the 2 parties. I personally cannot read anything about the current government without instantly remembering how things were under "the other".

So let's keep a critical view while knowing what's waiting behind.

Not much of a choice under this sky.

[hardy1943]

^^

Yawn.

Should be allowed to criticize the PM and the article definitely does not praise him or just blame others.

He is appealing but does he really run the country? My guess it is the military establishment. He kept them happy with there new bought toys.

[SergeiY]

^^

Yawn.

Should be allowed to criticize the PM and the article definitely does not praise him or just blame others.

He is appealing but does he really run the country? My guess it is the military establishment. He kept them happy with there new bought toys.

He is that as what he is often described - the handsome guy. Not much more. He isn't one of the power players, he will not become any of the dinosours in Thai politics.

If he should get banned from politics in the coming court decision, he will be gone and never seen again, he will be not a big influential figure in the background of the new democrats, like it is in a couple of other Thai political parties.

The military isn't just about to having big toys and there isn't much difference between the Dems and the military. same same. Its about the idea of a 'good ruler' who knows the best for his people and the subordinates should not think to much just respect the authority.

[Deeral]

Abhisit - wimp, wimp and thrice wimp.

He is ineffectual and will only end in tears.

BTW - I notice that some posters seem to think if you criticise Abhisit, you must be a "Redshirt".

Well I'm sorry but that sort of facile assessment would shame a ten year old.

[geriatrickid]

As hard as someone manifesting obsessive compulsive disorder may try to change the subject, the topic remains Mr. Abhisit's inability to maintain even a thin veneer of integrity. The argument goes, but oh he's so much better than Mr. Thaksin. Unfortunately, the reality is that he is not. Despite the edict on another thread not to use of the term "same, same", the term does fit in this case. This then suggests that if the governments are equally corrupt, then the illegal military coup d'etat that removed Mr. Thaksin was all for nought. One gets to the point, where one just turns off the interest in local politics, a disengagement. Waste of energy and waste of time. If the same gang wants to regurgitate the same tired excuses, whoopdeedoo. The train to life left the station and they are left behind in the land of mediocrity and nervous tics.

Edited October 11, 2010 by geriatrickid