I was out this morning getting coffee and as I waited for my Venti-Moca-Skim-No Whip I observed a couple talking to another woman about politics. This couple was wearing "Firefighters for Bush" t-shirts. Yes, I had to hold back the vomit. They smell of coffee helped. I did not hear much of their conversation, but one phrase caught my ear, "Where was John Edwards?" The female in the couple was asking the woman. I don't know the exact context, but my overall impression was that they were tossing back and forth trite rhetoric they heard on TV.
I often have the urge to interject into almost any political discussion, especially those who come across as what I will call amateur politicos. Now, I use amateur not in the sense of being paid vs. not being paid. What I mean is those who only read the headlines and party fliers and then try to argue politics with people, instead of those who know the complexity of the issues. Most people reading this blog, I would surmise, are fairly well read, and at least are smart enough not to be gung-ho without knowing your shit. These people seemed convinced of their point, but likely know only the superficial talking points, and know little beyond what the candidate wants them to know. I really can't stand people like this. I guess I could compare it to "fair weather" fans, or to band wagonieers.
These type of voters are what makes me just want to give up following politics. I held back from interrupting their conversation. That would have been rude, and I am not a rude person in public. I was very tempted however to put them in their place.
What do people think about those who really don't know a damn thing about politics? Now, I don't mean those who are on the other side of your position, although all too often they are just as bad, I mean those who only pay attention once every four years.