Wharf Rat

Allen Farm Technical Support

          In 1824, Andrew jackson had 43% of the popular vote to John Quincy Adam's 30.5%, but Henry Clay threw his 13% to Adams to allow him to win the electoral college vote. The 1844 election was won by James Polk with a popular vote of just under 50%.  In New York, the anti-slavery Liberty Party's Birney received 15,800 votes, more than Polk's margin of 5,100 votes.  A victory in New York would have given Henry Clay a 141-134 edge in the electoral college.  In 1848 Zachary Taylor won with only 48% of the popular vote when the Democrat vote was split between their candidate Cass and the splintered Free soil party.  Abraham Lincoln was elected with only 41% of the popular vote in 1860 when three other candidates split the remaining votes.  Close numbers also mark the elections of 1880, 1884, 1892, and 1948 (Truman over Dewey).  Theodore Roosevelt split the Republican vote (a nine per cent advantage) in 1912 to allow Woodrow Wilson a electoral coup.  Nixon's close victory in 1968  might have been a landslide without George Wallace and his 13%.  In 1992, Clinton won with  only 43% of the popular vote when third party candidate Ross Perot"s 19% certainly reduced Bush the elder's almost 38%. 

    The remaining three are interesting in that winning the popular vote did not assure the presidency.  The Compromise of 1877 marred the 1876 election when three states' electoral votes were disputed and Rutherford Hayes became President although Samuel Tilden had received over 51% of the popular vote.  In 1888 Benjamin Harrison had more popular votes but Grover Cleveland got more electoral votes as George Bush did in 2000, although Gore received about 400,000  more votes and would easily have won if Nadar had dropped out.  (Florida would not have been so close if the news media had not announced the polls were closed in Florida when in the conservative pan handle, a different time zone, the polls were still open for another hour.)  

    The electoral College is the law of the land, and I am not saying it is wrong or should be changed: that is a different question. The only point I am attempting to make is that a third candidate often drastically effects the results. How different our country might be today if Teddy Roosevelt had not run in 1912.  Perhaps if Huckabee had dropped out of the Republican race a month ago, Romney might be the front runner.  Perhaps not.  But we can never know how our history has been effected by third running candidates in not only the Presidential elections, but also the primaries, and lesser elections.  

Some people have a charisma that allows them to say and/or do almost anything and still be perceived positively. Others, (I am a member of this set), have the opposite effect. There was a period of my life that I was doing things for a certain person out of love. I was stunned that everything I had done with the purest of motives was misconstrued to have had the vilest of intents. I eventually realized that I had no control over how my actions would be interpreted, particularly if was in this person's best interest to believe the worst.

A teacher once explained that the difference in constructive and destructive criticism is whether or not one has a viable solution to the problem. My criticisms are rarely about things to which there is no solution, but usually have a simple solution, and I am frustrated and dumbfounded that a solution hasn't already been implemented. Do not assume I am being negative, but understand that I think things could be better.

    The D. J. Alan Freed began using the term "rock and roll" just previous to my birth and since he died in 1965, he ceases to be an authority for whether or not any song done after 1965 is considered rock and roll.  Those of us that grew up listening to this music would probably agree that the term "rock " is used a bit too freely today.   For those younger, check out this music - if you truly like rock, you will be amazed at the explosion of groups and great songs from this period (the fifties and particularly the sixties).  As a teenager (admittedly just after Freed's death), it seemed new songs were coming out each day and rock was getting progressively "heavier".  I thought Ian Anderson's expressive breathiness as he played the flute in Jethro Tull was just a further step in the evolution of rock and roll.  But then alas for me, somehow simplistic and often out of tune songs seem to start a backlash against the complexity I loved in rock.  This is the time I feel that rock, if not died, then at least partially retired.  In the suceeding decades, songs and groups I liked were (and are) few and far between, whether or not one considers them rock. 

     I used to say that rock was concerned with the beat and the notes; the words did not matter - if you were more concerned with the words, get a poetry book.  I guess I still feel this way for the most part.  Christiam music is an exception in that the music can take me to one level (physical and/or mental?) , but the words add so much more (making it a spiritual experience).  I presently listen to Rhapsody and such non-rock artists as Al Jolson, Jim Nabors, and Dean Martin.  Part of me feels a need to apologize and explain that it is the beauty of their interpretation of their songs I enjoy, but I still listen to Led Zepplin, Meatloaf, and Lynard Skynard.  And oh, still my favorite is the Temptations' "I Can't Get Next to You", no it's Vanilla Fudge's version of "You Keep Me Hangin" On", final vote - Joe Cocker's interpretation of "The Letter".  

    While many conservatives are deserving of the label "compassionless", it is not fair to label them that solely because they disagree with a government program designed to achieve a commendable goal.  Neither is it fair to label all liberals "patronizing", but many liberals in their arrogance assume others are incapable of making coherent decisions and must be spoon fed by government, and in this same manner they are also intolerant of others' ideas and programs designed to solve the same problem(s).  We the public would be better served if our politicians from both sides of the political spectrum would learn to listen to and debate logically others' thoughts and ideas.  

    I have heard it said that one has no heart if one is not a liberal when young, and no brain if not a conservative when old.  I adhere to this in that I still care, but I do not believe we can look to government to solve the myriad problems we face.  The answer lies with the individual.  Each of us must be more caring, more commpassionate, and yes, more loving to all others.      

I went to a game at Fenway with a friend when we were both teenagers. We both had our wallets out when we bought gas, or food, or any other expence.  To this day I do not know who payed the most, but I bet we were close to even.  We were both "givers" and I fondly remember this trip. 

I remember my favorite definition of manners -  " what makes the other person comfortable".  That is a lot harder than it sounds.  We have to consider someone else first, rather than ourselves first and only.  This is a great system if everybody are givers. 

When I was at college, three of us went together on food.  We would each pay a third for the week"s food.  We two givers went  home each weekend while the taker stayed the weekend (eating our food).  Late in the semester he went home sick in the middle of the week.  We never did get his share for that week. 

I guess we each make our own decisions about which type of person we are, and we each rationalize that we are right., but I think givers get along much better and can sleep better at night than the takers that are always worried that they won't get the lion's share.