|
|
|
November 4, 2004 Hindsight It's difficult to find a place to begin. There is so much post-election fluff floating around. It's a bit overwhelming. If there's one thing for which we all can be thankful, it's the fact that our president was clearly re-elected. On that point I stand corrected in my past predictions. For the most part, the Democratic party is conceding a clear win to Bush. Perhaps God saw fit to diminish our self-induced abilities at sending the country into utter confusion, and instead allowed this election to be determined more decisively this time around. Only a few days after the election have passed, so no one can be certain that aspects of the electoral process won't be challenged by Bush opposition. I trust the battle for Ohio won't die anytime soon. The knuckleheads may try to drag this thing out. Remember, it's not about unity. It never was and it never will be. If it hasn't been said enough, I'll say it again: it's simply time to move on. For those who "lost" this election (and those who voted Bush back in with reservations), moving on doesn't necessarily mean abandoning your ideals or even your criticisms of this administration. However, those who want to continue unproductive whining and complaining and other peanut gallery whimpers about their issues with our president, the demise of democracy, and other unpatriotic blabber, will do so at the expense of the same unity they are preaching that this nation needs to embrace. Suck it up. Press onward. I find it interesting that we have put on this facade of being desirous of a unified nation yet, we have a political system and process that diametrically opposes that reality. Two major candidates of two political parties that historically take different sides on major issues, spend nearly a 12-month period duking it out, convincing the masses that the other is evil, attempting to uncover all matters of "bad press" and "fallacies", while simultaneously going through the other's dishonorable past with a mega-sieve, a magnifying glass and a hatchet. When the battle is finally "over", after we've all successfully decimated one another, everyone wants to start preaching "unity". Sorry folks, ain't gonna happen. Conservatives and Liberals alike are calling for "togetherness", yet within minutes after Kerry admitted defeat, the Democrats were re-organizing and talking about a take-over in 2008 while Republicans started making plans on how to further oust the Liberal constituency. (As a brief interjection, I'd like to go on record as saying that in four years, this nation won't be open to electing a female president so they should just give up the Hillary bid now.) Furthermore, the far left of this country didn't even wait 24 hours before they started projecting insipid bile across the underground media floor. The concept of gracefully taking a defeat is apparently an antiquated concept to many. One would think that people would take heed and follow suite of the graciousness of their candidate/leader, but we must be honest with ourselves. By and large, people don't care about unity; they care about their agendas. And as far as the East is from the West, so are the philosophies of how American citizens believe this country should be conducted. Still, the phrase "the country is deeply divided" will continue to be heard throughout the months leading up to the inauguration. As if President Bush didn't have enough past baggage to schlep, he has the nearly impossible task of uniting the country before him. I don't covet his position in the least. Inevitably, it is going to take our nation a bit of time before we can exit the pressure chamber of an intense year of presidential campaigning. Election time serves as a parallel universe whereby people intentionally polarize themselves and we excuse hatred, animosity, and bigotry on the grounds of "disagreement" and "political gain". The re-election of President Bush was representative of far more than a bunch of citizens haphazardly deciding that they'd like a guy with an accent in the White House. Bush supporters were just as reasoned in their selection as the Kerry base. So much for predicting who would tip this election. In a few of the swing states especially, it wasn't the blacks or the youth or the security moms or the social security crowd that did it. It was the evangelical Christian base. How's that for a statement? The issues of "morality" and "values" are paramount. Don't let anyone tell you different. Many will try to trample over these realities like they don't exist by scaring people into believing that putting Bush back into office will mean that we're all going to be unemployed and then die in a gruesome battle against terrorists while all the first born males are killed off Pharoh-style as a result of a war and public schools around the country will be forced to study the Bible. I suspect that many politicians are apprehensive about the fact that a good percentage of Americans polled said their "moral values" played a large role in how they cast their votes. Morals? What are those? What do those have to do with voting? I thought this was a dualistic society! This notion of "morality" and "values" is one that even the media throughout this election has carefully steered us away from. Why? Because the more we're forced to discuss "values" and "morality", the more we must acknowledge a definitive right and a wrong and the notion that perhaps, potentially, perchance, maybe a little bit, conceivably, our nation just might need some "standards" beyond "que sera sera". But of course that doesn't include the type of standards that remain true in spite of opposition's attempts to rake you across the coals because you have a lesbian daughter (who happens to be a legal adult). That would be unheard of. So what is the definition of morality? What is good and what is bad? Who decides? All questions that have been craftily avoided by those who preach moral relativism. I guarantee that much political commentary from the Left will seek to redefine this idea of "values". By "redefine" I mean "water down", "neutralize" and make relative. In the meantime, people are talking out of the sides of their necks. The vapid claims of the disgruntled citizens that declared, "I'm leaving the country" as a result of this election are almost laughable. Americans across the map know good and well they have it made in this country and their spoiled Americanized behinds aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Poppycock. That's what those claims are. Purely childish rubbish. And did you know that "America hates gay people"? That's right folks. According to many in the Democratic constituency, the fact that 11 states voted to approve bans on same-sex marriages means that America must really hate gay people. What, no talk of the "Religious Right" hating gay people? Now it's all of America eh? This is of course the same America that Democrats say they represent. This is the same America that supposedly wasn't properly reflected in this election. The characterization of "Right" versus "Left" politics is hurting us. It's not the "one side versus the other" ideology per se, but it's the improper characterization of the sensible on both sides that is fueling unnecessary contempt. I don't for one minute believe that every Democrat thinks the same way about the future of this country. I don't believe every Republican does either. But to hear each side tell it, the opposition has no redeeming qualities. I've both read and heard it said that Democrats are realizing that in order to gain any type of foothold in this country, their policy needs reform. If it takes a presidential defeat for them to realize this, then so be it. Let's just hope they write it down and take picture so as not to be hit with a bad case of selective amnesia next election. The Bush administration could stand to do the same. People can attempt to trivialize the very values that swayed many voters in this country. They can act like it's some new "Fundamentalist Christian Revival" or Jesusland vs. America, but I beg to differ. America is not the America many thought it was. At the core, there are some moral issues on which many Americans disagree. This isn't going to just go away and people won't be manipulated out of thinking this way. With that reality at hand, I can't help but think all this "unity" talk is a bit far off. Whoever said "hindsight is 20/20" didn't live in America in 2004. Comments Posted by: SCSIwuzzy at November 4, 2004 7:21 AM Ok maybe I do need my own blog. This was on my mind this morning. Those of us that “won” should stay the course, continue to be productive, be moral, and run for local political office like school boards and city council positions. Posted by: Tom at November 4, 2004 7:29 AM I enjoyed your commentary, very insightful. Posted by: Ade at November 4, 2004 8:08 AM Here is the really sad thing: Posted by: Diane R. at November 4, 2004 9:54 AM With the reaction *I* am hearing of disgust at people voting for Bush because of "moral values" (You can hear the quotation marks in what they say) I would not be at all surprised to see an effort afoot to try to make it so those who are deeply religious can not vote. Because after all, look what terrible things happen when they do... Those on this attack are trying to make people like me feel bad for voting our values because our values are based on "religion" I have a strong intuition that we have been given this 4 years to start to change people's hearts about Jesus... Because that is the real problem. Not political views. But views about why Jesus is important, etc. Even as Nykola mentioned, not even knowing who Jesus is. America really is a mission field now. One that has been neglected too long. Posted by: Sarah Schreffler at November 4, 2004 10:40 AM Hillary '08 = Hell freezes over, pigs fly, etc... The real sad thing is that it's a lot more possible than we would think. Posted by: spencer at November 4, 2004 10:58 AM Okay let's be honest here folks. Do people honnnnnnnestly think that this country would elect Hilary Rodham Clinton as the Commander and Chief? I don't think so. And to quote Damon Wayans, "Homie don't play that." If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but C'MON. First Man Bill Clinton? Doubtful. And Condi? I doubt she'll run for political office. She just doesn't seem that into it. I don't blame her. If I could speak 87,000 languages AND play classical piano, and twirl a hula-hoop on my foot AND outthink the entire presidential cabinet, I wouldn't run for political office either. I'd start my own empire, and make the government pay me real money for my expertise. Diane & Sarah: You're absolutely right. The next four years is a great opportunity for the church to get in position and start doing it's job on the Earth. And boy is it a job. But people need to feel the love of God through us. Perhaps I should stop calling Michael Moore "frump boy" then. No really, maybe I should. Posted by: Ambra Nykol at November 4, 2004 12:03 PM I'm not tryin' to pick a fight or nothin' (I'm a man of peace, but not like Yassir!), yet I'm struggling with the concept of calling what Pres. Bush will be doing near the end of January as an "inauguration". The definition is a "ceremonial induction into office", but he's already IN office. So what to call it... Presidential Pass-Through [And it's OK to call a frump a frump. Just do it with a smile and remember to pray for frumps. Blessed are the frumps, for they will rule the "documentaries".] Posted by: MarcV at November 4, 2004 12:32 PM Don't discourage the Dems from running Hill'ry up the flag pole--that would be a gift to us neo-conservatives. Please, please, please run Hill'ry! I would wager (seriously, I would) that they actually get her on the ticket somehow (my bet is vp) because they are soooooooo out of touch with how America feels. They have no clue. Well, we have waited and now its our turn. We run the House, the Senate, the Governorships, and the State Legislatures of America. We can pass any Constitutional Amendments we want!!! Hello Prayer in Schools! Bye-bye Gay and Single Mother Teachers! Hello "Under God"--and "in Jesus!"--in the Pledge of Allegiance! Bye-bye gay boy scout troop leaders! Hello tougher Arab-immigration laws! Bye-bye sex ed in the schools! Hello abstinence! Bye-bye Howard Stern! This is our world! You just a squirrel looking for a nut! Posted by: Larry at November 4, 2004 3:07 PM Nykola 2016? Posted by: Alex at November 4, 2004 5:04 PM Umm, okay Larry. Let's just calm down a bit. Baby steps.....baby steps. Posted by: Ambra at November 4, 2004 5:05 PM Good job on the math! Alex you wanna be my running mate? Posted by: Ambra at November 4, 2004 5:19 PM I'm gonna ask this... How many of you remember that people in the House started drawing up articles of impeachment against Clinton after he won re-election? The victory was 51% to 48%. Yet, most eligible voters still didn't vote. Look at the numbers behind the red and blue colors and you'll get a good idea how divided this country is. Posted by: DarkStar at November 4, 2004 7:08 PM BUT I'LL TELL YA WHAT: If it's only 11% black vote for The Prez, it's a cryin shame. For a group of people like us to have endured slavery & Jim Crow, yet still be closer to the bottom of the barrel, and/or the gutter if you prefer, MORALLY - than to the "moral high ground"? Dad...gum....shame. We should know better, and might be better off acting more Hispanic (God Forbid AMERICAN) than we do "African".......at least Los Latinos still care about morals. And thank you for your assistance in this mind-blowin election - from me & a small minority of all blacks. Yipp-ee. Half of us aint never sniffed Africa........& Africa medallions don't count. I'm so 80s. Oh, last but not least - ain't nobody scared of no Hillary, neither. Democrats goin from the fryin pain straight into the fire.........bring her on. Got more cans of whup-azz where this one came from. Posted by: Beau at November 5, 2004 5:08 AM Ambra: I can't help but dance a jig at the wake of the Democratic party! And actually, I say no "Baby Steps" but (to mix metafors) "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" They are reeling and leaderless, they are on the ropes--let's put the pressure on NOW! I say to heck with reconcilliation and unity. Why? Why must we hold hands with those Michael Moore-Jane Fonda loving losers? To the victors go the spoils. The winners right the history books and the book shall include Christianity in a big way! Posted by: A very excited Larry at November 5, 2004 6:15 AM I know it's not likely, but . . . Condi '08! I can hear the chanting now: CON-dee! CON-dee! CON-dee! Consider also: Ambra, you need to be 30 to be a senator. When Patty Murray's next term ends, you'll be on deck. Nykol for Senate '10. You and James Lileks (MN, elected 2006) can form the Senate Blogospheric Caucus. Posted by: Mike at November 5, 2004 6:55 AM Hey Mike: Did you just say Patty Murray on my website?? SHAME!! I honestly cannot believe that woman got elected yet another term. Washington State has way more to offer. Honestly, I don't think politics and I would do too well together. Although when frustrated this year about looking at my local ballot and realizing that the long term, hardcore Democrat state Rep in my district never has a viable opponent and always wins by default, i did entertain the thought running for state rep. I'd be old enough next time. I may be old enough now. But then I realized I'd probably have to join a political party, or even worse, suck up to people. And then I quickly pushed that thought out of my head. Posted by: Ambra at November 5, 2004 7:11 AM Hey, a guy can dream a little, can't he? :-) Posted by: Mike at November 5, 2004 3:32 PM Get a grip Larry... To pass a Constitutional Ammendment, you need: The fact of the matter is you need significant support from BOTH major political parties to get any constitutional amendment passed. And what the heck? You want "Jesus" in the pledge? Are you nuts? Posted by: jab at November 5, 2004 3:50 PM The Democrats should take some advice from this guy: Posted by: Scott at November 17, 2004 12:27 AM |
 "...playful philosophizing" Dan Leroy, National Review Online
|
|||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Ambra,
90% agreement with everything you said. But I think America might be ready for a female president or vice president. But not if you add in all of the baggage and feelings people have regarding Hillary. The extra 8 million that showed up to vote on morallity will not vote for her, and another couple of million will join them. The liberal partisans who would rally behind her were mostly the same folks who rallied against Bush, so I don't think there will be many new voters there.
Condi Rice... that would be interesting. She has name recognition, and a great deal of respect on the right. Pelosi... maybe. She has staure in her party, but outside of CA, she isn't a household name, and doesn't carry the albatross of being a blue blooded bostonian or a Clintonista.
But they need to be paired with a candidate with broad appeal, to offset any residual gender backlash, and assure their party bases that they aren't on the ticket as a gimmck.
But that's just me... I just want to see Condi at or near the helm for as long as possible :)