« and can you hear the sound of hysteria? the subliminal mindfuck america. | Main | 2000 miles through the snow, it's very far »
Clinton/Obama, 2008
by lajoie at 11:40 PM on November 04, 2004
I was going to comment on MG’s post, but I thought I’d just co-opt his vague glee, and re-direct it into my own post so that all these dark prevailing political winds would recede for a bit. Not one to let his provocative (if untrue) comments go unanswered, I'd like to take a moment to point out that Bush's incumbent victory of 3% was the smallest since Woodrow Wilson. As for the "smallest ever" argument, surely Bush qualifies in a few other ways...
Additionally, I'm fairly certain that the antics of Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris in 2000's fortunate son, Florida, were not only proven true, but reappeared in just slightly less illegal ways this year with the continued suppression of minority voters under the thinly veiled law that prevents certain felons from voting. In Florida this means actual felons, OR just anyone whose name is roughly similar. In this case MG, if you were living in Florida, and the French video director, Michel Gondry, was a convicted felon, you’d likely get scrubbed from the voting registry, or else bump into some other unsavory obstacle. That’s how broadly these rules were applied. I’d fact check that (after having once read too many articles on the subject matter to count), but hey I’m a grad student who hasn’t quite slept six hours this week, and if you’re reading this, you have access to Google, as do I, so prove me wrong.
The reason, I should think, that the country was foolish enough to fall for another four years of a mildly retarded man's, costume cowboy iniquities has much more to do with religion. By energizing that base, which has no interest in keeping church and state apart, he won this election. So apart from the fact that I believe that you, MG, also voted for Captain High IQ for prez, presumably for traditional Republican reasons (fiscal conservatism, small government), what you actually did was likely squander your Republican vote. Instead, you voted for it’s virulent offspring, the Neo-con agenda, which like everyone’s lecherous uncle at some unnamed family event, might be related, but will fuck you rotten if ever given the chance. And since we have granted that chance, congratulations America!
But we know a little bit about Bush. We know what’s coming (hell, these things were his campaign platform), so let me take a moment to alert anyone not completely paying attention to some possible law or policy changes riding the tide of next four years, which may determine your decision making process:
*Girls (or boys), get your abortions now, while you can. There will be no Roe vs. Wade in four years, save for the hazy memory of its former power to protect a woman’s right to choose.
*Gays, get your minds off those diamond engagement rings! The marriage amendment is not only right around the corner, it’s likely being forged right now in John Ashcroft’s fiery hell furnace that he has sweet time share deal on, with his golf-buddy, Beelzebub.
*Hey fogies! You get your social security check yet? You might want to get on that, pronto.
*Hey Canadians! If you’re not all dead from the cheaper prescription medication they supposedly dole (Ha! Dole. Remember that old bastard?) out there, then perhaps you could send your neighbors some generic valium to help deal this week. That is, if you’re not too busy living in an actual democracy.
For liberals, it may not be quite the sad world we’re being told that we’re living in this week, and for conservatives, not quite the rosy one. But it sure will be a different one pretty soon. And through all of this, George Bush (yes, the same one who once received a free dental exam from his treacherous Vietnam scouting post in Alabama), wants us all to “bear any burden.”
I really hope we can.
comments (25)
Though the many various Samaritans have various political views, I for one am very disappointed at the outcome of the election and terrified of the next four years. Maybe something good will happen. Maybel
by snaggle at November 5, 2004 12:51 AM
I won't go anywhere in the south without carrying my 12 Gauge Mosserberg 187 with UnRifled Slug Barrel in the passenger seat(if I still had a car). My parents and one of my brothers is going to Florida next weekend, I fear for their life(they are asian), my other brother is going to Paris of all places(I fear for his life too). I live in NYC, where the motherfucking BULLSEYE for the Terrorists, so we should have even more Electoral Votes. I am Lockheed and I approve of this message.
by LOCKHEED at November 5, 2004 1:19 AM
Where in Florida are they going, Lock? My cousin has lived in Florida for years and has never had any problems. He's in West Palm Beach.
by jean at November 5, 2004 4:43 AM
My wife thinks Bushie is the antiChrist. That may be going too far but he did look downright spooky laughing and parrying with reporters yesterday. I left my lunch half uneaten.
by anna at November 5, 2004 7:51 AM
The Com. on Civil Rights report that Linz used as evidence of voter fraud in Florida blames the problems in that state not on malicious intent by J. Bush or Katherine Harris, but a failure of the elecotral comission to be properly maintained. Bush gets blamed as the governor at the time, but he had been
in office less than two years. Before taking office, Florida had been in Democratic control for the previous 8 years, and 110 of the previous 122 years. Were the election boards in all the disputed distracts prepared and problem-free before J. Bush took office? Hell no. The fact that the 2000 election exposed the existing problems can not, and should not be blamed solely on J. Bush's ineffectiveness, and would be insane to blame on an intentional action to squell opposition votes.
Anna mentioned the thousand lawyers in Ohio to watch for any election hijinxs. There was also nationwide number for people to call to report any problems in their own areas. As reported by NPR, which state do you think had the highest number of calls? If you think Florida, you'd be wrong. If you think Ohio, you'd be wrong. If you think Pennsylvania, you'd be wrong. The highest number of calls, by far, was from New York state. Does that mean the "evil" republican governor of New York was purposefully trying to change the course of election? Kerry won NY by more than 1.2 million votes. It would be a very spurious assumption to say the problems in NY were an attempt to disenfranchise black botes, something no one would even suggest considering about 15% of the votes would have needed to be discounted to even make a dent in overall margin. Yet so many people seem willing to make that assumption about Florida just because the election in 2000 happened to be much closer.
As for your list of four things that'll happen in the next four years:
* For the first time, the republican platform did not discuss re-criminalizing abortion. The republican party has pulled back from its previous position on this, why do you still think abortion is gone?
* Bush himself has pulled back from his initial comments about a constitutional ammendment banning gay-marriage. Of course, you apparently never heard about that.
* Ralph Nader, the civic crusader himself, believes the social security system is in a stable position. Ralph Nader may be an awful dresser and an awful presidential candidate, but he knows about looking out for people's best interests.
* I agree with you on this one
by mg at November 5, 2004 8:11 AM
Clinton/Obama (or Obama/Clinton, as I've seen suggested elsewhere) is a nice dream, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. It's a little too history-making for one ticket (first black President or Vice Pres AND first woman VP or President?), for one, and they're both too new to their current positions.
by Adam L. at November 5, 2004 9:23 AM
I think one or the other (Clinton or Obama) will happen... Maybe just to comfort myself.
But in the meantime, some stuff to chew on:
Talk to people whose views differ from yours. My bass player is a clone of mg as far as politics (fearful of terrorism, favors small gov't) but he ended up voting Kerry and attributed some of that to exchanges with me.
I strongly suspect the negative things in the next four years might sway the tides more favorably towards liberals in the long run. Bush has to get himself out of Iraq instead of passing the mess to someone else.
There is hope!
by Linz at November 5, 2004 10:51 AM
I agree wth you that a lot will change over the next four years. I think that the rhetoric in this election really came from the extreme left and right of the country. There is this core 20% (give or take) of people on the left or right who wouldn't chane their vote no matter what. But there is this 60% in the middle that make or break a candidate. Why Bush won is because he convinced more of those peopl ein the middle tovote for him. Those people in the middle were either agreed more with the right or were more repelled by the left. It wasn't really evidenced in this election but I suspect and hope over the next four years the the extreme left of the Democratic party will move more to the center in order to draw in more of those "swing" voters. If they don't I can't imagine they'll ever win another presidential election, or ever regain control of the Senate or House.
by mg at November 5, 2004 11:51 AM
Okay, not to be a snot here, but I think Gore was more left than Kerry, and he got the popular vote in 2000.
I definitely don't think Kerry lost because the party wasn't "middle enough" any more than I think Bush won because he's a moderate conservative (which his is most decidely NOT). The Democrats generally voted for the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act (which, admittedly, they probably didn't know would be abused as it has, and their judgment was likely emotional after 9/11). If Dems moved any farther to the middle they'd be in the right.
Oh my god! Is EVERYONE trending right?
*lone hippie screams in forest of tightasses*
by Linz at November 5, 2004 12:43 PM
*Bush is against abortion. We can agree on that, right? If I'm not mistaken, he has gone on the record as saying that he would not appoint a a supreme court justice who supports abortion. With two likely appointments coming up, and his stated desire to appoint judges in the conservative right mold of Clarence Thomas and Scalia, he doesn't have to say that Roe v. Wade will be challenged. It likely will be. And with a new critical mass of uber conservative judges. the likelyhood that it will stand is getting slimmer.
*Dude. Did Bush expect to get the gay vote? No. Did he need to not alienate gay Republicans for the election with his rhetoric? Yes. Has he tipped his hand as to which side of the fence he sits? Absolutely. Is he fanatical enough to go after this religious cum political debate? I'm convinced.
*Bush wants to privatize social security, correct? Maybe give me a quick run down of all the countries that that system works well for, and then we can talk about the governmentalized systems in Europe that keep people from total financial collapse. I understand where the Republican opinion sits regarding issues like Social Security, which is namely "why should I contribute my hard earned money into a system that benefits other people (including myself)?" The answer is that you are not your own entity in society. Unless you live off the grid, you are going to be more or less affected by the prosperity of your neighborhood, your community, your state, your country and the world. Supporting your world around you actually winds up supporting you.
Listen, if I had the time I'd produce plenty of middle or seemingly (what seem to me to be) non-partisan papers outlining some of the stuff above. The facts, though are these: The Bush mandate is to pursue a more radically right agenda than any modern president before him. His agenda goes against things like gay marriage, abortion, governmentalized social security, etc. So lets look at what was stopping him before....limitations of a four year term, not enough support in the Supreme Court, Senate, the House. All of those roadblocks are gone or are leaving. The current administration is becoming so unbalanced, that it will either flourish, monarchicallly, or implode democratically. It may well eventually balance out, as it usually does historically, but not before the course of this ship is steered well towards right. And some of these changes are either irrepairable (environmentally, and seriously, don't get me going on the environment), or will not be able to be shifted back towards the middle for several generations, which starts to look like the rest of my life, and your life, if considered as such.
This is not a good man. He doesn't have the majoriy's interests at heart, no matter that hte majority voted for him. Most voted out of irrational fear, the fires of which were WELL stoked and fostered by team Bush, but that's a whole 'nother ball wax....
by lajoie at November 5, 2004 1:39 PM
IF YOU READ MY BLOG Last night: www.tradinganddrugs.blogspot.com
You could've been a rich bastard...(myself, I only had slight gains)...for those who can't do, teach... EURO hits ALLTIME HIGHS against USD... and it might keep going and going...
My folks are going to Key West... for yet another of my family's Interracial Weddings. Seems like they won't approve of dat in Florida.
by LOCKHEED at November 5, 2004 1:39 PM
Linz is absolutley correct about where the Dems stand right now. They ARE the middle, and the current administration is the right. But when Bush tells the country that Kerry is the most liberal Senator in the country he is doing two things. A) he is lying*, and i'll get back to that in a moment, and B) he's setting himself up as appearing more moderate when compared to a "liberal", when in fact he is inarguably on the right.
*The reason he was able to say that is based on a magazine article that called Kerry's record from 2003, the most liberal in Senate. And it was, but it's a false view, based on a year where he missed MOST of the Senate votes while campaigning, and the votes he happened to be present for, were more liberal. Whenyou take his whole record into account, and you can because there's 20+ years of info to pull from, he is most definetely not the most liberal. He has historically reached accross party lines on more issues than most. That is a fact.
The best thing at this point would be for him to become the Minority leader in Senate, taking Daschle's place. He can still have a hell of an impact...
by lajoie at November 5, 2004 1:53 PM
SINGING SONGS ABOUT THE SOUTH LAND... I HOPE NEIL YOUNG WILL REMEMBER, A SOUTHERN MAN DON'T NEED HIM AROUND ANYHOW...
NOW WE ALL DID WHAT WE COULD DO...
...does your conscious bother you? RIP UNITED STATES 1776-2004c.e.
by LOCKHEED at November 5, 2004 2:36 PM
"I'm not really that liberal! I missed MOST of the Senate votes last year."
That answer doesn't make me feel any better. Is not doing their job something all Presidential candidates do while campaigning? I haven't paid any attention until this year.
Also, the argument over who is more moderate completely depends on who you talk to. That isn't really something you can prove. Me, I don't think either side is more extreme than the other, or you would have seen more of a difference in the votes.
by MrBlank at November 5, 2004 3:42 PM
I'm just kind of chuckling about the idea of gay Republicans. Do they really exist in great numbers?
by anna at November 5, 2004 6:19 PM
Lajo, on a more personal note, I have a post about you. On the one hand, it's pretty insightful. On the other, it sounds like I want to boo-foo you and I don't. Any thoughts, anyone?
by anna at November 5, 2004 6:25 PM
Senators miss votes all the time. When you see a Senator (or a Representative) on C-SPAN, the shot is always tight because there is no one in the chamber with him (or her). Just an aide, to flip the papers on the presentation board. Congresspersons are rarely in Congress, and that's an accepted fact in politics. John Kerry may have managed to miss more votes than some other Senators last year, but if you look at their records you'll see that all the Senators have missed a lot of votes.
by jean at November 6, 2004 5:43 AM
John Ashcroft in 2008! Screw the Presidency... he's running for Emperor!!!
by Eviltom at November 6, 2004 8:55 AM
Not really great numbers, but there are a number of them. They call themselves the Log Cabin Republicans, and of course, those that vote along their lines are more than are actually registered members. I could never vote for a party that see me as an evil, sinning abomination, best wiped from the face of the earth.... but some people are more concerned about their money than their rights.
by snaggle at November 6, 2004 4:10 PM
Anna, you can be my ghostwriter and day of the week.
Tom, Cheney already is the emperor. Check his photo against some screenshots from the early Star Wars. Uncanny, yet not so uncanny...
Blank, Jean's explanation is the correct one. Senate votes are never fully attended save for the largest, most important votes. And I'm sure you meant this as an indictment against both candidates, but think of how much worse it is that Bush put the whole fucking world on hold for nearly a year of campaigning, as opposed to two Senators, out of a hundred, who never really all meet together any way. I'm retroactively scared for the kinds of doors Bush has left ajar during this campaign (and let's face it, the guy's not exactly known for his thoorughness on matters that are given his "full" attention)
have a gander:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=
by lajoie at November 6, 2004 5:05 PM
Well then, I'll just sum it up here: Lajo is a very infrequent writer here. But without actually checking the stats, I'd bet his comments per post ratio is the highest (21 on this one alone.) For the times he has posted, particularly his debut, he writes with a blinding clarity that borders on (I think this is the word) alacricity (eclect?) While we know little about him personally, I attribute this to his Spartan, obscure music-listening, bicycle-riding, no TV-watching lifestyle. The other one with this ability is Evil Tom. See his post about a sudden rainstorm.
by anna at November 7, 2004 8:09 AM
Talk about unfortunately named. This Obama sounds way too much like Osama. He might as well be Anita Dick or Mike Hunt.
by anna at November 7, 2004 11:18 AM
i prefer isaac dick.
MG, in further response to the gay marriage question above, check out today's NY Times article:
http://nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-bush-agenda.html?hp&ex=1099890000&en=ec3b515d16398e3e&ei=5094&partner=homepage
(sorry, the link button doesn't seem to work on a Mac)
by lajoie at November 7, 2004 3:26 PM
just read more of the article....
it's heartening to know that even Republicans view Roe vs. Wade as somewhat unimpeachable...though that doesn't quite match the talk that I heard during the campaign.
also, the civil unions piece could be good news, though you have to believe that any group of people so fervently against this human right of marriage, will create a form of legalized civil union that's just not equal to marriage. And I'm not speaking in name only. There aren't just a select few right wing homophobes in office, there are a whole gaggle....
by lajoie at November 7, 2004 3:32 PM
if i must fluff my comments just a little further...thanks for the nice words anna. I feel like my writing is usually a scattered mass of unclarified goo, and to know that anyone sifts anything of relative use from it is kind of a nice thing. To me. Ok that's all.
But I started reading this site based on the writing here which was always concise, witty, and fucking funny.
Sorry if I leave anyone off, but you, MG, Linz and Eff in particular kept me constantly laughing to myself back in the good 'ole days, and when I still have the time, today....
by lajoie at November 7, 2004 4:18 PM