posted
Now, I'm not an American. But perhaps being outside can give me a viewpoint of some value.
Certainly, I am not vastly fond of Bush. But still, let's try to keep some perspective : Just how much damage can one man do in four years, in a nation founded on 'checks and balances?' A nation, moreover, whose military is becoming seriously overstretched?
I think comrade Bush has shot his bolt. But what can still do damage is the incredible polarisation of the American public. It's time, I think, to relax; to look forward to a clean slate in four years; and, especially, to tone down the rhetoric. Bush was probably not the best choice as President; but words like 'disaster' and 'catastrophe' are, let's put it like this, not likely to undo the American reputation for hyperbole.
Listen to Kipling, on the ending of a bitter guerrilla war :
quote: Here, where my fresh-turned furrows run, And the deep soil glistens red, I will repair the wrong that was done To the living and the dead. Here, where the senseless bullet fell, And the barren shrapnel burst, I will plant a tree, I will dig a well, Against the heat and the thirst.
Here, in a large and a sunlit land, Where no wrong bites to the bone, I will lay my hand in my neighbour's hand, And together we will atone For the set folly and the red breach And the black waste of it all; Giving and taking counsel each Over the cattle-kraal.
Here will we join against our foes-- The hailstroke and the storm, And the red and rustling cloud that blows The locust's mile-deep swarm. Frost and murrain and floods let loose Shall launch us side by side In the holy wars that have no truce 'Twixt seed and harvest-tide.
Earth, where we rode to slay or be slain, Our love shall redeem unto life. We will gather and lead to her lips again The waters of ancient strife, From the far and fiercely guarded streams And the pools where we lay in wait, Till the corn cover our evil dreams And the young corn our hate.
And when we bring old fights to mind, We will not remember the sin-- If there be blood on his head of my kind, Or blood on my head of his kin-- For the ungrazed upland, the untilled lea Cry, and the fields forlorn: " The dead must bury their dead, but ye- Ye serve an host unborn."
Bless then, Our God, the new-yoked plough And the good beasts that draw, And the bread we eat in the sweat of our brow According to Thy Law. After us cometh a multitude-- Prosper the work of our hands, That we may feed with our land's food The folk of all our lands!
Here, in the waves and the troughs of the plains, Where the healing stillness lies, And the vast, benignant sky restrains And the long days make wise-- Bless to our use the rain and the sun And the blind seed in its bed, That we may repair the wrong that was done To the living and the dead!
And do not hate, but build. That is the strength of America.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Certainly, I am not vastly fond of Bush. But still, let's try to keep some perspective : Just how much damage can one man do in four years, in a nation founded on 'checks and balances?' A nation, moreover, whose military is becoming seriously overstretched?
It is not what he can do directly as president so much as what his appointments to the US Supreme Court can do during their upcoming lifetimes.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sara, you just hit the nail on the head about what's been bothering me all morning. I am now seriously afraid of what will happen to civil liberties in this country.
I wish there was some way I could persuade the hubby to move to Canada.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Canada is not going to be immune. Far from it.
If you want to move somewhere to get away, move to Australia. Highest quality of life (by the UN Human Development Index) anywhere in the English-speaking world.
That's my plan. Australia or New Zealand before Bush's term is up. The citizenship registration is already on its way to Wellington.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Supreme Court justices tend to be old. So a lifetime means, say, twenty years? (Much like a prison sentence, actually. Interesting.) How many really important civil liberties cases come up in twenty years?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a thought, twinky, but while I might (with a lot of hard work) persuade him to move somewhere else on the continent, no way he's moving somewhere that involves crossing an ocean.
Add to that the fact that we don't really agree politically, and well, I'm stuck. Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will not put this behind me..nor advise others to. That has been the problem with the democrats. They keep putting things behind them and not speaking up enough. This time they need need to be extra vigilant and more vocal. They need to stand their ground and make it clear to people that there IS a difference between themselves and the republicans. We cannot just sit back and relax.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. It's not time to put this behind us. Just the opposite really. Now is the time to raise more hell than ever. There HAS to be a system of checks and balances. That's just all there is to that. It would be disasterous even if my so-called side ran things completely...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, precedents set in the Supreme Court last a lot longer than the terms of individual judges.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, even as a matter of simple tactics, it might be good to STFU for a while. I know I am tired of the election; I suspect the public is too. Can't you hear the people shout : "Enough, already!" Lie low, let the public's interest in political matters recover for a year or so, then spring like a tiger.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm... we havne't talked about how this result is going to impact Canada, twink. Clearly we should get on that.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I will not STFU. Not for you...not for anyone. This election is not a mandate for this president and I hope my party does not allow that 'spin' to occur.
I'd hope that the democratic base would stay energized..not slink away in defeat and have their voice buried in an avalanche of right-wing radio gloating.
We need to stay vocal and keep hope alive.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hmm... we havne't talked about how this result is going to impact Canada, twink. Clearly we should get on that.
Here's my guess:
The Patriot act will begin to affect the rights of Canadians and our government will do nothing other than renew and strengthen its own version of the Patriot act, which is already in place.
More Canadians like Maher Arar will be deported to places like Syria by the US, and, as usual, our government will do nothing for fear of offending the US.
Bush will continue to talk free trade while practicing protectionism and screwing us on steel, softwood lumber, beef, and anything else he can think of.
Canadian oil companies will make a f*@$ing mint. The Canadian government will regret, intensely, its ill-advised decision to sell its Petro-Canada stock.
Canada will get on its knees and... well, anyway. We'll sign on to the Star Wars thing.
The government will allow foreign ownership of water rights, at which time the United States will promptly buy up all of our water.
posted
Recommendations for those of us on the losing side of this election:
1) Get the venting out of your system as quickly as you can. This is not something to "Move away" from.
2) Find a better party to be part of. If you can't find one, start one. The Democrats are on the losing end of a failing political system/machine in this country. There were plenty of disaffected voters on both sides of this issue.
3) Rise above this and start something positive.
Carping from the sidelines hasn't helped us. We should take a page from the start of the GOP back in Lincoln's time. When a party becomes untenable, get rid of it.
Let's start fresh with some basic principles that aren't undermined by the two party system.
And, frankly, the majority of the voters in the country chose Bush and gave the GOP stronger control of both houses.
They have 2 years before that is even challenged again, an 4 years before any opposition party/parties could make a difference in those numbers.
So, what we have to do is decide what we want next time and build toward it.
And, in the meantime, convince a majority of voters that our ideas really will work.
Complaining isn't going to get anyone's vote.
So take a deep breath, honor the election results, and work harder to convince others that you have a better idea...
That's the only American response to losing an election.
posted
The other thing to do is to start becoming active on issues that particularly concern you. Right your Senators and Representative about the gay marriage amendment, or tax policy, or the war in Iraq.
It's not that the one letter will necessarily change anything. But it will help make it clear that neither party's policy package is 100% correct.
When every issue is portrayed as a bright dichotomy, it's easier for one party to deflect any attack by moving discussion to an issue on which that party is stronger.
posted
That comes down to only about 51-48%. There's not much more mandate in that than there was a mandate for Gore in 2000.
Basically, what it comes down to is that part of the country (the same part as before apparently) is Bush territory and part is Kerry territory. The trouble is, as a newcomer Kerry probably had a shot at uniting the two. There really is no reason to unite behind Bush, though - unless he goes back, apologizes for his mistakes, and completely changes course (which ain't gonna happen.)
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
* The Patriot act will begin to affect the rights of Canadians and our government will do nothing other than renew and strengthen its own version of the Patriot act, which is already in place.
This point is even more depressing for the fact that it would have happened regardless of who won South of the border. It isn't so much American values impacting us as it is not enough Canadians are paying attention to what's going on up on the Hill.
* More Canadians like Maher Arar will be deported to places like Syria by the US, and, as usual, our government will do nothing for fear of offending the US.
Yeah. This I do agree with. You know how much I loathe G. Bay and the laws that allow the US to apprehend whoever they want and hold them without due process (while we have the same ones here you can only be held for three days, at which point you're released or charged).
* Bush will continue to talk free trade while practicing protectionism and screwing us on steel, softwood lumber, beef, and anything else he can think of.
Yes, he will continue to do this. And I'll hate him for it. But you do have to realize that his platform was much less protectionist than Kerry's and his rule has been less protectionist than Clinton's. The issue of trade is, I think, the biggest reason to prefer Bush to Kerry from a Canadian perspective.
* Canadian oil companies will make a f*@$ing mint. The Canadian government will regret, intensely, its ill-advised decision to sell its Petro-Canada stock.
Again, this would have happened regardless. And who the hell advised that? I mean, really? What were they thinking? It absolutely boggles my mind.
* Canada will get on its knees and... well, anyway. We'll sign on to the Star Wars thing.
I'm still holding out for some sense. We haven't signed on yet and maybe Martin will have the balls to tell the US to shove those missiles up their... well, anyway, that we won't sign on. My biggest hope here is that as the gulf between Canada and the US widens in both domestic and foreign policies we'll be less and less likely to just do whatever the US tells us to. While I think it's sad that our national identity wavers between "We're the polite and morally superior US" to "We're not the US" I think more distance between our two countries is paramount. And something like this, which in no way, shape or form lines up with Canadian values, should be laughed at given the scorn it deserves. We don't want nukes, but space rockets are Ok?
* The government will allow foreign ownership of water rights, at which time the United States will promptly buy up all of our water.
Again, this would likely have happened regardless of who the president was. It'll be an interesting one, because I suspect that Canadians will fight it tooth and nail.
***
Anyway, like most people I've talked to, it's not the man behind the country that's scary, it's the country itself that frightens us.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush has no mandate. But, he is President with 55 Senators and a decent House lead. His policy preferences will be dominant.
And Bush clearly has far more electoral (not Electoral) credibility than Gore did in 2000 - only 0.51% separated Bush and Gore. Counting just Bush, Kerry, and Nadar in the totals this year, Bush is 3.1% ahead. A significant difference, although nowhere near mandate level.
posted
Bush got more votes than anyone in history. He got better than 51% of the vote, which Clinton never did. He got 7 times the popular vote margin than Gore had in 2000 that I've heard endless harping on for the last 4 years.
Face it. It's a Mandate.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no such thing as a mandate when you're a sitting president who can barely get half the country to do a better job than a guy most of them hadn't heard of two years ago.
I wouldn't even start considering an election a mandate until the winner was getting around 55%.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose if you define "mandate" to mean "simple majority" instead of "overwhelming agreement," just so you can insist that almost every president in American history had a "mandate" when elected, then Bush indeed now has a "mandate." But personally I would prefer that the word retain some meaning.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Is that the only point you have a contintion with Tom? Cuz if it is, it's still a mandate."
Um? Which point? That I contend that a "mandate" should in fact be something other than a slim majority, and that the term is absolutely meaningless if we use it as a replacement for "slim majority?"
I'm not sure how it CAN still be a mandate in that situation, Pix, since I'm challenging your definition of the term.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because it's not just a 3% victory at the polls. It's the gains in the house and senate and the victory over Tom Daschle. Not JUST the president won last night but the people he supported.
This also showed that when ALL America votes the choice is clear. That "Get Out The Vote" efforts are really nothing more than attempting to stack the deck.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that some of the big money democrats in California should start funding movie production or whatever, in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Iowa. Then quietly start hiring Democrats from states like Kansas, Texas, and Utah to start moving to those states to work those new jobs and vote in the next election.
Or Democrats from those states should start moving there on their own if they can find work. Staying in states with overwhelmingly Republican populations isn't helping anyone. Especially when you consider how many Democrats don't even bother to vote in those states because they know it won't make a difference. They need to move to a state where it will make a difference.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that those people also won by fairly slim margins, Pixiest. What this shows is that a very slim majority of the country prefers a Republican view of the world -- and specifically, the evangelical Christian view of the world.
I'm not sure how you get "mandate" from that.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, the evengelical christian vote came out in force, but really now, it's not fair that the dems get ALL the ignorant vote.
And a lot of slim margins going the same direction make a lot of votes Tom. You can't spin your way out of this and continue to split the country.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Continue to split the country? What this shows, Pix, is that the country IS firmly split, almost across the board, at around 52/48. You are attempting to say that the four percent difference there represents a clear "mandate;" I am pointing out that it does not in fact do so.
In fact, I would suggest that saying it DOES -- that marginalizing the 48% which disagrees -- splits the country more effectively than acknowledging that significant dissent exists.
posted
You should have seen it here (in Canada, Toronto) people rooting for Kerry, calling the democrats "us" and "we" groaning as the numbers came in, asking why, why why.
It was quite a phenomenon.
Now we're just waiting for the female black lesbian atheist to stand in Bush's place. Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You mistake my meaning, ThePixiest, "It's like I told DougJ a long time ago, an election is war by other means: ballots instead of bullets. And deceit, deception, and dirty tricks have always been a legitimate part of war." I also told DougJ that not being able to outfox the loyal opposition is sufficient proof that one could not deter a true enemy. That being a given, it's also very self-deceptive&self-destructive to insist that politics is a clean sport just because the current election is over.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
