The day after
I don’t really know how to put this post together coherently. These are more snapshots of random thoughts being put out there to just get them out of my system so they don’t manifest in any bad way by becoming snippy with friends.
I am sad today. An emotion I don’t have very often.
And I voted for President Bush and I’m happy he won the election. And happy that its over already, I was expecting a repeat of 2000.
That said, I am completely honest when I say I woke up this morning and expected two things: 1) that the election would not be officially decided and 2) that in the end, John Kerry would win. [I found this article on salon.com an interesting perspective on the internet in politics and how it can convince.]
I took a deep breath, was sad for 30 seconds and then realized my life under a Bush(43) presidency was no different from the eight years under Clinton. Did I like Clinton? Not so much. Heck, I voted for Dole. I understand supporting the losing candidate. So that was my minute and I went on with getting ready. After a bit, I sucked it up and turned on the TV and found that expectation #1 had been met but that #2 was not so certain.
And we know the rest of that story.
What made me sad was the demenor I encountered at work. No one was talking about anything. It was like some one had died. It all seemed a bit dramatic.
I expected to endure a day of ribbing from the democrats, but obviously, I didn’t get that. But I didn’t say anything to any of them in any celebratory way. I just want to get on with life, back to football and movies, and while I know that there are bigger things in life that we must face. I was just surprised at the level of insane hatred I read online. I know that both sides of the political spectrum can be extreme and hateful, but when I read post like this from a person I’ve met and know. (Not saying she’s my favorite person in the world on a normal day.) Or this post or this one, I am just saddened and a bit angry. I realize that these three people do not speak for every single person who voted for Kerry, but man, I’m just shocked at the level of hate. And they wonder why the country is divided. If Kerry had won, I would never had thought the people who voted for him were ignorant or stupid or weak-minded. I didn’t think that about all the people who voted for Clinton. All I thought is that they differ from me and there are more people like them who voted than think like I do on a majority of the issues.
My brain is running out of semi-intelligent thoughts to string together and I’m a bit peckish, so I’ll just say I hope hope hope that people can be angry or disappointed for a few days and work to move past our ugly divide and towards a more agreeable country, and I hope President Bush can lead us in that direction in the next four years.
On a semi-lighter note, if there was a McCain/Giuliani ticket in 2008, I might get motivated to get actually get involved in the political process. I saw McCain back in 1996 when he was running for the Republican nomination and he’s the only politician who’s ever made me want to get involved.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
What is only slightly reasonable to me is Wheaton’s notion that Bush’s victory is “an enthusiastic endorsement of [the Bush] agenda.” I don’t think that the people’s intention is an enthusiastic endorsement. Even with a plurality and potentially a 30+ EV win, I don’t think this is intended to constitute a mandate. However, I get mixed signals from the White House as to whether or not they perceive that fact. Which is to say that Wheaton isn’t correct in the message the people are sending, but may be in the message the Bush administration is receiving.
Many of the blogs that I’ve read from people that voted for Bush are pretty clear that their vote and his re-election isn’t a rubber stamp for Bush to do more idiotic things. They just felt that we were in better hands, all things considered, with Bush than with Kerry. But they still want the deficit attacked, governmental spending slowed and Iraq cleaned up.
Election Night Drinking Game, Network Coverage, and other thoughts
Ok, in the spirit of blogging land, my take on the weeks events… We voted by absentee ballot in Iowa, so we missed all the long lines in Pennsylvania. They had polling sites in weird places here…funeral homes, peoples living room! So we spent Tuesd…
I’m confused…you imply that it’s “not nice” to make fun of the other side for not having the same beliefs as you but that’s exactly what you did by posting the links you did in the way you did. They might make you “sad and angry” which is fine but that’s exactly how Kerry supporters feel this week too - one has to accept the fact that we live in an almost equally divided country right now. It’s ok for them to post their thoughts and believes just as much as it yours :-P
I agree with Jeff that this election was not a resounding stamp of approval for the Bush camp. I don’t agree with everything he’s done.
As for E’s comment, I wasn’t very clear in my post (even though I said I knew I wasn’t going to be), I didn’t post the links to the other sites to “make fun” of them. They are there to illustrate what made me feel sad. I completely understand that at least 38% of the country is “disappointed” (stats from CNN) with the outcome of the election. Yes yes, they have the right and freedom to post what they want just as I do. I wasn’t trying to say they shouldn’t. My point was that, while I realize the country is divided, I was just taken aback at the level of hate/anger/etc that seems to be directed AT THE INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE who voted for the President. Like I said, I don’t think that people who voted for Kerry (or anyone else) were ignorant or stupid to have a differing opinion. I respect that they don’t agree with the policies, etc. of this administration and that they have a right to work for change towards their beliefs and to be disappointed with the election results, but saying half the country are idiots for not agreeing with them isn’t going to help anything.
I would just like to say that I am honored that someone out there reads my little old blog and that it was able to inspire an emotion from anyone, anywhere.
That being said. . . I was angry. I am angry. And after the much called for initial rage and disgust and disappointment I have relaxed. But remeber, this wasn’t any old election. It was a very important one to many people out there and this was a GIGANTIC, CRUSHING defeat for half of Americans. What were you expecting, balloon animals and champagne?
I have made a policy of never putting words into Wendy’s mouth (or on her keyboard, as the case may be). However, I can say that I wasn’t expecting balloon animals and champagne. I was expecting that those who suffered the “gigantic, crushing defeat” would at least have the civility to keep from directing irrational, broad-brushed vitriol towards the President and those who voted for him. I can assure you that I wouldn’t have hoped for the untimely death of President Kerry, had that occurred.
McCain As A Popular Politician
I was perusing Wendy’s blog just now, re-reading her thoughts from the election when I thought a little more about what she wrote in her last paragraph: if there was a McCain/Giuliani ticket in 2008, I might get motivated to…
My school coworkers were overwhelmingly pro-Kerry. Well, actually, they were anti-Bush. So the day following the election was filled with Chicken Little statements and teary eyes, and you would have thought that the world was coming to an end. The icing on the cake was the reactions of the students. You could just hear their parents’ views in their conversations. For example, one student said that they “were building a bomb shelter if Kerry was elected.” Another student, keep in mind these are ten-year-olds, told another student that his college-aged brothers and sisters would soon have to quit school because Bush would make them fight in the war. That makes ME sad.
Thats one of the things that makes me saddest (and irritated). Maybe these overly dramatic parents need to do a little research before filling their childrens heads with fears. Bush is not in favor of a draft. Republicans are not in favor of a draft. In fact the Draft Bill that was DEFEATED in Congress this past year was introduced by Democratic Representative from New York Rep. Charles Rangel. Donald Rumsfeld spoke out very strongly against the draft and the only two reps voting in favor were John Murtha and Pete Stark ñ both Democrats. ìWe are in a war, and not only a small segment of the population should fight in that war,î said Murtha.
So stop trying to use the Draft as a scare tactic people…its getting old….
That being said, as the mother of a 19 year old son, I would be terified if there were a draft. But I would also be honored if my son were called to serve his country as his uncles, grandather, great-grandfathers did. He’s even tossed aroudn the idea of joining the military …honor runs in the family, you cant take that away….
The draft bill was a political move so almost every Rep. could return home and say they were definitely against a draft, so nice try there. What’s most disappointing is the backdoor draft that is occuring because of the military’s policy of turnover prevention that says that during wartime, reserve units can be required to be re-deployed for another year. The thing is, Congress never actually declared war, but these men and women are being forced to return to Iraq after already serving time there.
The draft bill was a political move so almost every Rep. could return home and say they were definitely against a draft, so nice try there.
It seems odd to me that a Democrat would sponsor a bill designed to help Republicans get re-elected. Are you sure there wasn’t some other motive behind the introduction of the draft bill?
The thing is, Congress never actually declared war…
That’s a pretty fine hair you’re splitting. Technically Congress didn’t declare war in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, or Iraq the first time around. However, H.J.Res 114, aka the “Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002″, specifically gives the President authority to use American forces to “enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” That includes 1441, I’d imagine.
Additionally, it specifies that it’s really only the President’s judgement that is required to determine that no other means would enforce that resolution. That joint resolution became law in October of 2002 and passed the House 296-133 and the Senate 77-23.
That the President exercised inapproprate judgement or that more could have been done by UN Inspectors before US troops invaded is a reasonable point of discussion. But at that point Congress had authorized him to use force according to his judgement. So to say that Congress had not declared war as an indictment of our invasion of Iraq is extremely disingenuous and mostly false.
I’m going to stand behind my statement that the draft bill was a political move. http://www.house.gov/stark/documents/108th/univdraftstate.html
Since we don’t actually declare “war” on anything except ideas or objects anymore I suppose your argument is valid. I’d be happy to discuss further the President’s judgement, but I think perhaps we could find a better venue than Wendy’s comments.
I don’t doubt that the bill was a political move. I’m just not convinced that Rangel, a staunch liberal Democrat, introduced the bill so that he could help his Republican colleagues get re-elected. Simply your firm willingness to stand behind your earlier statement doesn’t get me there.
I’m not debating the President’s judgement. I’m simply saying that you’re wrong in insinuating that he circumvented the Constitution by not obtaining Congressional permission to use force.
I just re-read my first comment and it seems I used an abbreviateion that is terribly unclear. Rep. = Representative, not Republican. Sorry for the confusion.