July 5, 2005

Uncharitable Mood

This is an open comment to you folks who have voted for Bush in either or the last 2 elections. Especially those of you who consider yourselves to be moderate when it comes to social issues like abortion, labor laws, the rights of the arrested and accused… hell, all of your rights as an individual.

You helped put Bush into office. If the court goes horribly wrong (as it very well may), you deserve whatever you get. Your children and their children don’t deserve it, but they’re going to get it as well.

And so are we and our children.

Thanks.

Posted by James at July 5, 2005 8:48 PM
Create Social Bookmark Links
Comments

I voted for Bush in 2000 but I have repented OVER and OVER again. (Doing the sackcloth and ashes thing, I swear)

Please don't hate me...

Posted by: Steve at July 5, 2005 9:48 PM

I don't hate you, or anyone just because of how they voted. Even the non-repentant Bush voters.

I guess what I really feel is sorry for you, and all of us. And there's no one else around to blame. I'm in a grumpy mood.

I want to think that somehow this will turn out OK, but I have very little faith at this point.

Bleh.

Posted by: James at July 5, 2005 10:12 PM

Sorry Jimbo that you're having bitter feelings. I can't blame you. I've been bitter for a long time. I summed up my opinion on voting for Bush in 2004 in my parable of Moe versus Fred.

And people put Moe and Curly back in office anyway. Which leads me to many possible conclusions:

1. They're effing morons. This is the easiest conclusion to reach, and the bitterest.
2. They've been duped by ignorance and misinformation--which is not much better than being morons. Slightly more charitable, but still bitter.
3. This is the way they want their country, as insane as it seems to us. They want a socially regressive nation, they want empire, curtailment of personal rights, legislated morality, a gun in every home and their particular brand of god in every school. Still bitter.
4. They do not trust the same sources of information that I do, and they've got a very different set of values than me. They may not be thumping bibles, but to them the democratic party is the party of weakness, waste, moral corruption, and big government--and they're prepared to hold their noses and vote Bush because somehow they imagine life would be worse with a democrat in office.
5. They just love good old, down to earth, Dubya, and they trust him a lot more than any slick lawyer or yankee panderer.

Anyway, there's nothing we can do about it now, they've got the reins of power and the new Supreme Court is going to be the one they wanted, and that's just all there is to it. Appealing to common sense (or decency) is pointless, Democrats and Republicans live in different realities.

If we want the power back we're going to need to find a candidate in 2008 that doesn't have scandal and dirt all over her in the eyes of half the country. Yeah you know who I'm talking about. We're also going to have to find someone who is not staunchly liberal. We're going to have to find a moderate democrat. We're going to have to make some concessions to the conservatives, and if we're not prepared to do that then you might as well just get ready for eight years under President Cheney. (IMHO).

I'm not happy about it, but that's what I believe.

Posted by: Chuck S. at July 5, 2005 11:35 PM

Its the old adage "You get the government you deserve". The majority of America voted for this idjit, and they deserve what he's doing. Its unfortunate that those of us that have a clue still have to put up with his crap.

Posted by: Bob McCown at July 6, 2005 7:58 AM

Just get yourself a nice bible and you'll be all set. What do you need to know that's not in the Good Book?

Posted by: Patti M. at July 6, 2005 8:55 AM

I hate to say it, Chuck, but in my opinion, Gore and Kerry *are* moderate. They may be "liberal" compared to Bush, but that's not saying much. I don't see any point in putting up a person who's even further to the right than those guys.

Posted by: Julie at July 6, 2005 9:23 AM

Julie's right. Gore, Kerry and Clinton were moderate. The right has drummed into this country that "liberal" is not only a dirty word, but even the slightest progressive thought makes you an extremist. And they've done such an effective job at it that people think someone like Kerry (one of the least liberal of the choices offered in the primaries) is "staunchly liberal."

Concessions? Kerry voted for the war powers act, for god's sake. It wasn't his liberalism that lost him the election.

The election had nothing to do with the candidate not being wishy-washy enough, not conceding enough, not kissing Republican ass enough.

People don't want concessions, they want convictions.

Posted by: James at July 6, 2005 11:22 AM

It's all PR. To the majority of one-liner, ad-soaked brains, Bush just sounded better because he said "flip-flop," and it stuck. I'm talking the people who can't find California on a map.

Posted by: Maggie at July 6, 2005 11:23 AM

I don't see the prevailing Republican friendly attitude in this country changing until we start paying an economic price for our society's overconsumption. What a shock it will be to the American consciousness when we are no longer the world leader in everything. Generations have grown up not knowing anything else. Our fall from dominance is inevitable but it will probably take another decade or two.

Posted by: Mike at July 6, 2005 11:48 AM

Other nations have already surpassed the US in medical technology - stem cell research and AIDS vaccines. Unfortunately, most Republicans don't respect science enough to be upset about that; or if they are upset, they've been awfully quiet about it.

Posted by: Julie at July 6, 2005 12:27 PM

As a friend of mine recently pointed out (I don't have the link handy) they're fighting AIDS in Iran with needle exchange program for heroin addicts.

That's not just a difference in respect for science, that's a flat out more progressive approach for handling a dangerous problem. In one of the most liberal states in the union, Massachusetts, we can't get a needle exchange program off the ground in ground zero of the heroin/disease blast area known as New Bedford, MA. Despite the scientific evidence. People still don't see it as a problem that rampant drug use ==> rampant spread of infectious disease ==> any number of social costs.

People don't see it as their problem. "They're drug users? Screw them." This area is a hotspot of disease which is at least partly exacerbated by the drug use. Yet the only solution proposed seems to be "how can we step up the war on drugs?"

(Granted: they let it get so bad that a gang problem sprung up and now they're playing catch-up there. But maybe this isn't just a police/law enforcement problem)

This story on the Carpetbagger Report mentions that congress isconsidering a bill to imprison people for not reporting pot dealers.

What? Improsoning Americans for not ratting? Whatever happened to your right to MYOB? Holy freaking crap.

Posted by: James at July 6, 2005 1:11 PM

Let's just get it over with. Change the number of justices to 12 and call them the Supreme Court Apostles. Then Dubya can change his name to Jesus to appeal to Hispanic voters more.

Posted by: briwei at July 6, 2005 4:56 PM

Well, like it or not, the nation is moving forward, with or without the "Fundies," as my friend Kevin calls the Fundamentalists.

Witness Massachusetts abolishing the roadblocks that prevented homosexuals from marrying.

Note, too, this wonderful story:

"Massachusetts lawmakers yesterday approved a measure that would allow pharmacists to dispense the ''morning-after pill" without a prescription and require hospitals to offer it to rape victims, setting the stage for Governor Mitt Romney's first major decision on an issue that many conservatives link to abortion.

"The House approved the bill yesterday, 135 to 17, following the Senate's unanimous vote for a similar bill last month. Lawmakers will have to settle several differences between the two versions before it heads to Romney's desk."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/07/07/eyes_on_romney_as_morning_after_pill_okd/

More? Ok, here's another great advancement in rational thinking:

"Late Wednesday, the GOP-led [New York] state Senate approved a measure that would allow pharmacists to dispense morning-after pills to females of any age who want to avoid having their recent sexual encounters lead to contraception. No prescription or doctor's visit would be required for the woman.
[...]
"The bill was approved by the Democratic-controlled state Assembly in January and the Senate approval came as something of a surprise to opponents. It passed only because 10 Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, joined 24 of the chamber's 27 Democrats voting for the measure. Twenty-five Republicans and two Democrats voted against the bill. One Democrat was absent.

"The chief sponsor of the measure in the Senate was veteran Republican Nicholas Spano, an abortion rights supporter from Westchester County who won re-election last year by just 18 votes. There was widespread speculation that Bruno had engineered the bill's passage to help Spano's electoral chances in the 2008 legislative elections and thus protect the chamber's GOP majority."

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--pataki-morningaft0624jun24,0,7236728.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

See, there is hope, and there are still some Republicans out there who are not religious fundamentalists, who are true to the Republican credo of "small government," unlike their Fundie bretheren who say "small government...unless..."

Posted by: Patti M. at July 7, 2005 1:24 PM

Copyright © 1999-2007 James P. Burke. All Rights Reserved