I didn't think he had it in him...
Nov. 3rd, 2004 @ 02:48 pm
I must say I'm impressed that Senator Kerry was magnanimous and graciously conceded the election. Even though he would have needed virtually 100% of all provisional and absentee ballots to come in for him to win, I fully expected him to divide this nation further in a court battling death spiral.
"We talked about the danger of division in our country and the need - the desperate need - for unity, for finding common ground and coming together," Kerry said. "Today, I hope we can begin the healing," he said. Kerry told Bush the country was too divided, the source said, and Bush agreed. "We really have to do something about it," Kerry said, according to the official.
I hope that he will keep his word, and he'll be able to help his party to abandon their extreme leftist positions. Perhaps it's a sign that Democrats will start working together for a better America rather than just being partisan bomb throwers. I think there is an actual hope without Tom Daschle.
I'm hopeful, but I'm not holding my breath.
|Date:||November 3rd, 2004 12:22 pm (UTC)|| |
And maybe the GOP can abandon the rightist postions and meet them somewhere in the middle; where most of the rest of the country is. Given that bush got just over 50% of the vote, that means that slightly under *half* the country don't agree he's doing a good job. In a sane world, that would mean adjusting your positions to reflect what that 49% believe. However, the white house aides are already spinning this as a "Mandate from the people", since it's the first election in a while where the winner got more than 50%. A mandate is an election like we used to have back in the Reagan days - you win 80% or more of the vote, you can say you have a mandate.
|Date:||November 3rd, 2004 12:30 pm (UTC)|| |
The most Reagan ever won was 59%
Bush worked well with Texan democrats as Governor. He was so well respected by Texan Democrats that even his democratic Lt. Governor endorsed him for president in 2000.
He hoped to bring to Washington the kind of bipartisan cooperation that had marked his tenure as governor of Texas. As President, while Bush continually extended his hand in the spirit of cooperation to the national democrats, he always ended up pulling back a bloody stump. Somehow in Washington, bipartisanship has been defined as Republicans agreeing 100% with Democrats. Hopefully that is about to change.
|Date:||November 3rd, 2004 01:59 pm (UTC)|| |
Bush got greater than 50% of the popular vote for the first time in more than a decade. Bill Clinton never achieved such a feat, yet never did you hear a call for him to moderate his views to comply with greater than 50% of the electorate he failed to carry.
If you look at the breakdown of votes by county (as seen below), you will see that the overwhelming majority of the nation strongly support Bush. There is no way for democrats to be able to spin him as an illegitimate President any longer.Colored counties are those where a candidate leads by at least five points with 100% of precincts counted.
Bush has said that we will again attempt to work with Democrats - only time will tell if they will accept his offer.
|Date:||November 4th, 2004 05:34 am (UTC)|| |
Gosh, if only the population of the US were evenly distributed among all its counties, that map might mean something.
I'm not saying Bush didn't win the popular vote by an acceptable margin: he did.
|Date:||November 4th, 2004 07:31 am (UTC)|| |
How you spin 51% into an over whelming majority is worthy of a democrat...
I realize you're a zealot, but I think bush has to realize that a large portion of the country is terrified of the way his policies are going - leading to ever increasing erosion of privacy, freedom, an economy that's starting to look like the water spiraling the toilet, a national debt balloning out of control, and a complete disregard for what environmental policies will do to the future... I'd really like to see a poll that asks how many people don't think bush is doing a good job, but voted for him because they were afraid to make Kerry be president, and stayed with the evil they knew.
|Date:||November 3rd, 2004 03:46 pm (UTC)|| |
I would have to say that he extended his hand out to Ted Kennedy. Kennedy got what he wanted and then had fun berating Bush the rest of the time. That's what he gets for bipartisanship. Personally, I think Bush is a little TOO bipartisan when it comes to spending.
And, it may be spin, but the GOP controls the House and Senate again. I think it was a mandate - take away NYC, Washington DC, LA and other huge cities where government is king and ya got the Bush supporters.
How about asking the Dems to abandon their leftist positions and meet in the middle? Why is it always the GOP who has to meet in the middle?
It would be nice, honestly, to have a politician, better yet, a LEADER, who can just say "this is what I am going to do while in office" and if he wins, DO IT to the best of their ability.
I think Bush is a little TOO bipartisan when it comes to spending.
He'll have a chance to rein that in, since the GOP has the Presidency and both houses. Can't blame the fiscal irresponsibility on the Democrats for at least another two years.I think it was a mandate
It's not a mandate, it's an artifact of a winner-take-all system. Majority rule is not democracy. It's mob rule.other huge cities where government is king
This is exceptionally funny given the red states' dependence on federal funds
What I hear you saying here is 'people in cities aren't really America.' I would appreciate it if you would take the time to either expand on this or correct me.Why is it always the GOP who has to meet in the middle?
*shrug* Name an issue where you'll accept compromise. Not 'my side wins,' actual compromise
. Then consider that the Democrats have as much trouble coming up with one as you do.It would be nice, honestly, to have a politician, better yet, a LEADER, who can just say "this is what I am going to do while in office" and if he wins, DO IT to the best of their ability.
Politics is /about/ compromise. To my understanding, that's the point of the two- or multi-party state.
If any of my comments were taken as snarky [well, except the first one] then I apologise; that was not the spirit they were offered in. And I /would/ like to hear your [or anyone's] thoughts on the urban vs rural divide, when you've got time.
|Date:||November 3rd, 2004 01:51 pm (UTC)|| |
I'm curious about which positions that the Democrats have as a party that you consider to be extreme left-wing positions. It seems to me that the Democratic Party is not nearly as extreme in being left-wing as the Republican Party is in being right-wing - and the ways both have chosen to be more moderate seem to be exactly the wrong ways.
I also think it's interesting (though unsurprising) that you imply that the Republicans already were working for a better America. If giving ludicrous amounts of power to the executive branch and then not only not denouncing them or taking it away when its abused, but actually praising and supporting is working for a better America, then I guess what you mean by a better America is what I think of as "many of the bad bits of the USSR". More Republicans need to be willing to take a stand against the party - otherwise, even if there's a specific Republican whose views you mostly agree with, you can't afford to vote for him or her unless those views are also shared by most Republicans (or at least some of the more influential ones), because most of the time, it seems, he or she will vote on party lines even if it goes against what he or she seems to believe. If you can't rely on someone to vote for his or her conscience even if it goes against the party, you have to worry about the much more difficult issue of what The Party thinks about things at least as much as what the individual does.
I do agree that Democrats need to work together more to make America better - for example, acquiring the sort of discipline that Republicans had in the 80s that make claims about the Democrats in the Senate being obstructionist as funny and hypocritical as they are.
The Republicans greatest flaw of the past 10 years has been excessive party discipline, which has led to too many Republicans not getting called on stuff by others their party, and too many Republicans voting for things they at least claim to not support. The Democrats greatest flaw of the past 10 years has been insufficient party discipline, leading to victories that an opposition party should realize it can't allow the controlling party to achieve if it ever wants to unseat them.
I'm curious about which positions that the Democrats have as a party that you consider to be extreme left-wing positions.
A few example positions (not all - I'm limited in time) that the National Democrats have that I consider extreme are :
Abortion: If you don't support abortion for 100% of woman during the entire nine months of pregnancy, you are misogynist who is against all rights for women. It can't possibly be because there is concern over the life of the child.
Affirmative Action: You are call racist if you don't agree Affirmative Action. We honestly believe that programs such as Affirmative Action divide us. We want the world envisioned by Dr Martin Luther King, a nation where people are not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Social Security: Social Security was created in the 1930's when the average life expectancy of men was 62 and woman was 66. It was intended to be help elderly widows, not be a retirement plan. Seniors today look at as a retirement plan. It is a fact that we will not have the resources to fund the system in as little as 20-30 years, so it only seems wise to look for methods to relieve the pressure on the system that can still provide financial support the elderly need. But if you say that, the National Democrats will say you want the elderly to become homeless, eat dog food and/or starve.
Class Warfare: The national Democratic Party continuously tells it's members that it's not fair that some people have more money than other. The rich somehow have their money by stealing it from "you" the working poor. I guess it just never occurs to them that the vast majority of "the rich" have worked hard to become that way. I am somewhat suspicious that a large percentage of the Left that tells you that are the trust fund rich - I suspect their disgust of the rich is more of the division of Old Money vs. New Money (we can't have that riff-raff in our club).
Environmental Issues: The Democrat party continuously tells it's members that Republicans want dirty air and dirty water, which is as wacky as that Captain Planet cartoon. The extreme left will not accept that Republicans want clean air and water just as much they do, but we realize there is a cost to benefit ratio... If it costs $1 billion dollars to achieve a reduction of .001% in emissions, it's probably not worth it.
Now, there are a few individuals/corporations that will attempt to "dump waste" for short term gain, and I don't know a single Republican that does not believe they should be punished for it.
Education: If you don't agree to throwing more money down the same hole then you against educating children. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the government has spent more on education every year with diminishing returns, and that spending more on the same doesn't make a lot of sense. It makes alot more sense to me to find a better method (possible vouchers), than to continue with the same.
Now if you call me a racist, misogynist, homophobic bigot who wants to starve the elderly, make the poor homeless, and children dumb, and to top it off, my real lifetime goal is to destroy the planet... Then I'm sorry, but you are not interested in an honest debate of the issues. You want to divide the country, and you are hoping that the portions on your side divided off is large enough to keep you in power.
|Date:||November 3rd, 2004 09:23 pm (UTC)|| |
After hearing Mark and Jay talk about this post, I had to look...
Adam and I were discussing last night whether you would gloat.
Thanks for proving me right.
|Date:||November 4th, 2004 09:11 am (UTC)|| |
Re: After hearing Mark and Jay talk about this post, I had to look...
I can only assume you were on the side of not gloating. I was seriously impressed by the graciousness of John Kerry. He could have easily pressed for a legal battle in Ohio... In fact, I hear that pressure was placed on him from as close a source as his own running mate, John Edwards, to do just that.
The fact that he preferred to unite the nation showed to me that he had a lot more character than I thought. That's a compliment, not a gloat.
Gloating would be:
Ha! ha! ha! Stand by for four more years of liberal hell, you stupid liberal! Ha! ha! ha!
|Date:||November 4th, 2004 09:44 am (UTC)|| |
Re: After hearing Mark and Jay talk about this post, I had to look...
|(Link)|I can only assume you were on the side of not gloating.
What makes you think I would give you any credit at all?
There was only one side anyway. We agreed that you'd gloat the first chance you got, and what do you know?
|Date:||November 4th, 2004 12:48 pm (UTC)|| |
Most Successful Post Ever
I want to thank everyone for making this my most successful post ever. Your 30 comments (so far) prove You like me. You really like me.