actually it was for the very first time.
I had decided that I shouldn't write after a highly disappointing or flat out disgusting event. It never turns out well (exhibit A) and as Red Sox fans usually must, I eventually bounce back and the writing just irks me.
I try to understand how conservatives think (even though it makes no sense to me). If you believe in smaller government, less regulation, fiscal discipline. Ok.. But that isn't what Bush represents. The government is larger today than when he got here (hint: 800,000 of the jobs he claims to have created are federal government jobs). Fiscal discipline? The guy has never seen a spending bill he wouldn't sign. I don't know what Bush learned at Harvard, but when I got my MBA, we learned that decreased revenue and increased expenses creating losses isn't going to take you where you want to go. Take away all that and you're left with Bush's real platform: pro-business and bigotry. And if you disagree with that, well you're just wrong. If you get in the way - he'll just kick your ass. yeeeehaaaw! Bush says "America has spoken".. I say: only half of them said Bush! But I'm sure that won't matter to him. He probably wasn't informed the race was close.
I have to give Karl Rove credit.. he knew his base better than Democrats knew theirs. The religious nutjobs care more about social issues like banning gay marriage and Janet Jacksons boob than highly educated, well informed people did about the economy and health care. I'm absolutely terrified of and more than a little embarrassed by the direction this country is going in.
That all 11 states with a gay marriage ban on the ballot passed them.. I'm speechless. That Jim DeMint could be elected.. a man that said gays and single mothers shouldn't be allowed to teach in public schools. That someone this ignorant could be elected blows my mind. That a station in Dallas (WFAA-TV - Channel 8) can decide that a show (life as we know it*) has "crossed the line of appropriateness" due to sexual content (which wasn't even shown, merely alluded to) and just not show it. These things more than blows my mind... it scares the shit out of me. This is the direction we are going in, people. Religious fanatics seem to be taking control of the country. Wasn't Rick Santorum more than enough? The founding fathers (you know, the guys who created a whole governmental system based on separation of church and state. Something they in response to the religious persecution that went on in Europe) must be spinning in their graves. We are going backwards. Or as Brian Kane said:
I have a friend who from time to time says: I wish the south would try and succeed again. No one would stop them this time. My usual response is ha, ha, ha. Both Leslie's Latest News and Antisocial Bitch mention similar things today about succession or a civil war (some have even drawn the new maps)while Tiny Voices says she would like to not visit any red states while Bush is prez (as someone who hasn't been in a red state since 1996, I can get behind that). It's a bit scary, but the divide is so deep and so geographical.... who knows. I was daydreaming about a country with just the blue states. Wouldn't it be nice to live in a tolerant society with actual civil liberties, health care, a good educational system? But then I started thinking about the red states, off on their own. What if they got a nuke? Saddam back in power is less scary to me.
The only thing that is making me happy is Bush can't pass on that disaster he created in Iraq and he can't blame anyone but himself for it. There is no way he's coming out of that looking good.
Just a couple of notes on the coverage. Did anyone else see the following:
- Dan Rather saying "this election is hotter than the devil's ankle's"
- Dan Rather saying "if you believe that, you'll believe rocks will grow"
- Brian Williams and Don Imus referring to Democracy Plaza as "Dental Floss Plaza", "Oligarchy Square" or "Hypocrisy Plaza"?? hee hee hee. Granted this was between 6:30 and 7am today and they had both most likely been up all night..
- Tim was quite cool with his electric whiteboard this year, yes?
Ok, here comes the bounce back part: Hillary/Russ Feingold 2008 !!!
* Yes, this is the one with Kelly Osbourne. And she is pretty good actually. I really like this show and I never watch silly teen dramas. But it's one of the only ones I've seen that approaches reality, except when they talk into the camera. That needs to stop. Of course the show is doomed because it's on against The Apprentice and one of those cop shows I never watch.-----
EXTENDED BODY:
| 
| Comments (9)
| issues/politics
Comments (9)
URL: http://weblogs.livingreflections.com
Bush went to Yale undergrad and got an MBA at Harvard.
Posted by amy | October 26, 2006 8:15 PM
Posted on October 26, 2006 20:15
URL: http://cubanlinks.org/blog
Did Bush go to Yale?
Posted by Carter | October 26, 2006 8:15 PM
Posted on October 26, 2006 20:15
URL: http://weblogs.livingreflections.com
On gay marriage - you are imposing your believe that homosexuality is bad on the whole population when you don't allow gays to have the same marriage rights as everyone else. I find it interesting that conservatives are all up in arms about "liberal judges". First of all, they ruled based on the law. It's discriminatory to not allow one group of people to do something that all other groups are allowed to. Secondly, you're all up in arms about the judicial branch being "liberal activist", but it's fine for the conservative legistative branch to attempt to enshrine discrimination into our constitution based on some people's religious beliefs? I don't get the logic.
On abortion - as I've explained to you before, I highly doubt there is anyone with a "pro-abortion" stance. People are pro-choice, meaning allowing the availablity of abortion for those who chose it based on their situation. If disagree with abortion, don't have one, but don't tell everybody else they have to live by your code by not allowing the option.
Posted by amy | October 26, 2006 8:15 PM
Posted on October 26, 2006 20:15
URL: http://www.upforanything.net
I'm just curious about what the religious fanatics will be imposing on the rest of us.
Is protecting the traditional definition of marriage imposing something on someone? Personally, I'm not against gay marriage, but I hate the idea that liberal judges are forcing it to be legislated. That's not how our government works.
Are you talking about abortion? You're "live and let live" stance doesn't quite match a pro-abortion stance. Those who are against abortion truly believe in a "live and let live" philosophy.
Where else is religion imposed on the rest of us?
Posted by CJ | October 26, 2006 8:15 PM
Posted on October 26, 2006 20:15
URL: http://weblogs.livingreflections.com
First let me just say that people of so called "faith" do not corner the market on being moral. You don't have to be in church every week or reading Left Behind to be a moral, good person. It drives me absolutely batty when the religious type assume that if your not overyly religious, your an amoral satans spawn.
But on to my main point... again, because I know I've said this before. Liberalism is more about live and let live. Do whatever you want if it makes you happy and you're not hurting anyone else. Accordingly.. we I (I'll only speak for myself) have no issue with religious people. If you want to go to church all day and live by whatever rules they lay down.. if that makes you happy, I say go forth and prosper. The only time this becomes an issue to us is when you try to enforce YOUR beliefs and expected behaviors on everyone, which is exactly what the policies of the Bush administration are leading us to. We're not saying religion is "evil", we just don't think some people's religious beliefs should be imposed on everyone. Conservatives take this as an attack on religion, it's not. It's that we want the freedom to chose how we live. I want to live in the country the founding fathers set up: one with separation of church and state.
Check out this survey of best states to raise a child. "Godless, liberal Massachusetts" is #5. Take some time and compare MA to some of the bible belt states on things like divorce rate, # of single parents, unwed births.. all the things you claim to care so much about. I don't think we need to take advice from the religious types. We've got it figured out without your help, thanks..
p.s. I'm not sure what you mean by random examples.. but if you are referring to Jim DeMint. He's hardly random. He was asserting the stated platform of the Republican party of South Carolina. Not only that, he got enough votes to get elected, so I find him to not be random.
Posted by amy | October 26, 2006 8:15 PM
Posted on October 26, 2006 20:15
URL: http://www.upforanything.net
I know this is the common response to an event that hurts a great deal. It's time to find someone to blame.
Liberals have chosen to blame homophobes. Liberals have chosen to blame "religious fanatics."
It's the reason liberals have lost in three straight elections (2000, 2002, 2004) as conservatives have maintained control of the White House, extended majorities in the House, Senate, Governorships and state legislatures.
As liberals attempt to demean those with faith, those with a strong moral foundation, they will continue to lose their grip on any power they have left.
Don't you realize a majority of America is against gay marriage. It's not just "religious fanatics." The moral heart of this country rejects the idea that a court should legislate marriage. A majority of this country supports civil unions... but liberals aren't satisfied with that. That's fine... but that doesn't make a majority of the country homophobes.
Liberals pretend as though there is something wrong with being religious. That there is something wrong with building a moral foundation based on faith. That's why liberals continue to lose.
It's not fanaticism. Pulling out a few random examples to characterize 59 million people is rather sad. In fact, it's insulting.
Democrats have to understand that religion is not evil. They have to understand that morals are not evil. Until they do, they'll continue to lose.
Posted by CJ | October 26, 2006 8:15 PM
Posted on October 26, 2006 20:15
URL: http://tinyvoices.typepad.com
Thanks for the clarification. I'm cynical at best, too. I'm just hoping that Bush is better at reaching out to those of us who voted for Kery (and now, see, I'm giggling because again, the idea that he has anything to say that I want to hear -- based on the last 4 years -- is pretty ludicrous) than some of the people who've been leaving comments on my blog in response to yesterday's post.
They're apparently not interested in real, open dialogue, which I guess should't surprise, but boy howdy, does it disappoint!
All I can say at this point is Go Sox, and I hope they resign Varitek.
Posted by girl | October 26, 2006 8:15 PM
Posted on October 26, 2006 20:15
URL: http://weblogs.livingreflections.com
Ack! I must admit, I confused your post with someone elses and I changed that above*. Though, I think your post expressed the anger and frustrations for those of us from the more liberal side of the spectrum very well.
I agree with you completely that I can't imagine Bush actually being a "unificator".. especially since his campaign was claiming this gives them a mandate and he has majorities both houses. However, I think things could get extremely ugly if he continues down this path. Seriously.. if I hear one word about Clarence Thomas for Chief Justice.. I won't be held responsible for my behavior.
* look at that, I admited I made a mistake. I'm already more evolved than Bush.
Posted by amy | October 26, 2006 8:15 PM
Posted on October 26, 2006 20:15
URL: http://tinyvoices.typepad.com
Thanks for the link...but I'm curious about where you saw suggestions of civil war or secession in my post today. I agree with you that the divide is deep and perhaps it's an unbridgeable one. I certainly don't feel terribly moved, on a day like today, by Kerry's concession speech plea to put our energies into unifying our country, or Bush's similar line. But I think the editorial posted on the NY Times site this afternoon sums up this experience -- and what its outcomes need be -- pretty nicely: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/opinion/03wed1-update.html?hp. Both of these guys have failed us on some level. But it's going to be up to Bush to set the tone for unification -- not just in speeches but in action. And quite honestly, despite my best attempts at moving forward after a disappointing election, I don't have a lot of faith in his ability to speak to and act as a fit representative for people like me.
Posted by girl | October 26, 2006 8:15 PM
Posted on October 26, 2006 20:15