Monday, November 08, 2004
One Nation, Under GaWd?
If G.W. has done anything well, it's been to divide this "indivisible" nation almost perfectly in two. The miniscule difference in the popular vote totals are proof, even if the obvious taking of sides among nearly everyone wasn't evidence enough.
I've never been more disappointed with my compatriots. I mean, I've been disappointed plenty often when I see obnoxious Americans overseas doing seemingly all they can to give us a bad reputation (and then wondering why Americans are detested by people from many other countries). But to RE-elect a president whose policies and actions only reinforce those obnoxious American attitudes and behaviors, digging us deeper into that hole... that's just plain stupid. We've alienated international allies, and anti-Americanism is growing.
What I don't understand is how that many people could want him back for another round. I guess this way someone else won't have to deal with his mess for the next four years -- he can just foul things up even more. Those who were so blinded by irrational fear that they voted for him (this time or last) will see that the blame truly lies with him. Or we can hope that some do, at least.
I am heartened by the fact that he only won by a small margin -- that there are nearly as many people who did not vote for him as those who did. But in the same picture, I'm angered more: by the people who didn't vote for Bush, but rather wasted their votes on third-party candidates. Those aren't votes against anything -- and they're not votes for anything, either. Everyone knows those votes are wasted, so why not try to make a difference? At least pick a side! I like these voters even less than those who voted for Bush, because these voters invariably come from the pool of more liberal (Democrat) voters. If you don't want to vote conservative, then vote for the main opposition, not some chump who merely takes a million or so votes away from the true competitor. Pathetic.
Anyway, since I'm overseas: somebody in the administration just give me a heads-up on which places in the world to avoid because you're going to piss them off, or especially when I should come back entirely because we have no more friends out here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have to disagree. The reason third party candidates only get token votes is because people believe it is a wasted vote. I think if you see them as a better option than either major party then they are a reasonable vote. I voted for Kerry this time cause I kind of liked him and I wanted to do everything I could to make Bush lose. It works out that Bush got the most votes and it seems that that reflects the country better than Kerry. I find it sad cause I think Bush if Hateful, Arrogant, and worst of all Incompetent but maybe that reflect americans more than we would like. I just hope we can get better. Third party candidates are one of the ways that the country can improve because they say that people aren't happy with the Democrats or the Republicans. It's not throwing away a vote it is putting it where your convictions fall more truly and not trying to win. The US gives us the right of choice and each individual can use that choice how they wish (hopefully it stays that way).
You left a lot of meat for chewing there, Paulie. I'll do my best not to take a bite I can't chew.
I understand your disappointment; Jaimala still feels horrible, and is even angrier at the voters than you are. Or so I'd guess. I'll say this: it was with a heavy heart that I voted for John Kerry. It was truly a vote for the least worst candidate (with a chance at winning). I personally thought John Kerry was a chump. I happened to believe the Swift Vets more than Kerry and the two guys he's been pals with his whole life. I also thought he was as arrogant or more than Bush. I pretty much thought he was a crappy candidate. Hence the millions of "Vote Against Bush" stickers...because the democrats didn't have a real candidate to get behind! Or that was my impression. Loved Edwards, meh to Kerry. Of course, Bush + Cheney + Ashcroft + Rumsfeld is less appealing, hence my heavy hearted vote.
Not sure the division of the nation can really fall onto Bush's shoulders alone. At least the country cares...it could've been far worse. We could have had a 30% voter turnout in the middle of a "war."
If last election's voters had voted strategically, Gore would have been president. Of course, he's a loon now, so maybe it's for the best we got Mr. Strategery. Or maybe not.
I agree that a vote for Nader (or Bugs Bunny, or the Brown Bunny) is wasted insofar as it could've done one of the candidates w/ a chance to win much more good. But I don't know whether the other candidates even made a difference this time 'round.
Last thing: I don't think electing John Kerry would've won over the rest of the world (or made your life interacting with them any easier). They hated us when Clinton was in office, when the Bushes were in office, when Carter was in office. Pretty much all the time they hated us. Kerry would not have healed that problem.
Last thing: don't get mad at Bush & the voters. Get mad at the lamebrains who ran the Kerry campaign. Did anyone care about Kerry and his "wrong time, wrong war" rhetoric? Not really. Did people care that the country's economic and job situation was far, far worse now than four years ago? Hell, yeah. But you rarely heard Kerry talk about it. Instead, it was Iraq, terrorism, the illusory draft, gay marriage, and all sorts of other issues that had little or no ability to sway voters.
I'd like a real democrat to run for president in '08. Howard Dean, stay seated. I'm not talking to you.
Post a Comment