Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Hopes for the new term

I’d written a piece longhand on what I think this election says about America, but looking it over, it’s pretty depressing. It may go up on the blog later, but for now, I want to talk about my hopes for the new term.

In his concession speech, John Kerry enjoined all Americans to work together for a common cause. That’s an excellent thing to hope for, but it’s not very realistic. It’s like hoping that one day I’ll hear the news that John Ashcroft was found dead from choking on the semen of a male prostitute. It’s just not that likely.

So here are some things I’m hoping for in the next four years.

I hope Bush makes some genuine, rather than merely cosmetic, headway against terrorists, instead of creating an environment that breeds more.

I hope the news media is not cowed by the White House the way it was during the first term. I hope it shines a bright light on its activities, and that people pay attention when it does.

I hope that the more moderate Republicans in the House and Senate will take stands against some of the administration's truly repellent ideas. I doubt that Arlen Specter will be seeking reelection when he’s 80 in six years – it would be nice if he’d take point on this. (He can’t be happy with the Republican establishment for his treatment during the primaries.)

I hope that Democrats will find a way to appeal to Southern and Midwestern voters in congressional and senate races.

I hope Fox News will try to restrain itself from cheering whenever we kill innocent people in other countries.

I hope Bush appoints no more than two Supreme Court justices, and I hope his appointments are either very old or have angered the Mob.

I hope everyone has the good sense to keep their grubby mitts off the Constitution.

I hope Karl Rove gets gang-raped by hillbillies. Or orangutans. Or sharks.

I’m sure I’m hoping for other things too. I’ll let you know when I figure out what they are.

Rob

20 comments:

Greg! said...

My hopes for the next four years are a little less glowing, and a lot more vicious...


I hope Bush makes some genuine mistakes of the sort that simply cannot be covered up, spun or glibly denied. I hope his arrogance comes back to bite him in the ass. I mean, he's already made so many such mistakes... perhaps he need make no more, perhaps I'm just hoping that he has to reep what he's sown.

I hope we all survive that bleak harvest.

I hope the news media grows a set. I'd love to see someone refuse to televise the President, and represent him only in transcripts of his innane babbling.

I hope citizens in general grow a set. Okay, America, Mr. Bush says you've spoken. Now let me ask a question: how does it feel to have elected a man whose campaign was almost wholly based on scaring you into voting for him?

I hope that Arlen Specter waits until February, then shifts party affiliation and becomes a Democrat. Would serve the GOP right.

I hope John Ashcroft DOES choke to death on the semen from a male prostitute.
I hope that male prostitute is a registered member of the American Family Association.

I hope Congress musters a conscience and makes any self-serving agenda-driven appointments Bush might make to the Supreme Court into a circus as they tie them up in hearings and reviews.

I hope, even more fervently, that stem cell research yields amazing results which allow all the sitting Justices to live for six more years.

"I hope everyone has the good sense to keep their grubby mitts off the Constitution."
Amen.

"I hope Karl Rove gets gang-raped by hillbillies. Or orangutans. Or sharks."
Double Amen.

Anonymous said...

ROb and Greg,
While I found of your comments typical, childish, and immature I was particularly displeased with Greg's comments on how he wants these people to fail. I won't call his comments unamerican but american hating. Greg for an educated person you are being pretty ignorant. Make no bones about it - I equate you wanting these people to fail with wanting America to fail. If these people don't make progress than America does not make progress. If these people succeed than America succeeds. Greg and Rob,
You have every right to be displeased and make stupid immature jokes about sharks and semen. You can whine all you want. Go cry to your mommy and anybody else that will hear it. But Greg, to openly hope these people fail may not be unamerican but it is anti-american in my book.
Tom

Rob said...

Tom,

Your response is just as typical of your conservative leanings. How many times have liberals heard "Why do you hate America?" when we simply choose to express our displeasure with the current administration (whether it be through humor or sarcasm or straight factual critique)? We don't hate America. We think America can do better - at home and in the world. We express that, as is our right. We love this country as much as you do, we just have a different view of how it should be run. I hope we start to see some bipartisan unity - because if we don't - we're in for a long, bumpy four years. Stop the hate, stop the divide. Try and compromise a bit, and we'll all be better off.

--*Rob

Rob S. said...

Just a note – there are two Robs that post on this board, and the above wasn’t me. From here on out I’ll be posting as Rob S. Hopefully that’ll help avoid confusion.

Rob S.

Rob S. said...

Honestly, Tom, I agree with you.

Some of my comments were immature and complainy, but others were my genuine hopes for the country. Some of it comes from anger, and some of it comes from hope. I think you can tell which is which.

I think it’s important to distinguish between policy failure and political failure. While I’m convinced the president’s economic policy will fail, I don’t want it to – I want it to create jobs and wealth for everybody. I just don’t think it will.

The same goes for his war on terror. Of course I want terrorists stopped and caught before they harm anyone. I hope he succeeds at it – I even said so up above. But so far, I think he’s done a lousy job of it.

Those are policy failures. In almost every case, I agree with his stated goals. I want America to be safer. I want there to be more jobs. I want the skies to be clearer and our kids to be smarter. I hope he succeeds in making all of these things happen. However, I do not think his actions match his words. I don’t see a clear line between what he says he wants and what he does. And I hope that, IF his policies fail to do what he says they’re meant to do, he pays a political price for it, rather than skating by on his empty rhetoric as he’s done so far.

(Of course, he does have some fundamental goals I disagree with wholeheartedly. “Protecting” our marriages from gay people getting married is not only ridiculous on its face, it’s also bigoted and anti-American. He deserves every ounce of our scorn for this.)

So that’s what I mean. If he succeeds in his stated goals (not just in implementing the policies he tells us will achieve them), great. But if (and I actually believe this will be a “when”) he fails to deliver (and I believe he will), I want him to be held accountable. Publicly, embarrassingly accountable. Because in the eyes of the world, and in the eyes of God, we’re responsible for him. His sins our ours, and they are myriad.

Rob S.

Greg! said...

A clarification:

Since the one thing Tom seems to have taken from my admittedly pissed-off rant was something I didn't actually say, I want to clarify my opinion and respond to any interpretations of it.

Tom (and anyone who got the same impression), I do not "want these people to fail." I believe they have failed. And I feel we, as a nation of ostensibly responsible citizens, have failed -- first, in not holding this administration accountable for its mistakes and misrepsentations and flat refusals to accept responsability for its own actions, and, second, in voting this administration in for another term.

I even caught myself when I started writing. I don't really want Bush to make a mistake. Bush doesn't need to make a single mistake in his coming four years if order for him to have failed in much of what he claims to have succeeded in. I hope he doesn't make any more mistakes. But I also hope that as the consequences of his policies unfold the mistakes he's already made are not ignored or misrepresented in some erroneous and immature belief that to admit the President erred is somehow un- or anti-American.

The simple fact that the man occupies an elected office does not make him one with the office he holds nor, certainly, with the nation which created that office in the first place. To criticize the President is not to criticize the Presidency. America is not defined by the policies and actions of a single President, sitting or centuries dead; to oppose the polices of a single President is not opposing America.

"American hating"? Hardly. If I hated America, I'd celebrate Bush's second term and wish an unending succession of identical Presidents on the nation. I wish no such thing. I lament the man's re-election precisely because I love this country and I mourn for much of what's happened or been done to it during Bush's watch or at his behest.

Greg

Rob S. said...

One more thing:

Tom, you wrote: "If these people don't make progress than America does not make progress."

Their success will only be progress if it's in a forward direction. Many of their policies -- particularly in the areas of the environment and civil rights -- are reactionary and backward-looking. I don't care how heavy your foot is on the gas, if the car's in reverse, it's gonna go backward.

Rob S.

Anonymous said...

Rob,
I hope Bush makes some genuine mistakes of the sort that simply cannot be covered up, spun or glibly denied. That is what greg wrote. What does that mean to you?

Rob S,
I am not as conservative as you you may think. I really think of myself as a conservative independent. I voted republican on the National Level and Democrat on the local level. I don't agree with extremists on either side (even if I share some of their views) b/c extremists hinder progress and compromise.

The fact that Bush shares the same view as many of the populous in the states that opposed gay marriage does not sit well with me at all. Its rediculous that he wants to impinge on others rights.

I disagree with both candidates on taxes and the economy.

On Stem cell Research I agree with Bush - No federally funded lines. I know a little about this subject and I believe that privately funded operations which are allowed would not only be sufficient but 100 million times more efficient than any government run operation.

I tried to look at the war in Iraq not as a republican or a democrat, but as a unbiased person without conservative and liberal filters. I asked one question to myself. The question was; Is the war in Iraq a good thing or bad thing? I threw aside all political rhetoric - liberal and conservative. I didn't think about planting democracy in another country as conservatives would argue... and I did not think about how Bush was in it for the oil or to avenge his father as a liberal would argue. I didn't even look at this as a terrorism issue, which both groups argue for or against depending on what side of the fence they are on. I was looking at this strictly for whether or not this is a good or bad thing. The answer did not take long for me at all.

So from an empirical point of view, is this a good thing? Obviously you know my answer since I voted for the President. What is your answer? The problem is no one looks at anything anymore without some sort of lens that confuses or blurs things.

Finally I would like to say that while I was answering my question I kept coming to another question. Why didn't our 2 previous presidents take care of business when they had the chance?
tom

Andrew said...

I agree with Greg and Rob and distill their reasons into these two:

1. I want Bush to face the consequences of his actions. He's already won his final election, so it is unlikely barring criminal charges. At the very least, I want the American people to see him for what he is, not the bullshit version Karl Rove sold them. I think they deserve to know the truth.

2. More importantly, I want the Bush agenda to fail. I want him to fail when he attempts to shift the courts further to the right, to amend the Constitution and restrict the rights of gay Americans, to give more tax breaks to his rich cronies, and to use the "War on Terror" to further his neo-conservative policies abroad.

This is called dissent. It represents my deep disagreement with his policies and the direction in which he proposes to take this nation. I will from time to time add bitter and sarcastic notes to my dissent. I believe I'm entitled to do so, as is every American.

It is not un-American. It is the responsibility of every citizen to make their voice heard. This includes voicing dissent. It is a fundamental right of every citizen. It is a core principal on which this nation is founded.

To suggest otherwise? That's un-American.

Rob said...

Tom Wrote: >>>I hope Bush makes some genuine mistakes of the sort that simply cannot be covered up, spun or glibly denied. That is what greg wrote. What does that mean to you?<<<

I think it's a rather sarcastic glib statement and nothing more. I think Greg actually answered you pretty well.

I shall always sign my posts by the way with my signature "--*Rob" so you shall always know that it is not Rob S posting...

--*Rob

Andrew said...

P.S. Regarding the case for war in Iraq.

Tom, I think you underestimate us and our reasons for being against the war. I have carefully considered this issue. I am happy to see Saddam go, as are most Americans no matter who they voted for. That does not mean I think this war was a good idea.

There are many similar regimes around the world and many despots still in power. We have neither the resources nor the will to deal with them all, and it is not our place to dispense justice to the world at large.

In the case of Iraq, Bush did not exhaust all options before going to war, nor did he demonstrate to me that there was an iminent threat. I'm not Mondy morning QBing here. I watched Colin Powell's presentation the the UN and I was left asking, "Is that all you have?"

So yeah, I did put a lot of thought into it. I certainly didn't like what Saddam stood for and I didn't like what his regime was doing. I can say the same about North Korea, Iran, Myamarr, and these days, Russia.

But I don't think it's a good idea to invade them either.

Rob S. said...

Upon reflection, I think I have to stand by my shark comment. But maybe switch out the oraguntans for howler monkeys.

Rob S.

Anonymous said...

First of all guys and gals - I did not call Greg unamerican - I called greg's comment anti-american. There is a difference. I would also never question his or any of your rights to say what you want. I know greg and know that he is patriotic through and through. I questioned his comment and you all are questioning my comments - this is as American as it gets.
I have a few comments of my own that I am sure will get more people angry. Here they are:
You guys are pissed off at the wrong people here. Clearly you should be pissed off at yourselves and other dems.... For Bush to piss that many people off and still get elected says at least 2 things in my opinion:
1. You all picked the wrong guy to go against bush
2. You guys did not work hard enough.

Its pathetic really. Rob worked hard the day of the election - but thats a lot like working the food line at Thanksgiving - admirable but probably needed a bit more the rest of the year. Even if you did do more than Rob (which I seriously doubt) you can look in the mirror every morning for the next four years and ask could I have done more? So quit directing your anger at the majority of America. Point the finger at yourself.


I am positive that you all will have a shitload to say about this comment. I enjoy your comments and look forward to reading them. I only ask that you Keep the comments about me or my opinions decent and related to the topic at hand.
tom

Rob said...

Bush won by a VERY narrow margin. A margin of like 3%. I believe it was 51% to 48% - that's a pretty close 50/50. That half the country thinks he's WRONG says something big. This was not a landslide victory. If it was 70 or even maybe 60% I could see it. But just about half the people who voted did not want him in office. I hope he recognizes this and tempers his policies accordingly. If not, the pain this country is feeling will get worse, and as I said on my blog - we're headed for a divide not unlike the 60's.

--*Rob

Rob S. said...

Last of all, Tom said:

"I enjoy your comments and look forward to reading them. I only ask that you Keep the comments about me or my opinions decent and related to the topic at hand."

I'd appreciate that too. I don't think anyone's stepped over the line, but Tom loves this country every bit as much as Greg. Don't make me turn this car around.

And Tom, I agree with you: I could've done more. I know people -- people who post on the board -- who did do more. I'll let them say more about that.

But honestly, there's more than enough anger to go around. We can be angry at Bush, we can be angry at the red-staters, we can be angry at the media, and still have enough left over to be angry at each other. But first, let's be angry at Bush. That fucker.

I don't think we picked the wrong guy. 48 out of 100 people were willing to vote for him, as opposed to 51 out of 100. That isn't that great a divide. But obviously, we had to work harder. What other options are there? Executing every Republican in Ohio? Have you seen the cost analysis on that? It's just not feasible.
Even slightly poisoning them until they'd be too sick to turn out on election day was through the roof.

Anyway, that's what I think -- the time for recriminations and figuring out what went wrong is later, with the benefit of some hindsight. The time for the galvanizing force of righteous anger toward BushCo is now.

Ahem.

That fucker.

Rob

Jeri said...

Hey, with the choice America made on Tuesday, "un-American" is starting to sound more and more like a compliment. {high hat} Enjoy the buffet--I'm here all week!!

But seriously...okay, I was serious. But seriously, what does "American" and its opposite mean? We get into dangerous territory when we try to sum up all the qualities of the world's most diverse country into one adjective. There aren't two Americas (sorry, Mr. Edwards), there are 270-some million Americas. Let's try to get back to seeing and treating each other as individuals, not dividing everyone into two mutually exclusive camps.

It's not as simple as the politicians and the lazy media want us to believe. If it were, this would be a rancorous, hate-filled Thanksgiving with my half-red family, but instead it'll be filled with the usual love and laughter, because we are first and foremost human beings.

Oh, the humanity. It's all that saves us.

Anonymous said...

"If they elect Clinton, we'll be up to our ears in spotted owls".

Anyone remember George H.W. Bush saying that in the waning days of the '92 campaign? At the time, I chalked it up to a little bit of frustration on the President's part. If anything I feel more sympathy with him and his supporters considering the state of the media nowadays. For two elections in a row, the media really seemed to hit the Democratic candidates hard while at the same time gave the Republicans a pass.

Why? Because when you are working in a media that is owned by corporations, and those corporations have business before the Administration, it is very difficult to conduct that business while your media arm is criticizing said Administration.

I bring this up because I noticed some debate as to the level of support that the Democratic supporters may or may not have given to their candidates. While the debate will continue, it is difficult to imagine bloggers, canvassers, and phone bankers being able to compete against a differing reality offerd by the nightly news, radio, and even cable news networks.

Simply put, our country is not yet ready to acknowledge this as the case, and would rather trust in the media and if anything, complain that it is too liberal and not "fair and balanced".

You decide.

--Christian

Greg! said...

Far be it from me to throw yet another log (or Log Cabin Republican) on the fire, but there is this thought that's been scurrying through my head from time to time in the wake of Kerry's concession speech.

When we get into talking about percentages -- 51% or 48% or whatever -- we're going on the assumption that all the voting was counted and reported accurately and honestly.

I'm not claiming that it wasn't, mind you.

I'm just sayin'.

Greg

Greg! said...

Far be it from me to throw yet another log (or Log Cabin Republican) on the fire, but there is this thought that's been scurrying through my head from time to time in the wake of Kerry's concession speech.

When we get into talking about percentages -- 51% or 48% or whatever -- we're going on the assumption that all the voting was counted and reported accurately and honestly.

I'm not claiming that it wasn't, mind you.

I'm just sayin'.

Greg

Jeri said...

Greg,

It wasn't.

Why do I think this? 1) Because I was in Youngstown, Ohio, where the machines were regularly flipping votes from Kerry to Bush, and 2) Because the exit polls in states with paper ballots were accurate and in the states with electronic voting, they were off, in some cases by as much as 9 percentage points.
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=388

Wake up, folks. We were robbed again. Whether it was by enough to make a difference is almost beside the point. We need to demand paper trails in every state. We need to demand accountability or we might as well kiss our democracy goodbye. It's on the train already, but hasn't left the station yet.