I’ve been hearing a bit about the country “healing” after this election — which is as of right now (Kerry is giving his concession speech), officially over. “Re-uniting” is another term I’ve heard today. “Healing” and “re-uniting” is a big bunch of hokum if you ask me — this election only shows that the country is terribly split, and either side is going to have a tough battle. This will be Bush’s last term, and with a pro-Republican shift in Congress, he’ll be pushing even more of his conservative legislation through. The Democrats, long-suffering from the stings of two very, very close defeats will certainly redouble their efforts to curtail those pieces of legislation. Bush’s “standing on principle” and his black-and-white values did well to retain his base, despite polls claiming that a majority of Americans think the US is on the wrong track and that the economy is failing. The gay marriage amendments in 11 states passed by overwhelming margins. These amendments are “protection” amendments — amendments of exclusion the likes of which we have never seen in this country. How do people vote for a politician that they feel is putting the country on the wrong track, both economically and politically? Is the other half of the country so scared that they have to compromise on their economic and national beliefs that they’ll elect the guy who will protect them from the gays and the terrorist by standing on prinicpal? How do you go up against religious faith in a politician? How do you argue against that sort of bull-headed devotion? When you’re against a foe that only knows how to attack and protect, it’s going to be a hard fight.
So, healing isn’t something that is going to happen — re-uniting certainly won’t either. The gloves are off, if they weren’t off before. Get ready.
13 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’m getting an early start on the next one.
what about barak obama? assuming he doesn’t go crazy within the next four years.
I’m wondering who the Republican candidate will be — Cheney has said that he really has no intention of taking over. What of McCain? Will he do it? What of Hillary Clinton for the Dems? Obama is just a “rising star”, so we’ll give him 4 years. Edwards would be great, though — he is a southerner, and damned cute!
1) Hillary Clinton
she’s been prophesied for so long, i find it hard to imagine she’d be able to stay away from the election in 2008. whether she can win or not, i’m not sure, it depends on how she campaigns. but after four more years of Bush, i’d be surprised if the people wouldn’t be willing to elect The Penguin.
2) John Edwards
i’ve already seen two or three pundits writing lengthy articles about Edwards’ viability as a candidate in ’08. he’s definitely got charm, charisma, and an ability to connect with the “common man.” i’m actually leaning towards Edwards, though i’d be thrilled to see another contender who can supplant him.
as for Obama, i think he’ll bide his time. gain some more political experience, shine that rising star for another decade before he makes a run. if Hillary or Edwards win in ’08, and if a second term looks likely, i fully expect Obama to be the first African American president in ’16.
After two close losses (arguably) to a monkey like W, I don’t think the Dems will be taking any chances on the next election, and a female candidate is a huge chance. Not only that, but a lot of middle-Americans have vehement feelings about Hillary, and it’s obviously their “values” that prevailed in this election.
The American people apparently want a simple President. A very simple President. If the Dems are smart, they’ll pick their guy now, start positioning him to make a run in 08, and save the smart and complex politicians for his Cabinet. I think Edwards might be able to pull it off.
Some pundit made an interesting point about Hillary. S/he said that part of George Bush’s success was that people who liked him, really like him; and people who hated him, really hated him. This led to Karl Rove’s strategy of targeting districts where Bush underperformed in 2000- to get out more of the Republican faithful. Anyway, the point was made that Hillary is the same kind of polarizing figure, but because of that could increase Democratic turnout in a similar fashion.
I’m not sold on Edwards. I think that with all the restructuring the Democratic Party is going through, and will go through over the next four years, if an Edwards ’08 campaign might not seem like “more of the same”.
This is all of course if we still have presidential elections in 2008. Me – I’m already shopping for contractors to dig a 50′ mote around my compound in Montana and fill it with gasoline.
Word, Gary. Plus, that way you’ll be prepared when the Russians come.
That moat may not be too economical when you factor in rising gas prices. Perhaps you could fill it with Fanta instead, and just tell everyone that is gasoline.
Is Fanta flamable?
you know they are.
Happiness is mandatory, comrade.
the russians do not come for you — you come for the Russians!
You do not burn the gasoline, the gasoline burns you.