There is no doubt that today has been disheartening, discouraging, frustrating, and saddening.
My instincts told me that everything would be alright, that Kerry was going to do okay and pull it out in the end, and I'd become somewhat confident of his victory in the days leading up to the election. And I was wrong.
So now we're left with a political landscape in which Cheney and many conservative pundits claim a "mandate" by virtue of the fact that Bush won the popular vote in addition to the electoral vote, and the Republicans made solid gains in the House and the Senate.
Don't be fooled.
There is no "mandate" to be had by virtue of winning over 3% more than the people who voted against you, or by picking up seats in the House because of rigged redistricting in Texas. The country is still divided over this President, and I suspect they will remain so for the next four years.
Of course there will be some finger pointing and recrimination over the failure; there always is. But let's remember the environment in which this election took place. Bush has cast his lot as a "wartime President", and the political landscape is haunted by the shadow of 9/11 and the threat of terrorism. I honestly believe that, were it not for 9/11, Kerry would have comfortably won an election against a president widely regarded as ineffective and incompetent. Bush has merely been able to mask those tendencies, even thought they've been magnified by his poor decision making in Iraq and the "war on terror", behind the rhetoric of fear and security. This issue alone I think accounts for the portion of the electorate that returned Bush to office. Without it, the pundits today would be talking about America's repudiation of the Bush and conservative program.
Kerry, to his credit, calls for a "healing" of the divisions in the country now that the election is over. That shows how honorable a man he is. But Bush has never been the "uniter" he said he would be, and I'd be amazed if he changed now. And to be frank, I'm not interested. I'm not interested in uniting behind this president and his agenda of war, mismanagement, deceit or fear or his "moral" agenda which seeks to deprive gays, minorities, immigrants and women of many of their most important and longed for rights. No, I prefer to continue to nip at his heels with my little blog, my letters to him and various members of Congress, as well as newspaper editors, bloggers, and misinformed op-ed columnists, pundits and members of the media, as well as my opinion "liberally" offered to those who know me.
I'm deeply saddened by Kerry's loss. I know there's some self-examination that needs to be done, and some philosophizing about why so many Americans seem to show little interest in holding Bush accountable for his errors. But behind that sadness lies anger; anger at what Bush has been allowed to get away with, anger that an honorable man like Kerry was soiled by the attack-dogs of the right, anger over Iraq, and anger over what Bush will do with his new "mandate." And that anger will fuel me for the next four years, along with the unending sense of purpose that what we seek to do is the right thing for all Americans, including those who voted for Bush.
So don't give up the fight. As cliched as this may sound, tomorrow is the beginning of the campaign of 2008, and this time we must do everything in our power to ensure that we put a Democrat in the White House.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Good post man. They do not have a mandate:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1104/p09s01-codc.html
I read in either CNN or NYtimes that the Democrats lost because the people in "heartland" do not like a liberal from the Northeast.
Do they simply dislike intellectuals? Why do the heartland American people dislike intellectuals?
I personally find Kerry and his daughters very charismatic. I suppose there is a huge cultural difference between the Far East and the US.
People in the "Heartland" are social and religious conservatives. The most important issues to them are "God, Gays, and Guns" as often described and vote Republican because they are pro-life, against gay marriage and gun control, etc. Apparently, not even war can trump these issues for them so they voted straight Republican like they always do.
Yes, there's quite a cultural difference...
Post a Comment