Vitriol...or something like it.
A few things that have crossed my mind since the sheer heartbreak and despair have lifted (a bit) are:
We didn't lose by all that much. There are tons of people who get it -- who get that Bush is the worst president of all time.
Perhaps instead of people making these mass-exoduses out of places like Ohio and Iowa for safe havens in the industrial midwest, the northeast and the west coast, if people stayed the entire country might end up a bit bluer. (That said, I really hate the oversimplification of the blue states and red states -- since it really only serves a very shallow discussion of the electoral college.)
Why is Kerry getting lambasted for being a 'bad candidate,' the keystone of the criticisms being his long, wordy speeches? I take such offensive to Bush's style of "ITS HARD WORK" "GO VOTE" "GOD IS GOOD" that the idea that some Democrats have of tailoring future messages (see 2006) to this method is not appetizing for me and I don't think it works to act like Republicans in order to win. I think when people are able to understand that Democrats do have a moral basis for their ideas, the argument (Republican or Demo) is moot and you win votes: more about this here. Right?
On NPR this morning I heard this man explaining why he voted for Bush: because he in this man's view Bush needs to 'clean up the mess he's made.' I'm all for referendums but why use such a pivotal election for your protest vote? This is democracy, and it is true that Bush really has no one to blame but his own administration for the mess in Iraq, the deficit, the economy, etc. But to think that reelecting the person responsible will in some strange way clear up things is quite a leap-of-faith.
I've been enjoying reading Josh Marshall's site lately. I think his takes on things are thoughtful and very satisfying. He's here.
We didn't lose by all that much. There are tons of people who get it -- who get that Bush is the worst president of all time.
Perhaps instead of people making these mass-exoduses out of places like Ohio and Iowa for safe havens in the industrial midwest, the northeast and the west coast, if people stayed the entire country might end up a bit bluer. (That said, I really hate the oversimplification of the blue states and red states -- since it really only serves a very shallow discussion of the electoral college.)
Why is Kerry getting lambasted for being a 'bad candidate,' the keystone of the criticisms being his long, wordy speeches? I take such offensive to Bush's style of "ITS HARD WORK" "GO VOTE" "GOD IS GOOD" that the idea that some Democrats have of tailoring future messages (see 2006) to this method is not appetizing for me and I don't think it works to act like Republicans in order to win. I think when people are able to understand that Democrats do have a moral basis for their ideas, the argument (Republican or Demo) is moot and you win votes: more about this here. Right?
On NPR this morning I heard this man explaining why he voted for Bush: because he in this man's view Bush needs to 'clean up the mess he's made.' I'm all for referendums but why use such a pivotal election for your protest vote? This is democracy, and it is true that Bush really has no one to blame but his own administration for the mess in Iraq, the deficit, the economy, etc. But to think that reelecting the person responsible will in some strange way clear up things is quite a leap-of-faith.
I've been enjoying reading Josh Marshall's site lately. I think his takes on things are thoughtful and very satisfying. He's here.
posted by c'est trivial at 4:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home