posted on November 6, 2002 10:23:12 PM new
I am not so naive as to think if ANYTHING goes wrong Bush won't get the blame. Heck...he's getting the blame now for things he's been trying to pass and hasn't been able to. Nothing's going to be different in that area. But he's a big boy and still has the support for what he's doing from a majority of Americans. Think that point was made yesterday.
Those who don't like him, who haven't supported him are certainly not going to change. Those who do support him are going to continue to do so. And the rest will make their judgements as time passes. And, IMO, most people aren't going to blame him IF more terrorists attacks do happen. To me it will give him further support to continue to fight back. Some people can see, and believe, that he's not in control of their want to destroy our way of life.
posted on November 6, 2002 10:24:47 PM new
Yes. Control the Presidency, House, and Senate. What an unenviable position to be in. I bet the Democratic party is glad it's not them!
The only reason the Democrats are saying this silly thing is because it's the only thing they can think of to say. The got whupped, big time. There's absolutely no silver lining there for the Democratic party. None. Total defeat.
posted on November 7, 2002 07:16:25 AM newLinda_k "But he's a big boy and still has the support for what he's doing from a majority of Americans. Think that point was made yesterday."
It was the majority of people who voted who had his support. I haven't seen any numbers but there were a lot of people who didn't bother to go and vote, being disillusioned by lack of decent people to vote for. I did hear it over and over here.
As an Independent I vote all over the board. But, voting for a Republican will not be an option for me in the near future, nor was it in the near past. I do believe the moderates Bush pushed in will turn out to be mods in wolf's clothing.
Borillar: "Oh, and if you aren't White, Protestant, and speak Engligh fluently, I'd start laying low. We're anbout to roll-back to before the Civil War was fought and all of the Civil Rights progress will also be rolled back as well."
Linda_K, why would you make a laughing face for this comment (prior page)?
We recently had a boatload of Haitians sent back from the Florida coast because they were NOT Cubans (the way it looks). On NPR (yup, artdoggy's liberal radio, gasp!) there was a show on Cubans and the reasons for butt kissing in the Bush family. What I heard was interesting, but was driving and only got parts. If I get the book or find a site I will post.
The title of this thread is AFTER THE ELECTION. I am putting my money where my mouth is now, something I should have done before.
1. My membership to NOW (National Organization of Women) is on its way.
2. My membership to NPR was renewed for the first time in 4 years this morning. I was boycotting it because they do not give adequate coverage of gmo news. But, they have
actually done a good job of not going overboard during 9-11 and the sniper shootings.
3. I will join a group for Women's Rights to choose what they do with their bodies. I would not have had an abortion, BUT I respect any women's rights NOT to be manipulated by the white male system...that means the Catholic Church and the others. I have to do some research on which group.
And if there were a good third party I would probably join that too.
I challenge other people worried about these kinds of people in office to do something about it. I can't afford these memberships, but maybe I can make it up other places.
Linda, I do want to know why you would have a laughing face at Borillar’s comment?
posted on November 7, 2002 07:58:40 AM new
aposter - It was the majority of people who voted who had his support.
You're the second person to say that recently, like maybe you don't think I understand that concept. I do. I'll say it again. Those who don't vote don't get heard. Bitching and complaining but not voting is NOT going to change a thing. The fewer people who vote only make the votes of those who are voting COUNT more. [Have a larger influenence.]
I haven't seen any numbers but there were a lot of people who didn't bother to go and vote, being disillusioned by lack of decent people to vote for. I did hear it over and over here. I agree and have heard that in EVERY election. I, myself, felt that way in the 2000 election and therefore VOTED for a third party all the while people on this board were telling me how stupid that was as I was 'throwing away' my vote. To me, I was making a statement. But not voting isn't going to change a thing since that's the way our system is set up.
As an Independent I vote all over the board. But, voting for a Republican will not be an option for me in the near future, nor was it in the near past.
Well....good... your right. And I admire your resolve to become more active in your choice of political party. I vote all over the board too. And I feel exactly the same way about the democratic party. And I too, have been putting my money where my mouth is financially. I have supported the American Independent Party for over 20 years. [We are no longer in CA]. Not that it's make much of a difference, it hasn't.
But once [and each time] an election is over, and I'm left with the choice the majority of the VOTERS have made I then I watch what they do and make my own judgements.
Since so many appear to believe that we need a third party, don't you think more of those bitching and whining BUT NOT VOTING could join together to make a difference? But for all my years of voting [decades]...they haven't. Probably won't either.
And before you get yourself ALL upset about my 'laughing face' [which I'll put where ever I wish and don't mind answering why I did so] pay attention to the times on the posts. It was not directed at Borillar's last post. We posted at almost the same time. It was intended to following Donny's post.
posted on November 7, 2002 09:14:48 AM new
I can't deny I'm very disappointed in the election results. You all know how I feel about Bush and gang, and I'm worried about what will happen in the next two years.
I'm also disappointed in the American people. The terrorists did more damage than they ever expected. I never thought I would see us running so scared as to go so conservative, and to put their faith in a government so willing to take away our rights and go to war.
Add to this my disappointment in the Democrats who have let us down. They have become a bunch of wimps who have not fought for what the party has stood for, and why I was proud to vote as a Democrat. I also will be looking into other parties who will represent what I believe and to fight to give our country back to the people.
posted on November 7, 2002 09:30:13 AM new
Linda, maybe you should put the name before the laughing face! Like this:
donny: (Don't know how to make a laughing face, and don't really care.)
or add his statement with it:
"Right, Reamond. The Democrats are offering condolences to the Republicans for the Republicans whupping their butts because now the Republicans are going to be held responsible for the state of the country.
Why, are we even sure this was a Republican victory at all? Perhaps it was just a clever Democratic plot to uh... lose control of the Senate, and lose seats in the House, all to bring about the ruination of the Republican Party! Those sneaky devils."
=============
Edited and deleted parts because I feel mean spirited right now. And I probably should read back over Linda_k's posts on immigrants before making the statement I did. But,
I am not.
posted on November 7, 2002 09:52:19 AM new
aposter - When I put the laughing face there....there were no other posts. I didn't return to the thread. I usually do as you suggested.
No need to apologize. Many things are taken in the wrong way on these threads. It's the nature of this beast. It's always good, IMO, to ask and make clear.
While my laughing face was not in reaction to Borillar's post I do support a firm stance on immigration. BUT I am against any illegal immigrants entering our country, and if they do get in, I support sending them back. And I am for limiting the numbers of legal immigrants we accept into our country.
I never thought I would see us running so scared as to go so conservative, and to put their faith in a government so willing to take away our rights and go to war.
I don't think that was the only reason this 'right' swing happened. From what I read there are many who voted to support the administration because they saw [judged]the democratic party obstructing the Bush agenda, while not passing programs that would benefit the people. For me, one example would be aid to the elderly on drugs. The administration tried to pass one. ANY relief would have helped the poor and elderly. Not perfect? Maybe...but at least a start in the right direction. But the democrats blocked it. Okay..but did they pass one of their own? No.
posted on November 7, 2002 11:47:05 AM new
As to the Republican Party's accountability for its new stewardship (lol), that will never happen. The ultra-right alliance that controls the Republican Party has already laid out the game plan: the War on Terrorism. Faced with highly dramatized security crises and threats from within and without the people will become convinced that they have no choice, which of course eventually they won't.
Through War and God, all things are possible. Only Believe.
"For me, one example would be aid to the elderly on drugs. The administration tried to pass one. ANY relief would have helped the poor and elderly. Not perfect? Maybe...but at least a start in the right direction. But the democrats blocked it. Okay..but did they pass one of their own? No."
What hogwash!
You failed to mention that under Bush's prescription drug plan, the elderly don't get any prescription drug help if you're a senior citizen who lives on more than the kingly sum of $17,000 a year. So that in George Bush's America, if you're an old couple, retired, living on $17,000 a year, you're so rich you can't get prescription drug help.
As you pointed out, Linda, this is not perfect. The truth is it's unscrupulous!!!
" But if you're an Enron executive living on $17 million a year, you're so poor that you get a tax cut and a bailout. That's obscene. That's what we ought to be doing. We ought to be on the floor of the Senate and the floor of the House, you know, and the street corners every day, shouting these things out. That's what'll beat 'em."....Begala
posted on November 7, 2002 02:08:29 PM new
I always suspected Linda'a laughing face was supposed to go with my post. I'm a funny guy.
I agree with Chococake, the Democratic Party are a bunch of wimps. Post-election 2002, the Party talking point recalls Richard Nixon's snivelling - "You won't have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore." Bah. And, they're utterly dense to boot.
The 2000 Green Party showing should have taught the Democratic Party the lesson the Greens were trying to teach - The Party needs to stop moving towards the Republican Party, and move further to the left. If you don't, people are going to finally get sick of it and stop voting for you. Chococake looks like the newest drop-out.
Instead, the 2000 election reinforced the Democratic Party's mistaken belief that the problem was that they weren't close enough to the Republicans, and they've moved even closer. The Georgia Senate race between Dem. incumbent Max Cleland and Rep. challenger Saxby Chambliss was surreal. The main issue was - Who loves George Bush more? We had Max Cleland, backed up by Democratic (in name only) Senator Zell Miller constantly airing ads assuring us that Max Cleland loved George Bush and voted for everything he ever asked for. Saxby Chambliss' ads said "No, you don't love him as much as you say, you voted against Bush and the Republicans 11 times!"
You can't out-Republican a Republican. When is the Democratic Party going to realize that?
sp, kind of.
[ edited by donny on Nov 7, 2002 02:10 PM ]
(Don't know how to make a laughing face, and don't really care.)
It's always good, IMO, to ask and make clear.