I am pleased that you have a blog, Robin, but you'll always be Anonymous to me. (g)
I think that Karl Rove is the latest in a series of political Cardinal Richelieus who believe that you do whatever it takes in order for your candidate to win, because having your candidate win is supremely important. When I was doing my little bit of research into stolen yard signs (News search on Google) I read of two campaign headquarters that reported having bricks thrown through their windows. I can still feel outrage and disgust at that, and I dread the day when I shrug and say Well, that’s politics.
I have read that Bush's view is that you clearly state a set of values and standards, and from those you do not waver. He says repeatedly that you may agree with him or not, but you know what he stands for. I doubt that he *wants* to split the country -- its even possible that when he said, years ago, that he was a uniter, not a divider, he meant it -- but I think that when he thinks of uniting, he means 'everybody comes over to my side'. He seems incapable of accepting the idea that you unite by compromise, because he seems to equate compromise with -- I want to say surrender, which is probably not quite it, but close.
Reading this morning, I came across the statement that Bush is interested in leading, not governing. I don't agree with that -- I think its too glib -- but it occurred to me that its possible he was the right person for a situation where we needed (wanted) immediate, visceral response, but he is not the right person for a situation where we have an ongoing need for intelligence, compromise, and international cooperation. I suspect that his underlying feeling is essentially that when action is needed, you don't look for assistance or agreement, you act. And that's that.
I was not a major fan of Richard Nixon's, yet a photograph from his reelection campaign comes to mind -- a person holding a sign, on which was written MR. PRESIDENT, BRING US TOGETHER. That’s something that isn't happening, and if Bush is reelected, most likely will not happen. I cannot honestly say that if Kerry is elected, it will -- but at least it's possible. I hope it does.
Thanks for writing. I didn't think your note was a rant (though mine likely was!)
I wonder if he acknowledges the country as divided? I was thinking today that he ought to realize that even if he wins at the percentages he currently has, that will mean that roughly one of every two people doesn't support him. Then I realized that logic holds true for Kerry, too.
When Bush was elected, he acted as if he had a mandate, and he did -- when you have power and responsibility, you act. Nothing wrong with that, whether I agreed with how he used the power or not. The problem came when he acted as if he had the full, or at least substantial, support of the country.
I read a funny article by Garrison Keillor (sp?) the other day. He spent most of the article saying that he was going to get away, back to the simple life, and purge himself of political passions. He said there was much to be gained by spending time in quiet areas, just forgetting about the hustle of the big city.
And then he said that he'd heard Crawford, Texas, was a great place to do that.
Thank you. I appreciate hearing from you as well. Its not that political discourse is at the center of my life (that would be ..umm... reading, goofing off, and playing word games with my daughter), but its nice to have intellectual conversations once in a while. As for your experience with the Bush site, that attitude is probably available on the Kerry side, too. Its just not as noticable to me.
I will be voting for Kerry today as well. I am voting for Kerry because, as a woman, I honesty fear what rights I will lose if Bush has 4 more years. I believe in reproductive freedom and the dissemination of accurate information surrounding contraception and sexually-transmitted diseases. That will not happen under Bush's conservative agenda.
I also believe that my homosexual friends should have the right to marry their significant others, just as I do. While I realize that Bush's proposed constitutional amendment would likely never pass, I want a president in office who will support same-sex couples.
Unfortunately I don't believe that Kerry can bring the nation together if elected president much better than Bush. Unless he wins the vote convincingly (here's hoping!), I believe Bush supporters will spend the next 4 years being bitter and denying the good that Kerry will do.
I think you make some interesting points. I agree that unless Kerry wins, and does do convincingly, the next four years will be filled with Republican griping. Basically, all of the people who said that Democrats were sore losers would now be filled with the righteous anger we felt in 2000. I really hope that if a Kerry win comes to pass, that we can tamp down -- hard -- on the impulse to say Nah Nah, We Win, You Lose. In other words, keep from acting like Karl Rove and of course, Mr. Congeniality, Dick Cheney.
I think it is exceedingly important that whoever is President work hard to bind the wounds that our national psyche has suffered in the divisive last four years. If Kerry wins, I think that there is a chance of that (not a great one, but a chance). If Bush wins, there is still a chance -- just a much lesser one, as his history has shown. I can't bring myself to say that Bush et al simply don't care about the mass of people, but it certainly does seem that way. Perhaps he works along the line of trickle-down economics, only with sympathy -- if he is sympathetic to captains of industry, eventually some sympathy will trickle down to the worker bees. Nah.....
I am unsure about the idea of homosexual marriage. I think its a good idea, off the cuff, but every so often I come across an article -- not a gay-bashing article -- that implies that it isn't just a simple matter of saying okay, you can get married, because so doing triggers a raft of rights and entitlements. I'm not sure what that means, and to be honest, I'm not sure that there *is* such a raft -- perhaps its just smoke and mirrors from people who don't want it to happen, and are trying to appear reasonable while pushing their agenda. Certainly if you were just to say 'hey, are you in favor of letting a lot of unmarried people get married?', the question would not arise, so that suggests that adding sexual orientation into the mix is not warranted.
I am absolutely repulsed, though, by the idea of a 'marriage amendment' to the Constitution. That seems to originate in the faith-based initiatives zone. Faith-based government? I like the idea of faith-based initiatives (okay, the fact that they can be called FBIs does creep me out a bit), but I don't like when they become a method for indoctrination. After 9/11, I went to a service at a Methodist church, and though I didn't 'get' some of it, I felt as if they were not interested in my religion -- they simply wanted to provide an opportunity for solace. In contact, my wife went to a Roman Catholic service (which is what we are), and she felt that the priest was more interested in being obviously ecumenical and forbearing to his religiously disadvantaged cousins than in providing an opportunity for healing. FBIs which encourage and promote healing and charity, I can see getting federal money. FBIs that are interested in convincing you of the error of your ways (you, specifically, Angie; I of course am perfect (g) ) -- I have no use for them, and I do not want them to have federal funds.
I am very glad that you had the opportunity to let all of that out. And thanks for writing.
5 comments:
I am pleased that you have a blog, Robin, but you'll always be Anonymous to me. (g)
I think that Karl Rove is the latest in a series of political Cardinal Richelieus who believe that you do whatever it takes in order for your candidate to win, because having your candidate win is supremely important. When I was doing my little bit of research into stolen yard signs (News search on Google) I read of two campaign headquarters that reported having bricks thrown through their windows. I can still feel outrage and disgust at that, and I dread the day when I shrug and say Well, that’s politics.
I have read that Bush's view is that you clearly state a set of values and standards, and from those you do not waver. He says repeatedly that you may agree with him or not, but you know what he stands for. I doubt that he *wants* to split the country -- its even possible that when he said, years ago, that he was a uniter, not a divider, he meant it -- but I think that when he thinks of uniting, he means 'everybody comes over to my side'. He seems incapable of accepting the idea that you unite by compromise, because he seems to equate compromise with -- I want to say surrender, which is probably not quite it, but close.
Reading this morning, I came across the statement that Bush is interested in leading, not governing. I don't agree with that -- I think its too glib -- but it occurred to me that its possible he was the right person for a situation where we needed (wanted) immediate, visceral response, but he is not the right person for a situation where we have an ongoing need for intelligence, compromise, and international cooperation. I suspect that his underlying feeling is essentially that when action is needed, you don't look for assistance or agreement, you act. And that's that.
I was not a major fan of Richard Nixon's, yet a photograph from his reelection campaign comes to mind -- a person holding a sign, on which was written MR. PRESIDENT, BRING US TOGETHER. That’s something that isn't happening, and if Bush is reelected, most likely will not happen. I cannot honestly say that if Kerry is elected, it will -- but at least it's possible. I hope it does.
Thanks for writing. I didn't think your note was a rant (though mine likely was!)
I wonder if he acknowledges the country as divided? I was thinking today that he ought to realize that even if he wins at the percentages he currently has, that will mean that roughly one of every two people doesn't support him. Then I realized that logic holds true for Kerry, too.
When Bush was elected, he acted as if he had a mandate, and he did -- when you have power and responsibility, you act. Nothing wrong with that, whether I agreed with how he used the power or not. The problem came when he acted as if he had the full, or at least substantial, support of the country.
I read a funny article by Garrison Keillor (sp?) the other day. He spent most of the article saying that he was going to get away, back to the simple life, and purge himself of political passions. He said there was much to be gained by spending time in quiet areas, just forgetting about the hustle of the big city.
And then he said that he'd heard Crawford, Texas, was a great place to do that.
Thank you. I appreciate hearing from you as well. Its not that political discourse is at the center of my life (that would be ..umm... reading, goofing off, and playing word games with my daughter), but its nice to have intellectual conversations once in a while. As for your experience with the Bush site, that attitude is probably available on the Kerry side, too. Its just not as noticable to me.
Bill-
I will be voting for Kerry today as well. I am voting for Kerry because, as a woman, I honesty fear what rights I will lose if Bush has 4 more years. I believe in reproductive freedom and the dissemination of accurate information surrounding contraception and sexually-transmitted diseases. That will not happen under Bush's conservative agenda.
I also believe that my homosexual friends should have the right to marry their significant others, just as I do. While I realize that Bush's proposed constitutional amendment would likely never pass, I want a president in office who will support same-sex couples.
Unfortunately I don't believe that Kerry can bring the nation together if elected president much better than Bush. Unless he wins the vote convincingly (here's hoping!), I believe Bush supporters will spend the next 4 years being bitter and denying the good that Kerry will do.
Wow--that felt good to let out. :)
Angie
Angie --
I think you make some interesting points. I agree that unless Kerry wins, and does do convincingly, the next four years will be filled with Republican griping. Basically, all of the people who said that Democrats were sore losers would now be filled with the righteous anger we felt in 2000. I really hope that if a Kerry win comes to pass, that we can tamp down -- hard -- on the impulse to say Nah Nah, We Win, You Lose. In other words, keep from acting like Karl Rove and of course, Mr. Congeniality, Dick Cheney.
I think it is exceedingly important that whoever is President work hard to bind the wounds that our national psyche has suffered in the divisive last four years. If Kerry wins, I think that there is a chance of that (not a great one, but a chance). If Bush wins, there is still a chance -- just a much lesser one, as his history has shown. I can't bring myself to say that Bush et al simply don't care about the mass of people, but it certainly does seem that way. Perhaps he works along the line of trickle-down economics, only with sympathy -- if he is sympathetic to captains of industry, eventually some sympathy will trickle down to the worker bees. Nah.....
I am unsure about the idea of homosexual marriage. I think its a good idea, off the cuff, but every so often I come across an article -- not a gay-bashing article -- that implies that it isn't just a simple matter of saying okay, you can get married, because so doing triggers a raft of rights and entitlements. I'm not sure what that means, and to be honest, I'm not sure that there *is* such a raft -- perhaps its just smoke and mirrors from people who don't want it to happen, and are trying to appear reasonable while pushing their agenda. Certainly if you were just to say 'hey, are you in favor of letting a lot of unmarried people get married?', the question would not arise, so that suggests that adding sexual orientation into the mix is not warranted.
I am absolutely repulsed, though, by the idea of a 'marriage amendment' to the Constitution. That seems to originate in the faith-based initiatives zone. Faith-based government? I like the idea of faith-based initiatives (okay, the fact that they can be called FBIs does creep me out a bit), but I don't like when they become a method for indoctrination. After 9/11, I went to a service at a Methodist church, and though I didn't 'get' some of it, I felt as if they were not interested in my religion -- they simply wanted to provide an opportunity for solace. In contact, my wife went to a Roman Catholic service (which is what we are), and she felt that the priest was more interested in being obviously ecumenical and forbearing to his religiously disadvantaged cousins than in providing an opportunity for healing. FBIs which encourage and promote healing and charity, I can see getting federal money. FBIs that are interested in convincing you of the error of your ways (you, specifically, Angie; I of course am perfect (g) ) -- I have no use for them, and I do not want them to have federal funds.
I am very glad that you had the opportunity to let all of that out. And thanks for writing.
Post a Comment