"We had a good conversation," the senator said. "And we talked about the danger of division in our country and the need, the desperate need, for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together. Today I hope that we can begin the healing."
Democrat: Heal thyself.
W. doesn't see division as a danger. He sees it as a wingman.
The president got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riffraff who disagree to heel.
W. ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq - drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters," as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
Mr. Bush, whose administration drummed up fake evidence to trick us into war with Iraq, sticking our troops in an immoral position with no exit strategy, won on "moral issues."
-- Maureen Dowd
President Bush, fresh with victory, stayed the course -- bullshit. After all, now he has "a broad, nationwide victory." I was not aware when "nation" meant the Midwest and South, unless by "nationwide," he meant the Confederacy, French Louisiana, and the Spanish Southwest. Likewise, he mentioned that we must all work together. This also must be translated, since similar language was used in 2001 when his "victory" was purely electoral.* What he meant was that as long as the other side agreed what him, he'd work with them. If not, well, clearly they are divisive ingrates. On the other hand, David Letterman can have four more years of jokey Bush videos.
And, given the President's corrupt mandate (given it was based on mistruths, crud, and fear ... more so than usual), we Democrats are now instructed to accept his legitimacy and hope we all can work together. Yada yada yada. I blame Kerry/Edwards (his wife has breast cancer ... in 2002, it was a plane crash around Election Day ... did we offend Zeus or something?) for some of this stupid post-election discussions. Over at Slate they have a "Why America Hates Democrats" article. Well, at least 51% of them or whatever. A frayster suggested the Dems give away the store on abortion and gay rights. And, so it goes.
When reality loses out to idealized fantasy, I guess this sort of this is expected. I will not submit to it myself. First off, it's all patent bullshit. The President didn't suddenly earn our trust because more people voted for him in various areas this time. Democracy allows people to make mistakes, but mistakes they remain. The fact people in various states find it necessary out of fear and loathing to put it in their constitutions that homosexuals cannot marry those they love and whom their religious faiths sanctify remains unjust. As one person crudely said: "America -- what the fuck?" The fact that we sadly are not too surprised at this sort of thing doesn't make it much less viscerally depressing.
[It bears repeating, given the sorts now in power will only more often whine about how some sorts are enemies of religion, somehow a nation with a First Amendment that at least seems to suggest we all have religious freedom and government should keep its hands off it, is one in which religious belief is more important in politics than most countries outside of Saudi Arabia.]
And, we should say so! Ditto all that Bush did. The fact that yet again Congress will not properly investigate or respond, surely not given it is even more Republican now (and those Republicans are if anything more conservative) doesn't change that. Surely, one hopes, that their gains will allow some in the party to throw a few bones the other side's way. This bunch doesn't seem the type to find this necessary, but one never knows. Likewise, they are the leadership we got (obviously Bush is "my president"), so I hope for the best. We shall survive, and some good things actually will happen. But, a strong opposition, must be in place now more than ever.
It is said that Sen. Reid (NV) might be the new Senate Minority Leader. From what I heard and saw, the guy is a soft spoken sort, but one who defends the party strongly when necessary. And, as an assistant leader, he knows the job. The party needs some strong leadership. For instance, I didn't really like Senator Kerry from the start. I didn't quite think he had the guts and ability to connect with the voters. Such qualities, more than a message per se, decides elections.
This is not to say message doesn't matter, but politics is about selling oneself to the electorate. It therefore might be said that certain partisans who felt the truth would set us free was misguided, if they didn't realize selling one's version of the truth (hopefully one close to the actual truth) is what is key. And, Kerry didn't do that properly. So, no, I will not pat him on the back or say we did pretty good considering (vs. an incumbent, etc.). Sen. Edwards, who I honestly sometimes felt appeared MIA (maybe, it's my vantage point in NY, but still), had a better shot at it, but was probably a bit too green in the politics game. Also, his Two Americas theme was a bit too narrow. A helluva lot more to aim for than that.
So, once more into the breach! Yes, pick your battles, and take what you can. But, fight on, do not give into the hype that voting for this bunch is about "morality" while being against fraudulent unjust wars and anti-homosexual bigotry is not. Do not let the disillusioned and ill advised votes of the few that decided this election stop the struggle against injustice and bad government. The Republicans didn't stop when they lost in 1996 or even 1966. They didn't suddenly just work with the other side and hope for the best.
Why should we?
---
* Or rather, officially he won. It was sort of like when the general in Beetle Bailey was recently handled a report summary. But, he said, this is full of misstatements! Well, she said, they are official misstatements. The same probably can be said about the win this year -- official, but full with misunderstanding.