Four more years!
...of lies!
And it starts with the acceptance speech. According to the Washington Post: "[Bush is] pledging that he would seek to earn the support of those who did not back him during the long and contentious campaign".
Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, in 2000 when he RAN on that platform and said the same thing after the weeks long Florida debacle. And here we are 4 years later JUST as divided as we were then (sorry, an extra 1% popular vote to Bush does not mean the country is healed - it means that Bible-wielding evangelicals are more likely to go to the polls than cigarette-wielding college students and 20-somethings). Why? Because of Bush's policies and the way he runs his administration... and his rush to war.
Speaking to me and others that did not vote for him, Bush said "To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust." But didn't he already have 4 years to earn it? Why should I think anything is going to be different this time around? In fact, I think things will get worse. The administration will be emboldened by this stastical tie (which they will claim as a mandate) and forge ahead w/ reckless policies.
For those needing a little bit of good news, or if you like to read political articles:
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1975
A call to fight:
http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7
posted by chewie at 6:52 PM
3 Comments:
chew- always a pleasure reading your blog. thanks for the links. since your a "centrist" let me give you a website www.nationalreview.com to read alongside "the nation."
two other guys i read are walter williams (he's a prof at george mason u in economics. i always learn something from him) thomas sowell also touches on a wide range of social issues. very insightful.
drudgereport has a long list of pundits of all political flavors.
we talked about ann coulter. maureen dowd is her antithesis.
both candidates speeches impressed me.
what i find particularly devisive is that the news media portrays only two sides (typically the extremes) of the issues. we see the fireworks as they "debate" and the commercial break ends the shouting. for my own political sanity i am going to turn these shows off. bye bye sean hannity. adios chris matthews. larry king, well i don't watch you anyway.
in my core i believe that politicians on both sides want the same thing - an america that is prosperous, safe and secure. the difference comes in how to get there. now is the time for us to immerse ourselves in ideas and study the issues - their implications and impact on the future, and figure out how we need to respond and not just respond but forge ahead in 2005.
8:18 AM
Thanks Chez! Despite my emotionally charged posts, I really am a centrist and agree more with the ideas you state in your last paragraph. I made myself laugh that I was actually posting articles from The Nation!
As anyone who reads this blog knows, I have a subscription to The New Republic. It tends to be a slightly-left-of-center publication (for now) that really is about the defense of our democracy and way of life more than it is a partisan publication. I really respect their views and motivations. They have no fear of calling out Democrats and Republicans equally.
I find the Nation to be a bit too partisan and too far to the left for my day-to-day; however, it's valid for some reading from time to time. I feel the same about the National Review, so I will start reading it more (along w/ the Nation) for balance. Do you know of any slightly-right-of-center publications or websites? Maybe Fox News, but I don't find their writing to be of that great a caliber.
11:39 AM
chew -
not familiar with any "right of center" pubs. the wall street journal perhaps?
i like the people on fox's special report with brit hume. bill kristol (weekly standard), mort kondrake (roll call), and charles krathehammer (washington post). there's two women too cece and mara. they usually shoot it pretty straight.
i read some wacko's too. maureen dowd and paul krugman (nytimes) and limbaugh and coulter on the right.
bill o'reilly is the only guy i know who says he is "independent". i learn a lot from his show and his guests. i just read his book "who's looking out for you". sometimes his style annoys me but that's life i guess. his recent "scandal" makes me wonder about him but that reminds me to keep him in his proper place.
my favorite site is the drudgereport. he gives the news no matter who it reflects or how it reflects. plus his links are a great resource for me. it's the first site i check in the morning. cspew is 3rd or 4th!
1:59 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home