Looks like it’s in the bag. As a nation, we have resoundingly given our approval of President Bush and his policies. By all accounts, not only does he have the electoral college wrapped up but the popular vote too. Not only that, but we’ve given the Republicans more seats in both the House and the Senate, so we ought to get a really good taste of what the President wants to do, especially since — regardless what he does — this is his final term. He doesn’t even have to think about re-election and the need to toss little pandering tidbits to the Democrats like the Medicare prescription stuff. No, this four years we’ll see pure Bush.
So, we’ve given him a pass for not completing the job in Afghanistan. “It’s alright, Boss… we know you’ve wanted to go after Iraq for the longest time, hop on in.” We’ve said that his handling of Iraq is fine, and that we accept that he’s made no mistakes there (though he has by his own words perhaps “made some bad appointments”). We’ve given him the go-ahead to spend whatever he wants. We’ve validated his policies on civil liberties. It’s already open season on gays if the polls are any indication, but he’s had nothing to do with that so far. I firmly expect to see the Constitutional ammendment passed with huzzahs this time around.
All because we now feel safer.
Dan made a great comment recently about why he supports Bush more than Kerry, but I’ve since come to remember why I don’t. A strong military — one able to decimate third-world armies in under 3 weeks — is great at keeping us safe from aggressors in the form of nation-states. Need a nation bombed asunder, they’re your guys. Against a mobile, diffuse, widely spread target like terrorists they are less useful. Terrorists aren’t a nation-state. Unless we’re safer because there are roughly 150,000 American troops over in Iraq for the terrorists to go after instead of us here in our borders.
Perhaps the TSA has made us safer and perhaps it hasn’t. Our borders are still relatively insecure, unless you want to fly across, in which case you’re shit out of luck.
Oh well, once again I don’t think there was a lesser of two evils on the ticket this time, not even Badnarik (note to Libertarians: pandering to the increasing Latino segment of the population by advocating open borders won’t get you far when people are afraid of terrorists). I’m just frankly surprised at the level of tacit approval for Bush and all his policies.
EDIT: And yes, this will be my last political post for four years or so… I’m not a savvy, astute political observer. I often learn a lot from friends who comment here, like Javahead and Dan. I just had to share my thoughts.
“Who do you think those wig-wearing lacy-shirt sporting revolutionaries were? They were f***** blue-staters, dickhead. Boston? Philadelphia? New York? Hello? “
http://www.fuckthesouth.com/
Interesting… and funny. and liberal use of the f-word.
I’m no Bush apologist, as you know from the comment of mine that you linked. His entire domestic policy is offensive (with the possible exception of his tax reform).
Still, I think it’s unfair to say we’ve left Afghanistan “undone”. The work in Afghanistan and the hunt for Al Qaeda was turned over to SOCOM, whose very nature is secretive. Just because they’re not mugging for the camera daily doesn’t mean they aren’t hunting and killing the enemy. They are precicely the part of the military designed and trained for “diffuse, widely spread targets” and they are doing their job quietly. Rumsfeld has even gone so far as to allow SOCOM to draw up missions and mission parameters on their own initiative, and 75% of Al Qaeda’s leadership has been eliminated as a result - something a PR-sensitive administration could never do. I’m sure we’re not making friends as we ocassionally violate various countries’ sovereign borders while chasing terrorists, but to make an omelet…
I agree that the persecution of gays is a terrible policy choice; it’s repugnant as a violation of personal freedom and the government shouldn’t be wasting money on it. Fortunately, the requirements for a Constitutional amendment are really steep and, in my amateur estimation, could never be met to constitutionalize the Defense of Marriage Act. The fact that Bush couldn’t pull this off even if he wanted to is one of the reasons that it was an acceptable trade-off to me.
Oh well… as a parting shot, here’s my take on what the Democrats need to do to get back on the horse… but I could just be crazy.
Lemme rephrase… “Dan made a great comment recently about why he supports Bush more than Kerry, but I got side-tracked and couldn’t remember why I don’t think ‘because he’ll provide a stronger military’ is a good enough reason.” I disagree with many of Bush’s policies.
I’ve finally gone ahead and plopped out my own political crackpotness onto my weblog. (The link is my website shortcut here.) I have no trouble remembering why I don’t like Bush. Though I slipped, at the end, into thinking I was just trusting my gut; some temporary insanity had me not remembering that it was the LAST time that I was just using my gut. This time there was that whole who-cares-why-we-said-we-were-going-into-Iraq thing to worry about.