Ugh

[ceebeegee]

Just another reason I can't stand our current Emperor with No Clothes. God forbid he be confronted with the knowledge that some of his constituents (you know, the people who pay his salary and to whom he is beholden) disagree with him:

As Bush has traveled the United States during this political campaign, the Secret Service and local police have often handled public protest by quickly arresting or removing demonstrators, free-speech advocates say.

...

"It's clear that some of these security zones are not based on legitimate security concerns. They are based on the idea of the president not seeing someone who disagrees with him, which basically undermines the whole idea of the First Amendment."

...

The Kerry campaign says it does not limit attendance based on political views, a point Kerry has made frequently when confronted by hecklers on the campaign trail."

If this happened to me, I would sue the shit out these people for false arrest. Arrest should not be a political tool to suppress dissent--it should an enforcement of the law. What law is there against telling the President you disagree with him? But I'm disgusted, not surprised--it's clear from Bush's policies that he intends to give the big middle finger to half the country's population, despite his running as "a uniter, not a divider" and notwithstanding that less than half the country voted for him. Why can't he talk to these people, why can't he acknowledge that a lot of voters disagree with his policies, why can't he reach out? Oh, because he thinks God told him to do this. I guess if God is in the Cabinet, you don't need to listen to the little people.

Comments

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

...notwithstanding that less than half the country voted for him.

Also true of Gore in 2000, as well as Clinton in 1992 and 1996. What's your point?

Oh, because he thinks God told him to do this.

Nice. Demonize someone for being religious. I'm an atheist, and I'm sick of hearing that line. He says his faith guides him and gives him strength. Never has he said "God told me to do x." Perhaps only atheists should be allowed to be President?

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

You are entirely misreading what I wrote, or selectively reading.

My POINT: that, as I said, Bush ran as a uniter, not a divider. And he has NOT DONE THAT. As I said, he's giving a big middle finger to half the country, despite his not being given a mandate. Which Clinton did not do (Clinton pushed for tough on crime laws, and welfare reform, traditionally conservative pet issues). Which Gore did not have the opportunity to do, as he did not take office.

Demonize someone for being religiois? Mike, that's ludricous--I'M RELIGIOUS. Remember? However, this country has a strong, well-established tradition of a separation of church and state, for good reason--because religion, by its very nature, is based on emotion and not reason. A whole of damage can be justified with "God told me to do it"--look at September 11. Bush's religiosity scares the crap out of me--he brings it up way too much, and he uses it to justify some of his policies. I am sick and fucking tired of abortion and the stem-cell discussion being framed in religious terms--if you think it's the destruction of a life then we can talk (I of course disagree), because murder is against the law, and the discussion would be using the same terms. But all this crap about abortion and stem-cell research being against God's will, and the destruction of God-given life offends me--as a RELIGIOUS person. And as a RELIGIOUS voter, I reject his attempt to pander to people who don't think but feel--and Mike, as a lifelong residents of places like Minnesita and New Jersey, I'm not sure you've run into this mindset the way I have. The Bible Belt is not pretty in that respect.

You know, snitty comments lke "what's your point" and deliberate mischaracterizations of what I'm saying don't do your argument any good. If you must respond, do respectfully, as I do to your posts. Nobody's forcing you to read this.

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

Actually, you would be very surprised to find much of Minnesota is very similar to much of the South. Minneapolis and St. Paul are the only reason the state isn't solidly red. Get outside the urban core of those two cities, and it's no different than most of Texas. Beyond that, you're forgetting that I have also lived in Georgia and Louisiana. So please don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about because of where I've lived.

As for "snitty" comments, what do you call "I guess if God is in the Cabinet, he doesn't need to listen to the little people?"

As for Clinton being a uniter, I disagree. His first two years were marked by highly unpopular positions including 1) a major tax hike, 2) "dont ask, don't tell," and 3) the "healthcare initiative," the result of all of which was a landslide for the Republican Party in the congressional elections in 1994. Sensing the national mood, he did indeed support some more conservative positions thereafter, but he could hardly have done otherwise, and he never seemed sincere. Note also that in 1992, Clinton got only 43% to Bush's 48% in 2000, yet for all the alleged divisiveness of Bush, it was Clinton's policies that cost his party the House in 1994, not Bush's in 2002.

But in the end, you're right. No one is forcing me to read this, and frankly, I am so sick of all the animosity and venom directed at the President that I really feel like just crawling into a hole until the morning of November 2nd, and then emerging only to vote. There's no convincing anyone that I speak with on a regular basis, and there's zero chance that I'll change my mind, so what's the point?

[jayspec.livejournal.com]

There's no convincing anyone that I speak with on a regular basis, and there's zero chance that I'll change my mind, so what's the point?

This is where you are wrong.

Are you going to convince me to vote for George W. Bush? Hell no. However, I do see the huge chunk that leaves my paycheck every week and goes directly to the government. Seriously, I'm just a hair's breath away from voting Republican, if only they could back away from the religious fanaticsm, nation building, and deficit spending and get back to true fiscal conservatism.

It is important for you to present to the people you hang out with (generally kneejerk liberals (ceebeegee excluded from that broad brush, of course)) the case for true fiscal conservatism. You need to convince them of the cost of the programs they support.

Please, don't go. Don't let our group become an echo-chamber of non-opposing views. You think we "hate" you now, imagine how much we would if we continually vilify (and misrepresent) your views in private without ever actually hearing them.

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

Are you going to convince me to vote for George W. Bush? Hell no.

That's my point, though I could have been more clear that I was speaking of this specific election. Remember that I have said all along that I would prefer a different Republican to vote for.

In general, I enjoy a spirited political debate with people who disagree with me -- else I wouldn't have the friends that I do. It's just that this election has been so thoroughly draining, and amongst my friends, everyone's position is staked out, that it seems prudent for me to simply avoid the topic. For my own sanity's sake.

You think we "hate" you now...

I never said that. Merely that it's beyond the point of changing anyone's mind for November 2nd, 2004.

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

As for "snitty" comments, what do you call "I guess if God is in the Cabinet, he doesn't need to listen to the little people?"

That was a comment in my journal directed to Bush. Not you. I have no idea why you take it so personally when anyone bashes Bush on their journal, or even in real life, but such criticism has nothing to do with you. Attacks on Bush are not directed at you. You can make all the snitty comments about Kerry you want on your journal, or this one--but don't talk to me that way. You and I are friends--we owe each other the respect I don't owe to Bush. Do not come on to my journal and take that tone with me, or accuse me of demonizing anyone because of their religion (which frankly, really pisses me off--that is a cheap shot, you know me better than that). I won't be talked to that way.

So please don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about because of where I've lived.

How exactly did I tell you anything? Please reread: what I said was I'm not sure you've run into this mindset the way I have. I was unaware of your residencies in GA and LA, but as a lifelong resident of the South, I stand by that...especially since you're an atheist! Have you attended many church services down there? Have you heard the rhetoric of the likes of Falwell and Robertson, with their consistent rejection of the ideal of separation of church and state--the ideal itself is rejected, because "America is a Christian country," to that way of thinking. If you have encountered this personally, great, let's talk. But you can't blame for for thinking you haven't.

(And if MN is so much like the Bible Belt South, how come they consistently elect well-known liberal standard bearers, like Mondale (the only blue state in '84, DC not being a state) and Paul Simon? My assessment is based on whom they elect.)

I come from a family of Republicans, and I welcome the opposite point of view--respectfully tendered, as you did to Duncan's post about Bush's flip-flop on homosexuality. *Shrug* I certainly never crawled into a hole with my family. As long as you respect the other person, it's all good.

...


Sensing the national mood, he did indeed support some more conservative positions thereafter, but he could hardly have done otherwise, and he never seemed sincere.

See, I have no problem with this. You see it as insincere; I see it as pragmatic. If Bush took a more conciliatory policy path, if he swallowed hard and said "I won't oppose stem cell research any more," I wouldn't care if it wasn't what he really wanted to do. He's our servant, not the other way around. I don't trust ideologues as Presidents (I loathed Reagan for that reason, although looking back he was more political than I gave him credit for at the time--in fact, you could make the argument he was a Republican version of Clinton), precisely because they always seem to buy into this vague "we're the chosen people on the hill" crap. (BTW, I happen to believe there is something very special about this country, but not because we're chosen by God--it's because our ancestors got off their asses and formed a better form of government.) I'd rather have a good hearty pragmatic politico accustomed to sleeves-rolled-up compromise than someone who rams through their one-sided policies.

You have a point about Clinton's first two years being more divisive, but again, the majority of his policies were much less so. That's why I was always shaking my head at the rabid attempts to smear him. Couldn't figure that one out at all.

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

I think you may mean Paul Wellstone, not Paul Simon. Simon was a Senator from Illinois, famous for his bowtie. Wellstone was from Minnesota, and was just weird (though not as weird as Sen. Mark Dayton, his successor, who many think will eventually leave the Senate in a straightjacket).

You're right, Wellstone and Mondale (and Hubert H Humphrey before them) were all to the left of the Democrats nationally. But also recall that in 1988, Pat Robertson won the Minnesota Republican caucuses, rather handily. Minnesota is a bipolar state. The Twin Cities and Duluth lean far left; the suburbs and the rural areas lean well right. Each is roughly half the population. Mondale in 1984, incidentally, won by a fairly slim margin, and mostly because we didn't want to see a hometown boy humiliated.

As for religion there, the particular brand of Lutheranism that's dominant in southern Minnesota is pretty seriously evangelical, and sometimes my own relatives scare me a bit. There are good reasons I don't go back there often.

Anyway, I'm sure that was fascinating, but of course it was off-topic. My intention was not to offend, and I apologize for doing so. I just find it very difficult to ignore arguments against my candidate when I feel those arguments are misrepresented, or inaccurate. I'm just to the point now where I'm starting to figure, everyone's decided, so maybe it's time to just stop arguing and wait for November 2nd.

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

I think you may mean Paul Wellstone, not Paul Simon. Simon was a Senator from Illinois, famous for his bowtie. Wellstone was from Minnesota, and was just weird (though not as weird as Sen. Mark Dayton, his successor, who many think will eventually leave the Senate in a straightjacket).

Uh, yeah, that's it. That's who I meant. ;) The one who died in a plane crash recently.

Peace :) We'll drink about this on Saturday, over roasted pumpkin seeds.

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

Rich Lowry of National Review has an interesting, and I think fairly accurate explanation of the politics of the upper midwest. You may not like the overall point of the article, but the analysis is worth a read.

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

I realized I neglected to point out some other Minnesota politicians. Rudy Boschwitz and Dave Durenberger, my senators in the 1980s, were politically something like, say, Bret Schundler. They were both Republican. And my (Republican) representative, Vin Weber, left Congress and co-founded Empower America with Bill Bennett and Jack Kemp.

Minnesota politics is really just...strange. Maybe that's how I turned out as I did :)

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

Don't forget Jesse Ventura, Body-Slamming Independent.

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

And speaking of strange politics (well, strange policy) read up on the Black Market Tax, where dry countries in the South...taxed liquor. Yes, they taxed an illegal product. Florence King talks about this in Southern Ladies and Gentlemn: "Didn't anyone feel a sense of conflict??

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

I wasn't around for his rise and fall...thankfully. I can't count how many times I was asked how the hell "my" state ever elected him, though!

See, unless you hunt or ice-fish, there really isn't anything to do in Minnesota from about October to May, which explains a lot of what happens out there...

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

You'd think the population would be bigger...

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

Lutherans aren't terribly prolific, I'm afraid.

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

This article discussed Bush's religiosity. (http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/columns/nationalinterest/10116/index.html)

Some excerpts:

..."I bet you every other person or every third person says, ‘Mr. President, my family prays for you.’ It’s not, you know, ‘Good luck, I hope you go tear down your opponent.’ . . . It’s ‘My family prays for you.’”

That doesn't bother me. Nor does this:

Bush, for his part, talked about prayer again: “I pray for strength. I pray for wisdom. I pray for our troops in harm’s way. I pray for my family. I pray for my little girls."

However, this:

Asked to name his favorite philosopher [during a 2000 debate], Bush said “Christ.”

There was silence for a moment, and the moderator ended it by asking Bush to explain. The future president answered, “Well, if [viewers] don’t know, it’s going to be hard to explain. When you turn your heart and life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as your savior, it changes your heart and changes your life.” President Bush does not explain, as he told Bob Woodward in 2002. The writer asked whether he was listening to staff and advisers as he prepared for war. Bush said, “Of course not. I’m the commander. See, I don’t have to explain why I say things. . . . I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”

Scares the crap out of me. As President, he DOES owe us an explanation. He is not in charge--WE are.