Well, folks, it looks like 4 more years of Bush in the White House. I suppose Kerry could challenge in Ohio, but that would only delay the inevitable.*
Frankly, I'm a little disappointed. I'm pretty fed up with the Bush/Rumsfeld post-war fuck ups in Iraq. Poor tactics, poor strategy, and lack of proper equipment. When Dick Armey, a Republican who sits on the Armed Services Committee, starts using words like "incompetent" on national TV to refer to the Bush post-war plan, you've got problems.
But, things are what they are. I think Bush should make a couple of major changes. First, fire Rumsfeld. Period. He stinks. Get an ex-Army or Marine general in there who has a clue. Second, replace Ashcroft with Guilianni (if that's possible). Third, stop fucking around with pie in the sky missle systems in East Asia, and start investing in the best goddamn personal body armor and light armor that money can buy. You know, something that our troops on the ground can actually use.
In local news the state ballot initiatives all went well, including the defeat of Amendment 36, which would have split Colorado's electoral college votes.
And, on a final note, I think a Bush victory this year seals a Democratic victory in 2008. And, it'll probably be Hillary. Ick.
* Kerry just conceded this morning.
Re:Hillary...
rafael on 2004-11-03T17:00:21
Again, I'm surprised by the use Americans make of the word "socialist", while the Democrats are perceived in Europe and most of the world as quite right-wing (and the current posse that took control of the Republican party as fascists.)Re:Hillary...
zatoichi on 2004-11-03T20:00:57
so·cial·ism
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.Re:Hillary...
jdavidb on 2004-11-03T20:40:08
I keep hearing Europeans tell me that the primary American parties are both right-wing. I wonder that they never consider that perhaps all of their own parties are left-wing.
Re:Hillary...
rafael on 2004-11-03T21:45:18
In fact, in France, Alain Madelin showed publicly support for Bush, and two other party leaders are considered more right-wing than Madelin (de Villiers and le Pen). Neither are mainstream, though. But due to the large number of parties in European countries, we have a larger electoral spectrum, from extreme far left (several undistinguishable flavours of communists, very different from the actual socialists e.g. F. Mitterand) to extreme far right (royalists and fascists); unfortunately the US election system keeps Badnarik, Nader et alii out of the presential game (a situation that I think many US citizens find unfortunate.)Re:Hillary...
jdavidb on 2004-11-04T15:44:58
I would be one of those who finds the systematic marginalization of Badnarik and Nader unfortunate. I would not at all desire a Nader presidency, but Badnarik was my preferred candidate, and the entrenchment of the two party system has bothered me forever.
I also do not understand the identification of racism with right-wing. I've commented somewhere here before that I think that results from the simplication of political ideas into a one-dimensional "spectrum," when things are really much more complicated (and I mean even more complicated than the two-dimensional spectrum many libertarians offer as an alternative).
Re:Hillary...
phillup on 2004-11-03T18:12:22
You haven't taken into account the Ken Lay pardon... the draft... the defaulting on US Bonds... the tear down of the Social Security system and all the violence from the gangs of kids roaming the country because their schools have been shut down.Re:Hillary...
pudge on 2004-11-03T23:49:39
You mean, he hasn't taken into account things that no reasonable person thinks is going to happen?
Well, duh. Why would he?
