Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Cjhsa,

Don't apologize. I wasn't insulted. I am a sinning, low class, Southern daughter of a used car salesman ..... and raatha proud of it. To each his own. Uptight, arrogant, elitists turn me off. So I can understand your discomfort during the Clinton years. I can almost not watch Bush when he speaks. I'm not sure whether I should give into my sympathy for his apparent misery or just go ahead and dislike the smart ass look on his face. In any case, I doubt he gets any........and that is a shame, IMHO.

Scrat,

You're right, I mis-wrote. But you did write the following:



So just take out the mandate part of what I wrote and we'll see if that question fits.

Does the fact that Bush won by one electoral vote (only one) and lost the popular vote effect your feeling that it's a powerful indicator of the values of our society? Sounds pretty weak to me. We're divided over this "values" issue, clearly. Even if Gore had won the election, it would still not be a powerful indicator of anything, other than that we're divided. And of course (speaking of the powerful indicator, only, not debating who won the election, for those who nit pick) if you add Nadar's votes, we have a better indicator of which direction the division leans.

And this is where I think you've been misinterpreting what I've said for the last few pages on this point. Bush has no mandate at all. He is taking steps that are highly aggressive, destructive and controversial with no mandate. It is truly despicable. We don't see Jenna and Barbara all suited up, riding around in jeeps in Iraq, do we? And we won't.

And please don't roll your eyes at me, Scrat. It hurts my feelings. No kidding. Let's just kiss and make up. OK?

Gee Whiz, Timber, it was just a question. I don't have time right now for a card game. Words like "irrational" and "hysterical" are insulting. But we're all guilty of it......I agree.

Bush electoral votes, 2000: 271
Gore electoral votes, 2000: 267

Just to provide perspective, 4 is more than 1, regardless of spin. Here's another thing to consider:

The Electoral Vote distribution has not shifted to The Democrats' favor.

Well, there goes this arrogant, uptight elitist's date with Lola...!! (eyes rolling)

And I'm damned if I can figure how anyone can anticipate an electoral vote at this point. I mean, Get Real!

Implying that a forecast of Electoral Vote tallies was made by a factual observation that the distribution of the votes, pursuant to redistricting as appropriate by latest census data, is unreal. No projection was offered, the point is that the shift does not play to Democrat advantage; that and nothing more.

I believe that if you read my comments in context you will see that I was writing of the results of our elections taken as a whole, and specifically of our representation in government. I am more than willing to concede that Bush's election, taken alone, does not indicate any groundswell of support for conservative ideals. To me it simply indicates that the guy for whom I voted won by a very slim margin, and I recognize that--as far as we can tell from the votes tabulated--a very slim majority of people actually had something else in mind when they went shopping for a president.

Oh, and sorry about the whole eye-rolling thing. My contacts were bugging me, and sometimes that makes them feel better. :wink: (I hope you don't have a problem with winking, too.)

scrat...that's a fine balanced post.

I gotta tell ya guys, I left this thread earlier really quite depressed. For timber and I to have an exchange such as just preceded isn't a good sign.

And I began to think, again, of all the very fine folks of whatever leaning who are no longer about here.

There is perhaps only a single idea upon which observers of modern american politics agree, and that is that the degree of polarization is something they have not seen before, or seen only very rarely (if old enough).

Blatham - I wonder whether it is possible that in the past such polarizations usually ripped a society apart, and only today in the US do we have a system of government that can withstand the stresses generated by said levels of polarization.

(I'm just brainstorming here, and perfectly willing to be told I'm full of it.)

As I recall, the Kennedy/Goldwater matchup had folks pretty well polarized, but I think by and large, back then more folks were parlorized than energized. Today, I think, there are relatively more activists and partisan zealots on both sides, which doesn't mean the polarization is any deeper; its just louder. As for loudness of polarization, the current cacaphony is a whisper compared to the tumult of the Vietnam era. That's my take, anyway.

Kennedy/Goldwater even polarized us young pupils here in Germany - quite funny, when I think that this started my interest in US-politics (our class was in majority for Kennedy - seems, we had quite a good political instinct ).

timber, You're right on that score; it's all verbal now, whereas during the VietNam era, it was "action." If "talk is cheap" is a truism, the rhetoric bandied about today is a whisper.

I find it amusing that anybody with a relavent background and is willing to appear suddenly is the "expert" on the subject. CNN started this and Fox News and MSNBC have only expanded on it.

cjhsa, Don't forget about actors, actresses, and singers. Another one, anyone who is brought in from over 100 miles away is considered a 'consultant'

Yeah, and a reporter who's made it through at least one full season schedule on the same network is a "Senior Correspondent"

scrat

I've got to get back out to work soon, but...

I know two things...my view is presently pessimistic, thus colored, and ... no, the American polity is not absolutely resilient.

On one thread here this morning, I was alerted to Tommy Franks' recent interview wherein he expressed his opinion that a WOMD attack on a US city would likely result in the fall of the republic and the ascention of military governance.

9/11 was a 'defining moment', as everyone repeats. But to my mind, it is better conceived as the event which precedes the defining....and that the defining was America's response. And America responded as she did, because of what she has become.

From 1997 to 2001, the Pentagon exported $57.8 billion in arms to the world. $57.8 billion. These were munitions produced by American weapons corporations (organized under the - get this - International Peace Operations Association). You can count on one hand the senior administration officials who are NOT personally involved in these corporations.

Dialogue, agreements, concessions, the sort of activity that the State Department looks to, is NOT in the interests of a corporation whose bottom line is based on the sale of bunker buster bombs.

American has succumbed to precisely the sort of threat to its own identity and values which Eisenhower warned of. I don't know if you'll recover.

We ought to note, also, that the second largest munitions producer (one third the US total) is Britain.

Domestically, the polarization now is equal to or greater than during Viet Nam, and that is a wound unhealed for many, and mostly among the military. It's not too difficult to attribute a similar dynamic as noted above to Viet Nam as well, and earlier, to the Cold War, as Eisenhower was aware.

Perhaps someone a lot smarter than me could show that militarism is so at odds with the American character than whenever it arises, the social fabric is deeply strained. That might be so.

Perhaps it might be argued that, for whatever set of reasons, certain personality types can rise to positions of power in America who are themselves so at odds with American values that their activities create polarization, eg, Nixon or J Edgar Hoover or even Reagan or Clinton or Nader or Bush.

Maybe the present problem can be traced to the 'Culture War'...to the reaction against modernity.

Whatever thing, or set of things, is going on, there is no certainty at all, I think, that your nation will stay in balance.

duplicate

addendum

There is a great difference between the Viet Nam period and this one in the level of citizen activism. Folks don't march much anymore. One negative to a consumer society is that citizenship can become redefined as 'the inalienable right to have stuff'.

Blatham -- Your comment that "their activities create polarization, eg, Nixon or J Edgar Hoover or even Reagan or Clinton or Nader or Bush" makes me wonder whether we should look for a common form of political/financial support. What and who gave so much power to each of these guys? The people? Particular groups? Is that what we mean by "democratically elected"? And in Hoover's case, how did he manage to stay in power for so long? What powers are inherent in the Justice Department which can lead to such profound, anti-democratic corruption?

And don't forget about the Patriot Act that gives the Attorney General more power over our civil rights than would have been imagined only a few years ago. This transition to power - by the people - is the price we pay for remaining ignorant of what the Constitution and Bill of Rights say about our freedoms. We've been voting our freedoms away with abandon.

True, CI. I'm thinking about who's paying these chappies? Yes, it's hard to forget the Patriot Act! And I concur with you and Blatham that we're (well not us three) doing it to ourselves.

My favorite saying: You Always Get What You Want.