Oh, and I don’t remember Clinton ever implying that he’s on a mission from God.
A little graffitti poem my sister saw on the bus in Spain:
I mean, what if my religion saw hamburgers and chicken salad as the senseless killing of innocent animals unable to defend themselves, and I tried to enact laws preventing all animals from being killed? People would think I was insane for infringing on their rights. A blob of cells is not a person. If you think it is, prove it. But wait, you say, I have this book called the Bible, that tells me that God loves humans and babies and that makes them special. Well, I just happen to have an ancient text written by the cow-messiah, that tells me that animals are even more important than humans. I deserve the right to live in a world where the state doesn’t sanction the senseless murder of animals. Who gets to decide who’s right?
It’s supposed to be each of us, individually. That’s freedom of religion, and the state is not supposed to decide these things. We are supposed to be free to make our own religious decisions. The abortion ban is the equivalent of LEGISLATING YOUR RELIGION. It is nothing else, and don’t pretend that it isn’t.
applauds
Well said. The religious beliefs behind those who support right to life are all that are fueling this fire. They are also what make the argument totally null and void, no matter how much legalese anyone throws at it.
What made this election unique, imho, and what the OP touched on, is the LEVEL of dislike that the liberals have.
In 2000, I liked Gore, and disliked Bush. In 1996, I liked Clinton and disliked Dole. In 1992, I liked Clinton and disliked Bush, Sr. Presumably, in all of those elections, people of a conservative bent like Bush, Dole, and Bush Sr., and disliked Gore, Clinton and Clinton. However, at no point in any of those elections (and that’s as far back as we go before I wasn’t of voting age) did either side honestly believe that the opposing candidate was one of the Worst Presidents Ever. I certainly didn’t think Bush Sr. was. And I don’t think that most conservatives (despite the ridiculous and still baffling level of anti-Clinton invective) thought that Clinton was truly one of the worst presidents ever.
But I do think that about W. Literally. I expect that, 100 years from now, if some learned historian writes a book ranking US presidents, W will easily be in the bottom 10.
So, unless you conservatives honestly believe that, had Kerry been elected, he would have been not just a president with whom you disagreed who enacted policy you thought was foolish, but a truly historic presidential DISASTER, then there’s this inequity of passion which is what I think the OP was trying to communicate.
Interestingly, I think that that, because it’s only natural to fight back in kind, many of the attacks on Kerry have been delivered with far more hatred and vitriol than really make any sense, because of the level of hatred for Bush. I mean, regardless of whether you agree with this charge (and many reasonable people disagree), if I say “your candidate lied and led us into a pointless war and killed hundreds of thousands of people. Plus he looks like a chimp”, it’s hard for you to respond by saying “yeah, but YOUR candidate’s senate voting record is lacking in decisive policy-based leadership” or something. That’s why the Swift Boat guys were so necessary, and so popular.
between the presidential election as a whole, and the
Hello? Hello? Operator, we’ve been cut off!
Please to be ignoring that sentence fragment. It’s merely an artistic choice, its fragmented and disconnected nature symbolizing my rage at the divided electorate. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
After the election results, I believe that 100 years from now (probably sooner), George W. Bush will ranked in the top 10. Not because he’s such a swell guy, but because people apparently don’t care and will cheer for him anyway.