IMHO, I'm going to hate the next 2-4 years.

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
21

Esprix, I’d say pretty much half the country is disappointed and half is relieved to happy. That’s the way elections go.

FWIW, I’m in the latter group. I voted for Harry Browne, and of the two guys left at the end, I have much fewer misgivings about Bush.

Here’s how this Libertarian sees it:

Four years of Bush: Government slightly larger, with some of my rights infringed (search and seizure, the insane drug war, and the like), and others upheld (school choice, gun rights)

Four years of Gore: Government MUCH larger, with many of my rights infringed (tougher gun laws, insane war on drugs, searches and seizures, and probably more safety regulations of the ridiculous “lawn darts” type), and few upheld (the “right” for me to get rid of my children.

Both of these guys are going to take more of my hard-earned money to support their pet government projects; both of them are going to infringe on my rights in the philosophy that they know how to run my life better than I do. Bush will simply do less of that, so in the classic sense he is the lesser of two evils.

22

Maybe we will have President Chenny. I was thinking last night (a rarity for me) and it suddenly popped into my mind that Bush Jr. was elected in a year divisible by 20. Maybe the curse (or whatever it is) will kick in.

(I’m not saying I want Bush Jr. to be killed, hell I would want my worst enemy to be killed. But the odds are against George W.)

23

Sorry, that list line is suppose to read…

“I wouldn’t want my worst enemy to be killed.”

24

Religious Right issues that Bush either supports or at least would probably sign bills if they came across his desk:

  • vouchers for private religious schools
  • “partial-birth” abortion ban
  • official school prayer (i.e. school administration allots time for it in daily schedule and official functions)
  • “charitable choice” programs, allotting federal monies to religious agencies as charities (using the funds to further their religious aims and messages)
  • “protection of marriage” bill or other such bill designed to keep homosexuals from being able to get “married” and thus have access to the same benefits (unqualified access to hospitalized partner, choice in medical decisions, child custody and adoption, automatic joint estate ownership, medical insurance benefits)
  • posting of Ten Commandments displays in government buildings and schools
  • allowing businesses and other public institutions to descriminate on grounds of religious beliefs of owner (i.e. apartment complex owners not renting to homosexuals or unwed couples)
  • defunding Planned Parenthood (now that you mention it, that sounds plausible)

issues Bush will resist and probably veto:

  • “marriage equality” laws (opening “marriage” to homosexuals, and granting all equivalent privileges)
    Little Nemo, what death sentences has Bush commuted?

Torgo, just how has the Religious Right’s influence on the Republicans dwindled? Last year (well, late 1999) 6 republican senators wrote a letter on behalf of Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition to the Justice Department and Janet Reno calling for an investigation of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State on charges of intimidating religious voters. This was at the direct instigation of Robertson because of AU’s efforts to counteract the CC’s biased voter guide distribution program through churches. The charges were unfounded and AU was cleared completely. Whereas the CC has a history of violating federal laws regarding tax exemption of non-profit organizations participating in partisan politics.

The six senators were Jesse Helms of North Carolina, Paul Coverdell of Georgia, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Don Nickles of Oklahoma, an Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Recognize any of those names?

All of the issues I listed above under Bush are topics that have been discussed in Congress in the last year, at least one or two having bills delivered to Clinton and he vetoed them. You don’t think a more Republican Congress won’t hit those issues again, and this time succeed when Bush supports the bills?

vanilla, Gary Bauer, besides being one of the early Republican pres candidates, was the director of Family Research Council, one of those fundamentalist christian groups like CC and the Moral Majority. Bauer actually at first supported McCain once his own candidacy was over.

As for how beholding the Pres is to the special interests? Well technically I suppose he can do what he wants, and just blow them off, thanks for the candy. However, the RR has been making noise for the last ten years about how important they are to the Republican party in providing grassroots efforts to get support. They work very hard to get Republican candidates elected at all levels of government. Pat Robertson played a big role in getting the RR to support Bush this time around, and former Christian Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed was a Bush campaign advisor. Bush worked hard to court the RR - you think he’s going to tell them to hang it?

25

Don’t worry, it’ll only be two years before the Democrats take back the congress. This year was an “open” year: no incumbent president. And yet the Democrats still managed to pick up 2 house seats, 4 senate seats, 1 governorship, and have their presidential candidate win the plurality of the popular vote, despite a strong 3rd party showing by Nader. Two years from now, the Republicans will do even worse due to having their guy in the White House (don’t ask me why the incumbent party always loses seats in the congress, it just happens that way). To top it off, in 2002, 22 Republican senate seats and only 14 Democratic ones are up for grabs. The Republicans have two years, and then the party stops realquick.

26

Already done by congress and Clinton - it’s called the Defense of Marriage Act, restricting marriage to one man and one woman. There is, however, the strong possibility that Vermont’s civil union law will be challeneged (either by the Radical Right trying to get rid of it or the liberals trying to expand it to other states via full faith & credit), but this will be decided by the courts, not Bush or congress. (My personal feeling is that the USSC will eventually force the federal government to recognize same-sex civil unions/marriages, but it is extremely unlikely this will happen within the next four years, methinks.)

Esprix

27

<sigh>

This is one of those debates in which I find a very hard time taking any sides–mainly because there is no “side” in which I fit.

I’m a registered Republican. I’m registered that way because I might as well vote in one or the other of the primaries, and on the issues that are most important to me (generally, fiscal issues), the Republicans come down more on my side.

After that, however, I’m hardly a “real” Republican. For President, I also voted for Harry Browne (Libertarian). I voted for the Libertarian Senate candidate in Ohio (whose name I can’t even remember; all I know is that I can’t stand the politics of either Ted Celeste or Mike DeWine). I voted for a Democrat for my representative.

I did vote for one Republican, for County Commissioner. Oh, and I think for County Engineer as well.

I am both pro-choice and pro-life. I believe in a woman’s right to choose, and I believe in a child’s right to life. I do not believe there is any reconciliation that can be had between those two issues. Were I female, I would have to be in extreme circumstances to have an abortion, but I think it’s better to have them done in clean facilities if they’re going to be done at all. (A ban on partial-birth abortions, however, I do support).

I do not believe in the welfare state. I believe it was wrong to start one, but I also believe it’s wrong to try, as Clinton did (and Bush will likely continue) to abruptly bring it to a halt. These people need to be helped out of their poverty–not given two years’ pay and then booted out of the system.

I am not a Christian, but I believe that a publicly held property should have the same right to free speech as every other individual or privately held business. Thus, yes, schools and public offices ought to be able to display the Ten Commandments, or have a Christmas (not holiday) Pageant. They should also be able to light menorahs, spin dreidels, celebrate the Chinese New Year, post verses from the Qu’ran, or allow students or employees to perform the Wiccan Yule Rites (whatever they may be). The separation of church and state implies not a division but an inability on the part of the state to discriminate between religions.

I believe in marriage between any group of two or more people who wish to publicly declare their love for one another and create a family, be those people a man and a woman, two men, two women, fourteen men and ten women, or what have you.

I believe in school vouchers, even for religious schools. I believe in them because the public school system is degrading rapidly, and perhaps this will cause them to stop taking such a lazy approach to education. However, I do not believe in federal mandates regarding any aspect of the school systems. Every federal mandate since busing has caused schools to spend money in places other than simply educating students and paying teachers, and has contibuted to the pitiful salaries of today’s teachers and the disgustingly uneducated state of the populace. All educational issues should be settled at the state or local levels.

I believe in a clean environment, and rational solutions to the real problems facing our world. I also believe that, in general, Mother Nature can right herself, and that She can live for an extra ten or twenty years while we actually take the time to research these things through before acting and possibly causing worse problems than we already had. I believe, however, that we should be looking at alternative energy sources, and soon, because the fossil fuels will run out–and whether it happens in 50 years or 500 years, I’d rather have the abilities already in place to convert to somethign new.

I do not believe in the death penalty. Not only do I feel it is not a just punishment for the crime of murder–whereas rotting in a prison cell for the rest of your life is–it’s been shown time and time again that we actually end up spending more keeping a death row inmate for ten years–after you add in the costs of all of the appeals, and so forth–than keeping a standard lifer for fifty years.

I believe in a strong military. I believe in a functional military. I believe the cuts that have been made in the past eight years have, effectively, castrated the U.S. military. But in those same eight years, we’re still spending oodles on weapons research, rather than paying our Privates. A functional military lies in the ability to actually fight, and without men, those new-fangled weapons won’t get fired.

Now, read all of those, and try to tell me which candidate I could possibly have liked. Neither one really fits a majority of my views.

Esprix, I feel your pain, but I knew back in April that I wasn’t going to like the next four years.

And I’m sorry for the length of the rant, but I’m just tired of Democrats (I live in Ann Arbor) wailing about how much better things would have been under Gore. And you Republicans–I’m tired of you telling us how much better things will be under Bush.

Thankfully, if one side really wants to keep something from happening, they can. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have cloture (60 votes) in the Senate. I predict that, effectively, nothing will happen for the next two years, at least. And I highly doubt the Democrats will gain 10 Senate seats in 2002. So the Dubya Presidency–which I predict will last four years at the outside–will be, like the Clinton Presidency, uneventful. At least I have that bit of peace.

Whew.

Rant over. Feel free to respond here or in email. I love a lively debate.

LL