> >I don't think this is about winning or losing elections. To >me, it is about how the leadership views the nation. The >party that wins the White House and Congress hasn't won the >country in the way that the person with a winning lottery >ticket wins the money. Elections are our way of making the >best decision we can, not our way of deciding who was right >and who was wrong. It is much more of a conversation than a >contest; I think those who talk about it more as a contest >than a conversation do us all a great disservice. > >In a fair election, there are no losers. Sadly, it seems that >hardly anyone is willing to look at it that way these days.
Hey... That's how I feel... But I did not think other list members agreed. Some additional thoughts I have had on the subject are: The closeness of the race is an indicator of how close we came to choosing the best candidate In a presidential election, a democracy will never pick the smartest or the greatest, but rather they will choose the candidate that is the best at influence. Its built into the nature of being president. Without influence, a democracy can't work. A country that can't change will decay. Influence is directly related to this change. I find it strange how people think the president has so much power that he can ruin a country. Both side pointed fingers at both candidate and stated "vote for me, because he will ruin America". No president has that power, unless you count the fact he has a finger on the button. But for overall, everyday influence to our lives, the president has little to do with making change. While Bush has an advantage with a republican senate, it only goes so far. Kerry would have had a much worse time getting work done or "pushing his new Agenda" or what ever you call influence. So Bush is now president for a another 4 years. Just how far do you think he can go in that time? Was it any worse with Clinton? Both Presidents did more change that could be considered anti-thetical to their own party. Both did some pretty good things while president. Kerry fans should be glad for a few reasons: He can't be blamed when we see a economic decline in 2006-7. He can't be blamed if we lose the war in Iraq or the war on terror. And so on and so on... He can't be blamed. Bush may get some things right, or not. Regardless, the president now can "push his agenda" and perhaps a few things will change for the better - or not. The key in my mind is that without influence, there is NO chance for change. At least Bush has a better chance than Kerry would have for change. This is all that counts.. Without change, we stagnate. An lastly, as Americans, we pretty much get what we want as a majority regardless of who is in charge as president. What burns the democrats is that they are not a majority, and so they don't get what they want. Its no way to run a party. The democrat party is suppose to be the party of the people, yet it's a minority. The democrats would like to believe that somehow numbers don't matter and it's the rich that are screwing us. Again, if only 10% or so of Americans are considered very wealthy, why don't the democrats have the massive numbers to support the common belief that they represent the common man? The answer to this question is beyond my humble understanding of politics. It seems to me that the democrats have been "out-democrated" by the republicans, and thus the republican deserve control for now, since again, its about making change. The democrats should be happy that they have 4 more years to reach parity with the common man. Oh and one last dig at my favorite democrat - Michael Moore - who did more to help the republican party that any other person on this planet. No one comes close to building up a collective guilt about being an American. He preached that if you vote for Kerry, then you agree that the War is wrong, and you are not so dumb. He said if you vote for bush, you are an idiot, who is practically guilty of war crimes. He used collective guilt as a platform for voting for Kerry. A vote for Kerry is an admission of guilt for supporting the war. I generally believe that people would rather vote the self-righteous vote - a vote for Bush means we did the right thing in IRAQ. People prefer righteousness over guilt any day of the week. I would like to believe what we are doing in Iraq is right. Michael Moore would like you to believe otherwise. It was a strategic failure on the democratic side to support Michael Moore. The Bush Bashing got him nothing other than to be known as an anti-American sloganist. Instead, the democrats should have held to their traditional beliefs that the common man deserves freedom, even Iraqi's, and that its America's role to bring democracy to the world. When a hard-core republican like Bush acts like a democrat, the democrats act like isolationist republicans, the democrats will always lose. The democrats suck at being isolationists. That's why they gave up the policy after WWII. Bush sucks at being a world diplomat, something a democrat can usually do better. Franklin D. Roosevelt - a democrat who started us into WWII. Can't say I blame him. Harry Truman, A democrat, Dropped the bomb. Started us in the Korean War. Eisenhower, a republican, ended it. Truman started the "Truman Doctrine" designed to support free people from communism. Very democratic. John Kennedy, a democrat, almost got us blasted over Cuba - failed at Bay of Pigs. A covert operation to topple one of our closest neighbors. Lyndon B Johnson a democrat, started us in the Viet Nam war. Nixon, a republican, ended it. Gerald Ford saw Cambodia invaded by communists and did nothing about it. Good republicans don't make war. Jimmy Carter tried really hard at bringing democracy to the middle east (Iran), but failed. Too bad, but is it any different than what Bush is attempting? It's a very democratic thing to do. Bill Clinton invaded Haiti and Bosnia, bringing democracy to both countries and ending civil strife and ethnic warfare. Interestingly, George Sr. did some invading/democratic behavior with Somalia, Iraq and Panama. So now George jr. had the same democratic ideal with re-invading Iraq. Now the democrats call foul - calling the spreading of democracy and freedom as wrong and evil. The reality is that the democrats have been out-democrated by the republicans. Next time, maybe the democrats should be encouraging democracy in the third world instead of whining about how bad Bush is for America. It worked for Bush. What they should really be complaining about is how bad of a republican Bush is! Nerd From Hell > >Nick > > >_______________________________________________ >http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
