Sunday, October 31, 2004


I'd considered keeping this blog politics free past Election Day -- maybe a woot! or two if Kerry does actually manage to eke it out and my escape clause says Tom DeLay is always a fair target -- but then Rocky* pointed me to an interesting essay Alara Rogers posted in her Livejournal, and it's possibly the most articulate essay on the contradictions within the Republican party I've read. The comment which provoked Alara's response is here and Alara's two-part response is here and here.

Also, observers from the global community will be monitor this year's election. How has it come to this? That this country, this country that holds itself as the beacon of all that's good and fair and right has fallen to such levels we cannot even be trusted to elect our own officials? And if it's the case we cannot be trusted with our own democracy, the democracy we've invented, how are we to be trusted to bring it to other parts of the world? How do you do advance democracy through the world when all credibility has been stripped away?

Some people would argue that given the global situation, why change course? Why not keep the man who gave us this mess, this lack of credibility, in the first place? After all, why change horsemen in the midst of the Apocalypse? But I think that's exactly why we need to change. We need someone who can see clearly, who can process information, can shift through various opinions to come to the right conclusions and isn't so blinded by advisors who have their own agenda.

It's too late to pull out from Iraq; there's no way we can do that now. The question is, do you want the guy in charge who pushed everyone away and said, "We and our Brit buds can do it on our own, hell with the rest of you,"** or do you want someone who is the choice of the European Union -- the second largest, if not largest -- economy in the world? Of course, most people would say they don't want the EU or the rest of the world making choices for the US, but just think about what it means if the EU endorses Kerry; it signifies their willingness to talk to him and perhaps there will be progress made on advancing the 'War on Terror'***.

As much as it pains me, I believe George W. Bush will declare victory Tuesday. I believe he will win this election because of a steady diet of mis-information, of obscuring the issues that matter to the regular American Joe -- health care, jobs, economy. He has drawn his support on social issues that rarely affect the mass majority -- abortion rights, gay marriage****, to name two -- but have a great polarizing effect on the country. I believe people think the 'War on Terror' can be won if you are dogmatic and refuse to admit you may have made a mistake by taking your eye off the prize, Osama Bin Laden. When you consider how many people still think there's a link between 9/11 and Iraq, it's no wonder Bush will win Tuesday. He's got the psychology of the American electorate down -- he says we can win against terrorists, he says he can keep us safe, he drapes himself in the American flag and values. And on Tuesday, 51 percent of the nation will believe him.

The one thing I share in common with W is my desire to never admit any mistakes I may have made. I especially abhor having to correct this blog. But I say now, if I have to rescind this entry on Wednesday, Nov. 3, I'll be more than happy to apologize to all of you for being wrong about the outcome of this election.

But not Tom DeLay. Never for Tom DeLay.

* This post is All Rocky's Fault (tm)
** Oops! I forgot Poland!
*** I really, really, really, really, really despise the term 'War on Terror'. It's like nails on the chalkboard. It hurts me, preciousssss, it hurts me as much as, if not more than, 'weapons of mass destruction.'
**** It's ridiculous to blame the very people who can't get married for the fact Britney Spears can get married/annulled on a lark or J. Lo who has single-handedly boosted the wedding economic sector. I challenge you to show me a couple whose marriage is less sacred because two men or two women got married in Massachusetts; in which case, I say to you, that's a man and woman who ought not have gotten married in the first place.

No comments: