Next 4 Years

[Guest Unorthodox]

So we got another 4 years of George W. Bush...

I'm not sure what to think of it...I hope he is the right guy for the job.

As I keep mentioning, it seems like we are two distinct nations occupying the same land...with two different ideas on what it means to be American.

If you haven't heard, Kerry called him up for congratulations and both men agreed that they need to work on uniting the American people.

Do you think Bush can do that?

If so, how?

[Guest Unorthodox]

...and yet another duplicate thread.

Oh well...pick one and respond.

[Spencer]

There will always be alternate views. I think we have the best man for the job on the payroll. I for one am relieved.

[Outshined]

I agree; the best man for the job won.

[Setheus]

I also agree that the best man for the job has won. I am also glad that Kerry put up such an awsome fight. I think its a good thing that he helped rock the boat as it were. We need that from time to time to keep this nations views and ideas from becoming stagnant.

[Guest Unorthodox]

But do you think Bush can "heal" the divisions in this country?

The more I think about it, the more I doubt it.

But I guess if anyone dislikes the government enough, they can always leave.

[Outshined]

Could anyone heal the political divisions that exist here? I doubt it.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Originally posted by Outshined@Nov 3 2004, 06:58 PM

Could anyone heal the political divisions that exist here? I doubt it.

Sorry, I should have been more clear...Neither Bush nor ANYBODY can heal this country.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Setheus@Nov 3 2004, 05:10 PM

I also agree that the best man for the job has won. I am also glad that Kerry put up such an awsome fight. I think its a good thing that he helped rock the boat as it were. We need that from time to time to keep this nations views and ideas from becoming stagnant.

I'm also glad that Kerry made a solid challenge. He did manage to raise plenty of points the President needs to address. Unfortunately, his party, probably driven by Howard Dean's maniac run, also liberally sprinkled this campaign with what Richard Hofstadter called the paranoid tradition of American politics -- the intellectually flatulent half-truth conspiracy mongering of Michael Moore et al. I won't gloat that Kerry lost, but I will gloat that the Moore-ons did. The sooner the Democratic party takes that ugly side of itself out to the woodshed and becomes a solid, rational opposition, the better. Because the United States does depend on a robust two-party system, with a loyal opposition that doesn't come across as anti-American.

(Note to Moore -- Joking good-naturedly that Osama bin Laden seems to have bootlegged your video -- as you did -- is a good sign that last sentence applies to you. When decent people find mass murderers echoing them, they look in the mirror and wonder if they haven't gone wrong somewhere.)

Depending on whom the Republicans nominate in 2008, how far the Democrats have purged the guilt-ridden sixties mentality from their system, and on a few other factors, I would seriously consider voting for Barack Obama -- the newly-elected Democratic senator from Illinois -- if he were to run for President. Aside from the fact that he comes across as having a level head on his shoulders and the courage to buck his party's bitter victim-mentality conventional wisdom, I'd vote for him if only to reinforce to Democrats that nominating decent candidates instead of leftist screamers is a winning strategy for them.

(Of course, my voting in California isn't likely to send much of a signal one way or the other; the Dems are probably going to keep winning the state easily for the foreseeable future thanks to demographic changes.)

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Nov 3 2004, 06:09 PM

I would seriously consider voting for Barack Obama -- the newly-elected Democratic senator from Illinois -- if he were to run for President.

Uh, YEAH! That guy is a major, major hottie! (as well as his wife and children--totally gorgeous first family.) I guess maybe I should check out his politics, but I'd vote for him on his looks alone! :)

[sgallan]

PD -

Moore may have done for Bush what Robertson and Buchanan did for Clinton in 1992. Scare off the moderates.

The Republican Party in California only has itself to blame for it's situation. From sounding racist during the Prop187 debates, to sending out unapologetic hard core conservatives in a moderate to liberal state. They dug themselves a hole, hard to get out of even if the demographics were less unfavorable.

Finally, why can't the Republican Party attract the demographics you speak of?

FWIW, I didn't vote for President this year. I did vote for everything else however. McCain got my vote for Senator.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by sgallan@Nov 3 2004, 08:03 PM

PD -

Moore may have done for Bush what Robertson and Buchanan did for Clinton in 1992. Scare off the moderates.

The Republican Party in California only has itself to blame for it's situation. From sounding racist during the Prop187 debates, to sending out unapologetic hard core conservatives in a moderate to liberal state. They dug themselves a hole, hard to get out of even if the demographics were less unfavorable.

Finally, why can't the Republican Party attract the demographics you speak of?

FWIW, I didn't vote for President this year. I did vote for everything else however. McCain got my vote for Senator.

Scott --

Interesting you should mention Prop. 187. Steve Lopez, a liberal LA Times columnist, ran a piece a couple of months back essentially saying that Prop. 187 was actually a good idea (this was right after Time magazine broke the taboo and it became kosher to acknowledge that massive, uncontrolled illegal immigration really does present a few problems) -- but that Pete Wilson had presented it too nastily with the "They keep coming" ad.

In other words, California liberals wouldn't have used Prop. 187 as a stick to beat California Republicans into irrelevant pulp if only the ads had been nicer. I have my doubts about that.

President Bush did awesomely among Hispanics this time around -- the ratio was about 55-45. Still, though, I think Democrats have a built-in advantage with California Latinos just based on some of the characteristics of that population generally. I could be wrong -- maybe some conservative aspects of Latino Catholic conservative culture may dominate over some of the urban, pro-welfare state, anti-assimilationist traits, but I don't think so at this point.

As for the supposed need to run "moderate" candidates instead of "hard-core conservatives," I don't think that model holds up. Bill Jones is far more moderate than Barbara Boxer (although she's extreme left, not extreme right) and got absolutely crushed.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

However successful we might be in reuniting the country as a whole, I think the universities are a lost cause. Some snapshots from academia:

My wife and I moved to Princeton a couple months ago so I could begin my grad work in chemical engineering. My wife found a job in a lab on campus (she is a biologist) and we were happy with our good fortune. Well, we both knew that Princeton was enemy territory (we are both conservative Republicans relocated from the Land of Enchantment) but we were not prepared for the level of invective that would be directed at us and our beliefs. It reached a crescendo yesterday [Tuesday] when I went to my wife's lab to pick her up so we could go home. I was wearing a "W" shirt because of the day. It was not received warmly — I was told I had to leave by people who were supposed to be my wife's friends. I thought they were joking and kidded around a bit but after enduring a few insults it became clear they were, at best, half joking. Then her boss came up to me and told me I had to leave — I had not even met this woman yet! I was trying to put on a friendly face since my wife still has to work with these people but my wife was visibly shaken at the rudeness with which I was treated. It's not like they had an "apolitical" policy in the lab since anti-Bush T-shirts are de rigueur there. Needless to say, my wife will take the first out from that job that is offered. It's not like they are bad people (we have had fun with them before), they are just a bunch of intellectually vain folks whose insulation has led to a complete intolerance of any other point of view but theirs. For them to lose a good employee and a potentially good friend because of that is their loss.

Somewhat happy ending though. We attended an Election Night party with a roomful of chemical engineering grad students. All East Coast Democrats, they still were civil to the only Republicans in the room (my wife and me). Our faith in humanity is somewhat restored now.

I'm still going to remove my bumper stickers before my tires get slashed.

Some news from other campuses?

Yesterday in my "Introduction to Nursing" class my teacher put on a 30-minute video stating why we should vote for John Kerry and not George W. Bush. The teacher did say the video was biased, but not to the extent it really was. My teacher is a political activist, and feels compelled to make the rest of us activists, too. She did not say "Vote for Kerry," but the video said that for her. Can you imagine a teacher subjecting nursing students to a Republican propaganda video?

Nope.

Jay,

Here is a true story of Post-Election Morning at BU Law School. My international law professor just moments ago started class with a rant about the American electorate. [Yes, these kids write you during class, from their laptops!] He claims that he is from a family of Finnish socialists, which he alleges to be classic American liberalism. My understanding of our history and traditions is rather different. Anyway, following his rant, he encouraged students to comment. It is currently 21 minutes into class and this episode of collective liberal mourning has not yet abated. I'm not sure what $30,000 ends up costing me per class, but needless to say I have better uses for my money. Meanwhile, I have a broad grin that I simply can't wipe off my face. Thank God for the red states. Go Bush!

* * *

Hey Jay! Just thought I'd pass on the reaction here at Washington & Lee Law School. Some people are so despondent they have missed all classes today — which is not supposed to happen unless you're really sick — and others go around like someone just shot their dog. The 'club' effect is more obvious than usual. My professors have not been able to refrain from making snide remarks about the election, and my CivPro professor just let one slip about W., personally. They just assume that everyone is in on the joke, and 99 percent of the class is. Brave, original thinkers, eh? My likeminded friends and I have been discreetly overjoyed, but I know there would be zero effort to be thoughtful were the shoe on the other foot.

* * *

Mr. Nordlinger, Today I was sitting around the law library after class reading National Review. [What a braveheart!] A group of upperclassmen were sitting in the area next to me bemoaning the election. They invited me to sit with them, I assume because they thought they had a kindred spirit, given that I'm Canadian.

When I told them that I would have voted for George W. if I had been able to and would dearly love to be an American one day, they were shocked. I was peppered with questions about how I could possibly want to live in a country that will soon resemble a cross between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. [They think Stalinist Russia was bad?]

As a good history student, I carefully explained the differences and why I found it insulting to make the comparison. Naturally this fell on deaf ears and I soon found myself sitting alone.

As though this weren't enough, a number of girls in my class have jokingly (??) asked if we can get married so they can enjoy Canadian citizenship. They too are shocked to find out I want to stay.

And after the election, I am very proud to live here, and consider myself an American at heart!

P.S. If you print this, can you leave out my name? My school is very small and I have to hang out with these kids for the next three years.

* * *

Jay,

Conservatives at Harvard are still embattled, even as the Democrats try to recover from the implosion. I was yelling the phrase "I love America! I love democracy!" in the hallway, and a colleague exploded at me and yelled, "It's completely inappropriate to express your homophobic views like that!" The disconnect with reality continues unabated. [Homophobic views!!!]

But there is a very funny glimmer of hope. The Republicans are all ecstatic, but can't really show it. I walked past a TV and asked a girl where Kerry's concession speech would be this afternoon. I then asked her if she was happy about the election, and she lowered her head and crouched a bit, and then peeped, almost silently, "Yes." When I told her I had voted for Bush, her face just lit up and we had a nice chat, like two lonely souls in the midst of an enemy camp.

[Ray]

So we got another 4 years of George W. Bush...

I'm not sure what to think of it...I hope he is the right guy for the job.

I hope so too, and I still have more confidence in him than in John Kerry.

As I keep mentioning, it seems like we are two distinct nations occupying the same land...with two different ideas on what it means to be American.

I’m interested in hearing about how you would define or categorize those two different ideas. I have my own ideas, but since I already know what I think, I’d like to hear from you.

If you haven't heard, Kerry called him up for congratulations and both men agreed that they need to work on uniting the American people.

Yes, Senator Kerry saying that we all need to be united and work together, yet at the same time saying that he will not forget or neglect to uphold what he was trying to change. Is it just me, or does anyone else think our elected representatives should simply uphold what the majority of voters have voted for?

Do you think Bush can do that?

If so, how?

President Bush can work on uniting the American people together, and I believe he can show good reasons why we should all work together in the manner he and his administration propose, but President Bush can’t change or make decisions about how other people act or what other people want any more than God Himself can do that. All he can do is show good reasoning why things should be a certain way while hoping that everyone will follow him.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 4 2004, 03:51 PM

As I keep mentioning, it seems like we are two distinct nations occupying the same land...with two different ideas on what it means to be American.

I’m interested in hearing about how you would define or categorize those two different ideas. I have my own ideas, but since I already know what I think, I’d like to hear from you.

I would define those categories as Liberal and Conservative, obviously.

If you haven't heard, Kerry called him up for congratulations and both men agreed that they need to work on uniting the American people.

Yes, Senator Kerry saying that we all need to be united and work together, yet at the same time saying that he will not forget or neglect to uphold what he was trying to change. Is it just me, or does anyone else think our elected representatives should simply uphold what the majority of voters have voted for?

The majority in this case was barely over 50%. We need to have a nation where most people agree on what it means to be American...not where they are divided in half.

Successfull "healing" would mean to increase that majority to something like 75% ... or the less desireable solution would be to split into two separate nations with each nation having 100% support for the their president.

Do you think Bush can do that?

If so, how?

President Bush can work on uniting the American people together, and I believe he can show good reasons why we should all work together in the manner he and his administration propose, but President Bush can’t change or make decisions about how other people act or what other people want any more than God Himself can do that. All he can do is show good reasoning why things should be a certain way while hoping that everyone will follow him.

So the answer is no.

I disagree. I think he can do it.

There are two possible ways I think he can do it:

1. He can becomes more moderate. Only a moderate president can unite the nation. Someone who can succesfully implement policies that satisfy both conservatives and liberals.

2. If Bush's policies are the ONE TRUE WAY of doing things, he will lead the Nation to power and prosperity beyond our wildest dreams and the liberals will all become Republicans, thus giving him a REAL majority.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Unorthodox@Nov 4 2004, 04:12 PM

The majority in this case was barely over 50%. We need to have a nation where most people agree on what it means to be American...not where they are divided in half.

Successfull "healing" would mean to increase that majority to something like 75% ... or the less desireable solution would be to split into two separate nations with each nation having 100% support for the their president.

You have the wrong idea about the election process. This election was not about anyone's definitions of what it means to be American; it was about who they thought was the best man to lead the country.

You can disagree about the leadership and still agree on being American. A country as large and diverse as ours will never agree on everything, as issues like abortion and gay marriage are bound to cause some polarity. You can split the country into as many groups as you want, they'll still never support their leaders 100%.

Frankly, it would be a bit scary to have everyone agree totally.

[Guest Unorthodox]

If that is the case, then the only option is #2. Bush must succeed at all his policies.

He must prove that by making abortions and gay marriage illegal, our society will become more moral and families will grow stronger. The only way to prove it will be to make those things illegal.

He must prove that the war on terror can be one by doing things his way. The only way to prove that is to win the war on terror.

He must prove that his health plan is the best way by succeeding at it.

Etc, etc, etc...

We are giving Bush a chance now to prove he is right.

If he fails, we can give his Republican successor the same chance, and so on and so on, until we figure we have given them enough time to succeed.

Of course, if the Democrats win the next election, we must give them the same opportunity to prove themselves right or wrong.

Only by SUCCEEDING can Bush start to gain a REAL majority...not just a 51 or 52 percent majority.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

You can disagree about the leadership and still agree on being American. A country as large and diverse as ours will never agree on everything, as issues like abortion and gay marriage are bound to cause some polarity. You can split the country into as many groups as you want, they'll still never support their leaders 100%.

Well there CAN be 2 Americas. Both can call themselves Americans. They will just need to have separate governments and name their countries the "United Democratic States of America" and the "United American Republic"...something like that. There will just be two different types of Americans in that scenario...just like we have now.

And maybe they won't support their leaders 100%, but even 75% would be a nice improvement.

You have the wrong idea about the election process. This election was not about anyone's definitions of what it means to be American; it was about who they thought was the best man to lead the country.

Some people thought it was. People like Anne Coulter who believes that Liberals are traitors and therefore un-American, for example. And many Liberals would say that it is un-American to consider America a Christian nation. Many conservatives believe that America was founded as Christian nation. That is two very different perspectives on what it means to be American.

[Ray]

2. If Bush's policies are the ONE TRUE WAY of doing things, he will lead the Nation to power and prosperity beyond our wildest dreams and the liberals will all become Republicans, thus giving him a REAL majority.

Even if the President could lead the nation to power and prosperity beyond any of our wildest dreams, his leadership will not do anybody any good unless people are willing to follow him. Do you think the other 48% of the American population will now follow his plans simply because he is the President? Do you even think they should? If so, why should they? If not, why not? America is not a dictatorship, you know, so the only way our President is going to do us any good is if we are willing to follow and sustain him as our leader.

He must prove that by making abortions and gay marriage illegal, our society will become more moral and families will grow stronger. The only way to prove it will be to make those things illegal.

America is not a dictatorship, so the President cannot enact law simply at his whim. He could show solid reasoning why abortions and gay marriage are wrong, but do you think that would be enough to get people to follow him? I’d say that would probably be about as successful as it would be for LDS to try to show the world how our religious beliefs and convictions make us the most enlightened people in the world and that everybody else should simply follow us, and I don’t see that happening either. There will always be people to disagree with everything, and the only people who agree with each other will only ever be the people who see things the same way.

He must prove that the war on terror can be one by doing things his way. The only way to prove that is to win the war on terror.

Do you think the President has the power to win the war on terror all by himself? If not, who do you suppose will follow him and do things the way he suggest they be done? Some people are committed to following his orders, and some are not, but even people who have committed to following him will not always be in agreement with what he says. Just as there are people who do not agree with what God has said through the scriptures He has revealed.

He must prove that his health plan is the best way by succeeding at it.

Again, the President will not be acting all by himself. He must work with Congress and the House of Representatives, trying to get them to support his views. He must also work with the American public, trying to get them to support his views. Why should anyone do anything he says simply because He has said it? Many people don’t even follow God with that much faith.

We are giving Bush a chance now to prove he is right.

If he fails, we can give his Republican successor the same chance, and so on and so on, we figure we have given them enough time to succeed.

Of course, if the Democrats win the next election, we must give them the same opportunity to prove themselves right or wrong.

Only by SUCCEEDING can Bush start to gain a REAL majority...not just a 51 or 52 percent majority.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

If President Bush doesn’t succeed in convincing the American people that they should follow him, are you going to blame him for that? Even if he came up with some of the best ideas in the world, I can guarantee that there would still be some people who would disagree with him. That is the nature of people everywhere. We all are only willing to do what we think makes the most sense to us, even when something else makes a whole lot more sense. And the fact that it is the President of the United States of even God Himself does not change that.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Unorthodox@Nov 4 2004, 04:48 PM

Well there CAN be 2 Americas.  Both can call themselves Americans.  They will just need to have separate governments and name their countries the "United Democratic States of America" and the "United American Republic"...something like that.  There will just be two different types of Americans in that scenario...just like we have now.

And maybe they won't support their leaders 100%, but even 75% would be a nice improvement.

This would have great potential for disaster. Which group would regulate the military? The taxes? You couldn't have two completely separate governments with the citizens scattered across the continent.

Would you make people relocate to suit their political leanings, force them to sell their homes and move to "their" country? A logistics nightmare just for starters.

Also, if you split this country up, it will be taken over by another shortly. An admiral said recently that as soon as China believes they can ovetrthrow America, they will. Division indicates weakness, and we'd be invaded; of that I have no doubt.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Ray:

Of course, you are right.

The President will need the support of his government to get his laws passed. Fortunately for him, the Republicans are taking over our government and he should not have much trouble with that.

Democrats (and others) will continue to disagree with the President until he can prove his policies work. He can only prove they work by passing his laws and finishing his war. If he does that successfully, and it makes the country a better place, then LESS people will disagree with him, and we will be less divided.

That is the way to heal the division.

He will never have 100% support, but if he turns America into a safe, healthy nation, he might get close.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Originally posted by Outshined+Nov 4 2004, 05:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Nov 4 2004, 05:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Unorthodox@Nov 4 2004, 04:48 PM

Well there CAN be 2 Americas.  Both can call themselves Americans.  They will just need to have separate governments and name their countries the "United Democratic States of America" and the "United American Republic"...something like that.  There will just be two different types of Americans in that scenario...just like we have now.

And maybe they won't support their leaders 100%, but even 75% would be a nice improvement.

This would have great potential for disaster.

Yes...that is why I said that dividing the country up is the less desireable plan. I would prefer that our people find unity, rather than separate. But if they can't find unity, I fear that it may happen. In that case, we would need to find a way to make it work. Yes, it might mean relocation of population...a strong military alliance between both Americas to protect us, and other creative ideas.

But you are right...it would be a disaster, and I don't want that to happen.

So the best way to heal the country is for Bush to prove himself right. Most of you guys (on this message board) believe Bush will make this nation a better, safer place. If that is true, then his policies will make people happier, and he will win the war on terror.

With that kind of success, he will gain more support, and the divisions in the country might be able to heal.

[Ray]

So the best way to heal the country is for Bush to prove himself right. Most of you guys (on this message board) believe Bush will make this nation a better, safer place. If that is true, then his policies will make people happier, and he will win the war on terror.

I think part of the problem is that no matter how much good President Bush does or helps the world to do, there will always be people to find fault with what he has done and what he wants to do. In quite a few ways, I think politics are a lot like religion.

For instance, no matter how much sense we [LDS] make in support of our reasoning, and no matter how much good we do and are continuing to try to do in the world, there are always people who come around saying how this or that is wrong or bad or how much better things would be if we simply did things a little differently. And you know what, sometimes people like that have some good ideas. But do you think all that negativity changes the fact that the Church is true? Or do you think that once we implemented some changes that other people want us to make, that we would then have a much better religion? Well, I say that there would still always be naysayers, no matter how much good we did and are doing, and there is nothing we will ever be able to do to change that.

In other words, I think President Bush is a good man and a good president, doing the best he can on the limited amount of knowledge he has or that he knows is available to him. But at the same time I will also acknowledge that President Bush is not a perfect man or even a perfect President, just as none of us here on Earth are perfect people. Does that mean that we should then start nitpicking and finding fault in order to make President Bush a better man and a better person? I think not, and I don’t think anyone who does that is a better person.

[Guest Unorthodox]

But religion is a little different. Your example of the LDS would only make sense if we had already proven that the Church is True.

It takes more than being good people to prove that your church is true.

The only way to prove it is true is for there to be some events that prove it. If there is a Second Coming of Christ, we will know once and for all if the LDS Church is true or false.

Similarly, if Bush defeats terrorism and fixes our economy, health care, and moral problems, we will know once and for all that Republicans are right.

For my part, I just hope Bush is right and that everything works out. Because then our quality of life will improve, we will be safe from terrorists, and our people will be less divided, because Bush will have less opposition.

[Ray]

The only way to prove it is true is for there to be some events that prove it. If there is a Second Coming of Christ, we will know once and for all if the LDS Church is true or false.

Why do you say this? There are other people in other churches who believe that Jesus will come again, you know. Or are you expecting the Lord to make a public announcement to the rest of the world at that time, stating openly that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is His authorized kingdom on Earth? If that’s what you’re thinking, then I believe you’d be mistaken. When Jesus comes again, and even during His millennial reign, people will be able to live on this world if they are good law abiding citizens, to the extent that they know and understand the law. Membership in the Church or even a knowledge that the Church is true will not be required.

[Guest Unorthodox]

I assumed that Jesus would make an announcement as to which Church was true, so that people would stop attending false churches. However if I am wrong, then the Church will still be proven true or false at some point in the future. Even if we have to wait until we are all in our three separate Kingdoms of Heaven.

The point is that the truth will eventually be known in both politics and religion.

Getting back to Politics...

Think of it this way:

In the Middle Ages, Monarchies with a Feudal System was the accepted form of Government. Today we generally agree that Democracy is a better form of Government. In the future, I believe, as people learn from experience, we will eventually agree on which is the BEST form of Government. It may take thousands of years. It may be something completely new beyond what we can even comprehend today. But in the short term (maybe the next 200 years), I believe we will eventually agree on what is better: Liberal or Conservative.

But that is just a theory.