November 03, 2004

My Complete Comments on the Re-Election of Not-My-President

happy_halloween_bush.jpg

The best quote from CNN's election coverage:
Ralph Nader: "[Bush]'s just a big corporation disguised as a human being."

0) $paginate_current_page = 0; $paginate_sections = array( 0 ); $paginate_top_section = $paginate_sections[$paginate_current_page-1]+1; $paginate_bottom_section = $paginate_sections[$paginate_current_page]; } else { $paginate_top_section = 1; $paginate_bottom_section = 0; } $paginate_self = '&' . $_SERVER['QUERY_STRING'] . '&'; $paginate_self = preg_replace("/&page=[^&]*&/", "&", $paginate_self); $paginate_self = substr($paginate_self, 1, strlen($paginate_self) - 1); if($paginate_self == '&') $paginate_self = ''; else $paginate_self = htmlentities($paginate_self); $paginate_self = basename($_SERVER['PHP_SELF']) . "?${paginate_self}page"; ?> Posted by Kristina at November 3, 2004 06:22 PM
Comments

I think I cheered when Nader said that.

Posted by: Dianna at November 3, 2004 07:03 PM

He's been using that quote verbatim for at least the last four years.

Posted by: dr v at November 4, 2004 04:06 AM

Thanks, Mr. Killjoy.

Posted by: Kristina at November 4, 2004 07:37 AM

Nader said Gore was a plastic man with a Pinocchio nose, and a "certified political coward". He also said, "The only difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock."

-Uncle Killjoy

Posted by: sean at November 4, 2004 07:44 AM

Wow, Nader's got some mouth on him! Was he referring to merely kneeling before corporations, or something a little more... risque?

Posted by: Kristina at November 4, 2004 07:49 AM

Nader does have a book called "Civic Arousal", so I have a feeling that he likes it dirty.

Let's just say he couldn't call Janet Jackson "baby" or "Janet" - he'd have to call her "Ms. Jackson".

Posted by: sean at November 4, 2004 08:09 AM

The only positive thing about Bush being re-elected is that it means he can't possibly be elected in 2008. And I'm sort of hoping he manages to cause nuclear (or, as he calls it, nucular) warfare to come to US soil before then just to show the 51% of moronic motherfuckers who voted for him the folly of their ways. If Americans are seriously this fucked up (and apparently they are) they deserve him. I'm 'bout to high tail it to India and start a harem--who's with me?

Posted by: Renee at November 4, 2004 10:58 AM

feel free to stop by our house in France anytime you want a break from India - Clint and I will have our chef whip up something festive and hard to pronounce while we drink red wine and bitch about the red states. sound like a plan?

Posted by: adrienne at November 4, 2004 02:59 PM

I really hope Bush doesn't mess things up any more than he already has so as to bring a nuclear ("nucular") attack on US soil, mostly because no one has their sights set on Kansas or Oklahoma, or even Ohio (although I think the middle east should start blaming Ohio for any future foreign policy blunders). If there's an attack on the US, you know the blue states are going to get it, because we have all the important stuff, whereas the red states ain't got jack worth blowing up. There's no sense of accomplishment from setting brush on fire or blowing up you average "Main Street, USA". I like that New York and New Jersey, the states that were most affected by 9/11 voted for Kerry and states that could no way in hell be possible terrorist targets (except, of course, for Virginia, where DC and the Pentagon are located) voted for Bush. I love the arrogance and blind sense of fear evident when people from Arkansas or North Dakota say that terrorists could strike anywhere - even their town. Us blue state people are the ones who should be afraid, so perhaps we should be able to pick the guy we think would do the best job of protecting us. This is why I advocate a blue-state secession from the Union. We'll call it the United Blue States of America. We will still have the world's largest economy and can charge the red states as much as we want for TV and access to major financial and business institutions, as well as all of its good drugs and educated people. Take that red states!

Posted by: Kristina at November 4, 2004 07:14 PM

Hey, Washington DC voted for Kerry by 90% to 9%. No exception to the affected-states-voted-Kerry rule there.

Posted by: Dianna at November 4, 2004 08:37 PM

You're right, I guess I was just thinking that the Pentagon is in Virginia... Another interesting election statistic is that Bush only got 15% of the SF County vote.

Posted by: Kristina at November 4, 2004 08:39 PM

I'm sure everyone is going to say, "duh" when I say this, but It's kind of understandable though why D.C. went overwhelmingly Kerry. It's a prodominantly African-American urban area and most polls show that the African-American voters are mostly liberal. The politicians in D.C. had no affect because they all have to keep residency in their home states and thus voted in their respective home states so they weren't a factor in D.C.'s voting.

Posted by: Clint at November 5, 2004 04:58 AM

Holy Christ how did I miss that? Now I AM scared--Bush will cause mass destruction of all of us cool people and those rednecked losers in the middle will be left safe and sound. Those motherfucks! Maybe they're much smarter than they seem and it's a conspiracy to rid themselves of all the sinning liberals along the coasts...India, here I come!

Also, today I noticed an article in the (shitty, shitty) paper that said Hillary Clinton is a front-runner for 2008; this made me sort of happy, until I tried to imagine who she'd be running against...How likely do you think it is that Cheney will run, and would there be any chance in hell that a woman democrat would be elected over him?

(Obviously, I know this is a resounding NO, NOW GO MAKE ME A PIE BITCH!)

Posted by: Renee at November 5, 2004 07:07 AM

or, more likely, cheney will be dead by 2008.

Posted by: michele at November 5, 2004 09:22 AM

cheney isn't electable as president. there are rumos that he'll resign during the second term so they can get someone else in there that they can groom for 2008.

i've always thought that the first woman president would have to be a republican.

Posted by: holohan at November 5, 2004 09:53 AM


the new york papers have predictions of Guiliani and Hilary Clinton up against each other in 2008 which could make for a very interesting election. although i worry that the toothless, brainless, macho infused middle americans won't react well to the idea of a woman president..republican or democrat.

Posted by: adrienne at November 5, 2004 10:59 AM

I always thought the first female, or black president would have to be a Republican, unless it was Oprah.

Posted by: sean at November 5, 2004 11:08 AM

A female Republican running for President would be interesting. I'd imagine she'd get a lot more votes from Democrats than from her own party.

Well, if you could call the GOP any woman's party, that is.

Posted by: Dianna at November 5, 2004 11:13 AM

i think there's a tendency to assume that women are antithetical to the republican party, but there's actually a growing population of conservative women out there. groups like the independent women's forum (which was recently given a sweetheart deal by the administration to take over women's issues in iraq: http://www.now.org/issues/global/101504iwf.html) are starting to take on the orthodoxy of NOW.

[lest i draw any flames, that last paragraph was meant as factual reporting. i'm not judging either group.]

anyway, according to CNN, 48% of women voted for bush, including 55% of white women. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html)

also, elizabeth dole ran in the republican primaries in 2000, as i recall. few people took her seriously because she was so stepford, but a strong republican woman would probably draw a lot of republican votes, male and female, along with a decent number of moderate women.

of course, as a guy i can't claim to know what women think. i'm just reporting the facts as i sees them.

don't flame me.

Posted by: holohan at November 5, 2004 11:31 AM

My prediction was actually based on the conservative female vote. I'm not sure where I'm getting this from, but it's my impression that a lot of women on the religious right are actively against seeing women in positions of political/governmental authority. It's that whole idea that if you take on responsibilities outside the home you're automatically abdicating your traditional wife-and-mother responsibilities, I guess, or at least that's what I'm projecting onto them.

Posted by: Dianna at November 5, 2004 11:54 AM

I was all set to pshaw you with statistics, but according to NOW's website only 46.4% of women in America work outside the home, and 75% of those are in low-level jobs. (I don't know how reliable NOW's numbers are, but I was too lazy to sort through the census website.) Although I'm not sure those numbers translate to stay-at-home values.

Posted by: didofoot at November 5, 2004 12:02 PM

I was trying to see if anyone had done a study on conservative womens' willingness to elect a female president, but obviously I came up empty handed. I DID find an interesting article (which I used as my URL this time) that was really long and made an interesting point that's covered on roughly the first 2 pages: as long as a woman candidate presents herself in line with her party's primary concerns (for a democrat, social issues; for a republican, business and military) she has a chance to succeed.

It does seem, though, that a republican female candidate would stand a much better chance of getting elected just because democrats want to see a women president much more than republicans do and would more likely vote across party lines to accomplish the feat--I mean, I most likely would, as long as she wasn't a psycho carrying around a...I don't know...rolling pin. And if a female republican candidate came out and got the support of male republicans, they'd probably make their wives vote for her, too (I secretly believe female republicans only exist in the first place because their husbands--or fathers--FORCE them to agree with their political views) thus getting the entire republican vote; and if you tack on a good chunk of the female democratic vote (and probably some dudes, too) she'd easily win. If a female democrat ran, though, I have a feeling the WASPy men would laugh her out of the country. That, or maybe spank her.

Posted by: Renee at November 5, 2004 12:36 PM

Aren't a lot of republicans republican not because they are stupid or sexist or cavemen but because they don't believe the federal government should be in charge of everything? (This isn't actually directed at you, Renee, but at the huge amount of "middle america is the short bus of the continent" remarks I've heard since the election.)

Posted by: didofoot at November 5, 2004 12:43 PM

The dumb answer to that is "yes".

The other answer is "yes, but the focus on 'moral values' in this election has me leaning toward the idea that a greater percentage in this particular country are republican not because they are stupid or sexist or cavemen but because what they perceive is a situation in which their faith and values are under attack, which just happens to suck for those of us who have nothing against their faith but are suffering as a result of the legislation of their values."

Posted by: Dianna at November 5, 2004 01:14 PM

good answer. i applaud you, leaving me no hands with which to type anything else.

Posted by: didofoot at November 5, 2004 01:28 PM

Was that the dumb answer or the other answer which you were applauding?

Posted by: Dianna at November 5, 2004 01:50 PM

the other one.

Posted by: didofoot at November 5, 2004 02:09 PM

No offense taken; I actually feel somewhat cliche making anti-Republican remarks, but since Kris made me realize that if anyone's getting bombed as a result of their choice for prez, it's ME not them, I am wicked pissed. Also, they sort of bring it on themselves by being so intolerant of the liberal side of things. And finally, I theoretically would agree that the government doesn't necessarily need to interfere with things like health care and school funding if they didn't TAX THE SHIT OUT OF US. I mean, Christ, if you're going to take 1/3 of my paycheck every month (leaving me starving and whoring myself out for liquor) at least use it for good, not crap I wouldn't pay for in a million years (farm subsidies? what the hell?).

Posted by: Renee at November 5, 2004 02:21 PM

in theory, conservatism is about small government. the reality is that republicans and democrats both want big government; the difference is that democrats want to spend money as they get it (meaning high taxes) and republicans want to spend money they don't have (meaning low taxes and economically disastrous deficits that future generations of democrats will have to pay).

the great irony is that republicans who claim to want the government out of their business also want the government to tell people whom they can marry and have sex with, not to mention who they can watch, read, or listen to have sex.

Posted by: holohan at November 5, 2004 02:31 PM

Renee, look into the libertarian party.

Posted by: Danny at November 5, 2004 02:49 PM

I was going to say something to that effect earlier, but couldn't find a good enough summary of the Libertarian position to be sure I was even thinking of the right party. Apparently I was! So thank you, Danny.

Posted by: Dianna at November 5, 2004 02:56 PM

If running an opposition, things-are-awful, anyone-but-Bush type of campaign in the future, Democrats should really take care not to run a candidate that is part of Congress, and especially one that didn't vote for many of things he/she criticizes.

Nominating a senator is a bad idea in general. Does anyone think that Hilary Clinton would actually do well in a national election, or is nominating her a function of her being famous, paying her dues, good at raising money, etc.?

Posted by: sean at November 5, 2004 03:37 PM

I think nominating Hillary would sort of be a result of timing and placement--she's one of the most recognizable woman in politics at this point and we're finally getting to a place (in theory) where people might consider voting a woman into the presidency (and I stress the 'might'). As far as fame, dues, and money go, however, to which candidates do those things not apply?

Also, as far as Libertarianism is concerned, I have no interest in being part of any political party. Ever. The only reason I voted in this election was that I wouldn't have been able to live with myself if by some chance Bush won New York and I hadn't voted because that man is clinically retarded. I belong to a party that I invented called "The Dissociate Party" whose only tenet is that dissociation from all things political is the way to go.

Posted by: Renee at November 8, 2004 06:34 AM
Cementhorizon