Well, I have recovered from the election results and while I don't want to be stupid about this, I have to tell you I was bummed out as to the results and the meaning for our country of the Dems taking over the legislative branch. But after thinking about it, I realized the sun will still come up and that this back and forth we see in our political arena is not only what the Founding Fathers would have liked to see, it is what was designed into our political system by the Constitution. They certainly realized that it would have long term benefits to have lots of different parties and minority interests at play so that the majority would always be looking over their shoulders and would never be able to subject the minority interests to the tyranny they had felt living under the King's rule.
The founders certainly designed the constitution so as to allow for the kind of change in power we saw this week. It is really a good thing for us and I thing is the beauty of our form of government. What I love about our system is that we can have these bitterly partisans elections, filled with distortions, lies, attacks, (from both sides) and yet, when it is all over the rule of law prevails, we transition to the new government and we fight it out the next time around. No coups, no revolutions, no riots etc. It is a wonderful thing and really I think, somewhat unique in the history of the world. (certainly when it was formed 225 years ago) but maybe not so unique these days, but truly a remarkable, inspired form of government.
Now, as to the election itself. I fell badly as a Republican and would have preferred that the Senate and House be split as that would tie everything up and when that happens in our government these days we are all better off. Gridlock is not all that bad when it comes to our government as that means they can't help much, but they can't hurt anything either and that is what I worry about.
So the Dems have control and here we go. I think they will push their agenda that they have been squawking about. The Iraqi conflict will certainly need to be addressed in some form as that is what many ran on and certainly I think the American people want to see something change there. I like Rumsfeld but I'm glad he is gone as I think a new set of eyes looking at this mess might help us put additional resources into this thing to get it resolved. We are correct to be there and I totally support the efforts we have made, but we are fighting an enemy unique in its form of fighting us. These guys think it is an honor to die in the act of killing innocents and that is a hard enemy to know how to approach. They are evil and must be eliminated or at least curtailed somehow, so the basic strategy of being there is still sound. We just need to change tactics somehow so we can end this thing and win it and get the heck out of there and let the Iraqis run their country. So many people in our country just look at this as American soldiers, men and women dying and as the number of deaths and injuries increase, they simply can stomach it. They define the success or unsuccess if you prefer by body counts and money spent. Perfectly understandable but so shortsighted and overlooks the bigger picture of what is going on. That is what is so wrong with those that voted the way they did because of the war alone and I think there were many like that. They simply don't understand the stakes we are dealing with here and do not understand what we are fighting. Thank goodness for Bush's vision on this, but I wonder how he will be able to handle it with the Dems now controlling the legislative agenda. He has many short comings, I suppose, but he understands this fight and what is at stake for civilization. (much as Roosevelt understood the Hitler, Stalin threat and Reagan the Communist threat. History will look to Bush as far as recognizing the threat and drawing a line in the sand for the last great fight for civilization. Anyway, the American people have spoken on that point and I hope Bush and continue his resolve on this at least for the last two years of his term.
There is little else that matters and had it not been for so many not really understanding the war, I doubt if this election route would have occurred. The economy is going great, the unemployment rate is an all time low, tax rates are as low as they will ever be, incomes are up, and many other things are going well. Bush forgot who he was and has spent way too much money, has not reeled in government spending or expansion, has not done much on immigration, not been able to tackle entitlements etc, but I truly think the War is what defined this election.
It will be interesting to see what comes done in the next two years. The Dems will push things like the minimum wage, immigration reform including amnesty of some sort, raising taxes, stem ceel research, enviornment restrictions on energy exporating, and even a further expansion of government, etc, etc. Not sure if Bush will veto this stuff when it comes to him, but it will be tough for the Dems to not compromise somewhat as they will not be able to override many of the issues since they need a 2/3's majority to override a veto. (another brilliant provision by the Founding Fathers) Compromise will be important. Not all that bad a situation to tell you the truth.
Will Bush talk conservative and act moderately to maintain peace, insure a legacy or will he stick to his rhetoric about being conservative but acting moderately? It will be interesting to see. I think to the extent he sticks to his principals, (right or wrong depending on your slant) I think the 2008 elections will be largely formulated. His actions along with the the conflict in Iraq will determine in my opinion how the American people will respond in 2008, not only to the Presidential election but the House and Senate elections.
Have you noticed that when the Dems lose they look to conspiracy's, fraud, cheating, voter intimidation, vote supression by the other side, etc, etc as the answers. They sqawk and scream about how the American voter is just too stupid to understand the issues (I heard a guy say that once after an election...admittedly a minority point of view I think) They never look inward and say to themselves maybe our issues are not in line with the majority of Americans and maybe we should modify them, more to the center. Now that they have won, I truly think they will misinterpret the results and think they have some sort of a mandate to implement their liberal issues. The one thing they have the support for is a modification of the direction in Iraq and if they are wise they will direct their efforts there. If they go for the left wing agenda they really believe in, they will make the same mistake the GOP did and they will hurt their chances in 2008. Many, if not most of the new members ran as centrist Dems and not extreme left wingers (pro life, no new taxes, tough on immigration etc.) That is where the American center is and they will be wise to run on what they were elected on and not turn into something that they did not get elected for.
The GOP (in all modesty) has been quite humble in accepting this defeat as what it is. They are recognizing that they did not govern on the principals that got them elected. (You gotta go home from the dance with who brought yeh, as Mark would say) I hope they have learned. We have to win in Iraqi and win it quickly and overwhelmingly and get the heck out. (Not sure of how or even if that can be done....but getting out without victory is not the answer...that I know) If we do that, the Dems are in big trouble in 2008 if they continue to promote their very left agenda.
I love our country, all it stands for and the privledge it is to be an American and be free and able to discuss these matters without worrying about being stifled.
That is my 2 cents.
Love you all,
Dad
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Good post, Dad.
I am not particularly disappointed with the election results. In all reality, I don't think much will change in Washington, as every elected official seems to eventually succumb to the corrupting (but moderating) influence of the Washington Status Quo, aka the Potomac Two Step. (Name that movie.)
TIME ran an interesting cover photo a few issues ago: the wrinkled posterior of an ancient elephant, symbolizing the lumbering, cracking staleness of the 12 year old Republican Revolution. (The picture looked much like the rotund Dennis Hastert.) There was a quote in that issue that rang particularly true: A revolution has lost its power when its only agenda is to desperately cling to that power.
I don't think the Democrats will do any better, but just like Rummy stepping down, sometimes you need fresh eyes and voices to give new insight into old problems. I think that maybe W. will wind up being MORE successful in these last two years of his presidency. He will be forced to be concilliatory on his domestic agenda, and I think that will come suprisingly easy to him. In many ways, the direction he wants to take the country is much in line with the moderate democratics: education, social security reform, big spending. Isn't it ironic that the Republican party, with 6 years of controlling all 3 branches of government, incurred record-setting deficits on pork projects catering to special interests? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. (But it rocks absolutely as well.)
Finally, I concur with you about George W.'s legacy. He will be vindicated by history for refusing to sit on the sidelines during the War on Terror, which is the most important struggle of our generation. Radical Islamofascists hijacked the Muslim religion 20 years ago, nurturing terrorism with virulent ideology, which simmered in the deserts of the Middle East until it boiled over on 9/11. But W. recognized the gathering threat, and took the fight to them for three clearly stated reasons: 1) To rid the world of Saddam's universal agreed upon (though non-existent) WMD stash, 2) To liberate the Iraqi people from a despised tyrant, and 3) To establish a beach-head for democracy in the heart of the Middle East. Rather then sit by and let the terrorists bring their misdirected violence onto American soil, W. change the theatre of battle, with the ultimate goal of introducing a rejuvenating ideology of hope into a hopeless region and culture.
Government of the people, by the people and for the people . . . As Bono has said, America is not just a nation. It's an idea.
I choose to believe that eventually the hope of democracy will overcome the desperate self-destruction of islamofascism.
And as you mentioned, nothing symbolizing the beauty and power of democracy better than the peaceful transition of power after an election.
God save the Queen!
(Ooops! Wrong country . . .)
Dad,
You can tell Askintoo to go pound sand. That'll be more useful to him than telling me about his $900.
I liked your post. I too was a little disappointed about the election results, but after a little reflection, I feel okay about it. Sure, I tend to identify more with conservative values that Republicans sometimes represent, but I think that moderation and compromise are more important to a strong government than pushing through highly controversial legislation with a 50.1% majority and calling that a "mandate". Democrats have a lot to offer in terms of balancing sometimes ideologically overreaching Republicans. I just wish there were more moderates on both sides that were less concerned about blaming and taking credit and more concerned with finding a moderate solution that will satisfy a larger majority than just their party. Granted, on some issues that is impossible (i.e. abortion, stem cell research, etc.) but I think there are so many areas where there is a lot more middle ground than we realize. A song comes to mind..."You start walkin' your way, I'll start walkin' mine. We'll meet in the middle 'neath that old Georgia pine...."
I, like you, am frustrated that the Democrats are interpretting the election results as a "mandate" to implement their agenda that has been frustrated over the last 12 years by a Republican congress and more recently by a Republican president. It seems to me that most Democrats got a elected on a vote-for-me-if-you-hate-George-Bush platform and little else. Bush hatred is so rampant right now that people can't even think straight about it. They get nutty. People voted against the Republicans and George Bush, not for the Democrats in most cases.
What are the Democrats going to do in Iraq, that will actually help? They certainly don't seem to have any useful ideas, at least not that they have articulated. In fact, some of the most ridiculous liberals continue to seriously suggest that we should just leave now. Do they actually believe that is in the long-term best interest of the country? We all want the war to be over...I hate war, but there has to be a way to accomplish our goals in Iraq more effectively than we have so far and not leave it to extremists and terrorists who will brutalize the Iraqi people and plot attacks against the West.
The "democratic wave" if anything, should at least spur more creative, flexible and ultimately effective thought about our political and tactical strategies on the ground in Iraq and I think that is a very good thing.
We've already seen that with Rumsfeld, which I think was a good move. Bush has said he is "open to suggestions" in Iraq and I think he is honest about that. I feel like the relentless pounding the administration has endured from the democrats over the last two years since reelection has caused them to be more frank and forthcoming about mistakes and problems in the war.
(Side note: I hate when Bush refers to Iraq as "hard work." I think I know what he is trying to say, but that term does not do it justice, and is insulting to those who have lost their lives.)
In listening to Bush the last few days, it seems that he and his administration have gotten the message that the American people want him to listen to the other side a lot more. I think he is willing to listen, but unfortunately, it doesn't seem like the other side have very much useful to say. They are good at blaming, but at viable solutions that make long-term sense? Not so much...and when they do offer ideas, it seems to sound a lot like what the administration is proposing. Bush said it well in his last State of the Union:
"Second guessing is not a plan..."
Sure, Bush got us into this war, but our military for the most part fights with honor and distinction on the battlefield...protecting and fighting for human rights and dignity and freedom. Never in history has there been a more honorable military. The enemy we fight is so brutal and without morals, targeting innocent life. The hypocrisy of so much of the world in so vehemently condemning infrequent lapses of the American military(ie Abu Ghraib) in the face of such disgusting disregard for life and freedom of our enemies is appalling.
Anyway, there has been a lot ov goodwill floating around Washington this week, but I think we can be pretty sure it won't last for long...but I still have hope....a fool's hope...but it is better than no hope.
Hey, Akinstoo:
Tell me more about how to make "some nice extra cash secret shopping." I could use an extra $900 bucks.
Mark
Well said, Dad.... now here's what I really think.
Win in Iraq? First, please define "winning". Your president has ensured that victory will now be nearly impossible, through a mixture of incompetence and bullheaded arrogance.
Claiming we have to "win it quickly and overwhelmingly and get the heck out" is NOT a substitute for a clear strategy or a sober assessment of the reality in Iraq now. And that window closed about two and a half years ago, anyway. Your party, unfortunately, has little better idea than you about what to do.
What do you mean by "winning?" No, really --I would like to know, because you use that word as if you think it means something -- but you have never defined it. Victory is not inevitable in Iraq just by staying there indefinitely. There are no good options left, only bad ones and worse ones. Funny how "stay the course" really means "more of the same".
Are you willing to triple the amount of money being spent on Iraq? How long is too long to be there? 5 more years? Ten?
Will you bring back the military draft so we can triple or more the number of troops there? Please give a threshold on the number of Iraqi and American lives you are willing to sacrifice before it's not worth it anymore: 100,000 more? 500,000? A million?
And are you willing to allow Afghanistan to slip back into the abyss by committing limited resources to Iraq for the indefinite future? We have troops there, you know -- will you support them?
Your party has no more plan for victory than does the Democrats, no definition of victory, and has not committed the resources to bring it about. They have hung the troops out to dry for political gain and created 5 terrorists for every one they have killed. They have bungled any chance that Iraq will be a safe place to live for the forseeable future, and we have destabilized that entire region of the world in the process. Your party cannot be trusted to make this country safer. The only shame in its loss is that it didn't come sooner.
Moreover, we are supporting the very evil you are claiming we have to eliminate. Iraq is on the threshold of total anarchy, with an Iranian proxy government in power trying to slaughter every Sunni they can get their hands on. Sunnis are doing the same to the Shia, and the Kurds trying to stay out of it all while they fend off Syria, Iran and Turkey.
This will become more and more evident as time goes by -- you heard it here first -- and denying it won't make it go away.
We are playing into the terrorists' aims -- hear me? Your party is HELPING THEM. No wonder Al Qaeda has been gloating lately.
In seeing the situation in such stark black-and-white terms you are missing some very colorful evil that is springing up and thriving right in front of you as a result of this boneheaded, unnecessary, and incompetently managed war.
Oh and there has been plenty of blame-displacement and conspiracy-mongering going on among Republicans, I assure you. Any humility you may witness is only because it is dawning on them what a disaster the last six years have been. Even Rush is distancing himself. Is there even one Republican who won last Tuesday by positioning him/herself to the right of the Democrats? Of course not.
Like you, I am also glad that our governmental transitions are peaceful, and that we don't have to worry about the sort of violence and chaos that we have unleashed unwittingly on Iraq. People like me were predicting the current disaster 3 years ago, and now the world is reaping the benefits.
Ok the Dems arent much better, but at least they are trying to change things. So I, humble as can be, have a three part strategy I would like to propose as a start.
1) We need to start talking to Iran and Syria about Iraq's future. Hold your nose. The Republicans killed democracy. Stability is the best that can be hoped for at this point.
2) We need to give the Iraqi government clear-cut benchmarks for responsibility with the penalty of withdrawing our support gradually if they don't meet them.
3) A major effort needs to be made to make the country, or at least Baghdad, more liveable by building infrastructure and ensuring things like electricity and clean water, as well as providing better security. This will be most difficult of all -- once again it is probably unachievable because of W's incompetence.
Funny, I have an idea that something like this will be proposed by the Baker commission soon. How's that for moderate? A hollow, meaningless "victory" no longer holds much appeal to most people, and has been deservedly rejected.
I hope you will take the blinders off and think objectively about this sometime rather than being so reactionary and partisan... but I too am a realist ;-)
BTW Ty, the world condemns the terrorists too. We interpret it as reflexive America-bashing only because it many Americans don't think of our country as capable of being a war monger. If we fight somebody, we must be right, right? We shouldn't interpret the criticism of or disgust at our policies as siding with the terrorists. That is a recipe for eternal war. You will find few people beyond a few radicals cheering the suicide bombers.
This didn't have to be a war between civilizations -- we have made it so. We need to kill and neturalize terrorists, not create more of them with reactionary policies that make the problem worse and empower them, as W has done.
Hey askinstoo, sign me up man! Wow, I had no idea that making money on the internet was so easy. Dad, is he a friend of yours?
I really enjoy reading all of the comments made by everyone. I have a few of my own. I am no expert on the war in Iraq but hopefully I can make some sense.
To answer the question what does winning mean?I have always been under the impression that when Iraq was stable enough to support itself without outside support is what we would call a victory. Now, whether or not that is a possibility is a different question and I think the real one that is being argued by everyone. I personally hope that it is a possibility. I think it is important to note that it is not Americans or George W. Bush that is killing Iraqi people. It is radical islamist that are killing innocent people. It is not Replublicans, Democrats, or soldier that are making things difficult in Iraq, it is suicide bombers and radical islamic clergy and hatred between ethnic groups that is causing problems. Now, one could most certainly make the argument that America stirred up the pot or added the flame that caused the explosion, but I think it safe to say that there was an explosion waiting to happen and now we are in the process of figuring out how to stop it. Simply accusing the president of incompetence and putting all the blame on him I feel is very naive. I feel that it is very unrealistic to have assummed that there wasn't going to be mistakes made and unforeseen events take place is the wrong way to look at this, and certainly turning around a running because of those doesn't make sense to me. The Iraqi people and most definitely the islamic world need to figure out how to get rid of these radicals that are causing all the problems. I think that the main issue in that process is going to be fear. Fear of terrorist and fear of change, and the rest of the world needs to be there to help calm the scared Iraqi people and islamic world. Sadly, the rest of the world doesn't see it that way and not even the majority of America does. I might add that I think most of the lack of support stems form fear. Fear that we got ourselves into somehting that we can't get out of, fear of failure, fear of terrorist, fear of political failure and so forth. Now, fear is not always a bad thing(aka-I am scared of great white sharks and therefore will never go swimming with one) and can potentially save lives. However, it can also be debilitating and keep one from seeing or attain that which he wants or needs. I guess that is the big question, which kind of fear are we feeling?
Akinstoo has apparently upped the ante to $2000 a month. This guy must really be on to something.
Post a Comment