On the morning after November 2, 1975.
I knew stuff, but not a lot. I was fifteen. I knew I had rooted for Reagan in the primary. But I am sure it was based on superficial reasons. I probably liked his convention speech more than Ford's. Ford was a Navy guy I didn't appreciate for his service and role in history until many years later. By the time the election rolled around I kind of felt like I "had no dog in that race".
Of course, my father was looking further down the road and didn't like what he saw. At the time I had no concept of oil prices. I couldn't understand why people were talking about the Panama Canal. I really didn't try.
Oh well.
Mostly this morning I am sad. Sad that 52% of my fellow voters decided to back a man I genuinely feel will harm America, yeah......but more sad that 52% of my fellow voters decided to deny America President McCain. Remember, I was a McCain girl all along. I was voting for him, not for whatever Republican was on the ticket. Not against a Democrat. Not against Obama.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Sad that 52% of my fellow voters decided to back a man I genuinely feel will harm America, yeah.
This goes completely against what you say here:
Not against Obama
So really Maggie, which is it?
I don't get what you are questioning. Are you having a problem with critical thinking? Can you not handle two things at once?
Obama will be bad for America. Full stop. I believe that.
McCain is a great man and would have been a great President.
As far as questioning my support for McCain being support for McCain as opposed to simply being against Obama.....that's simply laughable. A five year old could navigate through the archives and see I have been a supporter of John McCain's since time out of mind.
I supported McCain against Bush in 2000.
OK, anonymous?
I'm not questioning your support of McCain at all. I don't see where I wrote that. Reading this blog, I understand it completely. And I'm actually really sharp at critical thinking. My question refers to the fact that you indicate that you feel Obama will hurt America. And then you indicate that you didn't vote against him (but for McCain). Looking at these two sentences critically, they are contradictary. Emphasizing what you think is a negative -- hurting America -- and not emphasizing a positive -- your support of McCain -- is what drew me to respond.
I celebrated my ass off last night because I feel that not only does this country have a chance to find a new path and hope, but this election result allows those of us who felt oppressed and embittered toward our current government a chance to feel the way that you and other supporters feel toward them.
While McCain did some great things in his life, I don't think he was the right person for this time. That passed about four years ago when our current president wouldn't take his ball and go.
I am posting anonymously because we know one another peripherally, enough that it would be uncomfortable for both of us to speak in person. I am usually shy about politics in person. I do read this and other political blogs daily, and hope you find no malice in this. I just wanted to understand the nuances of your post.
I understand your sadness, Maggie. McCain was "your" candidate. You believed in his vision and leadership. I agree with anonymous (as if you didn't know...), but this post affected me deeply.
One of my favorite politicians ever may run for the California Governor's race in 2010. If he loses, I will feel the same way.
Oh for pity's sake! You weren't oppressed!
You might have had a beef or 10 with the current administration's policies....so did I! That's not oppression.
As far as contadictory statements, I feel the blog speaks for itself and it would be silly to have to post some kind of disclaimer in every anti-Obama post.
Enjoy your celebration. You will need to remember that joy when things go wrong - I didn't say that.....that was your guy Biden.
To The Obama supporters who visit, (even peripherally)
You've won this battle and lost the war. The last time you elected someone like Obama was 1976. Courtesy of the ignorance and shortsightedness of your liberal forebearers, 4 years later this nation was blessed with the leadership of a President that Obama on his best day will never be more than a pale facsimile of.
The congressional elections are in 729 days, get ready because we will be. Enjoy your moment but, know that it is fleeting. Celebrate your ass off all you like but, in January you and the president elect will come to realize that running for office and running the country are two very different things.
He can't plan to run for the next office. He can't hide behind his fellow senators. When the phone rings at 3 a.m. or 3 p.m. he won't be able to vote present.
I won't be able to tell you I told you so, I'll be too busy with rifle with fixed bayonet in hand and soldiers following me cleaning up the mess that he made, to bother. So make sure you find somebody in uniform and ask them to tell me I was right, at some point I am sure I'll get the message.
Have a nice day!
Strong message follows.
Ἢ τὰν ἢ ἐπὶ τᾶς
BZ Anthony!
You know you and your men will always be in my prayers that you come home safely.
My thoughts and prayers are with you and your men, Anthony. Godspeed.
(And by peripherally, I meant that Maggie and I are acquainted with one another through our families, not just through the site. Though I don't know her well.)
Anthony, I wish I could read "Ἢ τὰν ἢ ἐπὶ τᾶς" Would you translate if you feel it's appropriate? You state, I'll be too busy with rifle with fixed bayonet in hand and soldiers following me cleaning up the mess that he made, to bother.
Yes, indeed. And I'm damn sorry you are. You can thank George Bush for that mess. Obama's first two years in office (or more) will involve cleaning out the Bush Administration's mess.
People will, of course, complain about Obama's policies, without realizing that the country is transiting to new policies. These take time to take effect. Our financial crisis did not become apparent to the general population until just before the crash on Wall Street.
My dad fought in the war and my grandfather served in WWII. I feel I need to keep pointing out that two of my relatives fought in Iraq and voted for Obama.
I won't pretend I understand the military: I never served. Many liberals, including me, sincerely thank you, Anthony. I, too, pray that you and our troops come home safely.
Well, my goal here was to write that both Anonymous and Maggie were expressing emotions of oppression and sadness, respectively. To argue feelings, even if they seem illogical to the other person, doesn't work. Feelings are not fact. Sometimes, even facts are not facts.
You will need to remember that joy when things go wrong. That is sage advice to us all as things inevitably go wrong in this imperfect world.
It means "With it or on it".
It is an exhortation to warriors to be brave in battle.
Anthony is promising America that he will give his all.
Anthony is 8not* talking about "W". Anthony sees the big picture in the GWOT as I do. He is talking about what Obama will do in this next year with his indecisiveness. Mistakes will be made while he feels his way about. To a certain extent that comes with the transition of power and can't be helped. Unfortunately we believe that it will actually be worse than normal.
You have written several times about your two relatives who are in the military and Obama supporters. That's interesting. I know many people in the military. Some in passing, some quite closely. I only know two who back Obama. Clearly a minority.
I have no idea what point you are making about me writing about feelings. I am not a reporter. I am a blogger and a diarist. I don't need to stick only to facts. I write a lot about my feelings.
Thank you, Maggie. My prayers to you, Anthony.
Yes, of course, I'm almost certain that military support for Obama is in the minority. Then again, all the men who served in the military in my family were/are liberals.
The "feelings" comment concerned you and Anonymous seemed a little heated. I meant that people can't fight about feelings, not that you can't write about them. Of course, you don't need to stick to facts: it's your blog.
Your comment about the political transition was particularly interesting. Yes, mistakes are always made. Whether worse than normal remains to be seen. I firmly believe this change is necessary and beneficial to our nation: I don't expect or need others to agree.
Stella,
Actually, I and you can thank William Jefferson Clinton for the problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Were it not for his idiotic attempt to treat terrorism like a law enforement problem, naivete or collusion with the anti-semitic and anti-Amerian United Nations, cowardice in the face of aggression on the part of Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein throughout the 90s, and politial myopia that only allowed him to see the world in its relation to him rather than the country, our present problems could have been dealt with with far less bloodshed 10-15 years ago.
Obama will not be cleaning up anybody's mess. With partisan fascists like Rahm Emanuel, (who makes Martin Bormann look positively open minded), an economic team made up of the same people who caused this crisis, (Raines, Frank, Granholm, Garelick, Volcker, etc), and an intolerant congressional leadership determined to create a one party tyranny of the majority not seen since the NSDAP took ovver the Reichstag, (with its own sturmabteilung, schutzstaffel, sicherheitsdienst, geheime staatspolizei, cheka, NKVD, or whatever Obama will be calling the civilian national security apparatus he wants to create), there will be plent of mess to go around.
Anthony, I absolutely agree with you that this problem could have been taken care of sooner. But the blame does not completely fall on Clinton who "Warned ‘Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft’ Inside US'" in 1998. Perhaps the impeachment and subsequent media frenzy caused Clinton to focus on the Lewinski non-issue and took his attention away from more important matters. I can't answer this question: I merely submit my supposition.
An issue that fascinated me in this timeline [link below] is that Carter and Clinton both issued warrantless wiretapping orders, a fact I never knew. Nor, can we forget that infamous 1984 picture showing Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein. We could have done something during the Reagan years. Anthony, why were we allied with Iraq? Reagan was gravely wrong to ally America with Iraq.
Here's a link to a lengthy timeline of the events leading up to the war, beginning in 1945. There's too much to read in one sitting, but there's some excellent information in this post. (Yes, Maggie, it's neutral...)
I firmly believe Bush made the wrong decision when he sent our troops over before safeguard preparations were finalized for our troops. In light of my research, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and Nixon all made wrong decisions in protecting our nation. And the errors go back further.
The "one party" tyranny on which you comment concerns me. I stand by my statement that Obama will need to clean up a terrible mess arising from the Bush Administration. To engage in name calling is futile.
I'm well familiar with the Germanic names you so blithely toss out. I have family who died in concentration camps, and disagree with your perspective. The term "Reichstag" for the new administration is hyperbole and illogical. I am probably more aware of WWII history than you might imagine.
And you, Anthony. I wish you safety, security, and good health while you honorably serve this nation. I've never met a liberal who didn't admire the commitment of the armed forces to this nation. If you don't mind my liberal prayers, they are with you.
I love it Stella! You concede Anthony's points on Clinton's administration but still call it Bush's mess.
Iraq had to be dealt with. No one else did. Bush finally did.
That makes it his mess? LOL
All your talk about being prepared for war....it's not realistic. I know some people were infuriated with Rumsfeld's "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." But that was a very true statement.
Bush did the right thing after previous administrations passed up that chance.
Hi Stella,
It would appear we agree regarding how things could have been prevented, the disagreement occurs concerning who did nore to cause the damage.
So far as preparations for the Iraq war, could things have been done differently? Sure. Could we have accepted the surrender of the 2 IRG divisions that surrendered to us, had them take an oath to the new provisional government and pointed them towards Baghdad? Sure, and it probably would have made a lot of difference. That's not what was done and we have done the best with the hand we were dealt. Blaming one man for all of this is unfair and inacurate. The liberal hatred, (and note that I say the liberal hatred not your hatred) of George W. Bush is pathological. Soros, Franken, Olbermann, their words would fit right into the most bigoted screeds of the worst leaders of our day.
I do not toss those names around blithely. I do so with full knowledge of what those organizations did and what they were rooted in. I am deeply sorry for your loss.
Were not the sturmabteilung (Brown Shirts) used as a tool to intimidate political rivals, just like the Black Panthers who harassed voters in Philadelphia or like ACORN employees who intimidated banks? Was not the Schutzstaffel (SS) a politially loyal para-military organization that was "as well funded and well equipped as the current military."?
As far as the tyranny of the majority comment, it is a quote from Madison who feared it. It is what we should fear. Pelosi, Reid, Emanuel, Waxman, et.al. have made it quite clear that their loyalty is to their party before their nation and they will do whatever they can to marginalize the GOP. If that isn't a tyranny of the majority I don't know what is.
I appreciate all prayers, and am grateful for them. So far as the liberals you know who rspect the military, they should come to NJ and explain that to the liberals here.
You concede Anthony's points on Clinton's administration but still call it Bush's mess. You don't get off that easily, Maggie.
Yes, because Bush made the mistake his father avoided. Rolling Stone (I think) had an article that during the Clinton Administration, the Afghanis or Northern Kurds had bin-Laden in their sight. Clinton chose not to assassinate bin-Laden based on the Geneva Convention and the UN rules. They missed their chance. And (I'm still pissed off about him signing NAFTA. Why did the GOP want that damn bill passed, anyway? That's a fine mess NAFTA got us into.)
Nevertheless, I continue to state American is suffering from Bush's mess. When I think about the billions of dollars given to the military contractors without oversight and our soliders making (correct me if I'm wrong) $16/hour to drive a tank compared to Halliburton mercinaries making $100/hour, I become enraged.
Bush also refused to work with the world community and just went into Iraq, contrary to his Father, who, as the Head of the CIA, knew better and stopped short of Kuwait. He refused to invade Iraq, and that was a wise decision. Hell, even Cheney agreed with Bush I.
Another fine mess: why does the Iraqi government have a $79 billion dollar surplus while America has a $10 trillion dollar deficit? With this deficit, how do we adequately defend our borders? Why did Bush slash the Homeland Security budget, which he created? How can we find the money to support veterans' benefits? How do we care for our nation? Did we really need to spend $10 billion a month on the war, and how much unaccounted money went to Halliburton, et al.?
Maggie, I still would appreciate an answer to my question. Why didn't Ronald Reagan do something? His "friendship" with Hussein escalated the mess in Iraq. Perhaps we forget Iran Contra too soon.
As I previously stated, I absolutely agree with you that this problem could have been taken care of sooner. But the blame does not completely fall on Clinton. There is much vital information in the time line link I provided. The manner in which we chose to choose Iraq was an enormous error on Bush's part. He was not adequately prepared, and he had eight months after 9/11 to ensure a better battle plan.
If you get a chance, I think you'll find the timeline a fascinating historical view of the war.
Anthony, I do think we are in agreement. I blame Clinton, but I blame many other presidents as well. So far as preparations for the Iraq war, could things have been done differently? Sure. This is precisely my point. And he put our soldiers in harm's way. I cannot forgive putting heroes' lives in jeopardy.
Your point is excellent regarding the IRG divisions and accepting surrender. Absolutely I agree they should have gone directly to Baghdad. Certainly, the troops did the best with the hand they were dealt. How they accomplished so much, I'll never know.
I suppose my blame does not involve one man—I use Bush as a sort of shorthand for the entire administration. I vehemently disagree with his actions. Frankly, hatred itself is a pathology. As one of them damn liberals, I feel that elevating my understanding is an important part of my life. Nevertheless, I think Bush has done significant damage to America: and it hurts to see the decline that occurred in our country over the past eight years.
As far as Olberman and Maddow, I see them as the liberal equivalent of O'Reilly and Limbaugh. They always strike me as equally passionate about their beliefs. Whether their words would fit into the most bigoted screeds of the worst leaders of our day is a thought I must ponder, and I thank you for that.
Were not the sturmabteilung (Brown Shirts) used as a tool to intimidate political rivals. Yes, absolutely. I feel liberals endured the same treatment by many conservatives. I have a creed by which I live: fanaticism in any group, race, or religion is terrorism. You remind me of how hatred destroys all it touches.
Believe me, Anthony, liberals can't abide Pelosi and Reid. Many of us are upset that Cindy Sheehan lost District 8 by 80%. However, remember that neither Reid nor Pelosi wanted to start impeachment proceedings against Bush, as many liberals had hoped, due to the war.
As concerns Waxman, I assure you he does not want to marginalize the GOP and worked bipartisan many times since his 1974 election to help this nation. Please take a moment to look at the House Oversight Committee page. As he states, “We should be doing our utmost to ensure that all are protected against discrimination”" both conservatives and liberals. He's my Congressman: I keep a close eye on him. (LOL)
Maggie reminded me that one of the most liberal members of the Senate, Feingold, worked with McCain and demonstrated that not all democrats support tyranny. I hope to see more of these actions in the next four years.
So, Anthony, if you want to buy us a plane ticket to New Jersey, we'll be glad to enlighten those fanatic liberals with my circle. I apologize for their behavior: it's inappropriate. I had friends in 'Nam and will never forget the lesson I learned when I watched the anti-war fanatics treat our troops so poorly. I, too, was anti-war, and disapproved of the treatment they received when they came home. Two of my dear friends fought there.
Thank you for your kind response. I like getting viewpoints from people who disagree with me. Many blessings and prayers to you for your safety, Anthony. It's very kind of you to respond to my rant. ;-)
Maggie, you give me lots of grief, and we frequently disagree. I respect your wit and intellect. No matter how many tussles we get into, I always come away in deep thought. There is no better education than questioning one's values.
Post a Comment