I have calmed down quite a bit since my last post, and now my question is "No, seriously, what are you people thinking?" I'm going to ignore the whole war-in-Iraq thing momentarily and focus in on the stuff that will affect us from day to day.
With a Republican majority in the House, the Senate, and the White House, everyone left of Zell Miller is shot to shit. There will be at least one and potentially as many as three seats in the Supreme Court up for grabs within the next four years. The Democrats (and anyone who categorizes themselves as liberals) are well and truly fucked.
I'm sorry. Very unladylike language.
Eleven states voted to outlaw gay marriage - and in some cases, not only gay marriage but civil unions or domestic rights as well. Goodbye gay rights. Bush is ardently pro-life. Let's see what happens when he appoints a highly conservative Supreme Court Justice and somebody decides to revisit Roe v. Wade. Whether I want to admit it or not, there is some basis for the argument that abortion should be a states' rights issue.
Goodbye reformed health care. Hello bigger budget deficit.
I don't want to be here anymore.
OH! And a brief note on the whole issue of terrorism... THE WAR ON IRAQ IS NOT THE SAME AS THE WAR ON TERRORISM. Wake up and smell the mocha, people.
Joy,
As an "outsider" I have no right to comment on a lot of America's domestic affairs but the UK is also in Iraq, so I think I am entitled to a view on that issue.
I just cannot understand why Kerry did not make so much more out of the "War on Terror" issue, especially after Bib Laden made his television statement in the closing days of the campaign. I honestly believe that most of the American public have been bushwacked into believing that the war in Iraq and the war on terror are the same thing. Why did Kerry not tell them, over and over again if necessary, that Bush had failed to tackle Bin Laden or Al Quaeda or terrorism in general? Why did he not say that hundreds of American troops has died in Iraq because of Bush's incompetence in prosecuting an invasion of Iraq that had absolutely sod-all to do with terrorism? Why did he not tell them that there was absolutely no connection between 9/11 and Sadaam Hussein? Or would they not have believed him if he had? This morning's analysis in the Scotsman newspaper suggests that no "East Coast Liberal" can ever make the White House - even the bookies' favourite for 2008 - Hillary Clinton - is said to be a non starter. John Edwards is thought to have been more "acceptable" but has scuppered his chances by coming out of Senate. So where does the Democratic Party go now? Basically they need another Bill Clinton. It will not make you feel any better to know that a Ceefax Poll (UK teletext) showed that 80% of British respondents wanted Kerry to win. And our lovely BBC political editor, Andrew Marr, stated on TV last night that Tonly Blair was the ONLY member of the Labour Party who wanted Bush to remain in office. Commiserations.
Well, the good news is that Arlen Spector (R-PA), the likely chair-to-be of the Senate Judicial Committee, has issued a warning to Bush that he will not tolerate a judicial candidate who will work against civil liberties or constitutional rights. There were hints that he might even participate in a filibuster against an overly-radical judge. Spector personally challenged Bush to select a judicial "giant" (like Thurgood Marshall) instead of a partisan player.