The incumbent has prevailed! Some may say democracy has prevailed. Of course that depends on your perception of the electoral college system and the re-apportinment issues. I’m also saying thank God Kerry conceded and the issue was not further debated, anticipated and litigated. Despite the voter fraud concerns and the hearings concerned with them, I must say things went relatively smoothly. But of course I am disappointed in the outcome of the elections. I can’t say I’m surprised but very disappointed.
It seems to me the United States has entrusted itself with the obligation of administering some sort of moral cleansing of the hardly democratic Arab world (bomb Afghanistan, bomb Iraq and get rid of Saddam) and leading the international world as THE Super Power. Despite the facts involving 911 (thanks to the 911 commission for clarifying this), it’s lacking connection with the Iraq situation, and the obvious closed door or under cover policy of the Bush administration, it seemed more important to the united states populace to vote for corperate tax cuts, so called “moral” issues and the seeming “born againness” of President Bush.
I won’t even begin to elaborate on the “glaring” benefits (to the average american) of the wisdom involved in corperate tax cuts. The long formula that eventually filters down to the lower classes depicting that this social group will benefit from a “rampant” increase in job creation is not only bogus but serves to make the Bushes richer and keep the Johnsons in peanut farms.
As for voting for moral issues rather than the economy and the war in Iraq, is that even possible. In this instance the ignorance and tyranny of the majority suggests that morality does not extend beyond the boarders of the United States. Oh hail President Bush the moral measuring stick who is so pro-life and so opposed to abortion yet will gladly take the lives of innocent men, women and children of Iraq. So does that make him pro-life or pro-life of the people of the United States, too bad for the defenseless Iraqi citizen. Even his commitment to the people of the United States may be questionable. He is readily willing to commit other people’s children to fighting a war designed more to create his own legacy but not his own twin girls. After all it is daddy’s ego we are trying to pep here so why not make this a full fledged family affair right!
Finally, although the president may advocate that he is a born again christian and for this reason “rules” the country based on christian values, is this really evident in his”reign”. Herein falls the biblical command (Bush 9 verse 11) “Do as I say, not as I do!” Exactly which christian value condones the killing of the innocent men, women and children in Iraq. Which christian value suggests that it’s not a big deal to humiliate (by having them enact homosexual and degrading acts) Iraqi pow’s just as long as it is being done by the sacred U.S military. Sure Bush didn’t make them do it but Commander in Chief, what exactly did YOU do to redress the wrong!
I guess all I’m trying to say is that I find it very disturbing that the presidential choice of the american people suggests that the latter may believe they live in a vaccuum, devoid of the international world. The same international world whose liberty they want to ensure via a form of neo-colonialization in the name of democracy. I find it even more disturbing that this attitude may be re-enforcing the idea of “selective christianity”. In fact I think it’s almost impossible to be a politician (such as the one Bush has been ) and “practice” chrstianity at the same time (separation of state and church), especially if your constitution advocates protection of individual rights (such as the gay relations, and abortion issues). Perhaps in your own private life you may practice christianity, but where it concerns the state, the people of the United States and the constitution, your obligation lies towards protecting individual rights. Moreover, even when the facts are staring us in the face with the “911/Iraq war” (as the president would like us to believe “The enemy attacked us…”), we still vote for the same man who tried to pull the wool over our faces (in lay man’s terms: “lied to us”). Oh but alas he did it in a “moral and christian way”… therein lies the difference!
I just don’t get it! I really dont!