Burnt Orange Report

What a glorious victoru...
Bush and America win
France, Soros, LEft wing hollywood dirtballs, Crack using rappers et al lose

So, what the hell do we do?

As you said, we're a populist movement without the people - and in America, unfortunately, the majority rules.

I'm giving up on America.

Over the last four years, I could consider the evil acts of the President the fault of the President. Now, I consider the evil acts of the President the fault of the American people. Americans are just evil.

Socrates put it succinctly, by being part of a society, you enter into a social contract. If you like the tradeoff of being in the society, sometimes you drink the hemlock.

Problem is, I don't like this society and no longer wish to be bound by it. I no longer want my tax dollars to support the murder of hundreds of thousands. I no longer want to pay for having my rights taken away. I no longer want to play by the rules of the society - so it is time to leave the society.

-- Brian Boyko

Jim D, well put and I hope the Democratic Party is able to seriously and honestly do that. I voted Democrat for about 10 years before I felt I had to switch because the party swung way too far left for me. I feel a change of party leadership is needed and a re-evaluation of party positions is needed. I welcome the day when Democrats and Republicans are forced by each other to fight serious, hard-fought battles on real issues of importance. For example: If Joe Lieberman, a Democratic hawk were the nominee instead of Kerry, who's antiwar years tainted any talk of him being a hawk, can you imagine the debates over national security? Lieberman is pro war in Iraq and pro Israel. Those debates would have been much more substantial and enjoyable to watch.

You see Brian, your morally condescending attitude towards people who don't believe what you believe is why you lose. You and the Kerry's and Hillary Clintons of the world have total disrepect for others tatooed on your forehead- calling them evil for starters - is exactly why people who don't view the world *exactly* your way, who could be swayed, reject your policies.

And you are so blinded by your belief in your intellect and moral purity that you will never realize you don't inspire people by holding your shining brain under their nose and saying "look how obvious what are you stupid?"

And being a sore loser and wanting to pout and take your ball and go away doesn't elevate the conversation.

The Day the D's put up someone who can inspire and lead and not tell the South and the Heartland to go fuck themselves is the day the R's will get concerned.

"But for the time being, we need to give President Bush a fair shake."

Jim D.--

Are you serious? Bush's entire life is built on "shakes" that he has not reciprocated. Kerry's abrupt concession showed his fatal flaw, that he is an officer and a gentleman. Bushism has succeeded in pushing electoral politics into the gutter. Now the only way to win will be to fight them in the gutter.

"He has a historic opportunity to re-unite America, which is something our country needs desperately. He can choose now to be a president that can make all Americans proud."

Are you talking about George W. Bush? There is absolutely no grounds to expect that he will act for the good of all Americans. His entire life and his performance in office say just the opposite. This is a man who claims God speaks through him. He personifies the victory of fantasy over reality. He looses the blood-dimmed tide.

Don't forget the world's three greatest lies:

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."
"I'm a compassionate conservative."
"I'm a war president."

Good luck, progressive people, and watch out for the Ashcroft Brigades.

Demo Memo

Demo Memo --

It is perhaps noteworthy that I am hoping the better angels of our nature prevail.

I should perhaps add, however, that wishful thinking is not, in itself, a plan.

On the other hand, ever-pervasive, unceasing cynicism is not one, either.

And so I say, we need to say to the president, we will give you one more chance, not because we can expect to be guaranteed anything, but because it would be exceedingly bad faith not to try.

I'm sorry, but when people do disrespectful things, like vote for a person who chose to start a war costing hundreds of thousands of lives, I lose respect for them.

Call that condescending, but I do believe that there was a right and wrong moral choice in this election. If you didn't like Kerry, Peretroika, Badnarik, Cobb, and Nader were people you could vote for - you didn't have to vote for Bush. To me, that's choosing to support death, and support the supression of freedom. I don't know how to put it any other way - if you voted for Bush, you made a choice to support evil. There is no middle ground, no equivocation, no hedging on this.

I did not want to hear the concession speech, because I am too overwhelmed and depressed.
But then I was suddenly reminded of the scene in 'Braveheart', when they finally catch him and the king is going to pull him to pieces and Wallace's friends come to witness his death to be there for him, even though its horrible to see him suffer...so I listened to the concession speech....but then I realized that I was being influenced by a Mel Gibson movie and now that hes a religious freak, I hate him...and all of them...
So then the thought came to me that Nixon was re-elected a second term too and damnned himself eventually...the truth will come, so now we just sit back and wait.

Very, very good post, Jim. My commendations to you and your co-bloggers, who've shown that it's possible to be dedicated and passionate for a cause without letting that dedication and passion turn ugly and unreasoning. Burnt Orange Report continues to be among the left-of-center blogs that I most appreciate and respect. We disagree on much, but I'm very proud of you guys.

(And Hook 'Em!)

I believe American democracy is thoroughly broken. I take great exception to lurker's silly idea that the Dems lost because we don't respect some illusory Bubba American.

The Dems lost because the media completely dropped the ball. They stopped reporting stories and instead reported "he-said she-said" spin wars. In such a situation, that group with authority and better outlets will win. Lies spilled forth from the administration and they were lapped up without question. They were buoyed by Fox and talk radio and Drudge. Reporters need to start actually learning about their damn subjects. Make that damn judgement call. Journalists have the idiotic notion that all they have to do is present the "facts" from both sides, wipe their hands, and then hit the bars. This works if both sides are playing by the rules. Not the case, for either side. The facts are muddied intentionally to confuse, the talking points are misleading, the experts paid off. Thanks media, now we have the crazies in charge of the asylum and the keys to the gun locker.

My request to DEMs is that to please stop the demonization of conservatives and move towards the middle. It would be a good move politically and might just bring this country together.
This was an especially bitter campaign for me as I felt that Republicans and Conservatives were demonized like never before....and I personally believe for all his faults, George Bush is a fundamentally good person who deserves alot of respect for the leadership he has shown the past 4 years. I felt the polarization because it seemed DEMs had absolutely nothing good to say and at times were openly contempful of Mr. Bush and his supporters. I have never faced such hatred of a candidate, and that sort of behavior causes resentment. That being said, bringing the DEM party closer to middle America and willing to negotiate will be good for the country and the party.

Nuff said, I was impressed with Kerry's concession. I can only hope I could be as gracious.

The Dems just didn't get it on security issues.
Occasionally Iraq was "topic of the day" on the Kerry-Edwards campaign trail.
And there were haphazard attempts to expose the administration's ineptitude in dealing with terrorism.
For the most part, Dubya's ability to project himself as an irreplaceable guardian of national security was not seriously dented by the Democrats.

Personal safety is a potent issue which Democrats ignore at their own risk. It was only when a candidate who was not viewed as "soft on crime" got the nomination in 1992 did the Dems stop their losing streak.

When people worry about planes crashing into their workplace, they are less likely to think about tax policy or medicare reform.

George W. Bush has a terrible record on counterterrorism. But the Dems spent far too little time driving home this point.

I am amazed by the apologies for the election and the deference to Bush shown in these comments. Apology and surrender only leave the field clear for the Bushits to do their worst. I don't apologize and I don't defer--if I were John Kerry I would be on the Senate floor the day it reconvenes to spread the alarm about Bushism.

Are the people posting these comments actually Democratic supporters, or are they trolls seeking to spread despair and apathy?

Demo Memo

lurker,

That might be good advice, but what about a party that projects itself as the party of morality and honesty as the GOP does? Condescension and "evil" epithets haven't been the primary, let alone sole, domain of Democrats. Remember Buchanan? Remember Limbaugh and Coulter? Bush ran in 2000 on a ticket of moral superiority.

I don't agree that Americans are evil--in fact, I consider that an irresponsible statement--, but the GOP has made it clear that if you value the environment, if you believe that all people including gays should be treated equally, if you don't think we should have a theocracy, there's no place for you in the GOP.

I understand to a point when people claim that the Democratic party has swung too to the left, but good god y'all, the GOP has swung at least as far, if not further, to the right.

I would like to have a modicum of faith that Bush will unite the country, but that requires a reaching out to Democrats and liberals. And, frankly, he faces in many respects a weaker Democratic party than he did in 2000. He didn't do it then, and I don't expect him to do it now. George Bush stands for a very narrow, creaking form of morality. He stands for political power.

Ironies everywhere. Bush, the moral alternative, the man that lied us into a war and the Christian Coalition; hates gays and abortion but loves the war.

First, I'll bet you 20 I'm better educated than you are, so if it helps you to rationalize your loss to think that "bubba beatcha", please do, it will help you keep losing.

I can't speak for everyone or course, so I'll speak for myself. Why do I vote R? Because I am fundamentally wary about government - from personaly experience. I see agencies regard money as theirs and forget that is people's. I see waste of millions of dollars. I see people bow before process and forget the mission. I see programs that NEVER die and constantly seek reasons to exist even if they are shadows of their former selves.

D's fundamentally believe in government. They want new programs. If they don't at first, their constituency does and will demand it of them. If they don't then, the people that they have to depend on in their voting bolck will demand it of them. This is an unavoidable FACT. If you do not recognize this as FACT then you are as misinformed as you believe your opponents to be. D constituencies see government as a big solution machine that if they feed money in we can fix all society problems, even though government has no competition and no reason to be efficient.

Is there a middle ground? Sure, if there is some clear connection of performance to tax dollars and we have the stomach to change things when they are broken. But once a government program is in place, it builds a constituency of people who view it as a right, and it lives on and on and on, and efforts to change or review why we had this program in the first place are met with hystronics.

Despite that I could *still* have voted for Kerry. I'm fiscally conservative and socially moderate. I'm very disappointed about Bush not holding the line on the budget or the deficit. But I know of all the pent up emotion at a staff that would inevitably have to have followed a Kerry adminstration, and I do not believe that even if Kerry wanted to that he can contain people *like you* who regard Americans who are not you as cattle that you need to organize with rules and guidelines and programs.

And I could talk about how Kerry constantly felt the only way he would will was running down America, talking about the loss of jobs - without talking about the impact of 9/11 or the dot com burst that had nothing to do with Bush. Or how he said "Hold on America, help is on the way" which was the most arrogant thing I've ever heard a politician say. I could keep going but you probably aren't interested.

In closing, I'm an R and I read this site because I'm interested in the opinions here and at times I have learned from them. Have you read to actually hear what I am saying or are you just winding up for a knee jerk rebuttal?

Republican fiscal responsibility? I think your post was meant for somewhere else down the road in another time zone. Reagan and Bush shot your notions completely to hell.

Lurker: You actually sound more Libertarian than Republican.

This is an excellent blog and Jim D offered an excellent post.

Those who choose to fight Bush "in the gutter", as Demo Memo seems to want to do, cannot complain if Bush doesn't morph into the "uniter" he promises to be.

Maybe you don't believe there is a reason to put faith in his promises, but you have four more years of him, so giving him at least one sporting chance might be in everyone's best interest.

Lastly, bubba, I agree that both the left and right have begun to lean more towards their separate ends of the spectrum. The majority of Americans have agreed with the Republicans. It's not only the Republican party that's leaning more right, it's the majority of the nation.

I mean nothing but good will towards those in this discussion. Hopefully, the next four years will some of America's greatest. Can't we all agree on this hope despite our varying expectancies of its plausibility?

"Those who choose to fight Bush "in the gutter", as Demo Memo seems to want to do, cannot complain if Bush doesn't morph into the "uniter" he promises to be."

Quaid--

I didn't say that I "want" to wage a gutter fight. I said that it would be necessary to effectively oppose the Machine. I welcome suggestions if anyone has a better idea--personally, I find gutter fighting repugnant, but if there's no other way then Democrats need to hold their noses and start practicing.

Thoughts that Bush will "morph" into anything different from what he's always been are fantasies. His meanness and willful ignorance and dishonesty have just been validated by re-election--what would motivate him to change now?

There is more reason for hope that his history of disinterest and substance abuse will slow him down and limit the damage he does during his second term.

Bush already had TWO chances to
unite this country:
After the First election and After 9/11
what in the living hell makes anyone
think he will do it now?

"Fool me once..."

ugh!