About time this asshole died. This will actually do wonders for Israeli/Palestinian peace talks given how obstinant and megalomaniacal he's been all these years. Other than that I just hope he's warm enough.
Speaking of news links with gratuitous obscenity, when did we become a nation full of whiny bitches? Your favorite presidential candidate loses and you need therapy to get over the grief?!? Reasonable people will have disagreements in politics, right down to some of the basics. You can choose to engage your countrymen on that basis, or you can smear everyone who disagrees with you as evil and acccuse the president of polarizing you simply because you choose to hate him. People who do the latter are beneath contempt, not to mention a waste of time when it comes to discussion or persuasion. So 51% of the country thought one guy was better than another guy (or at least not as bad as the other guy), and suddenly it's an oppressive, unlivable nation? Please.
(That goes especially to sex columnist Dan Savage this week, for going out of his way to live up to the ugliest of the "drama queen" [rhymes with 'gag'] stereotypes.)
On the other hand, by all means let's make sure we got this election thing right, at least for something as simple as correctly recognizing who won. I'm one of those people fairly convinced that all the "anomalies" are easily explained/debunked... so let's get to it. Thing is, there's a difference between actual research and testing, where you figure these things out, versus supposedly wishy-washy actually deeply-loaded "reporting" where you let your opinion out like flatulence and let it fester as innuendo because keeping the innuendo alive serves your purposes better than actual legwork ever could.
(So why do I feel this way now, when I was so appalled by what the process became in 2000? Easy: In 2004 we can use common sense and get things right. In 2000 you had a losing candidate trying things piecemeal, first cherrypicking the places to recount and then having his supporters continue to change the ground rules as they went along. From where I stood, it seemed crystal clear to me then that not only Gore's team itself but also the Floridians doing the recounting were far less interested in an objective resolutoin than in doing what it would take to get their man over the top. If you ever watched the ballot-by-ballot examinations, where the one Republican said one thing [and common sense tended to agree with him] but the two Democrats overruled him, you know what I mean.)
Posted by Matt Bruce at November 11, 2004 01:19 PMWhat are the faggy stereotypes Dan Savage is living up to? I just read his column. It seems pretty much like straight-up self-righteous Blue State anger that we've heard a lot of this week. Agree or disagree, he seems pretty sharp and in control of his own writing. I've heard the same comments from straight people.
Anyway, you've been a good sport about Democratic complaining about the election up until this point. We've taken up a whole week, so you've certainly earned the right to bitch and moan about how much our side pisses you off for a while. Let it out. It feels good.
Not that you asked for my permission but I felt like some sort of response was called for.
Posted by: M.S. at November 11, 2004 01:34 PMNot being much of a Savage Love reader, nor a reader of any gay columnists, I figured he'd come off as overly gay. But not at all. That triumphant last paragraph of his first response didn't look like the writing of a gay douchebag, but just a douchebag.
Posted by: ZD at November 11, 2004 07:31 PMMatt,
My general thinking here is not that the 51% of the vote makes the nation unliveable, it is the purported presumption of a mandate when clearly it was a closely contested election. I think this is the reason so many people are worried, because they know that 48% of America agreed with them, which while not a majority, its a slice of the pie that would certainly fill you up.
CDB
Posted by: Craig D. Barker at November 12, 2004 07:32 AM