(no subject)
Nov. 9th, 2006 05:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenOkay, a bit of realism to my politics now.
I have no idea what's going on, really. I know Rumsfeld is gone, and if nothing else, I will be eternally grateful for that. What a hateful, unashamedly, hubristically proud, smug, patronizing jerk he was. When George W. is an idiot and refuses to his shadow, he's just being an idiot. Rumsfeld isn't stupid, he isn't blind, he's just stubborn and sure that he knows better than anyone. The fact that Colin Powell left and he stayed still irks me and I'm not even sure why at this point except that I hate Rumsfeld that much (and Colin Powell was such a smart, canny, centrist guy for the most part, that he'd earned respect on both sides of the political divide; compare/constrast to Rummy).
Now we have a turnover of both houses of Congress to the Democrats. I'm pleased, sure, because I would love dearly for them to investiage the rampant corruption, lack of oversight, and, again, illegal fits of self-strengthening hubris that we've only seen the tip of so far. I want there to be consequences for taking a mandate that was earned by making the electorate afraid and using it to get tail, finance personal fortunes, et al.
I'm less pleased at the idea that the liberal left had to concede so much, had to take on so many (specifically social) conservative aspects in order to get to this point. Should I just take what I've got? Well, I will, but I'm not entirely happy about it. I think anti-choice has no place in a truly democratic party, for starters, especially as a feminist (it still comes down to "You are not allowed to make the choice because you are an incubator, not a person, and the baby has more right to be than you do"). I dislike the pro-gun aspects to the candidate, now senator, that won the Democrats the majority. For the record? Hate guns. I want to know how to use one because it's a survival skill, and for reasons like that. But I am happy to consign the routine usage of them to the people who need them (law enforcement, military) and restrict access to people who think the right to bear arms necessitates unhindered ability to have automatic and semiautomatic killing machines (what else could they possibly be used for?).
And--here's where I get craaaaaaaazy liberal--I am not pleased at the idea that George W Bush will escape punishment. The Democrats promised no impeachment process. The man has most definitely lied to this nation. He has been grossly incompetant, and the people he hired to cover his ass were too used to coasting on the surge of patriotism that they never put the effort into their motions that might have made them a success (or, at least, less of a HIDEOUS FAILURE). I cannot understand why there is no way to censure him or why it won't be done. I doubt very highly that people voted Republicans out of office as anything less than a referendum on Bush. There are exceptions--the crazy corrupt, the power abusers, the nutjobs (so long, and thanks for all the obsession over anal sex, Santorum!)--but complete unknowns unseated multiple-term incumbents this year. That doesn't happen very often, and not en masse like this, unless there's a deep-seated mistrust of the people in the party. And who's more visible in the GOP than Dubya? Hell, even after the mess with Foley, I bet you nine-tenths of "the base" wouldn't have been able to pick Hastert out of a line up...
I suppose I can trust history will villify this administration. I hope so. It would be truly frightening, worser terror never known, to think that the future might be a place where George W would be looked back upon with any kindness, fondness, or general acclaim.
I have no idea what's going on, really. I know Rumsfeld is gone, and if nothing else, I will be eternally grateful for that. What a hateful, unashamedly, hubristically proud, smug, patronizing jerk he was. When George W. is an idiot and refuses to his shadow, he's just being an idiot. Rumsfeld isn't stupid, he isn't blind, he's just stubborn and sure that he knows better than anyone. The fact that Colin Powell left and he stayed still irks me and I'm not even sure why at this point except that I hate Rumsfeld that much (and Colin Powell was such a smart, canny, centrist guy for the most part, that he'd earned respect on both sides of the political divide; compare/constrast to Rummy).
Now we have a turnover of both houses of Congress to the Democrats. I'm pleased, sure, because I would love dearly for them to investiage the rampant corruption, lack of oversight, and, again, illegal fits of self-strengthening hubris that we've only seen the tip of so far. I want there to be consequences for taking a mandate that was earned by making the electorate afraid and using it to get tail, finance personal fortunes, et al.
I'm less pleased at the idea that the liberal left had to concede so much, had to take on so many (specifically social) conservative aspects in order to get to this point. Should I just take what I've got? Well, I will, but I'm not entirely happy about it. I think anti-choice has no place in a truly democratic party, for starters, especially as a feminist (it still comes down to "You are not allowed to make the choice because you are an incubator, not a person, and the baby has more right to be than you do"). I dislike the pro-gun aspects to the candidate, now senator, that won the Democrats the majority. For the record? Hate guns. I want to know how to use one because it's a survival skill, and for reasons like that. But I am happy to consign the routine usage of them to the people who need them (law enforcement, military) and restrict access to people who think the right to bear arms necessitates unhindered ability to have automatic and semiautomatic killing machines (what else could they possibly be used for?).
And--here's where I get craaaaaaaazy liberal--I am not pleased at the idea that George W Bush will escape punishment. The Democrats promised no impeachment process. The man has most definitely lied to this nation. He has been grossly incompetant, and the people he hired to cover his ass were too used to coasting on the surge of patriotism that they never put the effort into their motions that might have made them a success (or, at least, less of a HIDEOUS FAILURE). I cannot understand why there is no way to censure him or why it won't be done. I doubt very highly that people voted Republicans out of office as anything less than a referendum on Bush. There are exceptions--the crazy corrupt, the power abusers, the nutjobs (so long, and thanks for all the obsession over anal sex, Santorum!)--but complete unknowns unseated multiple-term incumbents this year. That doesn't happen very often, and not en masse like this, unless there's a deep-seated mistrust of the people in the party. And who's more visible in the GOP than Dubya? Hell, even after the mess with Foley, I bet you nine-tenths of "the base" wouldn't have been able to pick Hastert out of a line up...
I suppose I can trust history will villify this administration. I hope so. It would be truly frightening, worser terror never known, to think that the future might be a place where George W would be looked back upon with any kindness, fondness, or general acclaim.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-09 10:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-10 08:54 am (UTC)Yeah, I sort of can't believe anyone can fuck up this badly and not be held accountable at all, and yet, Clinton was impeached for TRYING TO KEEP HIS PRIVATE LIFE PRIVATE.
I mean. What?
What the fuck, America.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-10 03:33 pm (UTC)Yeah I'm with you. How the hell do you lie to us about something as important as national security right after the largest terrorist attack on American soil, then tell us you never said that at all, but we should still follow you along in your collassal blunder, and GET AWAY WITH IT? He still thinks history will vindicate him, too. Fucktard.