![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Thoughts on the interregnum
I keep seeing this meme,
"He won. Get over it.
It bothers me, and last week, seeing a listserve flaming match full of it, it began (in the shower, where, as has been said before, I tend to mull matters of weighty thought) to dawn on me why.
It's bullshit. I mean we all know it's bullshit. It's a rhetorical way of someone saying, "shut up," without resorting to that much open aggression.
It's discountive. As if the mere fact of my guy losing invalidates what I have to say on the issues.
Which is bullshit. We have elections, not annointings. Being declared the winner doesn't give said winner a free ride (and most certainly it doesn't when the margin of the victory was so small as it was in the most recent presidential election). If I had doubts and reservations about a candidate before the election, they don't magically fade away when the tally gets totted up.
What really irks me is I know the people doing this, and they are not being honest, because they were shrill, to the point of incoherence; with non-sensical ramblings (I still hear about the "murders" the Clintons managed to commit/have committed), when they were on the losing side.
But now... heck, their guy won and we need to, get over it.
Bullshit. If he can be "the kind of guy who stands up for what he knows is right, even when the rest of the world disagrees," so can I. More to the point, I will.
If I have to be a preacher in the wilderness, so be it. If it means I get treated to scorn and ridicule (beyond my portion) so be it. If it means some people stop reading me, then regrettably; because I hope to persuade those outside the choir, so be it.
I am not going to trim my sails to public opinion. I shan't bow my head to men, nor bend my knee. I do not have a king; my natural superior, I have a president, who is, at best, primus inter pares and I am one of that parity.
If those who take issue with what I have to say don't like it, well I have three words for them.
"Get over it"
"He won. Get over it.
It bothers me, and last week, seeing a listserve flaming match full of it, it began (in the shower, where, as has been said before, I tend to mull matters of weighty thought) to dawn on me why.
It's bullshit. I mean we all know it's bullshit. It's a rhetorical way of someone saying, "shut up," without resorting to that much open aggression.
It's discountive. As if the mere fact of my guy losing invalidates what I have to say on the issues.
Which is bullshit. We have elections, not annointings. Being declared the winner doesn't give said winner a free ride (and most certainly it doesn't when the margin of the victory was so small as it was in the most recent presidential election). If I had doubts and reservations about a candidate before the election, they don't magically fade away when the tally gets totted up.
What really irks me is I know the people doing this, and they are not being honest, because they were shrill, to the point of incoherence; with non-sensical ramblings (I still hear about the "murders" the Clintons managed to commit/have committed), when they were on the losing side.
But now... heck, their guy won and we need to, get over it.
Bullshit. If he can be "the kind of guy who stands up for what he knows is right, even when the rest of the world disagrees," so can I. More to the point, I will.
If I have to be a preacher in the wilderness, so be it. If it means I get treated to scorn and ridicule (beyond my portion) so be it. If it means some people stop reading me, then regrettably; because I hope to persuade those outside the choir, so be it.
I am not going to trim my sails to public opinion. I shan't bow my head to men, nor bend my knee. I do not have a king; my natural superior, I have a president, who is, at best, primus inter pares and I am one of that parity.
If those who take issue with what I have to say don't like it, well I have three words for them.
"Get over it"
no subject
Thank you!!
no subject
Terry at his finest.
Bravo!
But you won't be a "preacher in the wilderness", because I'll be there, too.
For me
Re: For me
The thing which pissed me off was when a comment on the new policies of the present administration were criticised, the critic was told to get over it, because Bush won.
TK
Re: For me
Although, alternatively, I've found just as many liberals being coarse about the whole deal...not as a matter of not letting go, but not admitting that life does move on. Me? I'm looking forward while still feeling that gust of wind at my back.
Re: For me
Right, because the fact that he won means that all his policies and stances are automatically Right and Good and MoralTM.
no subject
no subject
no subject
One answer
Re: One answer
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2004-12-07 03:22 am (UTC)(link)Susan in St. Paul
no subject
no subject
If Bush reveals that the war wasn't based on intentional fabrications, brings peace to Iraq, rebalances the budget, and revalues the dollar, THEN I will get over it.
no subject
no subject
Right now, with 14 bases in Iraq being planned, discussion of PCS tours (a la Korea) and suchlike, we aren't planning to get out.
We are planning, so it seems, a permanent force there. I can see a number of reasons for this, and I like none of them.
More to the point, the only good chances I can see for an avoidance of Lebanon, is more on the order of Iran. Even that seems less than stable. We made a mess, and unlike a spilled puzzle, I think this is dropped eggs.
TK
no subject
no subject
This of course doesn't matter--I'm only a slob in Prague. It's that apparently the Administration also does not know what the Hell to do and furthermore never did. Even the most ardent supporters of the invasion I know are gobsmacked by this. (not to mention people like myself who said 'Naw, they can't really be that stupid, they'd never risk this much if they didn't know what they were doing...')
I somehow don't think we're going to end up with all these permanent bases throughout Iraq, though. My current bet is an American protected Kurdistan (and won't our allies the Turks love that?) with a serious permanent base and God knows what else in the rest of the country, besides some Great Game action between us and Iran in the South, which we will doubtlessly screw up and lose. Unless Lancelot Link goes completely mad and invades Iran, of course, but I'd rather not think about that. Not before breakfast.
no subject
Unless Lancelot Link goes completely mad and invades Iran, of course.. Well, you wrote this on Dec. 11 and today Condi was making cluck-clucking noises over Iran's nuclear capability. And Seymour Hersh says we already have operatives in Iran. Just like the Project for the New American Century asses wanted.
no subject
no subject
"The Bush years may be the coarsest period in our nation’s history.... Today’s Winners don’t simply win, they win badly: bragging, sneering, lording it over the Losers, and promoting themselves with a crassness that would leave Duddy Kravitz blushing....The Bush administration is a veritable hive of Sore Winners, whether it’s the president scowling peevishly at questions that Reagan would have dispatched with a joke, the vice president sneering that energy conservation is no more than “personal virtue,” or Rummy treating everyone from reporters to generals as if they were no brighter than whelks."
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/36/features-powers.php
no subject
...and I'm still not over it either.
no subject
no subject