Thoughts on the interregnum

[pecunium]

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"

Comments

[ad-kay.livejournal.com]

Whoa, I musta missed your comment back in Dec.! How'd that happen? 'Naw, they can't really be that stupid, they'd never risk this much if they didn't know what they were doing... Yup, that was me too! I finally came around to the realization that yes, they ARE completely clueless.

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.

[antiquated-tory.livejournal.com]

Well, I still think an invasion of Iran is very unlikely, as those aren't the kinds of noises Condi is making. I think a nuclear Iran is pretty much unavoidable at this point. The reformists in Iran are for the most part staunch nationalists and favor getting the Bomb even more than the Council of Guardians do. Also, Tehran is rather more clever than Baghdad and has dispersed its development centers, with many of them in cities, making even limited military strikes a doubtful option. What Hersh says makes sense, since sabotage is probably the only remaining military option. And there pretty much are no diplomatic options, since the Iranians have decided no combination of carrots and sticks would be more advantageous to them than having the Bomb. And under current circumstances, they're probably right.