"He's Not *MY* President"

R

Rich Lucibella

Staff
I have heard this sentiment from others too often in the past weeks. I have literally ended two longtime friendships over it. I'm sure I'm not alone in these experiences. These statements insult my sense of national and Constitutional pride. The election battle was fought and won. It's over; As we all agree, George W. Bush is the President of ALL Americans.

Now comes the hard part:
Four, eight or eighty years from now, when the new President is Schumer, Hillary or even Biden, will we be demonstrate the grace which we demand of the other side today?

Think about it, people: We can personally disown a President for acts commited after his Inauguration....but I will never again disrespect a US President simply because my side "lost". It's unAmerican; it's unPatriotic; it makes us fools to our neighbors.
Rich
 
We Celebrated

Today I went with a buddy to J&Gs in Prescott. The place was crowded as usual. Those there joked that they were there to "celebrate Dubya's inauguration" by purchasing a gun. One of the clerks asked what would have happened if Al Gore had taken the oath today? "Buy two guns and a case of ammo" was the typical response.

Rick
 
Rich, when you hear that, please let these folks know that the Palm Beach newspaper did their own recount and Bush picked up 6 more votes than Gore. He won fair and square, even after giving Gore all the benefits of the doubts.

Might also ask how they would've felt 4 years ago if you had said the same about Clinton...

Might also point out that, according to the Constitution, he *IS* their President.
 
Dave-
Perhaps it's my error, but I suspect you've misunderstood my post. I didn't need the Palm Beach Post "recount"...I already had two official recounts.

To your main point: I wasn't referring to the errors of the opposition; but to the potential errors that would render us no better than them. "This Thing of Ours" requires that we give first respect to the Process and Office. I only ask that our side live up to that challenge in our next defeat.....(300 years from now! :D)
Rich
 
Rich, I do know what you mean. And I'm sure you understand that, even if GW had won 85% of the vote, there would be those who would say they were somehow "disenfranchised." What they are saying is that the current president is not legitimate because "they"--whoever they are--did not vote for him. Will we embrace Hillary or Gephardt in 2004 if they are elected? Given the current disconnect between the liberals and conservatives, I will bet you that we will not, certainly not anymore than we have called Bill our president.

Odd timing this question, since I just came home from a birthday party for a neighbor. All of my neighbors are Democrats, party line, whether they know who the secretary of state is or not. The most interesting conversation I had was with a pretty openly gay man who sells furniture; his degree is in history. (Reminds me of the scene in "Serpico" when said character wonders why all his girlfriend's friends are on their way to becoming something they're not). At any rate, our conversation started on a heated level and then became civil, as we realized our common ground: distrust of elected officials; fear of majority mob rule; fear of those who fear us out of ignorance.

There is an allied group out there in the minority communities--blacks, hispanics, gays, OTR truckers with swelled ankles--who would be on our side were it not for the perception that "we" want to somehow inhibit their access to the American dream.

Where we are losing those groups is in the arena of "personal behavior." Or, in other words, the politics of the Christian Right.
I'm not criticizing the pro-life or Evangelical crowd, but trying to figure out a way to get those who feel that they are hated to know that they are loved. And to realize that they need to defend themselves and family more than other groups.

RKBA, as an issue by itself, would be a winner across party lines.
But it's a sidebar issue for those on the frontlines on issues more personal.

This wouldn't be so tough if the liberals didn't greet those groups and shake with one hand while stabbing them in the back with the other. How can we in good conscience play the same game?

I'm not into sports, and my sports analogies are probably fractured,but this is our fifty yard line.

Dick
 
Rich,
I listened to my inlaws rant and whine through 8 years of Ron, then 4 of GW Sr. They listened to me rant and whine through 8 years of Bill. My turn to listen. Next time who knows? Most important thing is that we're still together listening to each other whine.

My inlaws and I are close friends. Wasn't always that way, but that's how it turned out. I'd go to the wall for a friend. For most politicians, I wouldn't cross the street to piss in thier mouth if their teeth were on fire. Frinds do for me, and I do for them. Politicians do for themselves. I'ts up to us to keep annoying them to remind them we're here.
 
Rich
What we are going to see in this country are those that obey laws and those that don't. Those that respect others rights and those that don't. Those that respect the Constitution and those that don't. Most Coservatives have had every Social issue shoved down there throats and we calmly protest and raise our voices. I think If Bush and his administration do anything the Liberals don't like They will not respect others rights. Look at all these Evironmentalist groups that go after Police. I live in Philly and last year during the Rep Convention some of the Police were getting sprayed with unknown substances. Probable water and red dye but nobody knew if it was something Like Anthrax! The level of Civility we will see from the Left will not be the Level of Civility we saw on on the right the past 8yrs. Same goes when Bush bans Partial Birth Abortion and any Gun Control issue that gets changed or thrown out. READ MY LIPS its going to get far worse in this coutry when Bush goes to name NEW SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. Thats when things will really get out of hand.
 
I agree

Dick,

If we are to save this Republic and not become a socialist craddle to grave nanny state, I have come to the conclusion that we are going to have to give ground to "social moderates." In this world where right is wrong and black is now white, it may be the only way to go. I would never go so far as to back affirmative action to try to win the black vote... but I don't give a damn who or what somebody sleeps with, or if a woman wants a right to choose, that they are progun is all that matters. Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian who abhors the gay lifestyle and the thought of women killing their own unborn children, but we are losing a LOT of voters to the other side on those two issues. Just think about how many women voted for Gore simply because of the abortion issue. Is it necessary that conservatives pass some morality litmus test, or is being against gun control and socialism good enough? It is impossible to legislate morality anyway...


Joe
 
Rich

Rich said "I have heard this sentiment from others too often in the past weeks. I have literally ended two longtime friendships over it. I'm sure I'm not alone in these experiences."

I have been starting to sort out my friends and family into the "TRUSTED" and "NOT TO BE" catagory over reasons of RKBA,
and LIBERALISM.
It may not be the Christian thing to do, but freedoms that were hard fought by our founding fathers are so easily lost.
Lance
 
Rich,

I respect your "high road" stance re this critical and fundamental issue. It is no surprise, given your extremely ethical and perceptive position on other contentious matters.

I am afraid, however, that I cannot guarantee that I shall be able join you in four or eight years. While I certainly can accept the diversity of ideas between the two fundamentally different sides in our internal cultural conflict, I cannot accept the disparity in morals, in values, or in character.

For example, I could gladly accept Senator Bob Kerrey as our President, even though I may disagree with many of his ideas, because his character is outstanding. Conversely, I could never accept Senator Clinton as "my President" due to her demonstrated lack of ethics.

Many of us swore an oath as commissioned officers to protect the Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies, and we remain bound by this pledge. When an amoral, self-serving, duplicitous individual becomes the President, he is a clear threat to our Constitutional Republic -- even if properly elected. Accordingly, I cannot understand how such a person can be either acknowledged or accepted as "our President".

In sum, diversity of ideas differs greatly from recognition of fundamentally immoral individuals in positions of leadership.

With respect and best regards -- Roy
 
We have a balance of powers in our system, something people often forget in the immediate aftermath of a close election. Meanwhile, it's not worth losing friendships over something that will generate much less heat in a month or two. Both the winners and losers will gradually calm down as they discover that Bush has not been elected king, any more than Gore would have been if he'd won. Nor do we have a parliamentary system, where the winning party controls everything and is free to immediately put all its programs into effect. Ain't gonna happen. Everyone likes to win, but in the long run there is much to be said in favor of divided government, a lot to like about gridlock.

I agree that the GOP is dragging a couple of big anchors around. One is its "overturn Roe v. Wade" stance; even Laura Bush doesn't favor that. (Am I personally pro-choice? You bet; I'm pro-choice on everything). I wish GW would convene some kind of conference that would include the whole spectrum, from NOW and NARAL to the most committed of the religious right. Nobody thinks abortion is an affirmatively good thing, so put the emphasis on cooperating to develop strategies to reduce the number of abortions, without making them illegal and unavailable. This would state a clear moral position, without invoking the coercive power of the state, which in this case would be futile, anyway. This genie is not going back in the lamp. If there are extreme groups on either side that won't go along, they would publicly marginalize themselves and so much the worse for them in terms of their political effectiveness.
 
Well, before we start bitching too much
about whiny, complaining liberals who
think Bush is not legitimate, let's not
forget all those bumper stickers that said
"Charlton Heston is my President."
 
Rich makes a good point.

During the entire eight years of our recent unpleasantness I said that Bill Clinton was the president of my country, but he was not my president. To the extent that I was able to separate the two concepts, I believe it was a valid distinction.

Now if Chuckie is elected fair and square I will feel the same way about him.
 
The fact is that we are a nation divided by ideology. The majority object to the morality upon which our nation was founded and upon which our laws were based. There is no way to bring us together on many issues. We can honestly disagree and compromise on issues like tax cuts, defense spending, education, and the like. However, there is no way to come together on the moral issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and pornography. These are either "black or white" with no shades of gray. There is really no way to compromise on gun control. In compromising with liberals they always gain ground and we always lose it. I don't hold out much hope for a "One nation under God" society again. This is especially true since some make their living spreading racism and discontent. Jerry
 
This country will not even exist 300 years from now. Probably not in 30.

So, what were we talking about again? Oh yeah... "elections"...
 
Rich, you're right. I misunderstood the point of your post. I've become so "trigger happy" on the "Bush's win is not legitimate" issue that I jumped.

I wish I could say that, if Hillary is elected, I could say "she won and she is my President and I am a member of her loyal opposition". Maybe I am losing my tolerance in my old age. Maybe I've become too polarized. Maybe Bill Clinton just turned me off way more than Carter ever did, and the damage is permanent. Maybe I'll feel more reasonable in 4 years.

But right now, I honestly don't thing I could be any more gracious that the ones you're hearing from. Its sad to admit, and I don't like it, but I have to be honest.

I'll work on that "loyal opposition" concept. I do believe that with any person, there are thing we'll agree on, and things we'll disagree on. That's a basis to start from.
 
Rich, you said:

"We can personally disown a President for acts commited after his Inauguration....but I will never again disrespect a US President simply because my side "lost"."

I must point out that I disrespected President Clinton because it was thoroughly clear before he was elected that he was a lying, amoral person with no interests beyond himself. He verified this view innumerable times during his eight years in office. If, God help us, Hillary or Chuck the Schmuck is ever elected president, I will hold them in similar disregard before they take office.

There's a difference between giving someone a chance because he or she is an unknown quantity and deserves an opprotunity to perform before being judged, and withhholding judgment on known scoundrels who are merely entering new venues.
 
It indeed appears there is precident for our downfall

This memorable quotation is from Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813). Scottish jurist and historian, he was widely known in his time and was professor of Universal History at Edinburgh University in the late 18th century.

The quotation is from the 1801 collection of his lectures:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:
from bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependency;
from dependency back again to bondage."
 
take it off?

>>>>>Well, before we start bitching too much
about whiny, complaining liberals who
think Bush is not legitimate, let's not
forget all those bumper stickers that said
"Charlton Heston is my President."

Well, does this mean that I should get rid of my bumper sticker and toss my T-shirt?

No way. Now, I just have two presidents instead of one...



straightShot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top