I’m Moving To Canada….Oh Wait, That’s Even Worse!
Remember all of the talk of people leaving America if George Bush was elected in 2004? Canada was bracing for an onslaught of disgruntled ex-patriot Americans to arrive as they escaped the hell that America would become under a Bush second term.
Where are conservatives going to run? The answer is….WE’RE NOT RUNNING! The Republican party was trounced last night, with only a few bright spots to consider, but we are not the party that will sell out our country and our souls to win an election.
I don’t know if it is still true now, but as of last night, no Democrat incumbent lost. Democrats picked up 29 seats in the house and, as of this posting, are waiting to find out if they will take majority control of the senate, which means they will have picked up 4 to 6 seats in the senate. Compared to the last 60 years of American politics, last night was about average for a second term president and party in power. But last night was not a loss for conservatisim. It was a loss for individuals and the Republican party as a whole, but not conservatism.
Many of the gains made by Democrats last night were made by candidates who ran as conservatives. They’ll have to prove to the people that voted for them that they aren’t liars. One of the most telling victories last night was Joe Lieberman. The majority of his votes came from independents, then Republicans, then Democrats, in that order. He won his state with a solidly pro-Iraq stance. Heath Schuler is another example of a conservative Democrat with a pro-Iraq stance winning. With a new majority in the house, Democrats will have two years to skate by, still playing the roll of opposition party, but the party of no ideas will eventually have to come up with something other than we hate Bush as a position on Iraq.
Scandal killed the Republicans. Whether real or trumped up BS, scandal has made the Republican party look like a bunch of crooks. The failure of the Bush administration to demonstrate why we are safer from terrorist and why we are winning in Iraq killed the Republicans. Actually, it was probably more agregious that congressional Republicans cut and ran on Iraq in this election. If they would have had a collective voice on the war, things might have turned out differently. Being spineless killed the Republicans. On immigration, on judges, on governing. The national Republican leadership didn’t lead.
This is not a referendum for America. This is a wake up call for the Republican party. Get back to your conservative roots before the Democrats beat you there. Otherwise, I’m going to Canada…or Mexico….or….Iraq!
British_Nationalist Says: November 8th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Do you not think that it is perfectly possible that the reason the Bush Administration failed to demonstrate “why we are safer from terrorists and why we are winning in Iraq” is that there is nothing whatsoever to demonstrate?
nutslikebush Says: November 9th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Want to understand more about how the US ended up in Iraq? Read this:
nytimes.com/2006/11/05/magazine/05CHALABI.html
nutslikebush Says: November 9th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Crap. I meant to change my LAL handle but technical difficulties messed me up. soon. soon.
Floyd Abrams Says: November 10th, 2006 at 1:43 am
I am more optimistic. I believe that americans are starting to develop some immunity to the hate and fear memes (look it up if you don’t know what it means) that Rush, Bill, and the ultracons have made their core message. Even staunch conservatiives will draw the line somewhere. They drew that line on tuesday by saying “no more” to a party they had long been blindly loyal to for 12 years or more. If the republicans move toward a somewhat positive message (and wean themselves from corruption and reliance on brute force) they will have a chance to regain some of the respect of the american people.
DS12 Says: November 10th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
I agree with this article. Not all the Republican’s are big fans of Bush, or what’s going on in Iraq, and the public doesn’t seam to understand this.
Alot of the Republicans in the White House had gotten lazy, due to the fact that no one was challenging their power. I think the Democratic control is actually a good thing. Maybe it will convince some of the more indifferant Republicans that we actually need to get out there and convince the public that we are fit to run this country.
Alot of people think that we can’t after these past couple years, and face it, they got a point.
Joy Says: November 10th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
This seems like as good a time as any to point out that character matters. It matters in John and Jane citizen and how they conduct their affairs and it matters in Jim and Jolene leader in how they conduct their affairs.
Our system is one of representation, which means it’s pretty important that we elect people possessing character qualities that we would like to see repeated over and over again throughout the nation.
When Clinton was in office making a joke of the office of the President of the United States, we kept hearing “Character doesn’t matter”. Well, now we are hearing from that same group that character does matter. Hmmm. Is this multiple choice? Relative character value?
We never have, nor ever will be a perfect nation - but we must be a nation that values character above agenda. Where might this get us? It might get us more politicians who at least pretend to have values that ‘mainstream America’ seems to hold. Of course, there will always be those who sneak their agenda through under
“Do it for the children” and “Do it for the underpriveleged” and “Do it for national security” etc… But, hopefully we’ll pay more attention to character than agendas, and we might actually vote people into office who have backbone enough to say “I’ll do it because it’s right, based on the truth”.
I also find it interesting that radio commentators on both sides are saying what Americans ’said’ with this vote. The initial post above, refreshingly, comments on identified patterns - which is more accurate. We can’t say what someone else, let alone a vast multitude of someone else’s, is/are saying when they vote unless we ask them “Why did you vote the way you did?” Too many voted party-line because it’s tradition. Too many voted for things that looked like they might help them get more. Too many 18 - 25s didn’t vote.
Looks like too many are caught up in the everyday things to pay attention to ‘politics’.
What we can do to change anything be sure to look for truth in issues and not what looks good, live what we believe,
and pass the torch of involvement to the next generation.
It’s extremely important to encourage discernment and thought rather than encourage carrying on an agenda. The ends does not justify the means, ever, on any side, period.
Unless, of course, you drink a diet cola with your super size hamburger, which negates all calories.
Joy Says: November 11th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
British Nationalist,
You speak as a fool regarding the terrorist threat. If ‘mainstream America’ doesn’t wake up by 2008 and vote in true conservatives, you will likely have the opportunity to see, if you take your blinders off.
Floyd Abrams Says: November 11th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
I agree with Joy on the “character matters” issue. That is precisely what ignited my desire to see the republicans driven from power, especially the Bush crew. Character is precisely their failing point if you examine them carefully.
(formerly NLB)
On the terrorist threat issue - I see no discernable difference between the democrat and republican approach except that the democrats think that we should follow the law and not reflexively rely just on force, secrecy, and black bag strategies. Otherwise, I think the democrats are no less interested in avoiding being attacked by terrorist than the republicans are. I hope that democrats don’t follow the republican strategy of pouring billions into corporations like Halliburton which contract to rebuild Iraq, spend the money (the CEO of Halliburton made $100, 000, 000 this year alone), and then cut-and-run without accomplishing anything in Iraq (other than running up the bill they handed to the tax payers). That money could be used on building a security system that really works for the american people. According to most security experts, the republicans and Bush simply have blown it in terms of making real progress in that area.
British_Nationalist Says: November 11th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Joy,
You call me a fool but present no grounds upon which to base this accusation. However, as I like to approach things with an open mind, I will present you with an oppurtunity. Convince me.
Convince me that your esteemed President and his Tonyness are not a pair of lying, incompetent morons who couldn’t find sand in Arabia.
Convince me that the British, American and other Coalition Forces who have persihed as a result of this war died for a purpose.
Convince me that the military adventure in Afghanistan wasn’t an outstanding success the achievments of which are rapidly disintegrating into dust in our hands.
Convince me that Iraq campaign is not a disastrous war whose very premise was based on lies and stands to tear the middle east apart.
Above all, convince me that turning Britain and the United States into the two most loathed countries on the planet is worth what we have ‘achieved’.
So over to you, Joy; convince me otherwise.
Joy Says: November 14th, 2006 at 5:56 am
BN,
I’ve got all of 1 minute right now, but I’ll be back.
Just wanted to clarify one thing…the office of the President I esteem, not necessarily the person holding it…nor their every choice. I will not try to convince you of anything, but I will clarify other things you brought up - later.
Thank-you for passing the ball, maybe my throws will swish from across the court.
Joy Says: November 16th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
BN,
Regarding President Bush and Prime Minister Blair - that comment is just too silly to address seriously.
Regarding the troops dying for “a purpose”, I will leave that to those who have died and the families and friends of those who have died. I have no known relative or friend who has died in this particular war, so I will not speak for them. I do not know the particulars of each death. People who die of overdoses or drunk driving or gang wars and other such things have died for a stupid purpose, in my opinion. Those who fight for freedom of others are not dying in vain. I could say that, during the war between the states, the Rebel soldiers died for a wrong purpose, in my opinion, but then, I don’t know every circumstance there either. I’m sure there were plenty of heroes on both sides. Just because greedy people have always taken advantage of war does not mean that the whole purpose is wrong and that every death is in vain.
Another note…
This war has a very low death toll compared to others we’ve fought in - we can count the deaths rather than have staggering numbers thrown at us that leave hundreds of families reeling. Why the huge hubub about the deaths as if we’re surprised that they happen? Of course they are important! Of course the people matter! Let’s not lose sight of what needs to be done to accomplish the mission.
When football players practice and practice and practice and then go play, some of them get injured…some badly. Does that mean the whole game was for no purpose…that they got injured for no purpose?
We need to address the issues that will make a necessary point, not call into question the purpose of every death. Don’t strain at the gnats while swallowing the camel, man.
Joy Says: November 16th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Regarding the Iraq war premise and if it “stands to tear the middle east apart”
1st - The vote to go to war was bi-partisan. To put it another way, BOTH political parties voted to go to war in Iraq based on intelligence at the time. To clarify - here in America, DEMOCRATS AS WELL AS REPUBLICANS VOTED TO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ.
2nd- “stands to tear the middle east apart”…you’re joking, right?
Have you been around awhile? Do you know history? Ever since Isaac and Ishmael the middle east has been torn apart! The middle east has been warring among itself for centuries!
Really, you’ve got to check the propaganda you believe.
Joy Says: November 16th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
BN,
One more comment in this sitting:
I guess the question I have with Britain and US becoming the two most loathed countries in the world is
Who loathes us? Countries only too happy for a handout when it’s their turn? Dictators like Chavez who would be imprisoned by himself if he were one of his citizens disagreeing with him?
Do-nothing leaders who let their own countries be overrun by evil people who have NO regard for human worth? Those who help the terrorists?
My next question is: Isn’t this a good thing - to be loathed by this type of country?
Popularity is not necessarily a sign of right. In fact, it’s a darn poor indicator of right and wrong.
Ever hear of Wafa Sultan or Nonie Darwish? They’re not real popular among many either. Are they truly loathsome?
Joy Says: November 16th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
NLBFA,
Show me a politician with perfect character and I’ll show you a statue of President Lincoln.
Perfection in character is not going to happen, but I would still rather have President Bush than “tell me what to do next” Kerry.
I’ll be looking forward to your criticisms of the Dem leaders, now that they’re a majority. As you said, you see flaws in both and claim no party as yours. Looking forward to the scrutiny of their flaws from your “pen”.
British_Nationalist Says: November 17th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Joy,
A low death toll, but deaths none the same. And, while our own casualties number just a few thousand, over fifty thousand Iraqis have lost their lives, and those figures encompass insurgent action only. The dead from illness, starvation and other non-combat related deaths, caused by the collapse in infrastructure and law and order, numbers into the tens of thousands. My question really is, what have they achieved. Iraq remains in a state of turmoil, even now, almost three years after the invasion.
The “intelligence available at the time” was ultimately proved to be false; do you not agree that giving the UN time to complete its investigations and postponing action until such a time as the situation became clearer would have been a sensible course of action?
British_Nationalist Says: November 18th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Joy,
You find me in good mood this morning because today, at last, His Tonyness admitted on TV that the invasion of Iraq by Britain and America has been a “disaster”. While I am gratified by this news, I cannot help but feel that with some foresight this whole dire situation could have been prevented.
I was, however, disturbed to discover in an article in the newspapers that Al-Qaeda may have duped us into launching the invasion. The full article can be found here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1950057,00.html
To summarise, a double agent working for the West claims that senior al-Qa’eda operative Ibn Shiek al-Libi, who was captured in November 2001, taken to Egypt and (allegedly) tortured, deliberately gave false information to his captors, telling them that Iraq was training al-Qa’eda operatives. He did this with the intention of luring the US into a war it could not winand create a suitable breeding ground for Jihad.
Even aside from the dubious moral implications of torturing prisoners, this has serious ramifications. I was always doubtful that Saddam’s deeply secular Ba’athist regime had any dealings whatsoever with religious fundamentalists like al-Qa’eda. This is a far more plausible and frightening scenario. For if there are no WMDs and Saddam was not involved in promoting terrorism, our already flimsy excuses for going to war seem all the more tenuous. If this is correct, and all this was planned by al-Qa’eda, the US has wildly miscalculated.
One more thing before signing off though, Joy. Countries like Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan all have less than democratic governments, and yet you make no mention of them in your report. Is that perhaps because they are well known supporters of the War on Terror? Is there not a certain amount of double-standards going on here?
The Americans are perfectly happy to spread democracy, but only on their own terms.
Joy Says: November 21st, 2006 at 5:51 am
Please remember that “the Americans” you speak of don’t represent every person in America.
Where are you getting your figures/stats for the death toll?
Would that be the same UN that couldn’t complete the job of checking the nuke program in Iraq?
British_Nationalist Says: November 22nd, 2006 at 7:59 pm
Joy,
The civilian casualty figures come from Iraq Body Count. Casualty figures for Coalition forces are fairly easy to produce and can be obtained from most news websites. Because no official record is kept of civilian deaths this is harder to calculate, so I erred on the side of caution and quoted the lowest estimate which is just under 60,000. Other estimates give figures as high as 200,000 so I think I am allowing a generous amount of lee-way here.
PS: You are of course correct about my use of “the Americans”. It was a massive generalisation and for that I apologise. What I REALLY meant was American FOREIGN POLICY.
British_Nationalist Says: November 23rd, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Incidentally, today (23rd November) is the single bloodiest day since the invasion , with over 150 dead and hundreds more injured; three years after the “war” was declared to be over. Real signs of progress round here . . .
Joy Says: November 25th, 2006 at 5:08 am
I must’ve missed something…like the answer to my question regarding the UN. Would that be the same UN that didn’t have the right password for the Iraqi nuke speakeasy?
British_Nationalist Says: November 26th, 2006 at 10:03 am
The UN inspectors conducted there investigations as ordered, then asked for more time to complete there inquiries. A perfectly reasonable request considering the scale of the task they weree undertaking. But, with his usual bullishness decided to go inn, guns blazing, before the investigations were completed. There were no WMDs and we’re still reaping the consequences of that decision today.
kolran Says: November 27th, 2006 at 12:29 am
Hey guys, looks like I have been missing out on alot of posting and I beleive it may continue this way. For about a year I posted once or twice a week, but now there are too many posts to keep up on. I can honestly say, though, that my friend’s parents came to an agreement that if Hillary Clinton got elected, they were moving to Canada and my friend would probably go with them. This was 3 years ago! I really hope Hillary Clinton doesn’t get elected so I can keep my friend…
Floyd Abrams Says: November 27th, 2006 at 3:47 am
Two things that we do know with certainty are that Iraq had no WMD and there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The war was based entirely on mistakes. Now the US will spend at least a trillion $ and severely damage our military over this mistake. But now we owe it to the Iraqis to rebuild their country, even if it breaks the bank and the military.
PVT Thompson Says: November 29th, 2006 at 3:45 am
Nah, it won’t break the military. Most people in the Military, or the Army atleast as far as I know, look at Iraq as an oppertunity to earn combat experience and for those ambitious enough, promotion points.
Iraq is kinda a right of passage in the army. you’re not a real soldier untill you’ve been deployed atleast once. Iraq has also improved our understanding of urban warfare. BCT is now based mostly on urban combat tequniques and asymetric warfare techniques. Still have the damn fox holes though, no geting rid of that I guess.
British_Nationalist Says: November 30th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
PVT Thompson
Speak for yourself. The British Army is a mess. The cost of the war Iraq and Afghanistan is bleeding it dry. Our army is simply too small to conduct war on a global scale anymore. Recruitment hass fallen since the start of the war in Iraq. Those we do have are sorely lacking in the necessary weapons and equipment, including soft-skinned vehicles, to tackle the task at hand. In its present state the army would struggle to take the Bahamas, let alone Iraq and Afghanistan.
kolran Says: December 6th, 2006 at 2:33 am
Hey! Look, it’s a quack! Some of the new people comming in have the brains of.. well.. to be honest, liberals. And it’s scary. Honestly, I am not trying to enforce me view on you, but I am really conserned for the future of our species. When you start pulling facts out of your *** (place where the sun never shines) and saying things like “The cost of the war Iraq and Afghanistan” it really worries me. First of all, that isn’t englsih (or ingles or angais). And it is pretty funny. More people die in the world IN A DAY than the number of people we have lost in the war on terror. Now if we would have left them in peace, they would have figured out how to target our nuclear power plants and then that would not be the case. Oh, and btw, we HAVE THE LARGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD. Oh, and I suppose the Vietnam war was the beginning of the end. FYI More people died in one roman battle than the ALL OF THE AMERICAN CASUALTIES IN THE ENTIRE VIETNAM WAR. and we pulled out… Maybe if the romans wouldn’t have fallen to barbarians, as the death of the united states will be liberals, we would have a much more honorable society.
British_Nationalist Says: December 6th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Look, Kolran, the AMERICAN Army may be the largest in the World and can throw its soldiers away, left, right and centre, but the BRITISH Army cannot. Yesterday, our Glorious Leader, Kim-il Blair and the Scottish Socialist Gordon Brown announced further cuts in the military, which will reduce its effectiveness still further. At this rate, Estonia will soon field more men than Britain. Try not to be so American-centric, Kolran, because you’re not alone in Iraq, and the British Army has been fighting alongside American troops since Day 1. I just wonder how long it will be able to continue to do so. I also wonder just what facts you think I am “pulling out of my ***”.
There is also a good reason why more men die in “Roman battles”, and that’s because the soldiers involved all line up neatly waiting to be killed rather than hiding in the jungle with RPGs and AKs. Equally, I wonder how long the US will have the “largest army in the world”. If the West doesn’t watch out China will conduct a cleansweep far quicker than Ossy and his Al-Qa’eda buddies.
And on the subject of Romans; do you really believe that the Romans not falling to “Barbarians” would have made for an “honourable” society. These are the same Romans, lets remember, who enslaved vast numbers of innocents, ruthlessly suppressed rebellion, sacked cities who dared oppose them, persecuted religious minorities, crushed freedom of speech, participated in orgies and debaucheries which belie anything seen today, were frequently led by madmen, and above all were an AUTOCRACY. Or perhaps Kolran thinks these are all staple commodities in an “honourable” society?
Oh, and PS: Before you criticise me for my grammar, check the spelling and grammar in your own post. Eg “comming in”, “angais”, “Englsih!!!” . . . need I go on? My point being, Kolran, practise what you preach.
kolran Says: January 10th, 2007 at 12:38 am
I appologize for assuming everyone here was involved in american politics, British_Nationalist. You could have saved most of those words and just called me a hippocrit…
John Says: January 17th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I don’t think running a proper country is about pleasing other countries…respond to a post by BN.
I dont know if the war was worth it, but i don’t think its right to assume that things wouldnt have been better without it. But im happy we were able to get rid of saddam, hopefully everyone can agree with that.
one of the biggest problem in america is the conflict with its people, all the name calling and bullshit that goes on. i domnt even see how anyone can constantly put down the leader of your country when you yourself have never had such a responsability.
If you truely care about your country you will stick by its leaders, you don’t have to like everything they do, but when all people can do is call eachother, there country or president names it just shows you have no self control. Along those lines, thats also why the people don’t have more say in government because the only people that would get there way are unreasonable extremist/activists.
The Other Side Says: August 3rd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
i was watching bush’s press conference responding to the minneapolis bridge collapse and was shocked at the partisanship and exploitation he used to blast democrats. he started talking about the tragedy and, rightfully so, felt bad about the situation and said the people were in his prayers. but he transition from that to an attack against the democrats’ lack of passing spending bills. he used the sorrow and fear from a major tragedy to put more fear into america. he said that without the proper funding, america is in grave danger.
i live in minneapolis and am seeing the aftermath. i was offended by his remarks and am more pissed than ever for his politics. he already used 9/11 to attack iraq, this bullshit is no different.
Rob Adcox Says: November 10th, 2007 at 3:45 am
Well, maybe that’s because the Democrats in Minnesota are too busy pocketing tax dollars to actually HELP their citizenry. btw it’s too bad that the administration of Saint Mary’s University wasn’t on the bridge that afternoon.