This is the thread where we acknowledge that we are in panic mode right now and that eventually most of the things people fear Bush is going to do is not going to happen...

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Panic, anger, and disappointment are clearly rational feelings for many ilxors right now...

and Iraq is not going to get better any time soon, which is sadly an understatement.

..but get a grip. Bad shit will fly, but not all of it will fly.

I hate to resort to the "these are the problems you want to have" type of self-consolement, but it's time to learn what we learned yesterday... which was all too sobering, and a fuck of a lot -- some of which is sickening, admittedly -- about the state of the U.S. today, and replan, rethink, and move on as necessary.

If people waited 10 hours to vote in Ohio, then maybe more people than we thought have as much perseverance to actually actively help change things in the form of political communities and activities, instead of just blogging away in a bubble and assuming the world will nod away to that prose.

I apologize for actually trying to be optimistic, even borderline delusionally optimistic.

twiki's ho and dr. theo slapping ass, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it really could be worse than we imagine. Eisenhower was the last president to control both houses of congress and the presidency and he was no where near as rabidly conservative as this guy or had a press and a country as generally compliant as this one is. I hate to be a downer, but I don't think this looks good.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Twiki must be Rehnquist's oncologist!

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:20 (twenty-one years ago)

There was no reason to be optimistic four years ago and the last four years have been worse than I imagined. I see no reason why the next four shouldn't continue to be even worse (esp. since everything is playing Bush's hands right now.)

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:20 (twenty-one years ago)

What's really going to screw up the US is the coming increased radicalization of the Supreme and Federal Courts. Shit's going to hit the fan, and the fan's going to stay hit for decades.

Colin Meeder (Mert), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:21 (twenty-one years ago)

supreme court. even if nothing else horrible happens (which i doubt) bush appointing several justices is a certainty. and a travesty.

Emilymv (Emilymv), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:22 (twenty-one years ago)

The one thing that is keeping me from hanging myself is the tiny ray of hope that BushCo will fuck up things so badly that '08 will be a cakewalk for the Left.*

*Mind you, 2006 is also an election year. Methinks there's an even chance the the tide will turn then. But we (the embittered Left) have got to MAKE IT HAPPEN!

Doobie Keebler (Charles McCain), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:24 (twenty-one years ago)

(xpost)

Actually, can we talk rationally about the Supreme Court? Assuming Rehnquist kicks it, Bush will appoint another conservative judge -- who may be more conservative than Rehnquist, but it still wouldn't change the split, since it's a Republican for a Republican.

I'm guessing, though, that if Stevens or even O'Connor leaves the Court in the next four years, things could get dicey (Stevens because he's a liberal, O'Connor because she often goes both ways, and is socially liberal if not nominally so). So what are the actual odds of this happening? Stevens is 84 years old, so chances are he could die soon. What about O'Connor -- there have been rumors of her retiring, but why?

jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:24 (twenty-one years ago)

O'Connor and Ginsberg have had serious health problems.

Colin Meeder (Mert), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:26 (twenty-one years ago)

What does the supreme court do?

adam... (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:27 (twenty-one years ago)

also, o'connor is 956.

Emilymv (Emilymv), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Ginsburg, too? Shit.

jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:28 (twenty-one years ago)

"It is the duty of the opposition to oppose. The weakest part of the US government is the lack of a government in opposition."

Why can't all the opposition use their panic, anger, and dissappointment for something poitive and write intelligent letters to congressmen, media, etc.

A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I see absolutely no reasons for such optimism.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:36 (twenty-one years ago)

What does the supreme court do?

They are the final arbiter of all cases appealed in Federal courts.

Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:38 (twenty-one years ago)

There is a defeatist presumption at work here (in all these early responses to the election) that I fundamentally do not agree with.

It presumes that NOTHING will go right (as it were). It presumes that EVERYTHING will go wrong. It presumes that EVERYTHING the other side hopes for and plans for will happen swimmingly and with no problems or repercussions or other scenarios like that. Tell me, do you think that strikes you as realistic?

I do not believe in this mindset being created and I most definitely do not seek to cling to it as some sort of anti-security security blanket, something to use as some sort of immediate catchall and assumption that not only will nothing go right but that nothing can be done. If that is the case, you have flat out already given up.

Do I worry about the Supreme Court situation? Indeed, I think it's the most fundamental domestic concern over the next year in many ways. But I am not giving into immediate abject despair. I have seen enough stupidity and cupidity in my lifetime already and somehow the world continues.

I realize it is early days yet, of course. I understand all the emotional frustration even if I do not feel it in a similar manner. Personally I'm very glad places like ILX exist so the venting can happen. But apocalypse is NOT coming in immediately on the wing and that people seem to want to equate an election with a narrow split as either (on the Republican side) a triumphant absolutist mandate or (on the Democratic side) a sign that the entire country is worthless makes for two sides of the same coin.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I hope in my heart that the two moderate to liberal justices with health/age problems try and stick it out for the fate of America. I think they'll try. Hopefully Bush only gets to replace Stevens and Rhenquist.

still bevens (bscrubbins), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Most of what we are worrying about won't happen, but terrible things will happen that we haven't even thought about yet. We can't know exactly what is going to happen, but we can say that the Republican mindset at the moment makes unpleasant to catastrophic events more likely.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:41 (twenty-one years ago)

terrible things will happen that we haven't even thought about yet

This I fully agree with.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:42 (twenty-one years ago)

What, did David Souter never happen? Do we need to go over the unknowingly liberal appointments that Republican presidents have made over the past 50 years? Does anyone think that some hard core conservative will make it out of committee to get a vote, or that the Googling Monkeys and armies of oppo researchers will ever let a pubic-hair joking judge get before the Senate? It's perfectly reasonable to assume that Bush will have a very, very tough time getting a hardliner on the Bench. It's far from the apocalypse--or is the Democratic party so beaten down that it doesn't know how to fight anymore? I hardly think so.

don weiner, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:43 (twenty-one years ago)

And I agree with your post too, Ned. People are just stunned, at the moment, but hopefully the floundering panic will ease into focus when things start happening. At the moment we are thinking in terms of four more years rather than the next little battle.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:44 (twenty-one years ago)

at least my taxes won't go up.

(this is not really a consolation at all since I still made MORE FUCKING MONEY and had MORE FUCKING JOB OPTIONS and was GENERALLY HAPPIER when my taxes were higher under Clinton).

kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Ned, Kevin, Don all extremely fucking OTM.

twiki's ho and dr. theo slapping ass, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:45 (twenty-one years ago)

at least my taxes won't go up.

I wouldn't bet my life on that.

don weiner, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:46 (twenty-one years ago)

(well, I say "we" - I'm an internationalist, so I tend to do that naturally - I of course mean YOU! I'm not trying to steal your crisis...)

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:46 (twenty-one years ago)

National Debt Clock "Each citizen's share of this debt is $25,286.37." And in four years...?

Chris Hill (Chris Hill), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:47 (twenty-one years ago)

that's why we be needin POPPIN MORE BABEEZ to divvy up them defizit per citizin!

twiki's ho and dr. theo slapping ass, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Do we need to go over the unknowingly liberal appointments that Republican presidents have made over the past 50 years?

Do we need to list the litmus tests Karl Rove and co. will apply to any Dubya nominees?

j.lu (j.lu), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Holy Shit, I've never even seen $25,286.37, except on TV.

Doobie Keebler (Charles McCain), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Don, Souter happened -- but so did Scalia and Thomas. And the real mess will be in the Federal Courts, as you ought to know. Liberal appointments by conservative governments are relatively rare.

Colin Meeder (Mert), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:52 (twenty-one years ago)

x-posts many

Ned how do you know apocalypse is not in the wings? Environmental collapse (thanks to our use of energy) and/or civilizational collapse (thanks to running out of energy) are real possibilities. The potential for collpase existed before Bush, but he is not going to do anything to head them off (and they were essentially non-issues in the campaign, at the mainstream level). When it comes to large-scale global apocalypse, I think Bush's dismissal of global warming and his lack of serious support for alternative energy research are the most serious threats. Maybe I am underestimating the increased risks of nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and global economic collapse that might come with a Bush presidency. I also don't meant to downplay the immediate threat that the U.S. war machine poses to people around the world.

Rockist_Scientist (rockist_scientist), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Why can't all the opposition use their panic, anger, and dissappointment for something poitive and write intelligent letters to congressmen, media, etc.

Because that obviously doesn't do a goddamned thing when there are more religious fundementalist retards in the midwest than cultured intelligent people who give a shit.

trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Of course Scalia and Thomas happened--over the dead bodies of Democrats, I might add, who voted for them. Just like Ginsburg did. But this idea that the Supreme Court will suddenly become a bunch of Scalia clones isn't historically justified, and judging from what's been happening on the Federal Circuit, I'd say that Bush will be having lots of problems. The opposition should be vigilant, this goes without saying. But it's hardly a slam dunk.

don weiner, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 20:00 (twenty-one years ago)

So then they will have to wait until even more fundementalist retards ruin even more things to start giving a shit.

A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 20:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Actually, perhaps unsurprisingly, Talking Points finds the right balance. Read the whole thing, but let me quote a key part.

I remember talking to Simon Rosenberg, the head of the New Dem Network, at the Democratic convention last summer. You'll remember, he and his group were profiled in the Times magazine around that time. The article, in brief, was about plans to create a Democratic-leaning counter-establishment along the lines of what Republicans did two generations ago -- with an alternative media, activist groups, organized political giving, in short a political infrastructure.

He told me he thought it would take ten years to accomplish. And I told him my one worry was that it could all be strangled in its crib if Kerry didn't win.

Well, here we are. And this is the test for people who care about this kind of politics and these sorts of values -- making sure that what has been started is not allowed to falter. This isn't 1964 or 1972 or 1980. This wans't a blow-out or a repudiation. It was close to a tie -- unfortunately, on the other guy's side. Let's not put our heads in the sand but let's also not get knocked of our game. Democrats need to think critically and seriously about why this didn't turn out 51% for Kerry or 55% for Kerry (and we'll get to those points in the future). But it would be a terrible mistake to stop thinking in terms of those ten years Simon described.

Take time to feel the desolation and disappointment. But I remain confident that time is not on the side of the kind of values and politics that President Bush represents. It took conservatives two decades to build up the institutional muscle they have today. Though I was always nervous about the result, I thought we could win this election. But it was always naive to believe that that sort of institutional heft could be put together in 24 or 36 months.

President Bush and the Republicans now control the entire national government, even more surely now than they have over the last four years. They do so on the basis of garnering the votes of 51% or 52% of the population. But they will use that power as though there were no opposition at all. That needs to be countered.

Leave today for disappointment. Tomorrow, think over which of these various groups and organizations you think has made the best start toward what I've described above, go to their website, and give money or volunteer. After that, okay sure, take a few more days for disappointment, maybe a few more weeks. But this takes time. And you shouldn't lose heart. The same division in the country remains, the same stalemate. The other side just got the the ball a yard or two into our side of the field rather than the reverse. And we have to deal with the serious consequences of that. Tomorrow's the day to start.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 20:38 (twenty-one years ago)

"think over which of these various groups and organization"

That is one of the most important steps for any supporter

A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 20:43 (twenty-one years ago)

There were articles a few months back about Bush's orders for 2006 budgeting - Head Start getting cut by 50% is the main one that sticks in my head.

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 20:49 (twenty-one years ago)

http://amap.no/acia

I'll be reading this when it comes out in 5 days. Good wishes and strength to all distressed by the unfortunate election results, especially those living in the U.S..

Pangolino Che Non si Ricorda di Come รจ Arrivato, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 20:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Right-o, Ned. If one really care about these issues, one shouldn't stop caring about them, no matter whether the election is won or lost.

Presidential elections are all about organization. Bush didn't win because he's so fucking amazing; he won because he was sitting on top of an effective organization and the Democrat organizations fell short of what Bush could command. The best antidote to this is to organize, organize, organize - a fact the left seems to have forgotten since labor unions started to decline in the 1970s.

Parenthetically, Americans in general don't seem to understand the functional power of political parties and of party discipline. The point is to put together a winning coalition of voting blocs and hold them together. The old Dem coalition of FDR is dead and thoroughly decomposed. The more recent Republican coalition glued together by Reagan hasn't yet exploded from its internal contradictions. As the opposition, our job is to expose those contradictions and apply pressure relentlessly at those points to break off some of their voting blocs - especially in key states. Ask Karl Rove and he'd tell you the same thing.

Aimless (Aimless), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:06 (twenty-one years ago)

OK I'm going to probably get shit for posting an AOL thing on ILX again, but I think it's as bad as we wanna believe, re: the populace "out there" (a teeny sample size, but still dispiriting) ->

How do you feel about Bush winning?

Optimistic 56%
Pessimistic 38%
Neutral 6%

Total Votes: 121,397

Vic (Vic), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 22:01 (twenty-one years ago)

So maybe abortion won't become illegal, but what is clear is that more wars will be started. We know the neocon agenda, and the mandate here is quite over: 'Fight the war on terror; we're OK with it.' So Iran, Syria, etc....it will get ugly.

Richard K (Richard K), Thursday, 4 November 2004 00:01 (twenty-one years ago)

the outcome in iraq could blunt those plans somewhat, no?

m. (mitchlnw), Thursday, 4 November 2004 00:05 (twenty-one years ago)

"So maybe abortion won't become illegal"

Abortion will never be illegal in New York or California or wherever. Roe v. Wade could definitely fall, but that will just move it back to the state level, most likely (barring something completely bonkers.)

And Bush ain't invading anyone for a while as we don't have enough troops to invade Grenada right now.

Bad shit is gonna happen (really bad shit) but don't go crazy with hyperbole, the awful shit Bush will do (gutting Social Security, the environment, the government regulatory agencies and oversight, etc) is bad enough without making shit up out of thin air.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 4 November 2004 00:06 (twenty-one years ago)

seven months pass...
Six months on, are things closer to eventually not happening?

Aaron A., Wednesday, 15 June 2005 16:18 (twenty years ago)

is things, I mean?

Aaron A., Wednesday, 15 June 2005 16:20 (twenty years ago)

The Social Security brouhaha has been a godsend in terms of eating away at Bush's capital. Bush still stumps for his re-forms, but he's lost his head of steam and is out of ideas.

The Congressional Republican ranks haven't broken into a mob, but they are restive and wanting to define their differences with the president rather than holding tight to his coattails, in anticipation of the 2006 mid-term elections.

In lieu of new ideas, Bush can still do damage by carrying on with some of the Reagan-era leftovers. The federal courts are already being sown with the seeds of mayhem. Wait until Rehnquist goes away and you'll see worse.

Let us pray that Bush doesn't open up another big can of tax re-form, because once that rock is rolling downhill there's no telling what will get smashed before it hits bottom. Congress would go hog wild.

Aimless (Aimless), Wednesday, 15 June 2005 16:36 (twenty years ago)

well, this was kind of promising....
US House votes to curb Patriot Act, defies Bush

I always thought it was funny that one of the big premises of the move SEVEN was they couldn't arrest the psychokiller because if people knew the govt could search library records, there would be crazy outrage scandal. but apparently the public is much more lax and stupid about civil liberties than Morgan Freeman thought.

lolita corpus (lolitacorpus), Thursday, 16 June 2005 07:45 (twenty years ago)

! You know, I hadn't thought of that! (Interesting what assumptions can get made in art re: society that end up no longer applying.)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 June 2005 11:15 (twenty years ago)

a neat little piece about coverage of Dubya's stumping
...In a line already headed into sound bite history, Bush accused Democratic leaders of embracing "the philosophy of the stop sign, the agenda of the road block." From there, he piled it on, with further attacks on what he likes to call "the other party," criticizing Democrats for always saying "no" to his ideas without offering up alternative proposals of their own.

There are two pretty clear sides to this story: George Bush as the overbooked fund-raiser, and George Bush as the frustrated Dem-basher. We decided to see which side our three favorite dailies chose to play up.

For the Washington Post, Bush's attack on Democrats was the main focus. In their coverage of Bush's fundraising speeches (headline: "Bush, at GOP Fundraiser, Cites Democrats' 'Obstruction'"), reporters Mike Allen and Michael A. Fletcher lead by saying that "President Bush poured out his most politically confrontational rhetoric since his reelection to a huge gathering of Republican donors last night, asserting that Democrats 'stand for nothing but obstruction' on Social Security and other issues on his agenda."

Allen and Fletcher provide ample examples of Bush's "confrontational rhetoric," as well as a few reactions to his angry words. The first two reactions they quote: "[B]y framing Democrats as obstructionist, [Bush] is beginning to insulate himself against possible defeat on Social Security," and "[H]e is as determined as ever." We were a little surprised at how positive the reactions were, until we realized who exactly was reacting: "Republican congressional aides" and "administration officials." Nice choice of sources, guys -- both specific and balanced...

big daddy kingfish (Kingfish), Thursday, 16 June 2005 16:52 (twenty years ago)

this reminds me of something Alejandro Jodorowsky brought up when I saw him in SF last year. Someone had asked him how to apply his principles of psychomagic to larger political issues, specifically re: Dubya (who had just won re-election) - Jodo's response was a very interesting Freudian kind of analysis, and he said no psychomagic ritual was necessary, as the re-election would suffice. Basically, Jodo presented Dubya's re-election as a kind of personal excorcism for Bush, a liberation from the shadow of his father - he had now accomplished everything his father had been unable to do: capture Sadaam, win re-election, etc. Being as how these deep-seated issues of resentment had fueled Bush's ascent and policies, with them removed he was now going to be set adrift. Jodo said wait six months - we will either see a change in Dubya away from his previous modes of behavior, or confused, goal-less floundering. Oddly, here we are six months later, and Jodo was completely OTM. Bush is out of ideas, wasting political capital, flailing wildly in all directions and accomplishing nothing. Without the spectre of his father driving him, he is revealed as a confused little boy, the re-election was both the validation and the loss of his modus operandi.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 16 June 2005 17:08 (twenty years ago)

man, somebody should cough up a coupla mil to have Jodo go make some little political film on DV, just to see what he could do nowadays.

big daddy kingfish (Kingfish), Thursday, 16 June 2005 17:20 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.