Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Ceeee-lebra-shun time COME ON!

Hey, I know that the Democrats are far from perfect. You don't need to remind me. But this these results are still MAD AWESOME--a massive repudiation of Bushism. We can worry about Democratic specifics later.

What I'm most happy about is that the elections seemingly went off sans deibolding. That might actually be the best thing to come out of this. I don't know why they wouldn't at least make an effort to cheat (I'm preemptively ruling out "princple") here, but it restores a tiny shred of my faith in the system.

Also, now we get to enjoy enraged bellowing from the usual wingnuts. Mallard Fillmore's gonna be a fucking blast, I'm sure of it. Some might call it childish of me to take such pleasure in this. But, dude: this is the first election night in a looooong time that hasn't been horribly traumatic. I think I deserve to enjoy the aftermath to the fullest. We all do.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous pontificated to the effect that...

There are definitely some things to be happy about. Man-on-dog is gone, Rumsfeld is leaving, and hey, even the Republican from my old district in NY finally lost. And Hastert's career is basically over.

But, although I hate to piss on the party so soon, I don't think it's such a big repudiation of Bushism as it may seem. Maybe it's a repudiation of the more crazed variety of Bushism. But the general ideology of warmongering is here to stay, I think, just in a more benign-looking form. Obviously the Senate is only 50-50 now, but even if the Democrats had swept both chambers of Congress with 2/3 majorities, do you suppose they would move to repeal the "Patriot Act," for example? I wish it were true, of course, but I have a hard time believing it.

- SK

3:39 PM  
Anonymous Jeremy pontificated to the effect that...

I had written a longer post, but the computer kicked me off. Suffice it to say, SK, that there is considerably less warmongering now than there was even a few years ago, and I can't help but feel cheered by our new liberal, anti-war House Speaker. Sure there's a lot to feel cynical about, but whereas you KNOW that things wouldn't get better under Republican rule, now there's a chance. We've got to start somewhere. I don't know what the Democrats will do now, but however you look at it, this is a major step in the right direction. Be easy and free.

7:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous pontificated to the effect that...

I agree with your overall point. But Pelosi isn't anti-war. Didn't she endorse the invasion of Iraq? You might say, okay, fine, almost everybody did. But she also opposed a "non-binding resolution" calling for an "exit strategy." Not only that, but she signed on as a co-sponsor of a bill (written by the odious Man-on-dog, by the way) to impose sanctions on Iran, and "get tough" with the Iranian government, or whatever bullshit phrase they're using these days.

So that's basically my point. She and other Democrats correctly criticize Bush's incompetence, but they all accept more or less the same premises: America has the right to hector every country in the world about "democracy" and interfere in the internal affairs of others, and war can always solve problems, as long as it is started in the name of "human rights." This is what I mean by a more benign-looking form of warmongering.

11:56 AM  
Blogger GeoX pontificated to the effect that...

You'll get no argument from me that the Democrats have been pretty spineless about the war, but, while they may have been too chickenshit to make a forceful stand against this war, I think--hope!--that we can at the very least assume they won't go around randomly starting wars. I could be terribly, terrible wrong of course, but I think the chances of us attacking Iran are now dramatically less than they were. And hopefully, now that they we've seen a LOUD AND CLEAR message from the voters that this war sucks, they'll be a bit less timid.

Of course, as mon frère says, there's no way to know for sure. But if I can't celebrate now, when exactly can I?

4:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous pontificated to the effect that...

I think you're right that they won't go around starting wars - that is to say, they probably won't start an _invasion_ of Iran, and they won't send American troops there. But air-strikes? Or paying/training anti-government groups in Iran to engineer a violent overthrow of the government? Or sinking billions of dollars into "pro-democratic organizations" (i.e. slavishly pro-American, pro-corporate) all over Eastern Europe and Asia, while wrapping themselves in "humanitarian" rhetoric? I think that's much more likely.

I don't mean that there isn't something to celebrate here. Any election that gets rid of Santorum and Rumsfeld is good news. And I really hope that my suspicions are unfounded, and the Democrats reverse our interventionist course. I'm just saying, let's not set ourselves up for a big disappointment...

- SK

12:21 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home