Politics

A short rant: All of the squawking heads out there who are wringing their hands over the election, trying to discern lessons from it, hear this: it wasn't about morals, you fucking morons. If it were about morals, then how, pray tell, do you explain that so many counties were so close? How do you explain this sudden shift? Reagan won many of those same counties. Clinton did as well. And how do you explain Republicans salivating at the thought of changing the constitution to allow a Schwarzenegger candidacy (some pretty conservative Republicans at that)? Wouldn't their time/money/efforts be better spent searching for a charismatic, conservative, religious candidate rather than supporting a charismatic, moderate, pro gay rights, pro choice, secular leaning candidate?

Fuck that. You still don't get it. It's not about the goddamn moral questions and it's not about issues. It's about winning, taking the office, and about the marketing of the individual; not marketing the ideas. Find a charismatic, moderate liberal and you might take the office again, if it means so much to you. Kerry couldn't cut the mustard. He's boring, arrogant, and not terribly charismatic.

In fact, if you want to take something positive from the election it's this: For the second time in a row, Bush failed to mop the floor of a candidate that he should have easily defeated. Gore and Kerry should both have lost by huge margins, but Bush's politics and his religious stances actually drove votes away from him that he should have easily won. If the Republicans are able to amend the constitution, liberals are not going to have as easy a time with Schwarzenegger. Granholm cannot beat him and Hillary will have a tough fight.