Or thereabouts. I've been in a kind of uninspired funk lately, as should be obvious from the quality, or lack thereof, of my posts over the last few weeks. Be that as it may, a thought still does surface every now and then in what is left of my brain. Sometimes I am able to lasso these thoughts and tie them down long enough so as to compose an actual nubbin of an idea around them. I will demonstrate:
Several rightwing (for want of a better term -- many of these people are actually about as "rightwing" as Angela Davis, the definition having been applied to them solely on the basis of their not wanting to submit to Islam right this moment) bloggers have been spouting off on how they regret voting for Bush, he isn't what they thought he was, and they are even having second thoughts on the War on Terror. The reasons for this seem to consist mainly of 1) the immigration thing, upon which Bush and Co. are admittedly obstinately wrongheaded (is Bush really that afraid of his Mexican sister-in-law?), and 2) many of these bloggers really do seem shocked that a war in the chaotic Middle East, which P.J. O'Rourke called "God's monkey house," would get a little messy.
But I don't really care about all of that. What stands out for me are all the former Bush supporters who say "I regret voting for him." Well, really, what does one say to that? It's hard to qualify the depths of idiocy... Does anyone but me recall the special crew running against him? It's not like we had anyone better. Anyone that had a likelihood of winning, that is. In the first contest it was basically Bush, or Gore. Just say to yourself "President Gore." Hurts, doesn't it? And then there was the second go 'round, where we had a choice of Bush, or John "Seared! Seared!" Kerry. We literally had no choice but to vote for Bush. He's no oil painting, but he's not completely insane like the other two. (Though at least Kerry has kept relatively quiet, and hasn't gone about the country selling disaster-porn snake oil like Gore has.)
Spare me the mea culpas. I'm not impressed. You all knew what you were doing.
Update: here's more from Mark Steyn:
Most of the stuff the base is mad about are things he openly championed in the 2000 race. He ran the most pro-Mexican, pro-federalization-of-education, pro-prescription-drugs-for-seniors campaign of any Republican Presidential candidate ever.
In almost all respects Bush is really a Democrat, old-school style. In fact, if it hadn't been for the World Trade Center attack, what would have distinguished his administration from Clinton's, except for more decorum? (Bush seems to have well and truly left his frat boy days behind him, at least, and also doesn't give off that skirt-chaser vibe that makes Clinton so bad-boy attractive to women and men alike -- in fact I'm beginning to think that a major reason so many liberals despite Bush is because they aren't sexually attracted to him.)
Comments (7)
That's what ticks me off about this. He's ticked me off on a huge level, but I still have to consider him a better choice than Tweedledee and Tweedledum he faced in the elections.
Posted by Firehand | June 17, 2007 10:57 AM
Posted on June 17, 2007 10:57
This is what somebody (probably a French person) said about situations like this: "That's the shit of life." Well, it sounds like a thing the French would say.
Posted by Andrea Harris | June 17, 2007 12:18 PM
Posted on June 17, 2007 12:18
What irks me is that he was the lesser of two evils in both elections. After 9-11, his performance seemed to vindicate my vote. Now, not so much.
Of course you are correct, Andrea - it was a great relief to see Dubya win, rather than his competition at the time.
Posted by Jeffro | June 17, 2007 12:32 PM
Posted on June 17, 2007 12:32
I'm not sorry I voted for him. I liked him then, I like him now. I don't agree with him on more than one issue. Hell, My Chief tends to piss me off on a regular basis & we've been together 25 years, so ALWAYS AGREEING AND GETTING ALONG isn't exactly a prerequisite for me. And yes, I know that sounds simplistic when applied to the Leader of the Free World, but I'm a simple woman. He was the best choice at the time, and I made the right choice. Twice.
You're so right, Andrea - anyone who says they'd vote differently if given a second chance has completely forgotten what nutcases we had for choices then.
Second thoughts about the War To Keep Terror Over There? What a pathetic bunch of boobs. More than pathetic. Sickening. I need a shower.
BTW, Happy Father's Day to all!
Posted by prairiecat | June 17, 2007 1:40 PM
Posted on June 17, 2007 13:40
I'm not especially happy with Bush right now, and he wasn't the best candidate possible, but I still think he is 2,346,784,390,812,933,427,908,786% better than the twits he ran against in 2000 and 2004.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS | June 18, 2007 12:40 AM
Posted on June 18, 2007 00:40
Can't one be sorry to have voted for Bush but still would do it again? Just like you can be sorry you euthanized your pet but you'd do it again in the same situation.
Posted by Annoying Old Guy | June 18, 2007 9:50 AM
Posted on June 18, 2007 09:50
That makes sense. I think the part that gets me is the sanctimoniousness (is that a word?) of the "sorry" people. Many of the "sorrys" seem to be saying that given what they now know they would NOT vote for Bush. What convinced me to vote for Bush wasn't how perfect I thought he'd be - it was that he was my best choice at that time of the candidates I had to choose from. If I knew then what I know now, I'd cast the same vote, knowing I might regret it but I wouldn't regret it as much as I'd regret having Gore or Kerry as President. I voted AGAINST them. That was my point at the time, it's my point today.
As I said earlier, I like George, but I don't agree with his take on quite a few things. Doesn't matter right now, at least it's not Gore or Kerry. I believe that would be worse, so I'm not really sorry at all.
Posted by prairiecat | June 18, 2007 10:40 AM
Posted on June 18, 2007 10:40