Concession


Through the entire Presidential campaign, my mantra was, "you can't believe the polls." Over the past few days, however, I admit that I let my hopeful optimism get the most of me and began listening to the polls about how well the Kerry campaign was doing. I actually had hope that Bush could be defeated. And he almost was defeated. The Right is now busy crowing over the fact that Mr. Bush -- I'll no longer call him "SCAB," since he is now rightfully elected to the Presidency -- received the most votes of any U.S. presidential candidate in history. What they forget to point out, is that so did John Kerry. It's testament of the huge turn-out of U.S. voters, not necessarily a testament to the popularity of the candidates. So now that Mr. Bush is our legally elected President, what does that mean for the U.S.?

Certainly, as I'm sure you no doubt by now know, I'm no political expert. I'm just a guy who believes that we should do everything we can to help each other out while we're here. This is sort of the core "moral" on which I evaluate political, religious, and business leaders.

That's why I find it particuarly ironic that most of the Christian Right voters who were asked in post-voting interviews why they chose W over Kerry responded that they liked W's morals. George W. Bush and morals? That's an oxymoron on the scale of "military intelligence!" I was raised Christian, and I've always been taught that Christian morals are, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "Live and let live." And yet, these are not morals I see reflected by this President.

Over the past four years, when W had no mandate to be our President, I saw him help the wealthy and ignore the poor. While vowing "no child left behind," he cut funding to schools and after-school programs. While vowing compassionate conservatism, he gave tax cuts to the wealthiest 10% of the population and turned a blind-eye to the steadily increasing poverty levels. He pledged a safe homeland as police and fire stations closed. He claimed to cherish "family values," while at the same time attempting to pass constitutional amendments that outlaw the definition of a family between anyone except a man and a woman. And he promised to "exhaust all options" for peace while he prepared for an ill-planned war, in spite of the dire warnings from his own military advisors and overseas allies. Throughout it all, he claims to be a staunch supporter of the "right to life," as he avoids funding programs that would provide help and support to single mothers and their children.

So this is what I expect from the man who is now our duly elected President -- more of the same and probably worse. Because if he did all of these things when he didn't have the mandate of the people to be their leader, what then is he likely to do now that he does have the mandate of the people? And now that 51% of the American people have given the reigns of power to W, how will we be viewed by the rest of the world? Prior to this election, when traveling overseas we had an excuse, "hey, we didn't elect him, the Supreme Court did!" But now we have no such excuse, which makes every American a viable target for those factions who hate Bush and his policies -- as if we weren't already targets enough!

But what are we going to do? George W. Bush is now our duly elected President, and we have him for the next four years. I concede that he won this election fair and square, and that he has earned the right to no longer be referred to as a "SCAB" (Supreme Court Appointed Bush). Now if he could only do something to earn my respect.

Posted: Thu - November 4, 2004 at 02:58 AM          

©