Godless Baby-killing Faggots and Whores

[NashVegas]

The election's over. Bush won, again. Tuesday morning I had some hope, but as the returns came in contradicting the exit polls, a dreadful feeling came over my gut that knew we'd be having another Bush victory, even if my mind didn't want to accept it.

Mucho finger-pointing going on. We're godless, baby-killing faggots and whores. Our liberal celebrities and media (don't start on the "what liberal media," a good meme is a godsend to those who use it) pissed off people so much that many went the other way. I can actually see the latter having some leverage, it annoys people and some of them (Moby, Dan Rather and Chrissie Hynde come to mind) were just plain idiots or fools. Remember how, when the Lewinsky scandal was at its height, William Jefferson Clinton had his highest approval ratings? The Dems should have learned from that, and not made it personal, not allowed it to be made personal. But we're such an anarchist bunch …

Much has been made of Bush voters aligning with their morals. Something like 1 in 5. That's 4 in 5 who didn't. Shouldn't we be more interested in what they were thinking? I'd like to know, myself.

I’ve seen those moral 1 in 5, a few have been my co-workers. Of that 20%, a good 3 in 5 would be appalled if they ever truly saw what's under Bush’s mask.

The other two know what's underneath and they don't care, they simply need someone to compete against. Bush's strategists know that; in the arena of ideals, we work well as opponents. Rule of sleazy marketing: you can't win without having a war; you can't fight a war without an enemy; if no enemy exists, create one. This would seem to conflict with the point about not making it personal, but think for a minute: when James McGreevy came out, the Republicans didn't exactly go out of their way to make him a figurehead, did they? Not for more than a day or two. In doing so, they would have made it personal, someone people could sympathize with. Instead the conversation was turned to his corrupt administration. Better to have an enemy like Saddam Hussein, with no media access, or the shadowy boogeyman Osama who has some media access, but still needs translation.

Back to the so-called morals voters, these are people who cling to their indoctrination with gusto; just how easy do you think it is to toss aside absolutes you've been trained to believe and used as a way of coping with an apparently random world? How easy do you think it is for everyone to adhere to a code of ethics when there's no fear of an ultimate reprisal? I've seen some of the so-called moralists, their hierophants, when they think no one's looking, and am not impressed.

So the Supreme Court rules there's nothing in the constitution that forbids gay sex. What, you think those 1 in 5 are going to drop their indoctrination in the space of a year or two, and welcome gay nuptials in their religious institutions just because a Gavin Newsom stands up? Surely it's no easier than being forced to confront the certain realities you had to, when you discovered that you're the person the 1 in 5 are howling warnings about. Maybe even you were warned about. I certainly was (the whore category, in case you're curious).

Anyway, that's besides the point. It’s the 4 in 5 we need to listen to learn from, and wedge away from the other 1, and reveal to them the marketers/strategists.

And if you thought the idea of a President John Kerry was the solution, eh, no. It would have been nothing more than a stop-gap. A few years where you'd think you could sleep soundly at night, just like we did from 1992-2000. The main difference, with a President George W. Bush, is that everyones' spines will be tested sooner rather than later. In the meantime, bitterness does no help if it can't be turned into positive energy; find joy, find peace, find comfort where you can, in these times we're going to need it.

(edited to fix punctuation)