Kerry outclasses his running mate
One senior Democrat familiar with the discussions in Boston said Kerry's running mate, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, was suggesting that he shouldn't concede.

The official said Edwards, a trial lawyer, wanted to make sure all options were explored and that Democrats pursued them as thoroughly as Republicans would if the positions were reversed.

And the country should be thankful for that.

posted by Dennis on 11.03.04 at 02:37 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1679






Comments

Kerry conceded? That's good. I hope he doesn't do what Gore did and suddenly take back his concession in order to subject us to another round of chad-counting.

I was hoping for either:

1) A clean, clear, decisive, uncontestable victory for Bush as it looks like this one was, or:

2) The election is contested once again, and again it goes to the Supreme Court, and a majority of the Supreme Court led by Justice Kennedy rules in favor of Bush and Cheney (whose daughter is a Lesbian and who ate a pizza pie and made the children cry). Bush gets the news of the Supreme Court decision in his favor while he is in the middle of another speech denouncing "those EVIL JEWdicial activists always ruling in favor of those HOMOS!" What a delicious irony THAT would have been, ha! ha! I'm wicked, ha! ha!

By the way, I know, I know, I know that Bush himself doesn't actually talk or think that way. That was really a satire on his "base", which is very base indeed. The so-called "evangelicals" or, more accurately, "dysangelicals", as Nietzsche called them.

I voted for Bush because of his military posture as opposed to Kerry's.

My vote was secret, but check the New Republic Online for a short essay from Bill Bennett about the way forward. He says Bush was elected on the basis of "values" and that Bush's mandate is to pursue cultural change using judicial appointments and the law. Federal morality police? Nothing could please me better! This could be fun.

bink   ·  November 3, 2004 04:06 PM

Of course Bennett will say that. Each wing of the party will claim the victory as their own and try to push the party more in their direction.

But it's fallacious to accept Bennett's spin as anything else.

D   ·  November 3, 2004 05:24 PM

D, ya got a point, but nevertheless I have been a bit alarmed by the 'mandate' screeches I've been hearing. Some of this stuff needs to be addressed and quickly shot down before it takes root.

There's never a mandate for stomping on the constitution, including the right to assemble and the right for individuals to contract with one another, and if there IS ever such a mandate it will be illegitimate.

As a nation, we need to get back to the basics of freedom, one of which is allowing freedom to others and keeping our long noses out of other people's business. President Bush has no mandate to become Paul Pry.

To his credit, I don't he personally wants it, but there are a few screeching Bush supporters who show signs of going whacko.

Persnickety   ·  November 4, 2004 07:43 AM

sigh. Last para, first sentence, insert 'think'

I don't think he personally wants it.

Persnickety   ·  November 4, 2004 07:44 AM

If there's one thing that would keep Bush from listening to the far right it's that he's not eligible for re-election. He's not beholden to them.

D   ·  November 4, 2004 10:16 AM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits