Is There Something More Important Than Winning?

Me | 10-29-2004 | Patrick McIntyre

[eternalperspective]

During the Florida debacle of the 2000 election, I found myself wanting candidate Bush to allow the Florida recount just to stop the bleeding and hatred and mistrust. My concern wasn't with placating the political parties - but rather, to prevent Joe six-pack from loosing faith in the election process. I didn't want the common man to becoming as cynical as a lawyer. I reasoned that if there were monitors from both sides, and the votes were counted, if Bush lost, at least he would have stopped the tearing and help diminish distrust and perhaps prevent a legal challenge (revenge) pathology in future elections. After the Supreme Court stopped the process, several news organizations did the counting and found that George Bush was the legitimate winner. But all that bad blood had raised the partisan bar to new heights, and the distrust and revenge pathology is now mainstream Democrat thinking. The age of reason is over - now most of us think like lawyers. Even the conservative talk show hosts I respect purposely slant the news, making ultimate statements, when a nuanced comment would be more illuminating. That's the problem- we're not after the truth - we want to win the election no mater what it costs. I know the argument for hitting hard and fast. (After all- the other guy isn't going to pull any punches) I guess I long for a kindler, gentler age when truth was more than talking points, and civility was more than just good manners.

[roaddog727]

In this case, NO!

[daniel boob]

guess I long for a kindler, gentler age when truth was more than talking points, and civility was more than just good manners.

I guess I'm happy you aren't in charge. The decision rests with those of us who are not limped wristed. Your post seems limp-wristed.

Sleep well, newbie, FR is in charge.

[eternalperspective]

That's the problem with spell check- it doesn't tell you if you've typed the wrong word.

[dagoofyfoot]

I am a Bush supporter.


OK...


I'll take your word on that one, (Newbie).

[jmstein7]

No.

[nclady]

It was Bush's win in 2000 in case you forgot and Al Gore who demanded recount after recount. But then I understand how no one could expect dignity and putting America first from someone like Gore. I don't even want to go to the place where I could imagine 9/11 with Gore as President even if it is almost Halloween. Kerry is the wrong choice to be in any position of power where 99 other people can not balance his irrationality.

[cripplecreek]

Theres some awfully twisted reasoning on the left these days. The call the president a divider because he won't do what the minority demands. Meanwhile conservatives are directly insulted by John Kerry and others on his campaign team.

Democrats filibuster judicial appointments because they're the minority and will lose if they vote on them.

John Kerry insults our true allies in Iraq at the same time he calls those who were bribed to oppose us friends.

Democrats claim to support our troops but won't pass up an opportunity to call them murderers and criminals.

[Sloth]

During World War II, I found myself wanting the U.S. to simply let Hitler have Europe in order to stop the bleeding and hatred and mistrust. My concern wasn't with placating the nations involved - but rather, to prevent Joe six-pack from losing faith in the diplomatic process. I didn't want the common man to becoming as cynical as a soldier. I reasoned that if everyone played fair, if we lost, at least it would have stopped the tearing and help diminish distrust and perhaps prevent the revenge motive that the harsh aftermath of WWI created in the Germans. After the Allies secured the European theater, we found the emaciated Jews in the concentration camps and so forth, so I guess, technically, we were on the right side. But all that bad blood created an atmosphere of distrust that led to the Cold War... I know the argument for hitting hard and fast (after all, the other guy isn't going to pull any punches). But I guess I long for a kindler, gentler age when soldiers stood in orderly lines and shot at each other with muskets, instead of unfairly using superior technology to win wars without taking an equal number of casualties.

[eternalperspective]

Excellent response. Thank you.

[eternalperspective]

Great response. Thank you. I think most historians would point to the Civil War period as the best comparison....I personally believe we are in for a protracted culture war that will divide families just as the Civil War conflict did. It makes me wonder whether we're in for 100 years of "damn Yankees" and "bigoted southerner" type rancor. The civil rights movement was over the rights of blacks to be full citizens. The culture war will be over whether the Christian Right will be able to stop and reverse what we see as moral decline in America. Both sides think they are right and the other side is wrong. Both sides see the Constitution as supporting their position. The problem is, after the war, will we still be able to govern without constant threats to impeachment and filibustering every appointment. Or will we split into numerous, special interest parties like in Italy. I don't know. I just hope and pray that Christians will not be silenced with "hate speech" laws. On the other hand, I hope the Christian right doesn't try to make Christianity the state religion. (Not bloody likely.)