NY Times Editorial On Accepting Bush

The NY Times has issued a new editorial about President George Bush. Basically, it talks about how the nation is very divided, what the voters were looking for in each candidate when they went to the polls last night, and how the President needs to ease back from his conversative-base appealing stances on domestic issues in order to get the public behind him - not propel our country furhter into bipartisanship ("But lawmakers can't lead themselves into a bipartisan consensus. Only a president can create a new mood, and he can do it only by sacrificing his own short-term political advantage on occasion for the common good."). Gothamist appreciates that the NY Times is pointing this out, because we hope BOTH parties can grow candidates who can appeal to constituents with sound plans, instead of invective, that can make us feel good about the place we live. Because while all this talk of secession is fun and all, it'll take a while to enact.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on November 3, 2004 4:54 PM

Comments [rss]

honey2

hey, i am a southerner (well, a texan, by birth) and am married to one. We have relatives all over the south.

anyway--BUSH is NOT "where this country is" 51% of the popular vote for BUsh is not an overwhelming majority. 48% of all voters voted for Kerry. Bush got the edge and won. But it was by no means a landslide.

Spike

"The South, evil and stupid and hateful as it is, understands its task..." Mike Benedetto

Are you serious with this crap ? why don't we just stereotype all races and lifestyles and where you live geographically ? Way to spread the hate moron

s@s.com

Remember, you are either with the rational, reality-based community or you are with the fundamentalists.

I think moderate Republicans who still voted for Bush need to do some deep soul-searching. Was a vote for lower taxes for just them worth the concessions Bush will have to make to his base? Was alligning themself with a party that actively pursued anti-gay legislation in 11 states (more if you count past ballot measures) worth a few more bucks in their pocket? To paraphrase the crazy Howard Dean, Republicans need to reclaim their party for Republicans.

Tim N.

Nobody... well, for the record I'm far from a right wing partisan. But I've been at this fight for a long time - 1980 to be exact - and every couple of years I hope against hope that the country will see the conservative virus that's been infecting us long-term. But then the country tells you something else.

Understand, I still know that we're right and they're wrong. But they've got the country by the balls now and they're growing. 59 million people looked at Bush and all his crap and said, "It's okay." They didn't see the light in '80, or '88, or during the impeachment debacle or the Florida disaster. Republicans matched Democrats in turnout. That hasn't happened since autos first appeared on the street. Today, America looks like BC04.

And if you don't think that scares the hell out of me, you're wrong.

Having said that, thanks for the tips. I will read those.

Mike Benedetto

The truth?

Many of you are voting for Republicans for random reasons. And you can't. Republicans are destroying the country. Every single one who gets elected adds to the landslide of disaster.

The South, evil and stupid and hateful as it is, understands its task: it has to eliminate the Democrats. For now, we have to counteract it. Worry about nuance later: for now, understand that the people who want gays dead and women in the kitchen are winning.

Nobody

"Sad as it is to say, Bush is where the country is at right now."

No, it's not. And if you think it is, then you're not seeing past the party line to the truth (or you're a right-wing partisan).

The truth is that the right has married a handful of hot button social issues (abortion, gay rights) with the entire spectrum of extreme right-wing issues (deregulation of industry, regressive taxes, dismantling transfer payment programs, privatization of education, starvation of social programs), all the while screaming about morality. The result is to expand the party into people who would have voted straight Democrat forty years ago (think pre-LBJ) but now can’t see past pictures of dead babies.

Now these people vote against their own interests.

Try reading Thomas Frank's _What's the Matter With Kansas?_ or Arthur M. Schlesinger's _The Disuniting of America_. Then come back and write about where the country is at right now.

Nobody

Here's a professional tip: Compose in Word, spellcheck, read your text over once, then copy/paste to the blog. The extra ninety seconds this will take will vastly improve the technical quality of your writing.

S

Bush owes his base big time for this win. They are the reason he pulled this out. And he will reward them with many many far right prizes.

Tim N.

It's a nice thought, but people who think GWB will now guide the country from the center are dangerously deluding themselves. Why would he? He's got 58 million reasons not to, and nothing to gain by doing so. Sad as it is to say, Bush is where the country is at right now.

And Jen, fair point on secession, but doesn't that mean we should just start sooner?

don silberger

Perhaps in the future we should compromise with a Libertarian president. It would mean the low-tax economics and small-government ideals of the Republicans combined with the social and cultural freedoms of the Democrats.

S.D.

Well, I'm hoping, but I seriously doubt it will be any differnt.

IMO: He's not Conservative but represents the Radical Right.

Just look at the record So far:

<ul><li>The Federal Deficit has Reach records levels 2 years.

</li><li>The Republicans have controlled the House and the Senate And Still spend money like its out of style

</li><li>The Armed forces are over-extended

</li><li>Iraq is not stablizing anytime soon and is resembling Beirut in the 80's

</li><li>Health care reform (Where the true cost was withehld from congress )

</li>

</ul>

His "Tax" break, if made permanent will lead to Yet More record deficits if the level of spending is kept up.

Also: Can we say "Alternative Minimum Tax?

55

you know the president only cares about his base, nothing will change. it will only get worse. how many tv ads did any of you see in NYC compared with how many they probably saw in other states. i didn't see ANY. he could care less about New York and it shows.