He's not my president!
No matter who wins the vote for the next squatter-in-charge, how many people will be saying that a week from tomorrow?
I've seen the aftermath of several elections where those who had voted for the losing candidate immediately declared that the winner was not their president; most of the angry nullificationists had voted for a Democrat and were convinced that morally they were justified in declaring the election bogus. I remember many an irate supporter of Humphrey and McGovern who declared that Nixon was not their president, just as supporters of Carter, Mondale and Dukakis denied that Reagan and Bush were legitimate, just as votaries of Gore and Kerry denied that Bush the younger had triumphed. To be fair, I've run into some right-leaners who reciprocated: In their eyes, neither JFK nor LBJ had any moral authority over them. And who can deny that there were those saw Carter and Clinton as trespassers?
We'll see the same thing this go-around as well. In the increasingly probable event of an Obama win, there will be many a McCain voter who will for whatever reason refuse to acknowledge him as their president. If by a stroke of skill and luck McCain should win, then we'll see equally incensed crowd of Obama supporters refusing to accept the reality.
I don't have a dime in either party's dollar. Neither candidate is up to my standards as a person who respects the constitutional basis of our republic or who is really opposed to the continued metastasis of nanny-state meddling that chokes our lives. I will not vote for either one of them.
But, on Wednesday, 5 November 2008, one of them is going to be the president-elect. I' hope that I'll be as graceful about it as was John Wayne, who had backed and campaigned for Richard Nixon: I didn't vote for [Kennedy], but he is our President and I hope he does a good job.
That doesn't mean that I'm going to roll over and play dead, that I'll feel somehow bound to stand silently at stirrup, hat in hand, and go with the flow. No, I'll hope he does well and does not devalue the office, but I'll not be any more willing to look the other way for him than I have done for the current occupant.
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
Technorati Tags: - Flapsaddle's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer friendly version
We're really at a point when
We're really at a point when we need to accept that whoever wins is our president and whatever they do, they do in our name.
In many ways, it is a disgrace that so many of us -- myself included -- said that Our Dubya was not our president. If we agreed that he was, and that we were responsible for what he did, we might have been more serious about impeaching him.
If McCain wins, he will be my president, and I will work hard to oppose the things he does that I do not support.
George W Bush was, is, and
George W Bush was, is, and will continue to be AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. He never reported for training or physicals on multiple occasions, therefore he has not completed his contract to serve which he received as a butt in line favor to his Daddy from the T.A.N.G.
The real truth of this is that power and the privileged rule the day, and America. Sucks don't it?
Another truth is, he has never been my President, nor will he ever be anything but the spoiled brat of parents, that for the lack of a condom, unleashed the greatest threat to America and the world that our generation has ever seen.
His is a legacy of lie upon lie and referring to him as President of anything but the Liars club is an abomination even to them.
George W Bush was, is, and
Bryan, because Mr. Bush's clear intent was to remain absent from his post permanently, the military has another name for such behavior.
It's called "desertion". Desertion is a felony, punishable by death under military law if committed in wartime, which is precisely where the country was during Viet Nam.
That is right Keith, and if
That is right Keith, and if Dan Rather would have gone after the AWOL charge first, then the desertion charge would have stuck, and eight years of torture would not have been suffered by America.Thanks for the input.
It would be fun to see far
It would be fun to see far right leaners deny Obama was President. Then one could say they are treasonous, not supporting the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Turn about is fair play.
At any rate, I'm still saying McCain is going to win, and have been since April. I say that even though I am voting for Baldwin.
Should McCain win, would the
Should McCain win, would the Obama votaries then insist he was not president? Would they insist that there was a conspiracy to steal the election even if one could not be shown?
I fear that the more emotionally over-invested among us - whatever their persuasion - will "go postal" regardless of the situation.
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
Yup, there are going to be
Yup, there are going to be riots. Isn't that why Bush deployed the First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division to our streets? They don't deploy unless they intend to use them. Their stated mission is the form of crowd control they practiced in Iraq, subduing "unruly individuals," and the management of a national emergency.
The powder keg is about to be lit. Hope you are prepared. There is still a week or so left!
To deploy troops means to
To deploy troops means to set them out in a battle formation. To garrison troops is to station troops at a particular fort or "garrison." The First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division is not set out in battle array, though they may be garrisoned inside the United States. Do you have any idea how many duty stations there are inside the US? You confuse their being garrisoned in the US as being deployed.
You may want to reconsider your statement that the troops are set out in battle formation, inasmuch as they are not so deployed.
It is just plain not true. I cannot be plainer than that. There are no troops deployed in the US. NONE. Zero. Zip. Nada.
This is the sort of irresponsible posting that fosters more and more conspiracy theories and stirs people up needlessly. If you cannot use words properly it may be best not to use them at all.
Tomato/tomahto,
Tomato/tomahto, potato...???
Could be the response, but the common (and not so) vernacular is a little more nuanced. Woody's post included the link he quoted regarding the referenced troop deployment. The author, Naomi Wolf somewhat explains her position by saying that G.W.Bush "...has also legally established that in the "War on Terror," the U.S. is at war around the globe and thus the whole world is a battlefield. Thus the U.S. is also a battlefield."
As for a view on that "irresponsible" use of the term, Tim Kane at the Heritage Foundation has compiled Global US military deployment stats for the period 1950-2003... most of whom were merely stationed at their respective locations and not maintained in battle array:
http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/...
The term "Garrison (NationMaster.com encyclopedia) from the French garnison, itself from the verb garnir, "to equip") is 'the collective term for the body of troops stationed in a particular location', originally to guard it, but now often simply using it as a home base. For example, the 1st Battalion, 1st Infantry (U.S.) is garrisoned at West Point. Garrison town is a common expression for any town that has a military barracks."
According to Wiki, "U.S. troops are fighting in several countries, including Afghanistan and Iraq. Others are deployed as part of several peacekeeping missions."
Thus it seems that the terms may be used interchangeably when refering to local duty station, whereas the term "deployment" also carries a functional connotation related to movement of troops to a location, and "redeployment" of troops from one location to another, that the more sedentary term "garrision" does not.
Not so Zero, Zip, Nada, as you think, and clearly not deserving of such hubris.
almandine: The whole point
almandine:
The whole point of that previous post to which I responded was to yet again try to strike fear into the hearts of the citizens that their Government is going to turn on them.
That is arrant nonsense. It is more of the crap that is becoming so tediously over-present on this site. Each and every member of the armed forces of the United States receives in-depth training on the absolute right to disobey an illegal order. No US troops are going to turn on citizens peacefully assembling to express their views. These people are just as much citizens as they are soldiers. I don't give a good flying damn for what all these fruitcakes think. All they are doing is scaremongering. And responsible people have not just a right but a duty to call attention to these flights of fantasy.
This "The sky is falling, the sky is falling" junk gets seriously in the way of good discussion.
And if you believe that there are troops poised to strike against you for voicing your opinion all I can say is that you should seek competent counseling for your problem.
As for Keith's implication that deployment of troops inside the US could be happening but the news media are covering it up, that's pretty unbelievable. If nothing else, the relatives of the troops deployed would know what was going on and blow the whistle. But the media are in competition with one another for rating points, and they would be all over such a story like cats on a rat.
1. Thanks for coming to my
1. Thanks for coming to my aid almandine.
2. gazelle1929, if their stated mission is crowd control, subduing "unruly individuals," and the management of a national emergency, it sounds a lot more like a deployment than a garrison. They have a mission for christ's sake. Do you think they are just going to sit on their hands and not carry out that mission?
3. I never said they were stopping one from speaking. But they will possibly stop them from assembling, particularly if agent provocateurs are used as they have been in the past to justify attacking peaceful groups. It has happened before, it will happen again.
So to make a point
So to make a point
you knowingly confused the issue? You used obtuse hyperbole in the cause of "reason"? You put the "fruitcakes" on notice of your more thoughtful positions? You set the record straight?
Now THAT is Arrant Nonsense.... of the variety we don't need.
"It is just plain not true.
"It is just plain not true. I cannot be plainer than that. There are no troops deployed in the US. NONE. Zero. Zip. Nada."
How do you know this? Because you have not heard of a deployment on Faux Noise, GE(NBC), CBS, ABC ... ?
-- Kent Shaw
No troops? Have to wonder
No troops? Have to wonder where these tanks came from in LA then back in 2004. Are these the police tanks? Nope, those are US soldiers on board trying to intimidate protesters.
I suppose Kent State never happened?
Interesting blog and
Interesting blog and replies. We all seem to be able to discuss what we don't like in the way of a President and even a Congress. The "right" may lose both in a week.
When will the American people locate an agenda that suits their interest? Many agree that we have not seen our interests represented for years. I just turned on the news to hear that there was a skinhead group broken up who was going to destroy Obama with their guns. Is that how to solve the election?
The "left" has located their candidates for a win and the other side of of the aisle sits and stares. Would anyone be interested in sharing their interests as an agenda or platform before 2010 when the congress goes through another election?
I read from Flapsaddle that a Constitutional Republic is what he/she wants. It would be a good place to start. I would like to see how he rates both Senators McCain and Obama under his description. Any chance that we could do this as Independents?
Malcolm, who is a "None of the Above" kinda guy.
I'm leaning heavily towards
I'm leaning heavily towards the Constitution Party. They share many of the Libertarian and conservative (not neo-conservative) Republican values but are not as extremist as the Libertarians. How could we go wrong returning to Constitutional Law?
I believe they will replace Republicans if they are given enough press and publicity. I will also be voting for the Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin this election cycle. Why wait until 2010/2012?
I would like to know how
I would like to know how firm Chuck Baldwin is on the individual social issues. Will he be lining up an Amendment to the Constitution banning abortions, gay marriages and all the rest that the Christians can't seem to control without the government involved. He is a Christian Minister thereby devoted to Jesus. Is this what we want?
Malcolm
Honestly I have not seen his
Honestly I have not seen his stance on gay marriage, but as a Constitutionalist he would not consider it a Federal matter.
He does say in the issues portion of his website that he supports Dr. Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act which would make anyone seeking an abortion have to face a judge and prove it was necessary. And while I believe it more a family matter, I do not see this as much as an intrusion as an outright ban.
He does say that even though he is a minister, he believes in the separation of church and state and will not mingle the two.
If you like the Constitution, then you will like Baldwin.