Your pal,
Zero

An alternative to Bush? Almost anyone would do. You and I don’t seem to see eye to eye, but I’d bet you’d do a better job than Bush. Let me know if you need a campaign manager.

I would like to see a country in which we have freedom of religion but it plays no part in politics and is only taught sociologically or historically in schools. Like we do about the Greek gods, or the pagans.

I’d like not to be lied to about the evidence on which wars are fought. I don’t need to know everything about what goes on in the White House, but I need to trust it. For example, I don’t need to know if the President is being serviced by an intern, since that doesn’t affect my life (or anyone else’s for that matter), but I do need to know if oil companies are being asked to help set national energy policy because it’s just possible that they have a conflict of interest.

I’d like to see us not running ridiculous deficits, against which we are mortgaging our future – either don’t spend so much or, if we need to spend, let’s pay for it.

I’d like an administration that uses scientific data to decide which direction to go on important topics like stem cells, energy policy, reproductive rights and climate change, rather than listening to oil companies and churches.

I’d like to have us recognize that loving relationships between two consenting adults makes two more people happy, and that if you’re against that then you really are not allowing people their pursuit of happiness.

I’ll stop there, but there’s more, of course.

As for “authoritarian, sexist, tool of the Christian Right”; I would have thought you’d recognize me poking you with a stick for what it is.

2) This administration is admittedly a poor one but your attack on future supreme court justice Roberts as an “authoratarian, sexist tool of the Christian Right” is just plain wacky.

Zero
The idea that liberals want judges to make up laws arbitrarily is not a power grab. When they are IN power they STILL want judges to make up laws arbitrarily!

You are absolutely right – Bush DID win the election, and it is his right to nominate a candidate of his choosing. Kerry would indeed have probably nominated someone quite different.

However, the victory does not give Bush some divine mandate – just because he won does not mean that we have to mindlessly agree with every decision he makes! The democaratic process is not about getting out every four years to elect our next supreme ruler, as you seem to imply – it’s about everyone having a voice in the government. You say that we should “accept the demoratic process,” by which you mean we should cease to express our views for another three years. But the whole point of the “democratic process” is that we can – and should – voice our disagreements. Mark isn’t advocating overthrowing Bush (THAT would be undemocratic); he is just voicing his opinions about the government – and THAT is what the democratic process is all about.

I’m a fan of what Ali said earlier – there’s not much we can do, but that shouldn’t stop us from fighting.

I would hold off swallowing your cyanide pill before we actually see how this guy votes over the next couple of years. As a conservative, I am cautiously optimistic about Roberts, but I hate nominees without a significant judicial paper trail. (It’s a bad case of PSSS: post-Souter stress syndrome.) Not a home run for Bush, but a step in the right direction. (Pun intended.)

“Are you suggesting he make a law up to help the kid?”

Yes, that is precisely what he is suggesting. You see, having judges make up the law is the modus operandi of modern liberalism, because they cannot get people to support their candidates and agendas at the ballot box. Ironically, the people who call themselves “Democrats” are the ones with the most disdain for democracy.

Your cosmologically conservative friend,
Zero