The real "Bush Country"
Remember how the hyenas on the right made such a big gloating to-do about the map of supposed "Bush Country" in the wake of the 2000 election?
How they skewed the facts by touting a map highlighting "square miles" for Bush (mostly sagebrush and coyotes.), and the number of counties for Bush, neither of which is any reflection of support from actual PEOPLE?
They preened and strutted and acted like this misleading map was proof of some overwhelming victory and therefore, a clear and convincing mandate for Bush. (the fact that Gore won the popular vote was... well, nothing, just reality and fact that you should safely ignore, thus setting the standards and practices they've relied on for 6 long years now.)
Thanks to alert reader Highxlr8r, who pointed me to the Springfield chapter of "Drinking Liberally" (remember when I tried to start a chapter here? Total flop.) which showed the map, which I then searched for (since no attribution was given) and found here...
This shows what "Bush Country" looks like today, reduced to three desolate western states, the only three which still approve of Bush's disasterous reign.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 6/09/2006
2 comments
2 Comments:
You're right Nico, that map gives me a huge case of the warm and fuzzies. I feel GREAT every time I look at it.
I wish I had a poster sized print of it.
But you're right. A lot can change. I see Bush's approval going even lower. It's already about 3% around the world, I'm sure the U.S. will catch up eventually.
Also, I think all the historical instances you alluded to would look a heck of a lot better than this bloodbath.
As to Gore and the "losing TN is what lost the election" trope, that's like saying that the riveters who built her sunk the Titanic, rather than the iceberg.
Sure, if Gore had carried TN, he would have won in a way that even the Bush cronies on the Supreme Court, the Brooks Bros. riot in Miami, and the massive legal chicanery of Bush family fixer James Baker and all the other high-priced weasels couldn't have de-railed.
TN was a grievous tactical error with Gore, no doubt about it.
But trying to wish away the fact that Gore got more legitimate votes in Florida than Bush just isn't gonna fly.
The list is long and exhaustive, but Kathrine Harris's well documented collusion with a Republican company to "purge" voter roles of felons resulted in hundreds if not thousands of legitimate voters being denied the right to vote, that fraud alone would have been enough to put Gore over the top.
Credit even a fraction of the number of votes for Buchanon supposedly cast by elderly Jewish people in Palm Beach county, a clear farce, would have spelled victory for Gore.
The studies and recounts conducted by the consortium of news organizations after the election found that Gore would have won under 4 of 5 scenarios of vote re-counts.
The whole world saw that Bush's 2000 election was utterly illegitamate, and they've now seen that his presidency is as well.
It's an utter disaster by every measure.
I challenge you to name one thing Bush has done which has been a success, or ONE single instance where he's valued the interests and well-being of people like you over that of corporations. Just one.
Bush is clearly destined to be regarded by history as one of the worst presidents this country has ever had the misfortune to endure.
I remember a poll in 2002 or 2003 having Bush loose handily to a "democrat to be named later". And I really think anyone other than Kerry would have wiped the floor with Bush in 2004. Every non-partisian here in Iowa that I know who voted for Bush did so for one reason - they knew what they were getting and weren't sure about Kerry.
.
Nico - First, let me applaud your career path - it really takes one hell of a person to be a school teacher and I mean that. I am interested in your opinion (as a school teacher) about the various science policies of this administration. The NSF, NIMH, and various other agencies have seen their budgets shot to hell (while people are getting tax cuts), NASA and NOAA have a problem with political cronies trying to downplay global warming, and then we get the suggestion that creationism might not be that bad of a thing to teach in the classroom. And I'm not even going to touch abstinence-only sex ed. I mean absolutely no disprespect - I'm really interested in how you feel about these things as an educator who backs this administration. Do you think any or all of this will have an effect on the quality of public education?
Post a Comment
<< Home