Waiting for Iowa

If Iowa can take this long to count its votes, then I can certainly wait this long to weigh in on the 2004 election. Any of you who are familiar with my job will be happy to know that certain measures of support for President Bush are as strong or even stronger after the campaign. I’ve been busy almost non-stop since election day.

The Euros are in a tizzy, but they can’t seem to get the fact we Americans could care less what the British newspapers think. Note the lefty Brits: we signed a document well over two centuries ago telling you that you didn’t understand us—get with the program.

The social libs also suffered greatly, losing every single one of the pro-traditional marriage amedment votes by staggering margins. It just goes to show that noise is not always equal support.

Ironically John Kerry said it best:

But in an American election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans.

I don’t really buy the “no losers” part, but the great thing about this country is that regimes can stay or change hands without so much as some whining by the losing side. It’s a far cry from what we see elsewhere in the world.

Congratulations, Mr. President. God has indeed left you with responsibility for the greatest nation on earth. Use it well, and use it wisely. The people (most of us) are behind you.

3 thoughts on “Waiting for Iowa”

  1. I’m in Iowa right now, and that glaring indecisiveness on the electoral map is quite embarassing to me. Bush won, no matter the outcome, but I long to see Iowa turn red on the map. It has been a long time!

  2. I LOVE the British press. They are scandal-mongering, yellow journalists. But you know exactly what you’re getting. The Guardian deliberately tried to swing an Ohio county for Kerry. One (the Mirror?) asks on the cover how 59 million people could be so dumb. Etc.

    Our NYT or Washington Posts are nearly as tendentious, but they mask it all in imperious claims about objectivity. They see themselves as a sort of postmodern priestly class that transcends mere earthly things like partisanship. All the while being viciously partisan.

    I hope we continue moving toward a British penny-press approach where each outlets bias is well known. rather, Sulzberg and the rest helped this process along BIGTIME this election cycle. Huzzah for them.

  3. Doug—looks like Iowa finally came through in the red. Many congrats on your state’s coming to its senses.

    Disco—The lack of subtlety in the British press is refreshing at times. Contrasted with the “objective-with-a-wink” stances of the NYT, WaPo, (cf. Wash. Times, WSJ), it does seem to make more sense in the long run, especially with the demise of the MSM. Who will be the first to out itself as a purely liberal/conservative outlet?

Comments are closed.