Bush, unrestrained

I keep hearing commentators saying that morality was the key issue with a large number of voters.

Kinda makes you wonder.

A majority of those voters elected a man who launched an unjustified, destructive imperial war against a random country which posed no threat to America or its allies and did so for reasons which have been totally discredited. He did all this instead of focusing efforts against those who actually DID attack America. While he may not be overtly malicious, his incompetence and recklessness border on criminal.

Is this the morality a majority of American voters just endorsed Lash out first and think later, if at all?

THIS is why 'they' hate us.

Or perhaps because for some people, the "pro-life" philosophy applies to abortion and nothing else.

Abiola, over at Foreign Dispatches, posed the question: what carried Bush over the threshold? His conclusion: gay marriage.

I hate to say it, but I really do think that is what it came down to, and the resounding margins by which amendments to prohibit it triumphed in several states speaks to the success of this wedge issue, as does the increase in black support for Bush

I'm afraid I have to agree with that analysis. It was always going to be tricky for Republicans. They've had an insurgency mentality ever since Gingrich led them to Congressional control in '94.

But it's hard to maintain a "We're mad as hell and not going to take it any more" when you dominate the House of Representatives, the Senate, the presidency, the military and are one moderate judge's resignation away from controlling the Supreme Court.

So terrorists became the enemies from without (along with their domestic "appeasers", ie: liberals) and gays were the enemies from within. It's harder to find scapegoats when you control all the levers of power, but they managed. Contrary to the popular left-wing belief, Bush is NOT stupid.

I heard a commentator say that as a second-term president, Bush will have fewer restraints to impliment his agenda.

FEWER restraints?

Look what he did in his first term... WITH the alleged restraint of having to run for re-election... WITHOUT the mandate of actually having earned the endorsement of even a plurality of voters.

Does a Messianic Crusader like Bush, who's already proven what he'll do without a strong popular mandate, need FEWER restraints?

Now there's a thought to give you nightmares.

God, may You protect us from your self-appointed servants.