Cool things

[clevermanka]

First, wow Kansas voted blue for the first time in a loooooong time. Today is a far cry from how I felt after the last election day. 'Bye-bye, Mr. Klein, Mr. Ryun. Please let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. Hard. I'm pleased as punch for all of us, and I'm especially happy for tmseay, who worked so very hard for this for about as long as I've known him. I would like to join auroraceleste, however, in cautioning against too much optimism. Her post on the issue is f-locked, so I'll paraphrase here: Change was a key phrase for this election--but lasting change must happen slowly. Getting hopes up too high for fast, effective change is just setting the Dems up for failure and will lead to their demise when the 2008 presidential election rolls around. I hope people realize that, or we're gonna be even more fucked than we are now.

In lighter news: Making paper waterproof--and writable. My only concern is that everyone and their dog will use it, thus adding to our landfill problem. But it would be a terrific boon to libraries.

Comments

[shrijani.livejournal.com]

Getting hopes up too high for fast, effective change is just setting the Dems up for failure and will lead to their demise when the 2008 presidential election rolls around.

This has been worrying me since I started to realize that the Dems might actually pull ahead. Any mistakes or failures that happen over the course of the next two years could be used to the GOP's advantage during the next presidential election, which, to my mind, would spell disaster for the country. I really hope the newly and re-elected Democrats, as well as their constituents, keep a level head about this and think long-term in everything they do.

[clevermanka.livejournal.com]

Democrats...keep a level head about this and think long-term in everything they do

Isn't it funny/pathetic/agonizing to think that the Republican party used to be the party of long-range thinkers? The neo-con movement has completely crushed the small-government, long-range planners of the GOP. Now they're all about "temporary" restrictions of civil liberties and such. Who'd have believed any of us would ever miss old-school conservatives?

[chronovore.livejournal.com]

Who thought that we'd miss 'em? An interesting question, and not entirely rhetorical I hope (since I'm responding). The same people who, in 2000, claimed that it "didn't matter if you voted for Bush or Gore, because the two-party system is a farce and both groups are identical when you stare at them for very long" have only recently begun to realize the existence of paleoconservatives. I'm pretty sure that as the war dragged on, and the lies kept getting churned up from the depths, and it became clear that there was just about no way in hell that President Gore (http://www.clevertitle.net/?p=13) would have led us to anything resembling the path we took... but would historical conservatives have led us there? No, these new kooks are a different, and more dangerous beast.

While you and I may currently miss old-school conservatives -- you know, the rational ones -- I am pretty sure that we are going to hear from the more moderate republicans that they, like us, have also missed having a reasoned conversation that involves facts, logic, and respect.

It would be nice if we see a return to that, even if I would prefer to see Bush and Cheney yanked from office, and Rove tried for treason of the blackest kind: an attempt to subvert the fundamental concepts of American culture.

[clevermanka.livejournal.com]

you and I may currently miss old-school conservatives -- you know, the rational ones

Exactly. The rational ones. I might not have agreed with them, but at least I respected them enough to allow them a right to a different opinion. Neo-cons...ew. I'm afraid to get to close to them lest they spray me with their battery-acid spittle during a pro-Bush-pro-America-pro-Me rant.

*shudder*

[tmseay.livejournal.com]

Which is a really good point. "Change" was a message-tested gem in this election -- everyone loves "change," but nobody knows what it means. Now we have to explain what the heck we're changing to.

Speaker Pelosi seems inclined to launch an entire new Democratic legislative agenda in spite of the fact that no significant Democratic legislation will ever be signed by the president. I think that's brilliant. At least no voter in 2008 will be able to complain that Democrats don't stand for anything.