My opinion of John Kerry has gone up. - Jay Maynard

> Recent entries
> Calendar view
> Friends page
> User info
> Jay's web page

Wednesday, 3 November 2004


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
1108 - My opinion of John Kerry has gone up.

I'm more than a little surprised by Senator Kerry's decision to concede the election. I fully expected his camp to drag out the process with challenges and lawsuits until, as in 2000, we all got heartily sick of the whole thing. In fairness, I was expecting the Bush camp to do the same thing had it gone the other way.

I lamented in a comment to rillaspins's LJ that we've become polarized and I see no way out of it. Perhaps this will prove me wrong. Heaven knows we need healing, as a country, from the past 4 years or more of partisan bickering.

current mood: [mood icon] surprised

(8 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:rillaspins
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Hey, I still think the world of you, just afraid of what my world is becoming under the present government.
From:thefrank
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I was biting my nails that this would turn into another undignified disaster. My heart goes out to Kerry for demonstrating a touch of class. This also allows Edwards to salvage his career for possible future runs.
[User Picture]
From:alexandriash
Date: - 0000

My opinion has gone up as well. Color me surprised :-O

(Link)
;-)
As you already know, I was expecting the same thing as you were.
I'll admit to not believing the announcement about the concession speech until I'd heard it at least three times from three different sources, lol.
I agree with thefrank, this shows a touch of class from the Kerry camp that I did not anticipate. :-)
[User Picture]
From:nicodemusrat
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Although I'm fairly sure we have different views, I agree with what you've said. We need, above all, to see a return to compromise and openness. It seems that the reigning notion is now that anyone who disagrees with you (or your party's) stance is therefore "wrong" and not worth dealing with. A slim majority on an issue is taken as some form of mandate to summarily dismiss the other side rather than pursue issues mutually. (I hope that I'm interpreting your statements correctly?)
[User Picture]
From:foolscap001
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Unfortunately, on some issues and with some groups, it boils down to disagreement over postulates, and there's no arguing about postulates; you either accept them or not. I wish I had a good answer, but I don't.
[User Picture]
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Ending the partisan bickering will require concessions on both sides. Kerry started it on his side. Now it's up to Bush to see whether he will make any contributions, or run rampant with a partisan agenda while he has the opportunity to do so.
[User Picture]
From:foolscap001
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Alas, the operational definition of "partisan" appears to be "disagreeing with the person using the word 'partisan.'" My memory may be selective, but I don't recall calls for "nonpartisanship" in cases of wins by Democrats.
[User Picture]
From:vakkotaur
Date: - 0000
(Link)

A co-worker (not a cow-orker, this time) has a definition for "bipartisanship" most of the time it's used: Bipartisanship - 'Buy into our partisanship'. Unfortunately he's been right about that more than he's been wrong about it.


> go to top
LiveJournal.com