The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Bush appears poised to claim 2nd term (part one)

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Natalie Mikhail:

No more excuses for Israel (November 12, 2004)
Bush appears poised to claim 2nd term (part one) (November 3, 2004)
A messy situation in Haiti cries for international help (October 21, 2004)
Saudi women barred from voting in upcoming election (October 14, 2004)
Darfur genocide needs end (September 23, 2004)

by Natalie Mikhail

Wednesday, November 3, 2004

It turned out to be a nail-biting night for Democrats. The ballots have been counted, and while sources predict the winner to be President George W. Bush, there is a glimmer of hope that the final few votes left uncounted may make all the difference.

For the most part, the analysts’ general predictions came true: Bush secured the “solid south” and America’s heartland; Kerry held the liberal northeast and California. But the battleground states proved to be a fight. By the end of election night, the much-contested states of Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa are left as the deciding factors in the race. After a late night on the edge of the seat, sources declared a victory “too close to call.” It would be wrong for the Kerry/Edwards campaign to concede now, but blurry signs point to another four years under Bush and the GOP.

People all over the world have been glued to the results of this election because it marks a turning point in the United States’ political history. This election not only means a lot to Americans, but it has a huge impact on the people of the world. At the turn of the century, the world has been hit with a few whirlwinds and challenges, mainly dealing with security and terror. The U.S. reaction with a new war on terror is at the center of attention. What do the next four years imply?

More people — about 15 million more — have registered to vote. And both Republicans and Democrats have worked harder and spent more campaign money than ever before to mobilize voters — the Bush campaign budgeted $125 million, about three times as much as in 2000; Kerry spent nearly $60 million.

Since the last election, Americans have invested more time and interest in the issues and the campaign and have been more skeptical about voting rights and fraud.

Even in this new atmosphere, Bush and Kerry ran a tight race, with last-minute polling showing the candidates within a hair’s breadth.

About 60 percent of the electorate turned out at the polls, breaking the 2000 record of 105 million. The high voter turnout marked a big threat to Bush, because it showed that people really wanted change. But the incumbent managed to squeeze through with only a marginal victory.

With the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the invasion of Afghanistan, the search for Osama bin Laden, the war on terror and the ousting of Saddam Hussein from Iraq, the drama of the last four years has taken a toll on Americans. For the first time in history, the United States’ role in the world has finally come to the attention of the average American. Re-electing Bush shows that while people do care about domestic policies and may have wanted a change of direction, the number one issue on people’s minds in this election was foreign policy and the war on terror.

Bush was able to rally support as a “kick-butt” leader. The uncertainty of the nation’s security appeared to cause reluctance to switch horses in midstream. As in the march to war against Iraq, once again the president manipulated the public through fear.

Furthermore, Bush’s propaganda machine very effectively managed to convince the electorate that President Bush is the right leader to keep the country secure and fight the war on terror. The reality is that he botched the nation’s position and influence in the world, making it even more dangerous for Americans. The Republican Party once again managed to deceive the American people.

Bush gave the people just enough to keep the domestic issues from being at the forefront of the campaign and a deciding factor in the election. During his first term, he has only offered cosmetic solutions to such problems as health care and social security.

Unless Bush stops focusing on corporate interests and trying to bully the world, I fear the next four years will signal a rapid downfall for this nation, both in domestic and foreign policy. His victory will surely give him and his administration more reason to snub their noses at the need for change. However, destruction is the consequence of arrogance.

With the closeness of this year’s race, it is obvious that no matter which candidate is chosen, it is a critical time for change and attentiveness to what is best for the people. Although my choice for president is not likely to win, I am insistent that Bush take the opportunity and, more importantly, the responsibility to clean up the mess he has made during his first term.

Natalie J. Mikhail (nmikhail@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in journalism and international studies.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (November 3, 2004 @ 12:07pm):

Just waiting to get some responses, maybe some liberal whining here....I know it's bound to come out some time. Let it flow ladies.

Anonymous (November 3, 2004 @ 12:44pm):

I'd hit it!

Anonymous (November 3, 2004 @ 3:01pm):

Bush wins again! Aw, pity the poor Madison liberals. Looks like we'll a huge supply of crying towels. Gosh, a person could drown in all those tears! Tee-hee!

Anonymous (November 3, 2004 @ 3:18pm):

Already seen plenty, have to love random people crying...karma sucks sometimes. Is more than half the country naive to vote for Bush now? Looks like some people were wrong :) :) Look who wears the stupid hat now...

Anonymous (November 3, 2004 @ 4:26pm):

"Gosh, a person could drown in all those tears!"

Feel free to demonstrate.

"Look who wears the stupid hat now..."

Still Bush.

Anonymous (November 3, 2004 @ 4:57pm):

OK, now that the election is over, let's move on to more intellectually stimulating topics.

My submission: Anyone notice how ancient-looking David Letterman is nowadays? Why doesn't this guy retire? I mean, the Top Ten List is still fresh, but hell, anybody can do that.

Anonymous (November 3, 2004 @ 5:04pm):

That's it! No more pussy for white males for the next four years. By then they'll all turn gay and so they'll all be liberals. Republicans won't have a bat's chance in Hades of winning again! Oh, revenge is sweet!

Anonymous (November 3, 2004 @ 6:43pm):

As a Conservative Republican, I don't know if this election could have gotten any better. Bush wins, Tom Daschle loses, Republicans gain a greater majority in both houses, and 11 states ban gay marriage. I think that it is safe to say that they liberals got SPANKED!!!!!

Anonymous (November 3, 2004 @ 7:09pm):

"I think that it is safe to say that they liberals got SPANKED!!!!!"

If the conservatives did all that spanking, does that make them gay?

Oh no...gay people! Whatever will the conservatives do?

Anonymous (November 3, 2004 @ 8:32pm):

What's wrong with gay people? I'm a conservative and I could care less if you so choose to be gay. But don't infringe upon a religions most sacred act...that's what's wrong. Go get a civil union and screw knowing you are now a part of a union...

Anonymous (November 3, 2004 @ 8:49pm):

Gay people aren't normal, that is what is wrong with them. You can't tell me anything that can justify their lifestyle. While I am for civil liberties, a line has to be drawn in some situations and this is one of them. Anybody with common sense will tell you that the backbone of a healthy society is the nuclear family. Currently, the nuclear family is struggling in this country. The solution to this isn't to use this as a justification to promote gay marriage. Instead, we should try to re-strengthen the traiditional nuclear family. If someone is for gay marriage than they also have to be for other sick lifestyles like polygamy and beastiality, for example. If you don't then you could be considered to be just as much of a bigot as I am (even though I'm not a bigot). People are already trying to legalize polygamy (Utah). If you are an advocate for those lifestyles, then God help you.

Anonymous (November 3, 2004 @ 8:51pm):

I agree with the "anonymous" person who isn't for gay marriage. Just because people want something doesn't mean we have to legalize it. Also, a person can't be labeled as a racist or a hater just because they don't want to promote every alternative thought or lifestyle. That is the problem with the liberals in this country and is part of the reason kerry lost. people are sick of the liberal double standards and are sick of being called haters when they are only exercising their personal freedom of speech rights.

Anonymous (November 3, 2004 @ 8:55pm):

"If someone is for gay marriage than they also have to be for other sick lifestyles like polygamy and beastiality, for example."

Wow. You're not just a bigot, you're also the new dumbest person in Madison.

I'm for gay marriage, not because there is anything particularly wonderful about such relationships, but because it's not fair for government to afford some people a fundamental right while denying it to others on the basis of sexual orientation -- that's called discrimination, kiddies. But I'm not for bestiality or polygamy. And I doubt I'm the exception to the rule.

Yes, nuclear families are struggling. Over 50% of all marriages end in divorce. So if straight people are your barometer for the sanctity of marriage, you must be one unholy SOB.

So tell me, you twit who says "gay people aren't normal," are you also opposed to people of different races getting married? How about people of different religions? Or is that not any of the government's business? It's certainly not any of yours, and it's not your business what any two people do in their relationship, gay or straight.