September 14, 2007
The Freedom Tsunami on Election Day 2008 (Brent Budowsky)
Here is a preview of my post for Nov. 4, 2008, after the polls close:
The voting is over, the people have spoken, and a new era of reform and renewal for America begins tonight.
What was most moving, when the results were clear and the Democratic president-elect had claimed victory, was the way young people gathered spontaneously in capitals across the free world and waved little American flags because one dark era is ending and our country will soon resume its role as a beacon of light.
Looking back on a hard-fought campaign, the die was cast when Gen. David Petraeus came to
Washington and said he did not know whether his plan would make America safer. It is no coincidence that when George Bush called the president-elect with congratulations, the transition began with the news that Gen. Petraeus was being recalled to Washington and replaced by retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, who had long opposed what he called the American occupation and is now returning to active duty.
We were all proud of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who was statesmanlike on behalf of the 57 Democratic senators of the new Congress and extended the olive branch to Senate Republicans, once they chose their new leader.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), bolstered by the Democratic majority of 42 seats in the next Congress, was better than ever when she offered to meet with President Bush during the transition. She was firm in telling the president that Democrats will be fair, but business as usual ends today.
While a Democratic landslide was projected since Labor Day, the magnitude of it became clear to me when I was a guest earlier today on the radio show of my friend Randi Rhodes.
Randi, a veteran of the Air Force who is a fervent supporter of the troops and equally fervent opponent of the war, had spent the last two weeks giving her final battle cries as Election Day approached.
It was inspiring as one caller after another told their stories of unprecedented lines at the polls and how they were getting out the vote and being given thanks by voters who promised to make their stand for change.
All day today there was a sense of hope in the air and change in the wind as the moment of truth arrived for the nation, and the day of reckoning had come for those who abused their power and dishonored our country.
It was not surprising that Hispanics turned out for Democrats in record numbers. Nor was it
surprising that Democrats won a majority of military moms. What was stunning was that the military mothers voted for the Democratic nominee and Democrats for the Senate and House with such a large majority — one that seems to have risen to 65 percent of their votes.
Official Washington was astonished by the news from the Supreme Court. Everyone suspected that the usual precedent of announcing retirements shortly after the Court term ends might be ignored in 2008 because of the high stakes, but nobody in Washington expected what was announced tonight.
The announcement from Justice Ginsberg that came an hour ago, that "it is now time to go home," was almost expected, but the terse retirement announcement of Justice Scalia was a stunner — in both the fact of his retirement and his tone. No doubt with a Democratic president in office for four years and Senate Democrats rising to 57 in the new Congress and probably over 60 after the 2010 election it was clear to Justice Scalia that it was time for him, too, to take his leave.
The mood in America tonight is a spirit of coming together. From the opponents of the war who took their stand from a deep wellspring of patriotism to the military moms who took their stand for love of country and love of family, the American people are coming coming together once again, with the unified hope of the American idea and the unified faith of the American spirit.
Some of the darkest days in the history of our Republic are over, with those responsible for those days with nothing left to do except await the cruel verdict of history that will harshly judge what they have done.
With a Democratic president and large new majorities in Congress preparing to assume power in January, there is talk of another New Frontier, with ideas for renewal that circulate by the hour, with programs for change percolating from the think tanks to the college campuses, from the Internet to talk radio, from another generation preparing to come to Washington not for wealth, war or power but to begin the next great chapter for the American idea.
The Constitution has never shined brighter, the rule of law has never stood taller, the honor of America has never radiated so brilliantly, the future of America has never looked better because the good people of America have spoken with the thundering power of a good and great nation returning to who we are, and what we stand for, now and forever.
It is midnight in America as I write these words and the sunset of Nov. 4 will soon yield to the morning of Nov. 5. The Liberty Bell rings louder than ever as the nation that is forever young begins again.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 24 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Ho Hum — Same S###, different day.
Comment by John Simmons — September 14, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
[...] Read more Election Day [...]
Pingback by True Blue Liberal » The Freedom Tsunami on Election Day 2008 — September 14, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
You're delusional. Harry Reid, statesman like? He's despicable.
You should start writing for science fiction weeklies.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 14, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Provided we actually do get to vote and/or the orderly transition of government process is permitted to take place.
Nothing like a "national emergency" to cancel an election or negate the results of one.
Comment by Eric — September 14, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
As the Democrats puzzle today over their inability to enforce defeat, as MoveOn.org and DailyKos lash out in blind rage over their inability to see the Democrats toeing their line with no deviations from the ultimate and unconditional withdrawal message, it's no wonder one has to turn to the future to look for inspiration.
As Hillary's connection to the Hsu investigation, and Hsu's strange connections to the CEO of Loral of the Bill Clinton contributor/China missile technology enthusiast fame are coming into focus, as peculiar connections between the Clintons and the Wall Streeter who loaned money to Hsu's companies only to see his "investments" disappear while the political contributions from Hsu flowed freely, are appearing, one has to imagine the triumph of left-wing ideology in America to keep one from questioning the "inevitability" of the Democratic win.
One has to also fervently believe that the situation in Iraq will deteriorate just as predicted by all the linear thinkers. It's of course one's right. The future's so bright one has to wear psychedelic shades.
Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin imagined a future full of peace, justice, and equality for the working people. Their dreams resulted in nightmares that killed perhaps 100 million people. The line between utopias and nightmares is almost inperceptable, but history teaches us that caution is in order when government leaders promise redemption to the dispossessed.
Comment by Igor R. — September 14, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
What a pipedream! I don't believe the decider and darth will allow an election. I predict martial law with a delaration of president for life. We have become a banana republic. Heil Busch under gawd!
Comment by Thomas R Arnold — September 14, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Now that the true America haters have spoken, Brent, I'll weigh in. By the way Igor, your Hillary Clinton obsession shows what a small small man you are. Once again, get over it, or get a woman, or get something.
This posting by Brent stirs up a sense of longing for the time when we were proud of our country and standing tall in the world. I even cherish the Reagan era, not that I want to be a part of that obsessive man love thing that the GOP has for Ronnie.
It might be appropriate to talk about Reagan, though, because he did love his country. He did care about our standing in the world. His sometime cluelessness was attractive in retrospect, when compared to the intellectually deficient monkey that is our President. Reagan was honest and sincere, even if you disagreed with him. This President is nothing of the kind, and is a true embarrassment to anyone with an ounce of brains. He is a brutal liar.
I think of Reagan, Brent, because your post harkens back to "morning in America". The day that we can feel, as your words so aptly evoke, that America can come back from this, the worst era in the history of the United States.
I'm not a praying man, but I urge all who are, to pray for the day that Brent writes about.
Comment by Chris Calbi — September 14, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Chris, just as two crazed left-wingers here predicted a Bush coup, I'm a small, small man (what's that, a midget with a tiny you-know-what?) full of sexual frustration because I state published facts, or at least published information about Hillary? Any particular reason I need to get over it? Perhaps because you happen to like this "smart" woman? Well I don't and I don't want twilight in America.
Comment by Igor R. — September 14, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
Thank you, Brent. I really needed that.
Comment by UncommonSense — September 14, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
Yeah, pray for that if you want pure Hell.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 14, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
Chris, are you going to tell me I'm making stuff up?
Bill Clinton late LAST year: "our friend Norman Hsu."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-hsu14sep14,0,2903108.story?coll=la-home-center
I'm telling you Chris, this story has more plot twists than a good novel, and all you can tell me is that I'm obsessed. How can getting a woman produce THAT much excitement?
Comment by Igor R. — September 14, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
Oh Chris, and in case you haven't noticed I don't like Harry Reid either, except he isn't running for President. But Mr. Hsu evidently really liked Harry and equiring minds are investigating that connection also. Who knows how big this thing is, could be bigger than Watergate.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1896042/posts
Comment by Igor R. — September 14, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
Ouch, Brent, you're poking the nutball neocons right in the eyes. Superb post.
There will be an awakening as the grass roots of 'the people' are motivated; they're pissed, big time. Even the neocon Ship of Fools knows it, and that is why you see such vitriol from the looney likes of Igor, Simmons, and Rosencrats.
In election 2008 there won't be any majorities buying 'trickle down economic theories', 'fearing queers', and fear of teerorists under everyone's beds.
Keep revealing the truth Brent. For the whacky neocons, the truth hurts, and hurts badly. America needs the cleansing.
Comment by Chris in NM — September 14, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
Yeah, Igor, you are really off the wall. But we will see if the Dems stay in Iraq for 50 years, and it should not be determined by what Bush does.
Comment by Gary Anderson — September 15, 2007 @ 2:09 am
Oy yeah, Chris, to you any response to a lib posting is an indication of great impact. Well if things are so rosy in the lib land how come there is not a single peep from the local libs about the Hsu affair? Not even "it's just a tempest in a teapot". They are all scared to touch that subject and are hoping that it will go away. The Dems ARE the party of corruption, the really big kind, not of the DC Madam variety, but of the selling the country to China for campaing contritbutions kind.
Comment by Igor R. — September 15, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
Take off the authoritarian, war loving tinted glasses Igor. Twilight in America has been in force for seven years, but that famous "new morning" is right around the corner. Brent has described it quite well enough.
It's funny. A woman who has actually accomplished something, scares the hell out of you, but the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, just warms the cockles of your heart. I hope that your W-2 reads at least a million a year, otherwise they've got you, and the FOX watching community, for the gag.
Comment by Chris Calbi — September 15, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
From your computer to god's ears Brent..
Comment by jsf — September 17, 2007 @ 9:09 am
And even if the Democrats got a bigger majority in the House and Senate, they would still probably get nothing done, like right now.
And Harry "We've lost the war, We've lost the war," Chicken Little Reid, a statesman? I've seen stronger backbones in house plants. Nancy Pelosi is more of a man than he'll ever be. I know that what you've written is a true left-wing democrat's wet dream come true but, hey, please remember the last left-wing loon who ran for president against a conservative Republican during a bloody war. His name was George McGovern and, if memory serves me well, he didn't do too well, isn't that right?
Comment by Libertyship46 — September 17, 2007 @ 9:25 am
Chris, believing in private property rights at home and strong defense abroad is not something I've acquired by watching either Hillary or my own W-2, they are core beliefs. If you believe in something, you evaluate what you observe with those "tinted glasses". I left an authoritarian country, and am not looking forward for a repeat.
Comment by Igor R. — September 17, 2007 @ 11:30 am
That "strong defense abroad" has been a failure Igor. Our government is having to manufacture fiction to convince people that it isn't. How about we mount that strong defense abroad by taking out troops out of a country that did nothing to us, and direct them to where the people who attacked us are? Then we would all agree with the "strong defense abroad".
Comment by Chris Calbi — September 17, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Hey Chris, our strong defense abroad has been a "failure?" Oh really? So I guess Momar Khadafi gave up his entire nuclear weapons program to us because he just likes Americans, right? And I guess Kim Jong Il decided to halt his nuclear program because he likes Americans too, right? I think our strong defense abroad has paid very good dividends and we'll even see how far Ahmadinejad in Iran is willing to go with his nuclear program before he blinks.
Chris, you make it sound like all of our enemies are located in one place and all we have to do is go there and get them. That's such a pathetic Democratic talking point. Well then, if there all in one spot, where are they? Are they all in Afghanistan? Guess not, because most of them are hiding in Northern Pakistan. Do you want to do what Obama wants to do and invade Pakistan in order to get them? Hmmm, sounds like a bad idea to me, considering the fact that Pakistan is a large country that has about 165 million people in it and, by the way, is also a nuclear power? You really want to invade them, Chris? Obama does.
So let me get this straight. You and Obama want to invade Pakistan and take on a nuclear power of 165 Million people instead of fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, a country that has about 27 million people and is not a nuclear power? Wow, that really makes sense. And you guys wonder why nobody trusts you with national defense.
Let's cut to the chase, shall we, Chris? When Democrats talk about "directing them [our troops] to where the people who attacked us are," what they really mean is lets get the hell out of there and go home. You don't want to stay in Iraq or Afghanistan and I doubt that, if you hate the war in Iraq so much, that you're really going to attack Pakistan, where al Qaeda and the Taliban have set up shop. At least be honest in your isolationism. Don't claim to be for a strong defense and then hide behind our own borders.
Comment by Libertyship46 — September 18, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Chris, by your logic let's direct them to England or Germany or Japan, every one of them attacked us at some point. Situations change over time, you see. Al Qaeda is in Iraq a lot more than in Afghanistan, so we kill them where we find them.
Comment by Igor R. — September 18, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Mr. Ship is the interpretor of progressive ideas. I'll make it simple for your reactionary mind.
Why didn't we attack Pakistan. They had a true nucleur weapon, not the ones created in the sick mind of the neocons that were supposed to be in Iraq. Why is Musharraf the dictator acceptable to us, but Saddam the dictator was not. Let me give you a hint. Its liquid and its black and thick, and clue number 2, Alan Greenspan.
Our enemies are in Pakistan because we let them escape there by incompetence and greed. I do not support Obama or his plan to nuke Pakistan. By the way, Pakistan is likely to be taken over by its citizens who support that enemy. Let's see what you all will say when that happens, in terms of competent foreign policy.
Al Quaeda has not set up shop in Iraq. they are about 5% of the combatants, and they are using the branding only. They like their Iraqi brothers, sunni and Shia, want us out.
Quaddafi was isolated from the other middle east countries and broke. There's been nothing but words so far from Kim Jong Il, and with that brilliant Secretary of state that we have, it's sure to go nowhere.
Comment by Chris Calbi — September 18, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
Hey Chris, let me see if I can make this simple even for you. You said, "Why is Musharraf the dictator acceptable to us, but Saddam the dictator was not." Well, maybe it's because Hussein threatened the stability of the entire Middle East and Musharraf, hello, actually likes the United States and is our ally? Mucharraf has no love for radical Muslim fundamentalists (al Qaeda tried to kill him several times) and he actually wants to maintain good relations with the US. Sounds like a good reason to me to support a guy like that, rather than the alternatives, which are crazed Islamic fundamentalists.
You also said that, "Our enemies are in Pakistan because we let them escape there by incompetence and greed." Wow, that kind of self hatred for this country really is astonishing, especially since we've dedicated billions of dollars in resources and literally thousands of people to hunt down and kill al Qaeda members. I guess that's all chump change to you, though.
You said that, "Al Quaeda has not set up shop in Iraq. they are about 5% of the combatants, and they are using the branding only. They like their Iraqi brothers, sunni and Shia, want us out." What newspapers have you been reading lately, the Far-Left Times? Excuse me, but Al Qaeda in Iraq has been responsible for most of the American military deaths. You call them the brothers of Sunni and Shia? Are you nuts? Is that why now most of the Sunni Tribes in Iraq are turning against al Qaeda and are cooperating with the American forces to kill them? You really need to get off of the far-left blogs and read the papers, even ones like the New York Times.
As for Quaddafi and Kim Jong Il not being much of a threat, hmmm, so I guess Quaddafi was never a state sponsor of terror, right? Tell that to the people on the Pan Am flight he blew up in the 1980s. And if Kim Jong Il isn't much of a threat, then why are Japan and China so concerned about him? Hmmm, sounds pretty fishy to me, Chris, just like all of your silly liberal talking points.
Comment by Libertyship46 — September 19, 2007 @ 3:10 pm