New York Times advises Bush opponents to accept new administration

New York Times advises Bush opponents to accept new administration
By David Walsh
5 November 2004

Not wasting any time, the editors of the New York Times have greeted the narrow electoral victory of George W. Bush with a predictable dose of toadying, wishful thinking and upper-middle-class self-absorption.

In a November 4 editorial, “The Next President Bush,” the editors begin by informing the “49 percent of the voting public who wanted a different outcome” that their “first job is to accept the will of the majority.”

What is the meaning of this? The critical question is not so much the will of the majority, but the rights of the minority, on which the constitutional framework lays great stress, particularly against the aggressive intrusion of the state. What the Times has in mind is not ‘accepting the will of the majority,’ but political capitulation to the second Bush administration.

This prostration is symptomatic of the present social dynamic in American bourgeois politics. The Republicans are relentless, give no ground, and seize every opportunity, not hesitating to use lies, provocations and similar methods. The Democrats and the “liberal” media are perpetually on the defensive, ready to throw in the towel at the first sign of a conflict, and always careful not to offend.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/nov2004/nyti-n05.shtml

for the next ten days.

It's NOW or Never

Or sure I will...like the rethugs accepted Clinton.

We now know 59,053,000 people will get in line.

I'm doing something else that day.

......

FUCK NO.

WE DID THIS ONCE ALREADY. WE GOT FUCKED BY THE SUPREME COURT, WHERE THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE LAW BUT THE MAJORITY IS CORRUPT. WE WAITED OUR 4 YEARS. WE PLAYED BY THE RULES. WE GOT OUT THERE AND DID THIS THE AMERICAN WAY ONLY TO BE DEFRAUDED AGAIN BY ABSOLUTE CRIMINALS.

SO. NO FUCKING WAY. WE WILL NOT ACCEPT, WE WILL NOT ACCEPT. NEVER AGAIN.

....again....

*sigh* NYT why do you force me to do this?

OK, find 1 or 2 conservative company advertisement in the NYT, we are going to starve that company for the holidays.

let's pick the most popular -- can someone make a poll of this? (and wal-mart is not a legitimate choice, you should be doing that already)

nyt is a "big city liberal paper"-the new york times is in the newspaper of new york city that overwhelmingly voted for kerry..so we are supposed to join cracker nation, the nation that hates new york and the new york times...makes my head hurt to think about how stupid these guys and gals are

to just accept it and submit? Roll over and like it?

Fuck the majority! It most definitely IS wishful thinking if they think we are going to support their bigoted warmongering status quo!

Oh yes! The Repugs are going to get their revolution all right. But it won't be the one they or the NYT has in mind.

:mad:

He stole the election again.

He is NOT legitimate.

He is not my president. Again.

Just emailed:

George Bush and the Republican Party can kiss my ass.

And so, for that matter, can you.


Short and sweet.

The election did not alter the following:

• Iraq is a quagmire;
• The invasion was predicated on a pack of lies that were almost certainly deliberate;
• Mr. Bush, by approving an offshore system of gulags that employ torutre is guilty of crimes against humanity;
• Mr. Bush, by invading Iraq without any provocation or authority from the UN Security Council, is guilty of war crimes;
• Mr. Cheney is profiting from Halliburton's contracts in Iraq;
• The election in 2000 was stolen and the Bush campaign made every effort to make certain this one would not be left to chance;
• Even if his victory is bona fide, Mr. Bush's margin of victory in this election is suspect due to decsrepancies between exit poll figures and votes counts in areas where eVoting was employed without a paper trail;
• Bush's appeal to his voters was based on fear and hatred of other Americans;
• The federal budget surplus that Mr. Bush inherited is now in the pockets of his corporate cronies and our children are saddled with record government deficits;
• Having already promoted legislation that makes public librarians unwilling agents of a secret federal police, Mr. Bush would now promote follow up legislation that would give him the authority to strip an American of his rights as a citizen.

I may reluctantly accept the result of this election, but I will resist Mr. Bush's efforts to plunge this nation further into unnecessary colonial wars and to further subvert the Bill of Rights. The entire world is a free speech zone, and no act of Congress or executive order will change that.

Legitimacy is like virginity; once it is lost, it cannot be regained. Having stolen the 2000 election, Mr. Bush never had legitimacy. Had the actual results of the 2000 election been verified and respected, Mr. Bush would not have been a candidate in 2004 for what is wrongly referred to as his "re-election." He has never been my president; he can never be my president.

Succinct big picture.

has never had so much punch.

We express l i v e the highest moral values in rejection of his/their
agenda, policies, deeds.

a WH whore. :grr:

She still works for the NY Times! At least the Moonie Washington Times makes no pretense of their lack of objectivity while the NY Times still wants us to believe it is an objective news source.

When ice-hockey pucks are the #1 selling item at the Wal-Mart in HELL...

I WON'T DO IT

I don't effing think so. As I see mounting evidence of a stolen election, I don't see a compelling reason to support this jerk or his administration.

Nuff said, and the NYT can cheney themselves.

n/t

I'm waiting for them to fire Krugman so I can totally ignore their worthless piece of shit.

I will not cooperate w/ the party that stole the election twice. I'm waiting for the shit to hit the fan so I can laugh in the faces of freepers in pain.

Gyre

I lived with Bush as "my nation's president" the first time around. I did not want to fall to the level of the RW bozos who spewed fire and brimstone about Clinton, saying "he's not my president." I understood (and understand) that, in a functioning democracy, my hopes won't always prevail. (And, yes, I know the democracy was not functional in 2000, either.)

But Bush's time in office proved to be different than even that of his father and Reagan before him. He made it clear that he wanted to create a United States of America that is unrecognizable compared to the country that was, the country that developed through time. He made it clear that Constitution was meaningless to him. And, thus, he made it clear that he was at the head of an administration that amounts to an occupying power, and not the President of the United States of America.

What happened on election day amounts to a coup, whether or not he "won" via electoral fraud, as seems increasingly likely. Those who voted "for" Bush did so under the influence of the most base and disingenuous propaganda. They are still responsible for their actions, and, indeed, they amount to the occupying force that has conquered this once great nation.

So, no, Bush is not my president. I have no president. I have no current country. My country is occupied, and Bush is the occupying power. He will never be able to claim anything more than that.

It's pointless to try to work them- or get them to listen to reason. I've tried to do that too many times in the past, and for the remainder of the time I'll be living in America, it makes no sense to bang my head against the wall- only to be backstabbed-

It's not worth it, and I think the Times is smart enough to know better.

And I'm not about to accept them now. They are nothing but a pack of rabid imperialist corporatist that see world domination as America's new manifest destiny. I will NEVER accept anything from this group of thugs and thieves EVER!

Fuck em all to hell!!