The New Road

Talk about hyperbolic language! I tease, but I think you are being a little overdramatic here.

I remember thinking after the last election that whomever ended up winning would not only have no mandate from the people as to the direction of this country, but also would likely not win a second term.

I feel the same way today--if this election is really as close as the "experts" are saying it is, then there is no clear mandate from the country--no roadmap of where the populace wants to go. In the absence of the word of the people, aka their vote, what does the president do? Whether it's Kerry or Bush, what are they actually tasked with?

Obviously Iraq has to end. Then what? What other issue, can the entire country give the president a mandate for? Where is the direction for our leader?

Bush hasn't needed a mandate from the people to do his dirty work, he feels he has a mandate from god which is very scary.

That's the point exactly. He had no mandate from the people, so he made up his own. The same thing will come out of this election. Should Bush win, there is no more of a voice of the people than there was four years ago. Should Kerry win, there is no clear direction for him either. In the absence of a clear, decisive vote from the people, what does a leader do? Create his own? Listen to his advisors? Listen to the Congress? Listen to world leaders? Some combination therein?

The non-mandate mandate? Not hyperbole.

Civil rights being trampled hyperbole? I think not. The patriot act ensures that the government has almost unrestricted access to what you used to consider private and secret. Just because it doesn't effect you doesn't mean that you can ignore the government trampling on our civil rights.

Human rights? Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo? People are being jailed without due process. People are being restrained from travel without any reason and without a way to vindicate themselves. Once again, just because it doesn't effect you it doesn't make it right.

In answer to your question. What a leader should not do is listen to the invisible man in the sky. What he shouldn't do is simply turn over government functions to his corporate crony buddies. What he should do is read the documents provided to him that outlined specific attacks on the United States. What he should do is read specific documents detailing an appropriate after-action plan for a major invasion. What he should do are competent things. Why is it that you are asking me questions as if I am the commander-in-chief? I don't have the answers. But I can certainly recognize when an incompetent loser is in the presidents spot. The signs are clear there.

I had trust in Clinton. He worked together with his advisors towards middle east peace. He was working with counter-terrorism to do the best job he could to fight terrorism given that we had not been attacked. That was competent. What we have today is clearly incompetent. It's not the job of the average American to present policy directions. We choose leaders we can trust. George Bush is clearly not a man we can trust. John Kerry is a man we can trust.

I asked the questions as a general format for anyone to respond and not as if you were the cic. I'm concerned and wanted to know your opinion.

On a side note, did you happen to watch Monday Night Football last night? At some point during the lull of the game, they ran a series of vignettes (sp?) about how the outcome of the Redskins game immediately prior to election day has determined the winner of the election for the last twenty some years. If the Skins lose, then the incumbent is out. IF they win, he stays. It's been accurate since Ford ran against Carter. Guess who won on Sunday?

Oh yeah! We were watching it this weekend. Rock!

One of the running backs was interviewed after the game and he said, "I won this one for Kerry. Now I don't even need to vote." Of course, he needs to freaking vote.