Re “He Won. Live With It, for Now.” Commentary, Nov. 9: Thank you, Robert Scheer, for your lucid analysis of our present situation with President Bush. I am among the millions of disappointed Democrats, so not entirely unbiased in my views. This election has been a wake-up call, and we will need to be even more vigilant concerning the environment and the deficit, not to mention the hot-button issues of abortion rights, gay marriage and Iraq/ terrorism. We can only hope you are correct, that Bush will soon be quacking like the lame duck he is.
One of my greatest joys of this 2004 election was the knowledge that the readers of The Times will have four more years of reading Scheer’s rants about the evils of Bush. One can only have one conclusion now. If the liberal left cannot beat a man who cannot complete two complete sentences in one sitting, who can it beat? The answer is “no one.”
The liberal-left voters, of the Scheer persuasion, should hang their heads in shame. They are on the wrong side of history. More people in America voted against the vision of the liberal left than voted for Bush. The Bush voters might be dumb according to the liberal left, but they are certainly not crazy.
Roy A. Fassel
Scheer did yeoman’s work in comforting those of us who don’t mind that our children learn about evolution and even about safe sex when the time is right. However, I have to ask him to explain how it is that a president who ran on making us so safe will benefit from another terrorist attack. Silly me, I thought he could have done a bit more to prevent the first one. So what’s the cutoff -- or is it a positive correlation: the more attacks, the stronger his leadership? And does Al Gore’s report in 1999 that addressed terrorism and suggested reinforcing cockpit doors explain his defeat and why no one wants to have a beer with him?
As a lifelong Democrat until 9/11 and an atheist/agnostic, I did not vote for Bush because of “moral values.” I am for gay marriage, the right to an abortion and stem cell research. I voted for Bush (1) because of the hatred of Democrats and their need to attack anything the Bush administration proposed; (2) because the left in general did not want to seek common ground, but was instead obstructionist in areas where there could have been agreement; (3) because Bush took a strong stand against terrorism and would not be deterred by a corrupt U.N.
As I read The Times’ editorials, much of the other media and letters to the editor, I feel my decision was correct. They certainly are not gracious in defeat, but rather the biggest bunch of whiners I could imagine.
James C. Daly