So it’s no surprise really that the hot button issue of the day is the election day followup and how there will now be four more years of Bush. People all around Berkeley in classes, email discussion forums, and my friends page are all talking about all sorts of things. Rather respond to all of these things individually, I decided to make this one long entry. Sit back and take a look.
-First off, I’ll say this straight out: I voted for John Kerry mainly because he wasn’t George W. Bush. Bush is a bumbling fool with barely a command of the English language (though this video “What’s happened to George W. Bush’s speaking skills after 10 years” shows he wasn’t always this way), who lead us into this phony war for WMDs in Iraq that weren’t there. That was good enough for me to get him out. Kerry maybe a flip flopper, but Bush is equally one as we see in this Flip Flop catalog. Anyways…
-I’ve heard a lot of talk about moving to Canada. One of my friends wrote:
Who wants to join me and move to Canada? I don’t think I will be able to survive another 4 years…Vancover decriminalizes weed, drinking age is 19 and whistler is beautiful, so why not?
-Well short of that, California succession seems like a topic seem people suggest to rid themselves of Bush. There’s a sizable group on Facebook that’s “entertaining” the possibility. Taking a look at the electorate map though, we see that while most of the major population sectors of the state like the Bay Area and Los Angeles supported Kerry, if we measured the actual size of land that voted Bush it would have been larger than the portion that voted Kerry. Granted most of that land is desert, mountains, and Yosemite, but nonetheless, try succeeding from the Union without the part of California with the all the food, water, and most of the natural resources (of course, we’re about as serious about doing that as we are about moving to Canada now aren’t we).
-Finally, four more years of Bush? The president who ruined our economy right? Not quite. Remember the economy was going down hill before Bush took office. After all, the dotcom boom went up in smoke, Kenneth Lay laid waste to Enron stock holders along with few other unscrupulous businessmen and companies (*cough* Halliburton), and other problems sprang up. And then came 9/11 which screwed the economy up more. However, an econ professor here at Berkeley named Brad DeLong writes here about how presidents really only “influence but do not control the economy–that most of what happens is the economy following its own path.”
That’s of course not to say that Bush couldn’t helped the economy more. As one commenter points out, “they have *plenty* of control over tax policy, the waging of wars, (through Fed appointments) loose vs. tight economic policy and fiscal policy.” A war on Iraq hasn’t been good for the economy and neither have the tax cuts during the war (before the war, they made sense though). Oddly enough though, the stock market seemed to like it when Bush was winning. As Reuters states, when Kerry looked like he was going to win Ohio and Florida, stocks went down in the health care and the defense sector. I know they represent Bush’s corporate interests, but unfortunately they play a large part of the economy.
Alright, friends that’s some thoughts on your thoughts.
(Also, I found this video (Quicktime) of Bush flipping the bird)