20 / January
20 / January
Blogging the (Counter)Inauguration

I blog from our nation's capital, where George W. Bush was sworn in for his second term today. Despite landing some rather choice seats for the swearing-in ceremony, I decided to cover the counterinauguration rather than the inauguration itself. Well, the overbearing security and multi-hour waits in line kind of helped me make that decision, but that's a story for another day.

I've covered dozens of protests, but none where circumstances forced the opposing sides into such close quarters. This begat some ugly situations. Unsurprisingly, screaming matches erupted. In at least one instance, the forced proximity led to violence. Walking through a gauntlet of protestors, a proud Bush supporter taunted the mob. One young women responded: "F--- you!" The Republican then spat in her face at point blank range, which led to the woman breaking the wooden handle of her sign over the head of the man. Outnumbered, the Republican departed, only to hurl some debris that struck another woman. Welcome to the polarized world of red and blue America.

If there was a uniting theme among the protestors it is that George Bush is not only not their president, but that he's not your president either. You see, Ohio is the new Florida--at least in the minds of most of the activists I conversed with. "It's not a clean win," explained an activist from Philadelphia. "I think Kerry did win," Stephanie Kornfeld from suburban Boston explained, "because the exit polls would verify that."

There's safety in numbers, and thus leftists have put forward the comforting myth that the country actually agrees with them about Bush. Just like 2000, they maintain, Bush stole the 2004 election. Rather than face the tough reality that they are politically alienated from much of their fellow countrymen, leftists have constructed an alternative reality that depicts their side as the majority who had the election stolen from them.

posted at 03:52 PM

Had Bush actully stolen the election, don't you think Kerry wouldn't have dropped out and stayed in the race like Al Gore did in 2000?

Posted by: Goblin on January 20, 2005 05:01 PM

The leftists strange belief that people secretly agree with them and only machinations keep there guy from winning is amusingly pathetic. I am reminded of Nixon's talk of a "silent majority" that would rise up and carry him to victory, etc. The funny thing is that for Nixon it happened and he won by a landslide.

In fact these same "silent majority" types were the ones giving Bush the win this time since those Americans seem to me to be the more social conservative and family/private life oriented group that stormed the polls in key states like Ohio.

Posted by: Brian on January 20, 2005 08:50 PM

I seem to remember Ronald Reagan mentioning the silent majority also. I believe that the role of activist/extremist has changed also. Denial of the Office of President in my mind would constitute an extremeist attitude. Agreed?

Posted by: Troy on January 20, 2005 09:21 PM

pardon my type-o

Posted by: Troy on January 20, 2005 09:22 PM

The left reviles Bush and truly believes he is evil because they do not believe in decency. See article Death of Decency

Posted by: Dan on January 21, 2005 12:22 AM

I don't like that spitting thing, I don't care who doesn't like the president. But I do have one reply to the goofballs, expressed in language they can easily understand:

All your base are belong to us. Ha ha ha ha.

Posted by: Nightfly on January 21, 2005 11:59 AM

This serves as more evidence that the left are similar to children that don't get their way. It's like the piece of candy that Mom won't give them, and instead of facing the music and realizing that they can't have what they want, they jump up and down, kick and scream, and insist that their Mom isn't being fair, that she's in fact, wrong; all the while, using illogical arguments and rediculous claims.

They insist that they are in fact, the righteous party, enacting social justice in America, when they are realistically, the misguided minority who has been on the wrong side of history for years. They break the rules as it is convenient for them, and have no respect for the law. I would have to say, that if politics was a WWF Wrestling match, they would probably poke eyes, use steel chairs in the ring, and grab the Conservatives tights will pinning them, simply in order to win.

I for one, am tired of fighting these idiots humanely and decently. In order to get respect, you must give it. I didn't protest and pickett when a law breaking Clinton was re-elected in 1996. Although he is a scumbag, he still cleaned Dole's clock. Similarly, if the left thinks Bush is a jerk, so be it, but he won a decisive victory, and deserves some respect already. Enough is enough. Will they ever realize that maybe, liberalism is wrong. That Marxism has failed. That Socialism is dead?

Posted by: Christopher J. Doyle on January 21, 2005 04:29 PM

Dan, if nobody has said so yet, you should know - solid column over at NRO. Thanks.

Chris, if politics were wrestling, then during the inaugural, the band would suddenly start to play again... Tucker Carlson would stammer, "My God, that's...that's Don Rumsfeld's music!" Then Rumsfeld would deck W with a folding chair while Condi pulled Dick Cheney's jacket over his head and shoved him off the dias. Then they would link arms and pose threateningly while Carlson yelled "NOOOOOO! Somebody stop this!" And as referee, Chief Justice Rhenquist would be utterly mocked and ignored while trying to restore order.

Joking aside, contention is the order of the day, unless the win is so overwhelming (Reagan '84) that to protest the result looks like signing a petition for water to run uphill. I remember, as a boy, when it seemed likely that Reagan was about to clean Jimmuh Cahtuh's clock, that one of the nets ran a documentary about the supposed "Curse of Zero" - every president elected in a year ending in zero, from William Henry Harrison to JFK, had died in office, several violently. (I think that Tom Bosley, of all people, was the Sober Narrator, though the credit isn't listed on IMDB.) Even at eight years old, I understood the implication: "Don't worry, Ronnie's old, he'll kick off before long."

Lest you think I'm misunderestimating that interpretation, you should scroll down to chevyman's post of May 30, 3:50 pm. A lot of the stuff on the way is totally bonkers, but this specifically wants the president dead.

Posted by: Nightfly on January 21, 2005 05:59 PM


Coincidentally, I am directly related to both William Henry Harrison and his grandson Benjamin Harrison. Although I am "thrilled" to have "do nothing" Presidents in my bloodline, it is interesting nonetheless.

On a humourous note, how about this query: Who would win in a steel cage, no disqualificatin match: Hillary Clinton v. Laura Bush? Or better yet, Hillary Clinton v. William Clinton?

Posted by: Christopher J. Doyle on January 24, 2005 10:56 AM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?