How fitting -

[kyburg]

We recognize a non-holiday today - in the midst of another unjustified conflict -

Thankfully, Rev. Martin Luther King left a large enough body of written, recorded work for us to remember him by.

Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population.

It's a speech given by Rev. Martin Luther King, 4 April 1967

Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City -

"I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join with you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statement of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam."

I deeply resent being made to relive my political adolescence.
I still remember the day MLK was killed.
This country did not need another Vietnam.

This county has a president that doesn't care. And is as deaf as a post. And stupider. That, of course, is only my opinion.

And only 51% of this country voted for him.

Comments

[snackpants.livejournal.com]

And only 51% of this country voted for him.

And an even smaller percentage voted for Clinton... both times.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

I'm having trouble locating a source for statistics like that - beyond the current election, there doesn't appear to be a central location for election results.

Who are you quoting?

(And oh, yeah. Bob Dole or Ross Perot. Riiiight.)

[wbahner.livejournal.com]

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/national.php?year=1996

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/national.php?year=1992

My curiosity got the best of me, so I did some digging.

[joiseyguy.livejournal.com]

But George has a MANDATE!

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

And only 51% of this country voted for him.

This time, at least. Last time, not so much. Stupid Florida.

This country did not need another Vietnam.

Need or not, we've got one. Only instead of swamps and quicksand, there's just sand, sand and MORE sand.

As for the comments from your other commenters about less than 50% of the people voting for Clinton both times, it has long been my conclusion that Perot took voters from both Dole and Clinton, unlike Nader who only takes Dem votes... at least, that's how it seems to me. And in 2000, Buchanan was a non-issue.

I still remember hearing about at least one voter (I think it was in FL but I'm not sure) that when she voted, and voted WRONG, she informed the poll workers, who told her that she may have voted wrong but that was her own tough luck and she couldn't get a replacement ballot and tossed the voter's incorrect ballot into the box!

Anyway...

C.

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

Does he now? He claimed a mandate in 2000 too, as I recall...

And he most certainly did NOT have one then.

C.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Holy cats, look at the electoral votes -

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

You know, I consider THIS a mandate:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/national.php?year=1984

And I hated Reagan.

[wbahner.livejournal.com]

Yeah :)

[snackpants.livejournal.com]

*chuckle* Which do you want... popular vote... or Electoral Vote? Because I guarrantee, if there was a run-off between George H. and Big Bill the first time... There would not have been the "Clinton Era".

Bill Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote, either time. George W. didn't the first time...

As Mr. Snackpants always says, "The rules apply to all, or they apply to none."

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

Bill Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote, either time. George W. didn't the first time...

No, but he DID get a majority of the electoral vote. Larger than GWB's. BOTH times.

AND the main reason he DID get a so-called majority of the popular vote (though less than Dole + Perot or Bush I + Perot) is because of the Perot factor.

C.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Nah. Run Reagan against GWB. I think the lack of support for a "popular" Republican candicate should be concerning - look how much ground was lost.

Honestly? I really wish we had the decision to choose between Ford and Carter again.

When...

[n6vfp.livejournal.com]

When the "smirking chimp" said that in the interview, all I could see was a true sociopath, a person without conscience, someone unfit to call himself a Christian. His real judgment will come later, and I hope he has a "hot" time in eternity. He can join others such as Hitler, Mussolini, Idi Amin, and others spending time talking about their "mandate".

Footnotes?

[redqueenofevil.livejournal.com]

I wonder if the subject you bring to life here is responsible for me feeling just blue. I work with quite a few pro-peace people, but none of them hit the nail on the head like you did. We really still have a long way to go in so many ways, and that's pathetic. And it's always seemed hypocritical to me that we're supposed to "celebrate" when our leaders are doing exactly the opposite of what King and Robert Kennedy (among others) set out to do. It's hard to celebrate when we're at war, and our "leader" would prefer to revoke most people's civil liberties.

Oh, and I wanted to make a note about the 51%... that is, 51% of the people who actually voted (who were eligible to vote), which leaves us at about 29%in all, if you count the approximate 40% who didn't bother to vote. Let's not give them too much of a benefit, because W doesn't deserve it.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

And what's that got to do with the price of wheat?

Or, to restate in more contemporary idiom: Your point--?

[snackpants.livejournal.com]

Just stated a fact. Any agenda or purpose was assesed by the reader, not me.

[snackpants.livejournal.com]

Yeah... if Perot wasn't in the mix, odds are George H. would have one. Perot was not liberal, far from it.

[snackpants.livejournal.com]

Honestly? I really wish we had the decision to choose between Ford and Carter again.

Hindsight is always 20/20... :) I remember actually being disappointed that Ford lost. *chuckle* And I was very very very young at the time.

[snackpants.livejournal.com]

George may think he has one... but he is far from a mandate, IMHO.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Dude, Ross Perot was a freaking nutcase, not the least of reasons why both sides found him fascinating.

No, he stole from both sides - no doubt about it.

Imagine Ralph Nader adopting a pro-business stance for the good of the environment - oh, wait.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

And I am insanely grateful we agree on this.