« good morning, america | Main | It's Over »

The Morning After

Buckle up. I've got a lot to say today. As the whole world knows by now, it is pretty evident that George W. Bush will be the President of the United States for the next four years. Obviously, that makes me happy. A lot of people are having some trouble with my happiness right now. That goes for you, too, if you voted for GWB. A flow of nastiness is seeping from through the floors of the country, pooling around the feet of the collective left. But which left, you ask? Because sometimes, people will come after me for saying 'the left" as if that phrase represented everyone who sits, well, to the left of me and not just the wingers, even though they know full well I mean the Michael Moores, the DU citizens, the Oliver Willises and MoveOn members of the world. Not so sure about that today. I woke up to a very different world in which people I assumed were rational Democrats are spitting poison nails. I received some nasty emails and comments (since deleted) that were alarming in their venom and hatred. People I never had a harsh word with were suddenly knocking down my virtual door to leaving the equivalent of letter bombs. This did not frighten me so much as make me sad. I can say with all honesty that, had Kerry won this election, I would have done no such thing. But, that's just me. I did read through some of the near lunatic fringe of the left today. Sad state of affairs, really. They seem to be so overcome by bitterness and anger that their emotions are getting in the way of rational thinking. How else do you explain the call to arms, the threats to join al Qaeda, the pleas for violent uprising, or the wishful thinking for a terrorist attack to happen now? And here we go again with the "illegitimate" election fantasies. The whole basis of argument for the left in recent times has been "if I don't agree with it, it must be a lie." This has never been more evident than right now. Witness: This election is a fraud, a sham. The Republicans (sorry, Rethuglicans) cheated their way through another vote. The vote counts are all wrong. The machines were fixed. Someone was paid off. And, of course, the exit polls were rigged. Even if Bush were to win both the Electoral vote and the popular vote, his win would be decried as illegal. Perhaps that is what is driving the hate today; the fact that there is nothing to point to in order to support the cries of another fake presidency. I do believe that even if every person in America who voted for George Bush marched themselves in front of a line of lefties outside of George Soros's mansion this morning and pledged that they did, indeed, vote for GWB, they would claim that Karl Rove implanted mind control chips in each and every person. Why is it so hard to imagine that not everyone thinks like you? Are these people so arrogant, so self-smug that they truly believe their way is the only way? Funny, that. They accuse Bush of that all the time and here they are engaging in it, with relish. If you don't mind, I'd like to address the throngs of Chicken Littles who seem to be out in full force on the net today. I just want to clear up a few things, as you all seem to be pretty misguided in more than one area today. I voted for George Bush. I am not a redneck. I do not spend my days watching cars race around a track, drinking cheap beer and slapping my woman on the ass. I am not a bible thumper. In fact, I am an atheist. I am not a homophobe. I am educated beyond the fifth grade. In fact, I am college educated. I am not stupid. Not by any stretch of facts. I do not bomb abortion clinics. You will not be thrown in jail for the sole reason of being a liberal. Your child's public school will not suddenly turn into a center for Christian brainwashing. Your favorite bookstore will not turn into puritan central. This is not Nazi Germany in any way. You will not be forced into concentration camps. You will not be burned in human-sized ovens because of your religion. We will not be forced to wear uniforms and march in line every day. You will not live in fear. If you think this is a country in which you have to live in fear, I have some friends in Iran who would like to have a little talk with you. What does the (presumed) election of George Bush mean to you, as a member of the left? It means you and your party have four years to get yourselves together and figure out exactly what you stand for. It means you have a couple of years, max, to come up with a viable candidate who represents the majority of you and doesn't pander to every knock off group of your party. It means you have time to get your act together and decide once and for all what you stand for and produce a leader who will stand up for your ideals. It means you better find a candidate who is someone you can vote for with conscience, and not just vote for out of hatred for his opponent. What did you all believe in this year? Hate? Anger? You ran your own campaign, one filled to the brim with bile and acidic spittle and you wonder why you feel so black today? You were pinning your hopes on the the wish that the rest of America harbored the same intense hatred as you and would vote with their clenched fists. Now that you are left without the hoped for victory party as an outlet for your rage, you have to direct it somewhere else. If not at the candidate, then at his voters, right? What I am seeing today makes me pity you, and it's a pity tinged with disgust and should not be mistaken for empathy. It means the same things for us moderate Republicans. Maybe in this time we can produce a candidate who doesn't alienate the social liberal in us, yet speaks to our concerns about defense, security and the war on terror. I am not completely enamored with the Republican Party. There's a lot of work to be done within the ranks. I'd like to see a full stop of the move towards the religious right. Perhaps there is the perfect candidate out there for both of us, someone just making his or her way up the political chain right now. With any luck, there will be a day when a president is elected who is liked by both sides of the fence, who is respected by everyone. And that's the great thing about waking up today. See, the world is still here. The sun has risen, there were no great floods or earthquakes or visits from Lucifer during the night. We have the future. We can all - Republicans, Democrats and everyone else - learn a lot from this election and use those lessons to move this country forward. Sure, it's easy for me to say those things while I'm sitting in the victor's chair at the moment. But I believe in my heart that if Kerry were today making a victory speech, I would feel the same way. I certainly wouldn't be calling for violent action. I would not be threatening total strangers with death or wishing ill will on them. But this is a left that is buttressed by people who have more bile than good will, more venom than virtue. They are fronted by circus sideshow acts like Michael Moore, who turn up the flames underneath their followers until the kettle is whistling like mad. That is the shrill sound you hear coming from the left today. And I fear no one is going to turn the flame down. We are living out the proverbial Chinese curse of living in interesting times. I do hope with all my heart that we can turn down the hate at some point and make the next four years a little less interesting.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Morning After:

» Let the Chaos Commence from Overtaken by Events
I just received my post-election email from Karl Rove. To: visciousrepublican@scarywhitepeople.com From: bigdaddykarl@whitehouse.gov Subject: Thanks and Start the Pillaging Dear... [Read More]

» "Buckle Up" from VodkaPundit
Michele Catalano has some soothing words: I voted for George Bush. I am not a redneck. I do not spend... [Read More]

» "Buckle Up" from VodkaPundit
Michele Catalano has some soothing words: I voted for George Bush. I am not a redneck. I do not spend... [Read More]

» Heads not exploding from Helloooo, Chapter Two!
Michelle has an outstanding post this morning. Highlights... [Read More]

» Post-Election Roundup from Let's Try Freedom
Here's what all the cool kids are saying... [Read More]

» Wow from Cynical Nation
Michele Catalano says it much, much better than I ever could. (Hat tip, Stephen) [Read More]

» Progressives Everywhere Are Reaching For Their RU-486 from Acorns from an Okie
In The Morning After, Michele has an open letter to progressives (aka far-left liberals) that I heartily agree with: What does the (presumed) election of George Bush mean to you, as a member of the left? It means you and your party have four years to g... [Read More]

» Time to be Reasonable, Folks from CounterPundit
So let's move on, shall we? If I were a supporter of President Bush today I would be thrilled with the results. It was a convincing win. I know as an American I am thrilled with the size of the turnout, even if the results did not go the way I would ... [Read More]

» Enough already! from Bob's Place
Michele says eloquently what I have been feeling lately about the unrestrained vitriol and hate pouring from the (hopefully fringe) left throughout the blogosphere and MSM. Enough, already. Get a life that doesn't involve hurting and hating others: [Read More]

» Who and What I am Not from Michael J. Totten
Michelle Catalano speaks for me.If you don't mind, I'd like to address the throngs of Chicken Littles who seem to be out in full force on the net today. I just want to clear up a few things, as you... [Read More]

» Who and What I am Not from Michael J. Totten
Michelle Catalano speaks for me.If you don't mind, I'd like to address the throngs of Chicken Littles who seem to be out in full force on the net today. I just want to clear up a few things, as you... [Read More]

» Blame it on the rain from Zygote-Design
He wins by 3.5 million votes in the popular count -- but does that matter? Are you kidding me? Of course it doesn't matter! He's ChimpyMcShrubHitler Halliburton esquire! Blame Deibold! Blame the weather in Ohio! Blame those damned provisional ba... [Read More]

» There's Got To Be A Morning After from Accidental Verbosity
Michele has written one of her best posts, one of the best posts, ever to discuss where we stand on the morning after. You can't run on the "I [Read More]

» The Left is Going Crazy from Urban:Grounds
The Day After President Bush won the approval of the American people, the Left is freaking out. [Read More]

» "Buckle Up" from VodkaPundit
Michele Catalano has some soothing words: I voted for George Bush. I am not a redneck. I do not spend... [Read More]

» Michele Nails It from Grapevine's Ramblings
Your must read of the day is an essay by Michele Catalano that encompasses the 2004 election and lessons that can be learned by the Democratic and Republican parties. Especically those on the left. The loudest message that should resonate with everyon... [Read More]

» Why They Lost: Another Opinion from what if?
And a very good one, IMHO. I do believe that even if every person in America who voted for George Bush marched themselves in front of a line of lefties outside of George Soros's mansion this morning and pledged that [Read More]

» Do you wonder about the left today? from Attaboy
Boy oh boy, does Michele nail the "moring after" here.... [Read More]

» Favorite "Good" Remarks from Marked Up
From around the Internet: Very oddly from the same post as the first "bad" remark:From around the Internet: Very oddly from the same post as the first "bad" remark:[Read More]

» Message from a Far Leftist from Solotude (formerly The S-Train Canvas)
Congratulations to President George Bush Jr. for winning a second term. Props to Senator John Kerry for being gracious in... [Read More]

» well, that about does it from n-judah love song
I've seen and heard a lot of things on the internet about the election. Of course that means I've got a couple of things to add, because I cannot keep my big yap shut. C'mon, Bush has the Terminator on [Read More]

» Politics and Weblogging; Weblogging and Politics from The Kitchen: How to Cook a Weblog
Has weblogging done much for politics? Probably not as much as we think. We were more of a interesting aside than a powerful influence. Will that change in time? Perhaps, if more people become webloggers. But it's not going to change the world overni... [Read More]

» Wow from Six Meat Buffet
Michele absoultely nailed it with this post. [Read More]

» Bummer for the Left from greatguys.blogspot.com
A nice essay all in all, but I think it misses one major point: the Left had far, far more to lose in this election... [Read More]

» What I Difference A Day Makes from Feste...a foolsblog
I disagree with the Kerry kudos and conciliation-speak that I am reading in the right side of the blogosphere. Even Geraghty has fallen for Kerry's faux sincerity. This sounds like a joke, but Kerry's concession speech was the best of... [Read More]

» What I Difference A Day Makes from Feste...a foolsblog
I disagree with the Kerry kudos and conciliation-speak that I am reading in the right side of the blogosphere. Even Geraghty has fallen for Kerry's faux sincerity. This sounds like a joke, but Kerry's concession speech was the best of... [Read More]

» What I Difference A Day Makes from Feste...a foolsblog
I disagree with the Kerry kudos and conciliation-speak that I am reading in the right side of the blogosphere. Even Geraghty has fallen for Kerry's faux sincerity. This sounds like a joke, but Kerry's concession speech was the best of... [Read More]

» Shout Out to the Moonbats from Infidel Cowboy
Pink Floyd - Poles Apart Did you know...it was all going to go so wrong for you And did you see it was all going to be so right for me Why did they tell you then You were always... [Read More]

» Shout Out to the Moonbats from Infidel Cowboy
Pink Floyd - Poles Apart Did you know...it was all going to go so wrong for you And did you see it was all going to be so right for me Why did they tell you then You were always... [Read More]

» Shout Out to the Moonbats from Infidel Cowboy
Pink Floyd - Poles Apart Did you know...it was all going to go so wrong for you And did you see it was all going to be so right for me Why did they tell you then You were always... [Read More]

» Shout Out to the Moonbats from Infidel Cowboy
Pink Floyd - Poles Apart Did you know...it was all going to go so wrong for you And did you see it was all going to be so right for me Why did they tell you then You were always... [Read More]

» "Getting over it" from The Radical Centrist
Michelle at A Small Victory has warns that she "has a lot to say" and its all worth reading. She's seeing and actually receiving some of the venomous anger that is leaking around the statesmanlike calls for unity and healing. [Read More]

» "Getting over it" from The Radical Centrist
Michele at A Small Victory has warns that she "has a lot to say" and its all worth reading. She's seeing and actually receiving some of the venomous anger that is leaking around the statesmanlike calls for unity and healing. [Read More]

» Celebrate good times c'mon from itssonotaboutyou.com
This is the last of the political talk here. I'm sick of election talk. It's become so much more of an issue of hate and idle threats almost immediately overnight. It's totally ruining my chi. Or my chia pet. Or... [Read More]

» What she said from Adventures of an American Girl in Germany
I totally agree with Michele about the morning after. Salient agreement points: I am not a redneck. I am not a bible thumper. I am not a homophobe. I am not stupid. Not by any stretch of facts. and "What... [Read More]

» The US Election from Modulator
Disappointed but not surprised. I was not and am not a bush supporter. Regular readers know that I was not a strong kerry supporter either. For me, the one possible result worse then a kerry victory is the one that happened: a bush victory. It does puz... [Read More]

» Dems: Show Some Humility and Get Real from The Breakdown Lane
James Wolcott a citizen of the upper West Side (who roots for hurricanes to kill people living in tidewater country) has this to say about the Bush victory: Should Bush win, I shall post a statement of philosophical resignation tentatively... [Read More]

» Required Reading: A Message To My Critics from dcthornton.com
The sky is not falling. I am not a fascist minion of Satan. I don't hate you. I'm not out to make your lives miserable, and I do not apologize for re-electing George W. Bush. Chill out. [Read More]

» Waving the Bear Flag 8: Election Blow-out from Sneakeasy's Joint
Today being a day of celebration I thought I'd attempt something special, and do an Ultimate California Bear Flag League Round-up. On no sleep, but plenty of enthusiam. :-) The articles would be from yesterday, and today, and from over [Read More]

» I Wish I Had Written This from Teacher's Ramblings
Honestly, greatness is evident when it seems effortless, over and over again. Just this one time, I want a great post here: The Morning After Buckle up. I've got a lot to say today. [Read More]

» Some Intelligent Post-Election Thoughts from Winds of Change.NET
Here are some of the really intelligent essays floating around the blogosphere in the wake of the 2004 election. [Read More]

» when the revolution comes from pervasivelight 3.0.1
Here comes the whining... Four more years of a nation led by criminals. I was making coffee with one eye on CNN when the news broke, and I called my dad, a man who's spent many years fighting for good things, sometimes at great personal cost. Presu... [Read More]

» What She Said, Part 2 from Les Jones Blog
From Michelle Catalano: I voted for George Bush.I am not a redneck.I do not spend my days watching cars race around a track, drinking cheap beer and slapping my woman on the ass.I am not a bible thumper. In fact, I am an atheist.I am not a homophobe.I ... [Read More]

» The 10 Spot - Election Hangover Edition from Wizbang
Ten election related items you might not have seen on the wondrous Internets...Steven Den Beste, a man famous for prodigious essays, has but 3 words to summarize the election. John Hinderacker has the inside story from 30Rock on how the... [Read More]

» Hard Lessons For Democrats from Weekend Pundit
Orson Scott Card has a lengthy essay on the problems within the Democratic Party, why they came about, and why they had better do something... [Read More]

» ARE NEW YORKERS VERY, VERY STUPID? from PRESTOPUNDIT -- "It's a team sport, baby!"
or just New York Region > A Blue City (Disconsolate, Even) Bewildered by a Red America" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/nyregion/04york.html">jackasses? This has to be read to be believed. (via Betsy). Take a... [Read More]

» Post Election Links from Downtown Chick Chat
You got owned! Iranians are happy Bush won. Man, they are seeing red. Outch! Michelle Malkin gives a loser/winner list. Just start at the top of this guy's blog, page down. This is funny as hell. Awesome post of the... [Read More]

» Against the Conventional Wisdom from The Asylum
Despite all that has happened in the last 72 hours, you can already hear the turbines whirring about the predictions of an increased level of nasty politics in the coming years. Sean Hannity appeared to be leading that charge [Read More]

» Some Clarifications from Whatever It Is, I'm Against It
From A Small Victory: I voted for George Bush. I am not a redneck. I do not spend my days watching cars race around a track, drinking cheap beer and... [Read More]

» The 'Angry Left' is trying to make an 'Angry Middle' from MojoMark
There are people in this country who didn't see the election in the same way as I did. Fine. That's what elections are all about. But to call me "ignorant" because of my choice is really starting to piss me off. [Read More]

» The Homophobes Are Coming! from Little Miss Attila
It appears that all is forgiven, and The Wall Street Journal is taking Peggy Noonan back agian [/joke]. This ran, as I recall, circa Thursday: Let us get our heads around the size and scope of what happened Tuesday. George... [Read More]

» The Bitter Left from The Veiled Chameleon
"What did you all believe in this year? Hate? Anger? You ran your own campaign, one filled to the brim with bile and acidic spittle and you wonder why you feel so black today? You were pinning your hopes on... [Read More]

» now what. from Now we shall talk of many things
So Bush has won. It's finally over. Only, it's not. The next four years could be some of the worst yet. Bush may have won, and he can now retreat back into the White House, but the rest of us have to live out here with each other. I listened to NPR o... [Read More]

» Whither the poor democrats from Hellblazer
Oh, we be puttin' on sack cloth and throwing ashes in acts of despair. Imagine! We could have had some voters for a song. (Via Roxanne)I've been telling my Democrat brother for over a year now, "We're here--Bush voters who... [Read More]

Comments

This was a near perfect post, Michele, And an excellent example of why we love you so.

kerry conceeded. he did the right thing, but i dont blame him for not doing it last night.

I want Pres Bush to announce victory with "Dont Fear the Reaper" playing as a theme song.

Well said.

It means the same things for us moderate Republicans. Maybe in this time we can produce a candidate who doesn't alienate the social liberal in us, yet speaks to our concerns about defense, security and the war on terror. I am not completely enamored with the Republican Party. There's a lot of work to be done within the ranks. I'd like to see a full stop of the move towards the religious right.

I think the 2nd term replacements and appointments will give us all a good sign as to where things are going in the party. Supremes, too.

I voted for Kerry and now that the election is over it is time for us as American's to work together. I have concerns about the next four years but President Bush has been elected and we owe to him and all of us to give him a chance to provide a better future to us and our children.

See you in voters booth in 2008.

Keep preachin' Michelle. I agree with every single word you said.

Good for you and amen. Hate and bile - from either party - is not going to get us to a better place.

I hope Kerry makes a good concession speech helps turn the burner down. Oh I know it won't work with the extreme left, but I hope it will cool off the more moderate Dems.

Well written as always, michele.

This is my first visit to your site and, based on your "The Morning After" piece, I am sad that I haven't been here before.

It is my sincere hope that the left listens to your suggestions . . . hate keeps you warm but ultimately it burns you to a cinder.

Hate to do the sheep thing, but I completely agree with you. And other than the athiest thing your list of "I am" statements applies to me as well! The dems need to relax!

This post is perfect Michele. Thank you for (once again) saying what I feel more eloquently than I could ever hope to.

Brilliant post - thank you for helping solidify my thoughts today. M

This post is why I have you bookmarked - and I'm a liberal. I voted for Kerry. I hope I can better see where the right is coming from someday, but in the meantime I just expose myself to material that challanges me to think outside my box. I'm a big fan of balance and the middle ground...

Keep up the good work.

I am angry, but not at you, Michele. I'm angry at the Democrats for taking the rope-a-dope bait and failing to nominate more moderate candidates. It was just stupid of them to think that they could win by relying on their base when the Republican base is so much larger and more intensely committed.

But even moreso, I'm angry with the Republican Party for selling its soul to the the Christian fundamentalists. Whether Islamic or Christian or Hindu or Zoroastrian, fundamentalism is bad. Period. You'd think the human race would have learned something from all the religious wars fought over the centuries, but that sadly doesn't appear to be the case.

The Christian fundamentalists who have put the Republicans in power are not going to want to hear any nonsense about George Bush reaching out toward the center in his second term. Moderate Republicans are now so scarce in Congress that Bush wouldn't have much support even in the unlikely case that he were to TRY to reach out.

The newly elected senator from my state, Oklahoma, has spoken out on the record in favor of giving the death penalty to any doctor who performs an abortion, once it's been made illegal by new Bush nominees to the Supreme Court. That's the landscape we now live in.

I'm a moderate Democrat. I would have gladly voted for John McCain over John Kerry, given the chance. But I am not going to sit idly by and watch the Christian right turn this country into a theocracy. I will stand and fight, and once more people begin to see the full implications of what the fundamentalists are attempting to do, I think I'll have a lot of company. It's hard for me to see how we're going to have anything over than open political warfare in this country for the foreseeable future.

Excellent post, Michele: just don't let success go to your heads, people.

Perhaps there is the perfect candidate out there for both of us, someone just making his or her way up the political chain right now. With any luck, there will be a day when a president is elected who is liked by both sides of the fence, who is respected by everyone.
That's a nice thought, but there is no "perfect" candidate. Actually, I think there is one perfect candidate, but when I'm on the ballot 249,999,999 other people will disagree :-)

I happen to think it's a feature not a bug that the candidates trend toward the middle. That ensures they aren't "perfect" but acceptable. The candidates can't run as a "pure" version of whatever ideology they represent. Alan Keyes tries that in Illinois, we can see how that worked out...

Sane and civil, Michele. We need more of that now that the election is over.

I, too, am not pleased with some of the elements of the Republican Party. But I could not in all conscience vote for Senator Kerry. The Democrats failed to give us a candidate we could trust. If they don't do a lot of soul-searching (and I mean a LOT) in the next four years, and make the wise decision to dump the Teddy Kennedys and John Kerrys and the stupid lunatic fringe, then the party is finished.

Now that the election is over, the battle begins: to move our country back to its fiscally conservative, socially liberal base, denying the lunatic fringe (both left AND right) any meaningful voice. It will be easier with a president in place who's busy trying to protect us (however inexpertly) from those who wish to do us harm simply because of who we are.

Well said as usual Michelle.

Prepare thy self...the Insta-lanche is coming.

Wonderful and on point. Thank you for eloquently expressing these feelings. I feel much the same way.

Until the boomers are senile, dead or take no for an answer, this country will be divided.

We have a lot of work to do, especially reforming the voter registration process. It's called personal responsibility.

"i watched freedom die today"
lol. squirt some tears punk

I'm what would be considered a moderate Republican.

I'm strongly pro 2nd amendement.
I'm strongly pro a woman's right to choose.
I'm an extreme fiscal conservative.
I'm strongly pro gay-marriage/civil-unions.
I'm strongly pro 1st amendement -- shut down the FCC, now.

I have not been happy with President Bush over a number of issues -- weak execution of the war on terrorism, signing the medicare drug bill, saying he would sign the AWB if it passed, his whole "faith-based" initiative nonsense.

I agree with MikeR that religious fundamentalism of all stripes needs to be fought vigorously.

Unfortunately, I don't think (by the very nature of the primary process) that a moderate candidate from either party will every be selected. In order to win the Republican primaries you have to suck up to the bible-thumping fringe of the right -- in order to win the Democrat primary you have to suck up to the marxist/environmentalist fringe of the left. Once you get past the primaries, you then "slide" to the center and pretend to be a centrist.

I voted (reluctantly) for George Bush this year.
I could have EASILY voted for a centrist Democrat like Joe Lieberman but Senator Kerry had too many skeletons in the closet and (despite the hunting trips and bible-references) was too far left for my tastes.

So, let's find an actual moderate candidate for 2008 and get busy.

Direct quote from a co-worker, 10 minutes ago:

"Maybe we should make friends with Bin Laden so he can go after Bush"

She wasn't kidding.

Michele, I share your desire for better choices in terms of candidates, but right now I am very proud to have voted for W, and against the howling insanity that is today's Left/Democratic Party.

lol. squirt some tears punk

Recommendation: Check out Treacher's whole site.

Very well said. You have yet again spoken for many of us as you speak for yourself.

Thank You, Michele.

I'm a Kerry supporter. He lost, Bush won. Bush can point to the very impressive voter turnout as a mandate, along with the advances Republican made in the House and Senate.

Now, let's move forward, shall we?

You made a revealing and ultimately unhelpful comment when you said, "What did you all believe in this year? Hate? Anger? You ran your own campaign, one filled to the brim with bile and acidic spittle and you wonder why you feel so black today?"

To begin with, I don't feel any hate or anger. Whatever emails you may have received are anecdotal evidence and in no way reflect the actual mood of the electorate. I could just as easily tell you that of the several Democrats I have spoken with today, they are all wistful and resigned. Not a word of anger from any of them. But my data would be no better than your data. So let's both avoid making conclusions from a little anecdotal evidence.

Secondly, you are being disingenuous to suggest that only the Democrats ran a negative campaign. Any objective observer would tell you that both sides did. Indeed, I think historians will look back on this campaign as intensely negative. Whichever side lost this one, some people were going to end up feeling hurt and angry. Such is the nature of politics.

So let's move on, shall we? If I were a supporter of President Bush today I would be thrilled with the results. It was a convincing win. I know as an American I am thrilled with the size of the turnout, even if the results did not go the way I would like.

Hi, Michele. I just want to say that I agree with you, and I didn't even vote for Bush. If the Democrats could realize the harm done to them in the eyes of the moderate voter by the Michael Moore wing of their party, they might be able to start winning elections again. But I'm pessimistic about the Democrats' ability to perceive this. Earlier today, I tried to make this point on Atrios' blog, and I was instantly deluged in vitriol, four-letter-words, accusations of ignorance, and name-calling, all from people who were simultaneously insisting that they were not hateful!

Right before I went to bed last night, they replayed a Charlie Rose group interview from earlier in the day, before the election. Oh, the lecturing the liberals were dispensing to the right, whom they all presumed would lose. Thank you, Bush, for winning, so that our side can now give these condescending lectures. Bwahaha.

Example: Really, our more emotional left should learn to calm down, maybe think a little more, use their heads instead of their bile glands, despite their demonstrably limited IQs and incapacity to learn. (Fun, isn't it?)

This is the first time I visited your site (via instapungent). I myself am a moderate republican, and I have been and continue to be deeply troubled by this administration. I voted for Kerry, much like you alluded, b/c of the animosity I feel toward the Bush administration. These guys do not deserve another chance. And also, like you said, I attributed GW's win to the red-neck, bible thumpin' midlands of America.

It is perfectly understandable why the vitriol has spewed forth on the heels of this election. GW was supposed to be a uniter, and has been nothing but a divider from day 1. And guess what, he won this election on the shoulders of the religious right you'd like to curtail.

Let's hope this admin takes a more moderate approach in the next 4 years. Somehow, I doubt they will.

Mike R., please consider two things:
1) A lot of very moderate people voted for Bush, and he owes his election to US.

2) Why on earth do you think the danger of a Christian takeover is more likely now that at any other time in US history? It's not like Christians are new or something.

Why is the danger of theocracy so great right now? We've survived for more than 200 years, and we're arguably less monolithically Christian than we've ever been.

Moreover, on your "fundamentalism is bad" kick, I have to say as an atheist, I don't understand religion myself, but I see all kinds of secular religions around us, and they worry me more than the traditional kinds, because their believers do not recognize or acknowledge the role that faith plays in their outlooks.

may I then ask why you voted for a canidate who represents the opposite of what you wrote above? "bible thumping, homophobes who would like to bomb abortion clincs" are the base of the man whose election you celebrate (indeed, support for homophobic ballot measures seem to be in large part responsible for large turnouts in many red and swing states like Ohio). A canidate whose track record and proven (in)competence regarding "security, defense and terrorism" is abysmal? How do you recconcile all this as a "moderate" republican? The unknown answer to this question is undoubtably one reason many Democratic heads are exploding today. Maybe you could post further on the above questions...

Poor losers are an insult to the democratic process.

Poor winners are an insult to humanity.

I've asked my co-lefties to join me in wishing the President the wisdom, compassion, and humility to lead us well in the next four years, but one line of yours falls totally flat and it would be nice if the right would own it.

You will not live in fear.

This is almost tragically ironic, given that the Bush campaign missed no opportunity to stoke the public's fear.

Great post Michelle . . . now, those of you concerned, take a really deep breath and try to relax. Vigilance is freedom's watchword. Therefore, I say to you, your fears of a fundamentalist theocracy in this country are just as irrational as that group's fears of an amoral society constantly being affirmed by liberal judges who "feel" their way through the law. This country has a remarkable ability to stay a moderate course while supporting individual rights, the sanctity of marriage, life and the family, among other things. What we have learned is that moral values matter, that character matters . . . a majority of the citizenry has said so. Freedom has not "died". If anything, it has been re-affirmed . . . Soros has not been able to buy an election. The campaign rhetoric demonizing Republicans and their right wing lackeys as neanderthals intent on imposing a Taliban style of governance on this country has been flushed down the drain. If you truly value your freedom, continue to exercise your right to vote, hold those who swing to the extreme right or left to a high degree of responsibility and accountability (and be willing to punish them for their excesses), and remain vigilant. Liberty and freedom in this country are not dictated to us by the left or the right, but by the people. I for one, prefer to place my faith in the process as exercised by those who have the heart and sense to realize that.

Michele -

Excellent post - the one thing that provides me with some comfort is the fact that Pres Bush cannot be reelected to a third term, so perhaps he can start moving to the center in a gradual manner, his need to stroke the hard core right wing no longer necessary.

As a faithful follower of yours and a liberal (oops, that's a bad word now, isn't it?), I only take small exception to what you're saying. Is the far left full of hatred and bile. Yep. How about the far right? Yep. Reading the sites of either end of the political spectrum is truly a frightening experience. But remember, most of us are not "far" anything. Most of us are just regular joes trying to earn a living and maybe see a decent movie every once in a while. Most of us do not see all members of the opposing parties as evil wrongdoers.

Here at work, I am surrounded by democrats. Not one of them has said a hateful word today. They were depressed when they came in because their candidate didn't win, but they seem to mostly be over it and life is moving on.

I guess my elusive point is that I don't want to be labeled as hate filled any more than you all do. I am not hate filled. Not even close.

Excellent essay.

And I think that your feeling:"Sure, it's easy for me to say those things while I'm sitting in the victor's chair at the moment. But I believe in my heart that if Kerry were today making a victory speech, I would feel the same way."
Is most likely accurate since you had an evening of exit polls to believe that Bush lost.

"You will not be forced into concentration camps"

actually, I'm quite in favor of putting Liberals/Lefties in concentration camps.

But we have to start with something else first.

How about getting rid of NPR and PBS? The leftist piggies don't deserve their one broadcast networks.

As a registered Dem and a Bush voter, I like this bit:
It means you and your party have four years to get yourselves together and figure out exactly what you stand for. It means you have a couple of years, max, to come up with a viable candidate who represents the majority of you and doesn't pander to every knock off group of your party. It means you have time to get your act together and decide once and for all what you stand for and produce a leader who will stand up for your ideals.

Thank you (c:

Jake--you're just wrong about Bush's base. Those are caricatures. I don't know if they were ever true. They're certainly not true now. It is no longer the 1970s and the Republican party has moved on. If you want to get to know who voted for Bush, go over to www.rogerlsimon.com.

Things change.

Jake, you evidently didn't read Michele's post. Read it. The read it again. And again. Until it sinks in.

Paul, I hope you're joking. It's not funny.

I'm all in favor of not giving taxpayer dollars to NPR, though.

Gee, Paul. Thanks for displaying the behavior I was bemoaning.

I posted this wonderful essay on a site I frequent as an answer to "What do we do now?" I asked those who ask that question to maybe try some of this "tolerance" they speak of.

The blogger removed your link from my post with this one word: "because." Maybe if anyone of them had actually READ your post, they would have the answer to "because."

Tolerance, like math apparently, is hard.

Buzz, the extremes of either party are scary. That's easy to agree on.

But here's the really interesting question: How does the remainder of that party regard its nutcases and their hallucinations?

GWB says clearly & publicly that Islam is a religion of peace and a great religion. He does not embrace the right-wing fever swamp.

On the other hand, the Democrats fielded one candidate who actually implied that the administration had prior knowledge of the 9/11/01 attacks. This is paranoia, it is extremist, and it is repulsive. So Dean lost, which he richly deserved... but Michael Moore gets a seat of honor at the DNC. Democratic senators shake his hand. He is considered respectable.

The fact that the Democrats have failed to push away this lunatic demagogue is one of the most important reasons why they lost me, after 15 years of thinking that I was on the side of the angels when I voted for Democrats.

I happen to think it's a feature not a bug that the candidates trend toward the middle. That ensures they aren't "perfect" but acceptable.

I might need more coffee, Mr. Bigenwald, because right now, it seems you're implying that the Presidential slate trended 'toward the middle'. I could probably disagree more heartily, but not by much. Bush is 'trending' to the right of the right-center, and if Kerry took one more half-step left, he'd fall off the edge. The 'problem' is arguably that the national committees of both parties have been taken over by more fringe elements.

The time is getting very, very ripe for a truly centrist 3rd party candidate to make a real showing, perhaps even showing him/herself right into the Oval Office. It appears 'people' may be getting tired of the movements toward both edges.

... or I just need more coffee.

thanks michele.

You won't be hearing any of that from this leftie. Yeah, I wish that Kerry had won, but, hey, he didn't. Not a thing I can do about that now other that hope that the past two presidential losses makes the Democratic party take a few steps back and say "what are we doing wrong?". Hopefully this loss will get them to get more in touch with America and give us someone who can be a leader.

TBOGG:

James Wolcott nails it with a sledgehammer:

"Good, Go Ahead, America, Choke on Your Own Vomit, You Deserve to Die."

AMERICAN STREET:

Osama Wins!!

VARIOUS COMMENTERS AT ATRIOS:

I hope the people who voted for Bush get eight legs, ten arms and brain tumors.
...
The rest of the world should know that we ... will never succomb to the relentless efforts of right-wing extremists who seek to turn the United States of America into a replica of the Third Reich.
...
welcome back to 1923
...
What we have been doing isn’t working, it’s time for a new plan. I bet the Jews and Germans thought they could ride Hitler out, too. You see where that got them.
...
...Chimpy McCokespoon...
...
[Ohio] is just as full of morons as any other, except more so. Fucking ruined my life and my body - hope to be able to kill a few of them before I leave...
...
We are on the path to becoming a fascist state--only revolution or a violent coup will stop it.

Jake,
Why would the gay marriage initiatives drive the homophobic vote any more than the pro-gay-rights vote? Why wasn't that a big plus for the left/Democrats if the electorate is ready to embrace gay marriage?

Snake, that's all very scary. Were any of these people older than, say, 23?

Conservative canuck here. Glad to see the election over with a clear winner. Bravo.

Michele's post has good suggestions. It is hence unfortunate that it is also very disingenuous in its premise: ie. the "Left" is all full of bile, and plotting assasinations and so forth.

You have idiots on both ends - if Kerry won, I'm afraid many of my conservative bretheren on places like LGF would have been just as uncivilized.

Your attempt to use "Left" to represent the fringe is also disingenuous, akin to the attempts up here to tar those on the right during our own recent election so that "conservative" implied a dangerous wild-eyed American nutjob intent on on destroying every great social program built in this country in the last 50 years.

The result of shenanigans like these is that even labelling Kerry a "liberal" was sufficient to be "bad".

These are all unworthy tactics on both sides. Don't use them.

Four years from now, when we have suffered tens of thousands of casualties in Iraq, and everyone knows someone who was killed there....

May be even one of your own kids, their life wasted in this idiotic war-without-end and without purpose....

Four years from now, when Osama bin Laden is still at large, and still threatening us because no one is doing anything about him....

Four years from now when we are in the depths of an economic disaster, with millions unemployed and our best jobs fleeing overseas....

Four years from now when the public school system has been allowed to collapse - yet again - and when most American children have been left behind....

Four years from now when the Republican Party is riven by civil war between the religious fanatics and the Libertarians....

Four years from now when the Democrats come back into power for the next thirty years....

I wonder if you will still be as happy as you are today?

As a Brit coming to this site I have learnt a lot that has made me much happier about this day. Namely, that not all Americans who voted for Bush are crazy and deluded. It's so great to read this respectful debate about how the US should continue. That said, I am not happier about the future of world peace, or even the safety of American citizens - I would expect an even greater resentment now towards the US because Bush is still here. It is heartening to hear that there are many Americans out there who want to work together to make things better, but how are these individuals (collective though they may be) going to do that?

To sum up, things can only get worse.

"This is almost tragically ironic, given that the Bush campaign missed no opportunity to stoke the public's fear."

Actaully, I think Beslan stoked plenty of fear, as did Madrid, Bali, etc... regardless of any state of orange or yellow alerts.

Great post, Michele.

Ive heard a lot of this 'fundamentalists gave Bush the election' nonsense. More than 58 million people voted for GW Bush. For your own good, recognize that. Either Bush was narrowly elected by the mainstream of America, or this country is majority zealot Christian fundamentalist (in which case you are totally screwed anyway, so why bother?).
The single biggest problem with democrats these days is their fundamental misunderstanding of where they stand on the political scale.

-Most American oppose gay marriage (i support it actually). Supporting gay marriage is far out of the mainstream.
-Most Americans support the Patriot Act
-Most Americans want to remain in Iraq until the job is done
-Most Americans oppose tax increases. On anyone.
-Most Americans oppose partial birth abortion.
-Most Americans go to church.

The Democratic leadership doesnt recognize that people that that believe the above arent wildeyed Christian fundamentalists. They in fact are the majority of America. These arent Nascar obsessed, beer swilling, red neck, cross burners! They are the majority of this country. Democrats are going to continue getting creamed until they recognize that and show some respect to these people, even when they disagree with them.

Excellent post, very eloquent.

If I might make a request. Michelle, if you are able to find the time, could you please expound on some specifics to explain your statement "I'd like to see a full stop of the move towards the religious right."

I hear statements like this from many center-right people and am somewhat at a loss to understand its full meaning. I find myself in almost total agreement with what you say until you espouse the denial of the religious right. I am essentially agnostic (lapsed Catholic), but becoming somewhat socially conservative (parenthood is to blame) but I fail to see where the religious right poses any significant cause for concern.

Is your statement simply code for 'reproductive rights' or are there other specific issues you have? What behaviors or legislation do you find troubling? Where have the Republicans attempted to incorporate religion or enforced morality into statute? Is the religious-right simply a lightning rod for any social issue on which you fall left of center (e.g. gay marriage - which was defeated in 11 of 11 states yesterday)?

Because your words seem to be an echo of much of what I beleive I truly am interested in your perceptions on this issue and hope you are able to share some of your thoughts.

"Hey -- I'll make conciliatory comments (at a moment of complete triumph) and declare that my reasonable-sounding words are representative of all the rhetoric on my side, and I'll cherry-pick the worst comments from the other side in the immediate aftermath of their bitter defeat and declare that they're equally representative! Isn't that clever of me?"

Michele,

First off, congratulations to Bush. I voted for Kerry, and to be honest, it was mostly because I did not want Bush for another four years. But he has won again, and will give him the benefit of the doubt again as I did in 2000.

What I read above though, is something that applies to both sides. Both sides have become fanatical and irrational. It's impossible to have a discussion anymore between republicans and democrats. One thing is for sure -- this country is more divided now than it has been for probably 30 years.

This is not a good thing. Especially when we're at war, when we're under terrorist threats, we need to be united. Hopefully Bush, can spend some time unifying the nation this time around.

"I do not spend my days watching cars race around a track, drinking cheap beer and slapping my woman on the ass."

Not that there is anything wrong with that (assuming she is agreeable).

Great post. I concur.

I've actually gotten a couple of nice, magnanimous emails from frequent liberal readers at my blog. Not everybody is a moonbat, thankfully.

James Hoover,

Stop being such a Pollyanna!

If folks think Pres. Bush will move
towards the center in a 2nd term,
they've not been paying very good
attention.

He will stay on the right, and
concentrate on growing the base.

It's a strategy that worked
last night, and will work so long
as Democrats have no idea what
is going on in red-state-of-mind
America.

Stan

Well rest easy Bostonian as taxpayer dollars make up about 2% of NPR's annual budget and that's through competitive grants.

Anyway, good post Michelle. I'm disturbed that both parties played to their base so hard this year. It was sad because some conservative principal were appealing to me, namely smaller government and less taxes, but I was appalled by the social stances. On the other hand as much as I hated Bush's policies, I refused to fall into hatred of the man. So where was I to go? I was kind of lost out there and decided that neither candidate was right for me.

I dread 2008. Please, you moderate republicans and democrats out there, do me and other folks in limbo a favor and do your best to promote candidates that will not cater to all the hatred. We're going to need each other and real leadership if we are to make America a better place. Someone who is out on the campaign trail to discuss solutions to our problems and not just finding ways to win.

So, Mr. Hoover. Your party's best hope is death, poverty, and fascism for the American people. Sure you don't want to rethink your affiliation?

"I voted for George Bush.
I am not a redneck.
I do not spend my days watching cars race around a track, drinking cheap beer and slapping my woman on the ass.
I am not a bible thumper. In fact, I am an atheist.
I am not a homophobe.
I am educated beyond the fifth grade. In fact, I am college educated.
I am not stupid. Not by any stretch of facts.
I do not bomb abortion clinics."

Unfortunately, you voted for someone who does fit many of these categories (or at least pretends to)! So say what you will about yourself -- your vote speaks for you.

If the Democrats want to win in 2008, put Zell Miller at the top of the ticket.

I began this year as a moderate Democrat of fairly long standing. I voted, without hesitation or reservation, for Bush. By giving the party leadership to the far left fringe, my party lost me. I have reregistered as "unaffiliated" and will not support the Democratic party again until they can show me that saner heads are prevailing. Daschle's ouster is a step in the right direction, but they have a long way to go.

It means the same things for us moderate Republicans. Maybe in this time we can produce a candidate who doesn't alienate the social liberal in us, yet speaks to our concerns about defense, security and the war on terror. I am not completely enamored with the Republican Party. There's a lot of work to be done within the ranks. I'd like to see a full stop of the move towards the religious right.

Uh, what force is supposed to make this happen? A case could be made that's it the move towards the religious right that brought the victories. Where's the incentive to change?

Look, some of the remarks directed against practicing Christians here are quite ridiculous. I'm a practicing Catholic, which means I'm against abortion and so-called gay-marriage, and in general the culture of hedonism and death that is currently the philosophy of the classy elite of Hollywood.

I think Bush hit the right tone when he said that reasonable people can find common ground on these matters. The Republican party will NEVER stand for abortion-on-demand. People in Ohio voting on "moral issues" made up 25% of the electorate, which was the #1 issue for them.

The secular moderate Republicans have to get over their fear of people who practice religion. Democrats will always be reactionaries, I'm afraid, when it comes to religion. These are serious moral issues, but smearing Christians as "fundamentalists" akin to the Islamic radicals who practice terror is a stupid tactic that will get you nowhere. Learn to understand the religious right before you bash it.

Nice post Michele, but...

"may I then ask why you voted for a canidate who represents the opposite of what you wrote above? "bible thumping, homophobes who would like to bomb abortion clincs" are the base of the man whose election you celebrate..."

"But even moreso, I'm angry with the Republican Party for selling its soul to the the Christian fundamentalists. Whether Islamic or Christian or Hindu or Zoroastrian, fundamentalism is bad. Period."

...apparently there is alot more work to do.

Many on the left are convinced that anyone voting for Bush are gay-bashing, abortion clinic bombing fascists, and anyone whose faith goes beyond a label are religious fanatics equivalent to mass murdering, fascist terrorists. No DOUBT! WORD!

And they talk about the right being fundamentalist in thought?


How do we build the bridge that's needed?

I strongly feel that Bush is a divider. That our country is more divided now than at any time in my life (and that's slightly shorter than yours, Michele).

I hung out in the TCP chat room last night and watched the "moderate Republicans" blasting anybody who disagreed with them.

I watched the vitriol being foisted upon our voters as campaign ads by BOTH sides this year.

I've seen the us vs. them rhetoric on TV - both in news/talk shows and in regular programming.

For a brief month or two after 9/11, this country truly came together in a big group hug. I could see it at work, on TV, and even in traffic (drivers were more courteous for a while). With the runup to Iraq, that ended.

How do we get back that sense of patriotism and unity?

Bush could do it, and some have talked about him becoming more moderate in his 2nd term. I just don't see it happening, though.

I fear that when the division gets to a peak, the civil rights riots of the 1960's are gonna look tame by comparison.

" strongly feel that Bush is a divider. That our country is more divided now than at any time in my life"

...and posting crap like this is part of your solution to bring people together?

I agree with the gist of what you wrote. I think one of the problem in our society is that when someone challenges our cherished beliefs, we tend to conclude that the person is dumb, has not considered the facts or worse, manipulated them, or is acting out of ulterior motives. Thus, some who opposed the war in Iraq concluded that Bush must be ignorant, that he lied and/or that he was acting to serve the interests of his oil buddies. But how do they explain Tony Blair, who is one of the most thoughtful and articulate world leaders and who took tremendous political risk to do what he thought was right in Iraq and joined forces with President Bush. It is, of course, easy for both the right and the left to find straw men, intellectually lazy, dishonest and careless people who support their opponent’s positions. But the fact of the matter is honest and careful thinkers can be found on both sides of all the issues that deeply divide us. People have different worldviews and when we start listening with respect to opposing views, our divisions will not be as deep.

There are sane people on the Left. Statistically speaking, there has to be.

But we see the conspiarcy rants beginning already.

Bush won the EC and the popular vote: Whatchya gonna do!

Kerry conceding actually gained a tiny bit of respect for him from me. Although it appears his running mate seems to be suffering from Deanscreamitis

Enjoyable post, always nice to hear outspoken members of the moderates from either side.

Do you really percieve such a disparity in rancor between the sides? Here in Boston, I don't really see it amongst my conservative friends, nor my friends elsewhere.

Two asides:

I am pretty miffed that Kerry lost, but I'm not in a leftist bezerker rage.

When I voted in the primaries, I was the 40th voter at two o'clock in the afternoon. Yesterday at eight in the morning I was around number 250. It was good to see.

'" strongly feel that Bush is a divider. That our country is more divided now than at any time in my life"

...and posting crap like this is part of your solution to bring people together?'

It's called exposition. Stating the problem. I get to have an opinion, and I've stated it reasonably here (and therefore Michele is likely to allow it to remain).

I didn't call Bush the name of a fascist genocidal dictator. I didn't imply negative motives at all. What I stated was that I felt (my emotion and opinion) that Bush is divisive.

Your kneejerk reaction to any criticism of Bush is a symptom of the division. We have no hope at all if our conversations turn to accusations that quickly.

Well, yes but ...

Some of the anger on the left comes from the sense of having been cheated in 2000 by an electoral college that rendered the votes of the majority meaningless. That is not fantasies of illegitimacy. It is a simple fact, Bush did not win the vote in 2000, he won the electors and the court fight. Yes, that is the system, but had it turned out the other way this time around (or last), can you imagine the party of Tom DeLay would have let it go by without a fight, and a vicious one at that? Please don't pretend that the left is the only resevior of bile.

Bush won undeniably this time, and for that, I am disappointed and sad.

This president governs from well to the right of both the Democrats and the moderate Republicans. How much farther right will the politics have to move before the moderates of the GOP get that they are also on the outside and stop going along?

Can I ask one question about the campaign ads thing? How would you react to the fact that the Bush administration ran some of the worst offending ads. You don't have to trust me, just take a look at www.factcheck.org.

Basically, this campaign just further proves that you don't need to tell the truth to win. In fact, it seems like the worse offender will win.

This is unique, it worked for Bush in 200 too (see McCain) and for other since then too.

Just wondering.

"Your kneejerk reaction to any criticism of Bush is a symptom of the division."

Hey, I just asked a question.

You are part of the problem.

Grow up.

Apparently James Hoover, like Treacher, can no longer afford the premiums on his falling sky insurance ;) (I love Treacher)

I've promised my gay friends that I'll hide them in my attic when the ministers come looking for them, and I've started a vegetable garden out back to get my family through the economic crash, and my 3 year old is already starting to read so I'll just let my husband handle the math lessons.

But what to do to defend ourselves in the civil war? Oh wait - that's right! I'm in Texas! We have guns!

There are extremists in every bunch. How are we supposed to take the "burn the Christians" attitude that pops up everywhere, even among "moderates?" We are not going to be a theocracy, and no one is going to be giving abortionists the death penalty. Get real. Do not forget that even the "right" to use birth control is only as old as many of us around (look up Griswold vs. Connecticut), and Roe v. Wade was in the early 70's. Abortion has been around since the beginning of time, but why can't a reasonable person wonder why people aren't upset about the incredible number of abortions every year? Whatever a person's stand is, those could have been other people walking beside us on this rock.

There are obviously many "socially liberal" people who have a yearning for some sort of blanket agenda in the form of "gay rights." The idea of homosexuals "marrying" each other as an accepted and revered practice in general society is quite new to the world. This has been fairly true across the board in the entire history of man, though surely there have been exceptions. Look very carefully at the outcomes of referendums on the subject. The public has spoken, and the ratios are very telling. America is not ready for such a drastic change. Call them Neanderthals or whatever, but it is not just a fundamentalist fervor which drove that vote. There are not that many people in this nation whom you could honestly label "fundamentalist Christians." It increasingly seems that all religious people are being held up as dangerous...But maybe if you round them up into stadiums across the land, and borrow a couple of cats from the city zoos, you could have some real fun and be rid of what you see as a real problem with our nation.

There are divisions in America. We are not going to agree on everything, and some of these are really tough questions. Religion informs the concience of many, as does any philosophy (or even lack of religious belief.)

It seems we should beware the candidate who does appeal to all, for that is truly impossible. That would be the candidate of no conviction.

The only thing apparent from the all the comments on this thread is that we cant even agree to respect each others opinions.

Bostonian,

Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn ...? Alan Keyes ...? Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell ...? Karl Rove's contention (which was proved) that Bush needed to bring more evangelicals to the polls to win ...? that fact that the leading issue for voters was not Iraq or terror, but "moral values" C'mon, don't delude yourself ...

Drivel,

Obviously the majority of Americans are afraid of the bogey-man of gay marriage, and even "civil unions" merely giving legal protection to relationships(which these measures also ban). But that merely proves that a majority of Americans are homophobic - and the Republicans were wise (politically) to play upon this fact ...

Nobody has managed to answer my question about why there's an especial fear RIGHT NOW about this country's turning into a theocracy.

(And Collin, please read the Constitution and learn how we elect our president. It ain't perfect, but it's been that way for two centuries.)

How long can you ignore the desires of the religious-right? Aren't you afraid that someday the bill will be due? How long can you dupe them into giving you tax cuts and round-filing government services while you do nothing to advance their agenda? Will the suspicion ever arise in your mind that they are just playing to your weaknesses to get their way? When will they decide to bomb your clinics and shoot your doctors? All the guns in Texas will not save you and reason will not prevail. What rough beast is slouching toward your Bethlehem?

Val,

I think that many people have been civil and respectful here, don't let the actions of a few taint your views of the whole.

Jake,

I too was surprised at the gay marriage bans. I did not expect them all to pass, some overwhelmingly. I'm disappointed at some of the hatred this has brought out in the extremes.

Homophobic, however, is I think too strong a word for many of those who voted for it. I think they voted more out of preserving their institutions than hatred of gays. I'm not saying they love them or anything, but just that the moderates are not getting the crosses ready for gay burning.

Personally, I don't want to unite with people who think that my vote means I am a Nazi - wannabee, and will gladly destroy my property to prove it.

I didn't write down the exact numbers, but the exit polls showed something like 22% of the electorate saying that morality was their most critical issue. We're at war with the terrorists, the economy is in the crapper, and 22% of the voters are most worried about morality. The only possible conclusion to draw from that statistic is they're worried about enforcing their morality on everyone else - otherwise there would be no reason to mention morality in relation to general public policy.

Of that 22% who are so worried about our morals, something like 85% - 90% of them voted for Bush.

The Republican Party's historical constituency was not large enough to allow them to take power in a sustained, major way. By pandering to fundamentalists or evangelicals or whatever else you want to call them, they enlarged their base to the point that simply turning out the base is enough for them to win.

The second Bush term will be the time the bill comes due. These evangelicals want ALL abortion outlawed, because it is evil. They want teachers leading students in Christian prayers in our public schools, because secularism is the tool of the devil. They want to strip gay people of any and all rights, because they believe that gays are agents of evil. The primary battleground will almost certainly be Supreme Court nominations.

If Bush and the Republicans fail to deliver on their promises to these fundamentalists, there will be a bloodbath within the Republican Party. Having cemented their power, they have no real choice but to try to enact the fundamentalist agenda. Some of them are fundamentalists themselves - like I mentioned earlier, Tom Coburn is on the record supporting the death penalty for anyone who performs an abortion. My hope for the future is that as more people begin to see the reality of the fundamentalist agenda being enacted, a lot of the people who AREN'T fundamentalists who have been supporters of Bush and the Republicans will begin to have second thoughts.

The Republicans have painted themselves into a corner. Any attempt at a meaningful armistice with the Democrats would generate a civil war within their own party - I just don't see how they can possibly move to the center at this point.

Mark: "I strongly feel that Bush is a divider... I hung out in the TCP chat room last night and watched the "moderate Republicans" blasting anybody who disagreed with them."

So you think that if Bush were a different kind of president, those people at TCP would have been friendlier in their disagreement?

I hate to tell you, but GWB does not have that kind of influence. No president does. No president should.

Political discourse has a long, long history of bitter & angry words. This is a feature of human nature.

The conservatives that are ascendant in the GOP have a word for moderate Republicans such as you and me. That word is "squish." And we are told -- with contempt -- that we are free to vote for the candidates selected by the conservatives, or stay home, or join the opposition, but that we should expect NOTHING in the way of accommodation.

To paraphrase Grover Norquist's quip about bipartisanship with the Democrats, another term for "moderate Republican" is date rape.

So ... the GOP's moderates are being given a choice of walking the plank or drinking the Kool Aid, with no in-between. Can any of us really pretend that things are otherwise? And if we do, aren't we deluding ourselves to think that the party still cares about, say, fiscal conservatism, or a big tent position on abortion rights?

After watching the GOP become radicalized in the last two states I have lived in -- Virginia and now Colorado -- I think that I need to face facts, and call myself a moderate without a party. Ergo, an independent. And I will vote accordingly, for the party that most closely approximates my views.

-- Bokonon

good luck saving your party from the religious right. who do you think delivered the election for Bush, at the same time electing two of the most homophobic politicians in the country as senators? expect more of the same. the rest of this is just sanctimonious cant. we don't need advice from faux moderates like you, so thanks but no thanks.

Hey Dems --

We Repubs can handle our own Party. But thanks for the input!

So why you start worrying about putting YOUR house in order? Shouldn't you be bitching over at Atrios and Michael Moore's blog?

Congratulations from a Canadian friend on a spectacular voter turnout. I secretly envy the passion and clamour of the American electoral process (well, I guess it's not a secret anymore :-)

I can only hope that Michelle's level-headedness prevails as the norm over the next four years. Please don't fight each other just when you've got Bin Laden in a corner!

We, the patriotic American people, won the election yesterday and defeated the treasonous John Kerry despite the most fervent, unethical, illegitimate, and illegal efforts of all of you, and leftist academics, limousine liberals, Hollywood traitors, politically-ambitious lefty generals, the ACLU, socialst crazies, and other America-haters. Now shut the f*** up and let the PEOPLE run the government without being lectured by the likes of you whiners.

For your information, I have arranged a wide selection of non-stop flights to Paris, Pyongyang, Tehran, Moscow, Berlin, Madrid, Mexico City, Ottawa, Hanoi, Havana and the other locales you favor, where the uneducated, uncultured, unsophisticated, flag-waving, gun-toting, Bible-clutching rubes that refused to listen to your considered wisdom cannot be found.

Please leave at your earliest convenience.

(Source.)

Yeah, the left really has a monopoly on irrational, hate-filled outrage, doesn't it?

"Yeah, the left really has a monopoly on irrational, hate-filled outrage, doesn't it?"

Yes and you are the proof.

Bokonon, the contempt I hear comes from the left, not from the right. And there is so much of it.

Jake, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and their ilk are on the margins. Feel free to cling to your caricatures, though.

On the moral values question, that question might have meant something different to the recipients than it did to the questioners. I wonder how many people who answered that were thinking to themselves about how very deeply dishonorable John Forbes Kerry has been.

uneducated, uncultured, unsophisticated, flag-waving, gun-toting, Bible-clutching rubes

uneducated, uncultured, unsophisticated, flag-waving, gun-toting, Bible-clutching rubes

uneducated, uncultured, unsophisticated, flag-waving, gun-toting, Bible-clutching rubes

Yes - FEEL the love and unity from the Left! FEEL IT!

Excellent post Michele, but for the "I'd like to see a full stop of the move towards the religious right" part. I subscribe to Ann Coulter's belief that the "religious right" must be anyone who goes to church and wants his/her taxes to be lower. (And I urge everyone to please read her "religious right" chapter in SLANDER for more about the incapability of defining this all-powerful, yet simultaneously fringe entity.)

I'm a practicing Catholic. By that I mean I support the Republican party's position on abortion and I support the Democratic party's stance on capital punishment.

As it happens, there is a complex system of appeals and requests for clemency in place to protect most of death row - but no one to protect the unborn. Since the vast majority of abortion foes understand that killing doctors and blowing up clinics is as evil as any cold-blooded murder, our only logical recourse is to vote our consciences... and to pray. So for now, I vote Republican. Maybe that will change in time.

Less than 150 years ago, the buying and selling of human beings into forced servitude was fully legal, and a majority saw no reason to change things. Today we are enlightened enough to recognize that as barbaric. Maybe 150 years from now - hopefully less - human beings will come to believe that the willful taking of a human life in any form is also barbaric.

I'm sorry the radicals on the left targeted you this morning, Michele. But take comfort in this -- the radicals on the left have nothing better to do. The radicals on the right, on the other hand, are remaining in the White House, where they're free to do a lot more damage.

I'm making a list of who Bush beat to win: The angry, paranoid left, epitomized by the Michael Moore-Howard Dean-Moveon.org wing which now dominates the Democratic party and is bankrolled by George Soros and the limousine liberals on both coasts. The major news media -- NY Times, the networks (Rather, Brokow, Jennings, Brown-Blitzer, the egregious blowhard Chris Mathews), NPR, MTV and the "youth vote," Jon Stewart, Al Franken and all the other smarty-pants comedians and commentators. Hollywood, including Barbra, Sean Penn, Warren Beatty, Susan Sarandon, Rosie, Cher, Ben, and a cast of thousands. Feminists. The gays and their agenda. The professoriat. The secular humanists. The greedy trial lawyers. Bill and Hillary. Jesse, Rev. Al, Julian Bond and the other race hustlers. The UN. Old Europe -- Chirac, Schroeder and the Belgium bureaucracy. Our own Foggy Bottom. New York, Boston and San Francisco and lesser elitist groupings such as Berkeley and Madison. What am I leaving out?

Adam, homophobic is indeed a harse word, as it should be, just like "racist". People must be very insecure their own skin if they feel even giving gay relationships the same legal rights as their own - because thats what this issue is about, legal rights. Is it just me or are the social issues of the left about giving people the FREEDOM to do something, while the right's social issues focus on BANNING people from doing things? What are people afraid of ...? And why is it all the moderate republicans on this site cannot see that the Republican party they grew up with is ever rapidly disapearing? This is not even the party of George Bush I ...

Bostonian,

I have read it, thank you.

I think the electoral college is an unfortunate aspect of our system. It permits the electorate's votes to be countermanded, as occurred in 2000, and (IMO) it skews the debate prior to the election to a limited range of states and the issues that play in those states.

That something is in the Constitution does not put it off limits to consideration and debate.

Bostonian,
why did you leave out excuses for Jim Demint and Tom Coburn - the new Republican SENATORS from South Carolina and Oklahoma - do they also represent the fringes? Does the Republican party of Illnois (which handpicked Alan Keyes) also represent the fringe? What about the republican party holders in Kentucky who began calling Sen Bunning's opponent "limp-wristed" and "barely a man" when the campaign got close? And what did Kerry do that was so dishonerable other than question whether Bush was the best man for the job and talk about specific areas where he felt he would perfom better than the president?

Bostonian --

By your name, I take it you live in Massachusetts. I used to live there too. In fact, it is the state I lived in when I became disgusted with the Democrats, and swapped parties. And yes... the left in that state can be insufferable.

But -- it means different things to be a Republican outside the northeast. Take my word for it.

When you find yourself sitting at a table with a group of activists talking earnestly about whether or not it is OK to kill doctors and nurses who perform abortions, as I once did, then you realize that there are STRONG regional differences.

Things have gotten pretty scary in the south and in the west. I don't belong.

-- Bokonon

Ah, the wisdom we see here. MikeR may have provided the key to understanding: "morality" is not important to some, while it is to others!

OK. Let's see...lying, stealing, murder and crimes in general are committed out of a lack of certain moralities in combination with certain motives. Society usually has a problem with people who lack those moralities and act out thusly.

Sexual moralities are of a much more personal nature, and used to be quite private. Babies still come from intercourse between men and women, but that outcome can be contolled or reversed. When a child does come into the world, it has long-term varying needs which must be met in order for it to survive. If the parents are not willing or able to provide for these needs, society intervenes in the form of governmental regulations and programs or private charities. Hence, society has a direct interest in the birth of a child as a result of a natural or technological sexual union. People who procreate and abandon any of their parental responsibilities create a burden for the rest of society.

Not everyone sees the choice to terminate a pregnancy as one which only affects the prospective mother. Some find all lives to be equal.

Some feel a lack of certain moralities to be detrimental to society in general. Kids (who grow to be adults, you know) cheat in classes, and later on their jobs, or even decide they don't have to honor their debts. None of these are "victimless" crimes. We all pay higher prices for goods because of theft (shoplifting and employee fraud) and the well-publicized financial scandles which defrauded hard-working people and sank whole companies are large-scale examples of immorality. What of spouses who cheat? What happens to their families? How many victims are there?

So does morality matter? Maybe your personal answer is "no". Society has always had rules, though, and many of those rules enforce certain moralities. If a person lacks those particular morals, they won't like the rules. Many of these rules have been around in one form or another since civilization began, it's just that we keep getting new people.

I agree with Michelle. I expect crazy rhetoric from the far left, communists, anarchists, etc., but not from a major political party. There's normal political rhetoric like "Kerry's a phoney," or "Bush doesn't care about the unemployed," but then there's the comparisons to Hitler and Big Brother that reflect a loss of perspective. One gets the impression that Democrats think they have a right to rule the country just because they're more enlightened than the rest of us. They don't seem to recognize that that is a subjective judgment. They should remember what happened to the Federalist party when it descended into bitterness at the way politics had developed.

Politics is all about salesmanship. The customers are always right, if you're a political party.

All you dem and LLL posters out there with your continuing demonization of GWB, I have a suggestion for you. When you come out of the woodshed with the support of Zell Miller, Ed Koch, Roger L. Simon, Joe Lieberman and the host of of lifelong democrats who left your party this year, you won't have to blame the republican right wing for your defeat. You will be winners again. You will be on your way back as a major opposition party. As a lifelong republican, we need your party back.

As long as you cling to the Michael Moores, Al Sharptons, Al Franken's Bill Mahers, Al Gores, George Soros', Kos, Moveon.org,and the fruitcakes of Hollywood, you are doomed.

You don't have to look around to find someone else to blame, you only need to look in the mirror.

Mark: For a brief month or two after 9/11, this country truly came together in a big group hug. I could see it at work, on TV, and even in traffic (drivers were more courteous for a while). With the runup to Iraq, that ended.

How do we get back that sense of patriotism and unity?

For one thing, 'we' recognize that it wasn't a 'group hug', but a national sense of outrage. Everyone forgot, for a while, that those poor terrorists were 'forced into it', and probably just misunderstood; and remembered that 'our country' had been viciously attacked.
Unfortunately, many folk soon went back to business as usual, hugging thugs of all stripes; to include the mass-murderers who brought us that crater in lower Manhattan.

That's what you have to 'get past'. You figure out how.

Oh, and hmmm? Please don't tell me anyone takes 'factcheck' seriously.

I followed a link here, and I'm so glad to see more calls for moderation and tolerance. I am a very moderate Republican, or a very moderate Democrat... which usually seems to land me in the Libertarian wing.

I've seen way too many of my friends who write online bemoaning the results, fearing evil, talking of moving to Canada. And I fear the hate more than I fear the results. How can we have anything but hate when people insist on propagating it and feeding on the fears?

It's been the people who voted for Bush who have been the more moderate. Perhaps it's because they won. Or perhaps they're hoping to find perspective. The people I know who voted for Bush are all quite moderate.

I'm hoping that Kerry's very gracious concession speech can be a springboard for cooperation. We can always hope, can't we? And perhaps both sides will have better candidates the next election, so we can find someone who is more than a protest vote.

With the obvious disgust or hatred or dislike (or choose your term) of members of the Christian faith as evidenced by both sides in this thread, what on Earth do you want to do with them? The implication is not very friendly.

If Christianity makes one an idiot, which apparently is what the left and atheist right think, what part do these "idiots" have at the table? At what point does one become a bible-thumper, at the point of owning one?

So much for the preachers (word chosen on purpose) of tolerance and their practice of the same.

To borrow some well thought out words

I voted for John Kerry.
I am not a redneck.
I do not spend my days watching cars race around a track, drinking cheap beer and slapping my woman on the ass.
I am not a bible thumper. In fact, I am spiritual, but not a fan of organized religion.
I am not a homophobe.
I believe gays should have the right to marry
I am educated beyond the fifth grade. In fact, I am college educated, and have an advanced degree.
I am not stupid. Not by any stretch of facts.
I do not bomb abortion clinics.

I voted for moral reasons...
I believe we should not promote war
There should be a strong seperation of church and state.
The environment should be protected
That we should not adopt the morals of large corperations.

MikeR (and others), you have not understood the import of Michele's post. The "base" which put Bush into office isn't the religious right, it's Michele (and me, and millions of others). The religious right is Bush's "base" only insofar as they have nowhere else to go, no candidate to the right to vote for (except, maybe, Pat Buchanan).

Furthermore, I had to laugh at this:
jake writes:
And why is it all the moderate republicans on this site cannot see that the Republican party they grew up with is ever rapidly disapearing?

The Republican Party I grew up with was much more in the pocket of the religious right than it is today. Back in the '80s, I was much more worried about the impact of religion in politics. And even then I wasn't as deluded as MikeR is, worried about the religious police lurking behind every Bush.

I've thought about more, Michele, and I think I can answer you when you ask "Anger? Hate?" No. It's fear.

Your post is nice and amusing, but it didn't calm my fear. Maybe if we'd just elected YOU it would, but we didn't elect you.

Hate? To my moderate ears, I hear more of that from the right. We're told by many (including some of this thread) that you can't be Christian and pro-choice, that questioning whether a war in Iraq is the best course against terrorism is unpatriotic, that the most educated people in this country are just a bunch of elitists and that their views mean nothing.

The fear you hear from the left (and I mean the rational left, not the boogeymen who are being caricatured here) is that we're going to see more restrictions on civil liberties, a more invasive government, more dismissal of scientific consensus and, worst of all, a foreign policy that seems devised to bring some twisted version of the book of Revelation into reality in our lifetimes.

I think -- and I hope -- that I've overstated it here. But a very telling statistic from the election is that the areas directly hit on 9/11 voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. What does that tell you?

As for me, I'll just hug my little boy a little longer tonight.

Angie --

I like your post, though I only half-agree with it. I can understand why you and Michele voted the way you did, but I'm a little confused as to why your (well, her) celebrations are as emphatic as they are.

But you've succeeded in reassuring everyone that the moderate wing of the GOP will only cut the Christian right so much slack. (Disclaimer: This is not an attack on Christianity -- only the "Christian right" and its faulty interpretation of Christianity. Come on, folks, don't be so quick to claim martyr status.)

And there are a lot of you in the Senate, plus a handful in the House and a lot of governors. Now can we get a few of you in the president's inner circle?

So let me get this straight...

Democrats are mad that Bush will actually enact the polices that a majority of Americans elected him to do??

Did I get this right?

PS: Hey Beau...thank you for keeping your anti-Christian bigotry so out in the open. It only makes it SO much easier for the GOP to keep winning. Please keep up the good work! ;)

Question Mark -- Can I assume you're being sarcastic? I, unlike Michele (and she has every right to think the way she does in this great land of freedom), am a Christian.

Frankly, the fact that my religion is being defined so narrowly worries me more than any election result.

My last post was a little too hasty and probably unfair to Michele. I was trying to make the point that the GOP doesn't speak for all Christians, and Christians don't speak for all Republicans. No offense intended, and I'll slow down now.

MikeR states:

The second Bush term will be the time the bill comes due. These evangelicals want ALL abortion outlawed, because it is evil. They want teachers leading students in Christian prayers in our public schools, because secularism is the tool of the devil. They want to strip gay people of any and all rights, because they believe that gays are agents of evil. The primary battleground will almost certainly be Supreme Court nominations.

I suspect MikeR is correct. I'm a Southern Baptist is a very conservative portion of a red state and I've seen some very disturbing trends.

For instance, our pastor stood up in the pulpit on the Sunday before the election and preached an impassioned sermon about how true Christians should confide in and lean on each other for support. How we can only bring the Gospel to others if we believe it and practice it ourselves. But I just knew he meant "kill the fags".

A day earlier, 250 members of our congregation spent most of the day performing community service projects including installing a wheelchair ramp for a penniless couple, repairing community facilities, visiting the elderly and infirm (as we Taliban-wannabes like to refer to the sick), and sprucing up Main Street. Nobody dare say it aloud but my impression was that we were Potemkinizing the town for an impending visit from our Lord and Savior, George W. Bush. Haven't seen him yet, though. I'll have to ask the pastor about that...

At the beginning of August, our pastor preached a sermon that Christians' actions need to match their words. There was to be a constitutional amendment on our state ballot the next week defining marriage as between one man and one woman and another one to expand legalized gambling. But I knew coughMatthewShepardcough he wasn't referring to us coughMatthewShepardcough exercising our rights as U.S. citizens to vote on these issues coughMatthewShepardcough according to our Christian conscience.

Remember, our democracy is at its finest when its citizens exercise their rights to express their heartfelt convictions at the ballot box.

Except when you're a Christian.

"I voted for George Bush.
I am not a redneck.
I am not a bible thumper.
I am not a homophobe."

Perhaps not, but how do you reconcile voting for a bible-thumping, homophobic redneck?

Just a detached observation:

Many of the self-described moderate Republicans here sound a lot like Libertarians to me.

bsti - thank you for getting Bush elected! Keep up the awsome work. Love, Karl

To borrow some well thought out words

I voted for John Kerry.
I am not a redneck.
I do not spend my days watching cars race around a track, drinking cheap beer and slapping my woman on the ass.
I am not a bible thumper. In fact, I am spiritual, but not a fan of organized religion.
I am not a homophobe.
I believe gays should have the right to marry
I am educated beyond the fifth grade. In fact, I am college educated, and have an advanced degree.
I am not stupid. Not by any stretch of facts.
I do not bomb abortion clinics.

I voted for moral reasons...
I believe we should not promote war
There should be a strong seperation of church and state.
The environment should be protected
That we should not adopt the morals of large corperations.

The majority of americans are not homophobic and the fact that you are willing to state such untruth says a lot about you. It is possible to be for gay rights but against gay marriage.
The majority of americans are also not relgious zealots but that does not mean that they want all mention of god excluded from schools and public buildings.
The electorate on both the right and left is a lot more complex then the extremists of each party give it credit for. Looks at the areas where there is agreement rather than disagreement, ex. partial birth abortion=bad, by a big margin.

Because corperations are all evil, right William?

Wow...are you really surprised you got blown out out of the water?

Thanks for this post. I woke up this morning happy that Bush had won, for basically the same reason as you: I think that terrorism is a genuine threat, not a made-up scare.

I went to breakfast with my relatives, some of whom voted for Kerry. They were reasonable. This was good.

Then I read my friends list on livejournal. I knew most of my friends were voting for Kerry. I knew many of them felt strongly about it.

I did not predict some of the things they said. I did not predict Matt being FURIOUS that people might comment "Umm, Bush isn't that bad, look, he's not doing that, what he's doing is this..." I did not expect Stacey to say that the United States was about to fall into third-world dictatorship status and we'll have to try and float to Canada on innertubes to try and escape. I did not predict virtually everyone I call friend thinking their lives are over because Bush was elected.

I honestly don't know where to go from here.

Probably the finest essay I've seen yet on what this election means to the left. I will say that I think that the author is wasting her time reaching out to most of the bile-spewers, who will take great pleasure in slapping her proferred hand aside. If the Democratic party could reform itself and further marginalize the screaming lefties and tinfoil hat wearers, it would do the nation a lot of good, and pull moderate votes, possibly including mine. But the anarchic, childish, instant gratification, quasireligious tendency of most of the left and its clout with the Democratic base will prevent this.. It cost them this election and will probably cost them more. A responsible opposition is crucial for American democracy to work. We don't have one at this point.

www.postmodernspectator.com

Well said, Michele!

Michelle,

I've been reading your web site for a while, but this is the first time I've commented.

What you wrote was well said. Unfortunately, a lot of people, some of whom have left comments here, didn't understand. There are many people left-of-center who are so focused on their anger that they aren't prepared to listen to reasonable discussion.

For example, if someone disagrees on gay marriage, they're a "homophobe". If they disagree on the war on terror, they must be in the pay of Haliburton. If they go to church, they must be "fundamentalists". To quote an earlier commentator: "But I am not going to sit idly by and watch the Christian right turn this country into a theocracy". Speaking as a conservative, I have to ask: who in the Republican party wants a theocracy? Name a politian who has endorsed this? Only in the demented mind of some lefties does this threat exist.

This is not to smear everyone on the left. Many of them are reasonable people, and some of them commented above. I welcome their discussion, because a democracy needs different perspectives to survive. And, before anyone brings it up, the right is not without blame. We certainly went nuts over Clinton, although not anywhere near as much. For example, I don't remember anyone calling Clinton "Hitler" or "Chimp".

But the people like Michael Moore who have gained prominence on the left have brought rage without reason. And until the left can do what the right did back in the 1950s, expelling the John Birchers and such, there can never be reasoned debate in this country.

Love the web site. And, speaking as someone to the right of you, I think it's okay to be a moderate.

P.S. Saw this elsewhere, but it needs repeating. Now that Kerry isn't going to need his secret plan for Iraq, could he tell us what it is?

Paraphrasing:

I voted for John Kerry. But not in the primaries. In fact I don't know anyone who admits voting for Kerry in the primaries.

I want Fahrenheit 9/11 to win an Oscar but don't know anyone who would rent Fahrenhype 9/11, Stolen Honor or read Dave Kopel's Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11

It's likely that I'm not married or live in a nuclear family, though I can pronounce "nuclear" correctly.

I quote Chomsky and Marx but never heard of Victor Davis Hanson or Paul Johnson.

I think the UN is a force for good.

I prefer Neville Chamberlain to Winston Churchill.

I don't see anything wrong with teaching 11 year olds how to put condoms on bananas.

I fetishize gifts of talent, not the character of those who took what they had and vastly improved on it.

I experience cognative dissonance when listening to John F. Kennedy debate Richard Nixon in 1960 and hear Kennedy go to the right of Nixon on militarily spreading freedom and lowering tax burdens.

I get my values from MTV, Jon Stewart, Michael Moore and can't remember the last time I enjoyed a religious speech or article.

----

Incredible, superior article, Michele. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

MikeR,

Chill out, dude--Bush's (hypothetical) new nominees won't be making abortion illegal, not in your lifetime or mine. At most, what they'll do is return the issue to the states and the people, where it belongs. Then, if the good folks of Oklahoma (through their legislators) wish to treat abortion as a genuine moral equivalent of murder rather than on the level of popping a zit*, then more power to them, I say.

------------

*On further reflection, I'm not sure this is a fair equivalence, as I don't know whether state laws generally require parental permission before a school nurse could pop a student's zit, like the don't require for abortion referrals, so perhaps abortion might currently rate as more trivial than popping a zit. This is certainly its present status vis-a-vis dispensing an aspirin in most places.

As far as Treacher goes, though I recognized the name I had forgotten exactly who he was or where he was coming from. As a result, I was getting pretty steamed as I read his "poetry". Fortunately, the wheelchair bit snapped me out of it and I realized what it was.

paul a'barge,

"The leftist piggies don't deserve their own broadcast networks." Actually, they can have as many as they want, as far as I'm concerned--I just object to paying for them, that's all.

James Hoover,

"Four years from now... when most American children have been left behind". Ah, yes, a reverse-Lake Wobegon: each student is further behind than all the rest.

It means you have a couple of years, max, to come up with a viable candidate who represents the majority of you and doesn't pander to every knock off group of your party. It means you have time to get your act together and decide once and for all what you stand for and produce a leader who will stand up for your ideals. It means you better find a candidate who is someone you can vote for with conscience, and not just vote for out of hatred for his opponent.

You're quite the optimist, michele. They don't seem to be done blaming everyone but themselves just yet. But that's okay, it took the GOP 12 years after Goldwater to find Reagan - and four more years after that to actually nominate him.

Maybe the Dems will pull their heads out of their asses by 2006, but it would be prudent to expect a much longer wait.

So what I gather from this thread is that the sole reason people voted for Bush was to annoy liberal elitists like Michael Moore.

OK, maybe I'm overstating again, but a lot of you seem really obsessed with straw men. Bush wasn't running against Moore, Al Franken or your obnoxious vegan neighbor. He was running against Kerry, who mounted the responsible opposition you all seem to think is nonexistent. He didn't have an extreme left social agenda -- for example, he's lukewarm at best on gay marriage.

Yes, the left is currently personifying its anger, too -- a lot of it directed at Karl Rove. But he's actually in a position of direct power. Doesn't that make a difference?

If it takes Michael Moore being sad to make you happy, well, more power to you. I'm not one to defend him, and I didn't go to his films. But we can only hold elections every so often, so you might want to find some other avenue of enjoyment.

Wonderful post, Michelle. I also love the (temporary?) renaming of your blog.
I grew up in a very Christian household, but have lapsed into an apathetic agnosticism. I have not been to chuch, except to see my son married, for years. I also do not like NASCAR, I don't wear baseball caps (turned either forward or backward) and do not watch TV at all. I prefer to spend my time reading, writing or acting in local theater. I voted for Bush.
My mother is still very religious, in fact, she is a lay minister with her church. She does not like abortion, but would never hurt anyone who pratices it. She is extremely kind, extremely gentle and extremely Christian. She voted for Kerry.
I am sick of all these people, who know nothing about faith, decrying "evil" Christians.
I am also sick of the ones who cry about how we are sliding into a dictatorship. Again, you know nothing about what a dictatorship is. Might I suggest you try going to http://massgraves.info/ to learn a little bit?
While I would love to see someone rebuild a Democratic party that is what it was when Kennedy was President, I cannot imagine that the people who "think' in these ways are capable of building anything, and I will never reach out to them.

Thanks, Steve, for all the flight arrangments! Send me your credit card information so I can arrange the next flight out of here.

Oh, and I'll need two tickets, please. I don't want my illegitimate son to be a drain on your economy.

Just wanted to add to the noise: please note that your post expresses exactly the sentiments of the Democratic base after Clinton was elected to a second term, and again in the midterm elections. Just replace Moore with Limbaugh & the stereotypes with their opposites. Don't think for a moment that the proportions of crazies-to-uncrazies are different for any party, wing, or state. I won't be coming back to your blog.

Michele: God knows I love Lileks, but you tie with him for "best rant" in my book.

And for what it's worth, I do think the Republican party is already moving toward the sort of candidates you are wanting (look at the popularity of Rudy and Arnold). Even better days are ahead for those of us who care about defense and are socially liberal at the same time.

"I won't be coming back to your blog."

You can't see it because you're gone forever, of course, but we're all waving.

Hi, Michele.

I thought I'd make a list, too.

I voted for George Bush.

I am not a redneck, but I do work hard for my living. Sometimes I get sunburned on the back of my neck.

I do not spend my days watching cars race around a track, drinking cheap beer and slapping my woman on the ass. That's because I slap my man on his VERY nice ass, only watch NASCAR once in a while, and drink expensive beer.

I am not a bible thumper. That's because I read my Bible, and I'm a practicing Roman Catholic.

I am not a homophobe.

I do not believe gays should have the right to marry because marriage connotes procreation. And we all know 2 males, or 2 females cannot procreate. Don't we? At least, not without some form of a "middleman".

However, I see no reason why gays shouldn't have survivor rights, usufruct privileges, etc. within the context of civil unions.

I am college educated, and have advanced degrees (a PhD and an M.D., in fact).

I am not stupid. Not by any stretch of facts.

I do not bomb abortion clinics.

I do not approve of partial-birth abortions.

I pray for, and try to give support and solace to, those unfortunate women caught in such a terrible situation that they feel they must consider killing their babies.

I voted for moral reasons...
I believe we should not promote war, but that there comes a time when we must. And I'd prefer we fight in THEIR backyard, not ours. Oh, did I say that I'm in the military? I am.

There should be a separation of church and state.

The environment should be protected, and we are doing that far more today than we ever have in our history. And we will do more and more in every coming day. After all, the ozone hole is smaller!

That we should not adopt the morals of large corporations. And it's a good thing that so many of my friends (good and wonderful and moral people all) work in mid-level to upper-level management, and so can keep cold corporations mindful of the humanity of the employees.

I've yet to hear one word of explanation - here or elsewhere - for Tom Coburn's flat, on-the-record statement that he would support the death penalty for anyone who performs an abortion. I don't care what your pastor is talking about in church - this the sort of person self-identified evangelicals are voting for.

Religion has the power to do a tremendous amount of good in the world, which makes it all the more regrettable that so many religious folk seem to spend so much time trying to control - at the point of a sword - the behavior of others who do not believe as they do.

Beau, no, no, no.
I didn't vote for Bush to spite Michael Moore. I voted for Bush because I thought he's right for the job.

Michael Moore comes into the picture as one of the forces driving me away from the Democratic party. The fact that such an extremist demagogue is apparently considered respectable by ordinary Democrats is a strong reason why I cannot vote for Democrats any more, despite doing so for more than 15 years.

MikeR, do you truly not understand that dangerous, irrational faith can take secular forms as well?

By simply holding religion at arm's length, you are not insulating yourself from extremism, not at all.

Moreover, the US has been around for 200 years. Why would the danger of becoming a theocracy be greater now than in the past, when a larger fraction was more regularly church-going? Why has the US not already become a Christian theocracy?

Moderate Republicans who voted for Bush stand shoulder to shoulder, whether they intend to or not, with the right wing extremists that we on the left have serious problems with.

What's moderate about barring American citizens from their President's rallies during an election? What's moderate about invading a country on patently false evidence and then shifting the motivation over and over? What's moderate about a President who's run up the largest deficit in history?

But why bother? You seem to be able to swallow all this whole. Your bigger problem seems to be with those who point these facts out. When we get upset about your refusal to look reality in the face, you consider us extreme. And after the lies and slander and bigotry that found a warm welcome in the President's campaign and ground strategy, you accuse US of running the negative bile-filled campaign.

I don't think you're being very honest with us, or yourself, if you'll pardon my saying so.

The people with whom you have cast your vote prefer religious ideology to democracy. That is fundamentally un-American, and no amount of parsing can make it so. We The People are supposed to be in charge here.

You can call me all the names you want, you can say this is "bile" and negativity because I don't agree with you.

I find it interesting, though, that someone who expresses such concern for moderation and intellectual civility voted to support a man who is opposed to both concepts.

I'm glad that "You will not live in fear."

I can think of some people who's country has been invaded by a militant aggressor (without UN sanctions). Over 100,000 of their civilians have apparently died as collateral damage (in addition to military casualties). Their citizens have nothing to do with international terrorism. They are just dirt poor and they have to live in fear.

And now will continue to do so.

From beau:
OK, maybe I'm overstating again, but a lot of you seem really obsessed with straw men. Bush wasn't running against Moore, Al Franken or your obnoxious vegan neighbor. He was running against Kerry, who mounted the responsible opposition you all seem to think is nonexistent. He didn't have an extreme left social agenda -- for example, he's lukewarm at best on gay marriage.

... responsible opposition? Now endless repetitions of 'I have a plan', without ever letting out any details thereof is 'responsible opposition'?
Uhh,,, okay. He doesn't have an agenda, period! He says what he thinks people want to hear, but publicly espouses so many opposing viewpoints that I no longer believe he even knows what he's trying to accomplish... beyond getting in that office, that is.

Yes, the left is currently personifying its anger, too -- a lot of it directed at Karl Rove. But he's actually in a position of direct power. Doesn't that make a difference?

Got it. It's okay for you to hate the guy who isn't running, as long as he stumps for the opposition, but if the other guy does it, he's disingenuous. Thanks for clearing up that little misunderstanding regarding the potential double standard of the further left.

Michele,

I read this early this morning,it hit the mark on what the democrats really need to do, in order to become viable. I wish they would ask how they could come 'so close' twice in a row, but most seem determined to attack the victor instead, or anyone they deem their surrogates.

Beautiful post!

The only weakness in your analysis was to disparage the religious right. They were the shock troops that produced the victory yesterday. The key is for them to understand that they won't get everything, and for the rest of us to understand that they must get something. If we can't do that, then we are going to eventually end up with a Nader problem, a disontented flank that alternately abandons us and pulls us off the map.

Bostonian -

Fair enough, but then can you blame those who won't vote for Republicans as long as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are around? At least Moore does some research along with his vitriol. There's no shortage of cranks on either side.

Beshado'd -- Do you honestly not see a difference between Rove and Moore, Franken or your obnoxious neighbor?

Bostonian - Of course I understand that zealotry has non-religious forms. I wouldn't trust Michael Moore to have power over me any more than I would Jerry Falwell. However, Michael Moore hasn't been elected to any public office that I'm aware of, and he has no direct political power.

Tom Coburn, on the other hand, is a shining new star in the Republican Senatorial collection. There are few things more dangerous than someone who believes that his/her actions have divine sanction and who also possesses enormous power over the lives of others.

There's simply no denying the fact that a large percentage of the killing and mayhem that's occurred throughout human history has been based in religious conflict.

Well said Michele. I also voted for George Bush but I don't like the movement of the party towards the religious right.

Bush's sad devotion to that ancient religion hasn't helped him conjure up the WMD or given him clairvoyance enough to find Osama Bin ... * COUGH CHOKE *

Over 100,000 of their civilians have apparently fictitiously died as collateral damage (in addition to military casualties).

The actual civilian casualty rate in Iraq, Diogenesnz, is about a tenth of that. A great number of those casualties have been inflicted by Saddam's army or the remaining insurgents. Nice try though, thanks for playing!

I am a moderately religious Christian, neither born-again nor fundamentalist. But I tend to agree with a lot of that group's desired social policies, such as restricting abortion and keeping strict drug laws in place.

So let's not characterize conservative social policies as the sole province of the religious right, Michele (and others). There are plenty of us on the right who support these policies because they represent the society we wish to live in.

After reviewing the reaction on the left today, I fully expect them to continue stepping on the rake and whacking themselves in the head.

"We have the future."

Not any more. The evangelicals will make sure of that, and thanks for helping them reach their goal.

brah-voe.

michele
although i feel like something of your soul sister in other matters
on the subject of george bush
i have been a polar opposite to you
and yet
like you i detest the crap going on right now
i may have to re-do the entire way i allow comments on my site
because of some ignorant hyper conservative idiots
who think
that because i oppose george bush
i will be sent to hell
this kind of crapola
doesn't benefit either side
and i truly do hope it falls to the way side so that intelligent
people can talk
from both sides
i am sad today that george bush won
i fear that in 4 years he will destroy
decades of work in the gay rights movement
i feel in four years
he will destroy decades of work
towards a woman having the right to govern her own body
and i feel he will further damage our very ailing economy
i am horrified that he moved so very far to the right
and that his super conservative christian values were so applauded
i do not feel that the president of the united states should put his religion
on our backs
that is not what this country is about
but
alas
he did win
and i can only hope that in the next 4 years
the democrats bring up a stronger candidate
and that in the next four years
the republicans stop this horrible pull to the far right
and that in the next four years
this country is not any further torn apart
but rather healed
and on its course
to being more solid
again
and more respected
in this world
i hope
meanwhile
could we swap george bush for john mccain
at least hes a tad more
in the center

I simply don't understand anyone who feels that the Left has a monopoly on hateful politics. The gay baiting by the right in the senate races was reprehensible.

Is Moore any worse than Hamnity, Coulter, and Limbaugh? Are we each so blinded by our partisianship that we don't see how the other side sees us?

Odd, I don't see where she said hateful politics was monopolized by the left, just that a bunch of it is coming out from them in reaction to the election results.

But if you need the "they do it tooooo" attempt at justification, then feel free. I'm sure it will give you all the sympathy you deserve.

Why do you need 14 negatives to make a statement? You are obviously in need of a talking point, I am afraid.

If you want to join the Republican Party, you might as well do so quickly, as others are already lining up, and you must start from the scratch before you gain any benefit. Blogging does not count. This is not a joke.

[I]Fair enough, but then can you blame those who won't vote for Republicans as long as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are around? At least Moore does some research along with his vitriol.[/I]

Beau,

Obviously you've never read Ann Coulter - yes, she goes overboard with the liberal bitch-slapping but every one of her books is backed up with extensive footnotes supporting her claims. To quote the mighty Casey, "You could look it up." Please don't confuse true research with the creative editing and bullying Moore does.

Coulter's TREASON should be required reading in every public high school. Not to brainwash students into hating liberals. I don't even care if 100% of them don't believe it... it's worthwhile reading just to be exposed to an alternate analysis of McCarthy and Vietnam than the ones we've been fed by the MSM for decades.

MikeR wrote: "My hope for the future is that as more people begin to see the reality of the fundamentalist agenda being enacted, a lot of the people who AREN'T fundamentalists who have been supporters of Bush and the Republicans will begin to have second thoughts."

And my hope for the future is that WHEN -- that's right, not "if", "WHEN" -- NONE of what you fear comes to pass, you will have second thoughts.

Beau wrote: "OK, maybe I'm overstating again, but a lot of you seem really obsessed with straw men... Yes, the left is currently personifying its anger, too -- a lot of it directed at Karl Rove. But he's actually in a position of direct power. Doesn't that make a difference?"

Is Al Gore, who shouted that Bush "betrayed" this country, a straw man? Is Ted Kennedy, who compared the assaults at Abu Ghraib to "Saddam's torture chambers" where thousands of innocent men, women and children were killed, powerless?

Matt wrote: "After reviewing the reaction on the left today, I fully expect them to continue stepping on the rake and whacking themselves in the head."

LOL!

Totally awesome.

(Found on a tombstone)
Here lies an athiest, all dressed up and no place to go.

Think about it.

wow. what a post.

Thanks Michele. While I may not agree 100% with the exact way you stated it, I do agree with the sentiment.

Ahh, MikeR...

With both sides talking about how messed up the exit polling was, how can you use that same exit polling data to back up your contention that the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy is run by religious zealots?

As I understand it, flawed data is flawed data, period. If they got the most important part wrong, what makes you think any of it is usable?

Now if you'll all excuse me, I need to go find a velvet Dubya to go with my velvet Elvis and Dale Earnhardt.

I think the post was reasoned and generally fair. Within its limits.

But I don't think it says a thing the left wing minority in our country wil pay any attention to whatsover.

It's always been hard for me to figure out if the radical right created the far left or visa versa.

And until we can see an equal amount of cricism of the filth, lies and garbage that spewed, and still comes from, the mouths of BOTH extremes, we're going nowhere and have learned nothing.

Not having learned anything we've nothing to impart. That likely means that both extremes will once again, on one said or the other, win again. That's a sad thing for our country.

Maybe I should have voted for that Libertarian guy instead of Bush - whether voting for Bush or Kerry I was destined to lose anyway.

I am a bit disheartened to read that so many accuse the Bush team of being responsible for division in the US. I can't recall Bush being anything but magnanimous in his words about his opposition but can recall plenty of times that the same was not true of the Kerry team as concerns Bush (including Kerry himself).

MoveOn and The Swift Boat Vets were not representing either party and it is not fair to claim that their words are the words of the candidates.

When the leadership of the Democratic party insinuates that Bush had advance knowledge of 9/11, lied about reasons for Iraq and parrotted the words of Michael Moore on many occasions, I consider this to be the root of divisiveness.

I can't begin to tell you how many of my well-educated friends have repeated back to me the AWOL stories (etc.) as if this is gospel. Not to mention those who say that Cheney is in cahoots with Halliburton and Bush wants to outlaw homosexuality, Bush is stupid... blah blah blah.

None of these issues are the truth and most were not fundamental to what this election should have been about. Yet this is what my liberal friends spoke of constantly. The Democrat leadership stoked the fires of these issues and now can't seem to understand why the country is divided?

Michele, thank you for (trying) to start a rational discussion about this. Let me jump in with one more viewpoint from the losing side.

First of all, congratulations to the president on a resounding and fairly earned victory. And I fully agree with you that the hate is out of control, on both sides. If the increase in political participation is the best thing to come out of this campaign, the hate is certainly the worst. There is absolutely no excuse for some of the comments you describe.

I do not hate President Bush. My honest opinion is that he is a man who is sincerly trying to improve our country. The fact that I disagree strongly with almost every action he's taken toward that goal doesn't make him the devil incarnate, it just made my choice yesterday an easy one. I also don't hate those of you who voted for him, as long as you took the time to think about the options and what you thought was best for the country, and voted accordingly. It's fairly obvious that you did that, Michele, and I'm not going to fault anyone for voting for what they believed was right. There are many issues that go into a campaign. I was lucky enough to have one candidate who agreed with me on almost all of them. I know others weren't so fortunate.

However, I do have to take issue with your statement "You will not live in fear". Because if there is one overwhelming emotion I feel today, it's not hate. It's fear. And before I get jumped on - no, I'm not afraid that America will become a facist state or reenter the dark ages. However, I am afraid that we will become less safe rather than more. I am afraid of irreversible damage to our environment and our health. I am afraid that my moral values, including providing food and health care and high quality education to everyone, will not be adequately represented in our government. These may be different fears than those in Iran have, but they are no less real and no less valid. I am more terrified for our country today than I was on September 12, 2002, from both a security and a moral standpoint.

I will not turn up the flame, as you put it, and turn my fear into anger. I will not heap scorn and ridicule on those who believe differently than I do. I'm proud to live in a country where we respect differing viewpoints, and I will continue to try and explain this to those who are too angry to see it right now. However, I will also not stop speaking out for the things that I believe in. I wish the president well, but I will not hesitate to criticize decisions I disagree with. I hope that my Congressional representatives will do so as well, so that those voices and those values are represented in Washington. I do not think that unity and healing requires abandoning your principles - I have confidence that the president has no intention of doing so!

Anyway, that's why I decided to post - because I think it's important to continue this dialogue. Dialogue, not screaming match. If I have one hope for the next four years, it is that everyone (politicians and people alike) will continue speaking up for their beliefs, discussing and debating and thinking with open minds. Thanks for creating a forum for us to do so.

You might like to know I forwarded this post to someone on the other side who writes with a similar style if not comparable clarity. Everyone should see it.

"This is not Nazi Germany in any way."

The fact that you say it is not in ANY way shows how blind the Bush followers are:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

Logic is to a Bush supporter as tasty is to a pile of shit.

Rob, I read your link, and quite frankly Britt doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground.

Sarah from a few comments above
thank you
your comment was
perfect
so much of what I would like to see more of

MikeR from way up above
i have always found you to be wise
and willing to take risks
in your comments
and risk backlash
keep rocking on
we need brave people
in this country

"Not only did Kerry win by an 86-13 margin among self-described liberals, he also won by a 55-45 margin among self-described moderates. So how'd Bush pull it off? He won 84-15 among self-described conservatives, and, more importantly, he made sure conservatives comprised a much bigger chunk of the electorate than they did in 2000. (Conservatives comprised about 34 percent of the electorate yesterday, versus 29 percent in 2000 -- a huge shift, raw numbers-wise.) Anyone anticipating a conciliatory second Bush term should stop and consider how much Bush owes his base" MODERATES ...?

As a Christian fundamentalist, I am very scared for the future of Christians in this country when I see the backlash against people voting for a President for "Moral values" and everyone starts treating it as illegitimate.

As if I should not vote my values BECAUSE I am Christian. Doesn't that seem backward in a country founded on religious freedom? That the only values one should vote on are those that are NOT backed up by an established religion?

IE we, ourselves, are the highest beings in this universe, who can make up our own mind about what we believe -- then how do we argue at all whose

The way I see it, my Christianity is what makes me care about someone else more than myself. Because I know every one of us is valuable to God. That even these people who are Kerry supporters -- that they do so for good reason. They see things differently than I do.

Right now, in our state, we have a state locked in counting votes between Gregoire and Rossi. At some times one is ahead. AT others, the other is. (Election night, there were only 32 votes separating the two. THAT is how close to it is) It is going to be heartbreaking if my candidate doesn't win, after being ahead so many times. But-- the other side is going to feel the same if my candidate DOES win because the other candidate has also been ahead quite a few times. I truly believe that one candidate is MUCH better for our state than the other -- but I also know, at the end of the process, that what is important is that we will have a new Governor. The order in that is comforting.

I don't have to learn how to shoot a gun and go "defend my man" Instead, in a war of ideas, nothing but feelings are hurt. We all go back to our jobs at the end of the day, work side by side, and know that we are all Americans and this is just the way it works.

For ideas that are very important, even when your candidate doesn't win. (or if your candidate does win and then is pulled away from your ideas from those he wants to "get along with") Then you keep involved, stay in the process.

Because as long as we are talking, we aren't fighting. When the battle for ideas broke down, the Civil War started. And that was (still) the bloodiest war we've had.

I fear, though, with where rhetoric is going, that we are heading for another Civil War. So I will be thankful and rejoice while ideas and the war of words triumphs.

Michele,

I'm a new reader, having just found you via Wizbang's 10 Spot - Election Hangover Edition. As a moderate Democrat who voted for the losing candidate, your comments are reason for some equanimity, more than I've felt since Ohio was called for Bush at 1:00 a.m. yesterday morning.

There is much about my own party I don't like. We pander too much. We don't trust the individual enough. Kerry needed to critique the Bush Administration, but that seemed to be 90% of his message. The Democratic Party needs to find its heart: what is it - simply - that we stand for?

As for your comment, I especially appreciated the following sentiment:

Maybe in this time we can produce a candidate who doesn't alienate the social liberal in us, yet speaks to our concerns about defense, security and the war on terror. I am not completely enamored with the Republican Party. There's a lot of work to be done within the ranks. I'd like to see a full stop of the move towards the religious right.

My question to you and to your readers who share your sentiments is, what will you do if you're wrong? What if the Republican Party continues its move toward the religious right? What if they continue to "alienate the social liberal" in you? What if the deficits continue to explode? What will you do in 2006 and 2008?

Hi Michelle,
A conservative friend of mine linked me your blog. I say that again. A conservative friend. I am a liberal. And for the next couple of days, I will be hurting. Because I believe Bush is wrong. I also believe the man is my commander in chief. And I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. Because he deserves it. Perhaps he will try to move more centrist. I'd like that. I didn't care for Howard Dean. I though he was too liberal, too much like me to make a pragmatic national leader. I worked on Wes Clark's campaign. I voted for Kerry.
But, I return to what I first said. A conservative friend. Pundits would make us believe that conservatives and liberals are ready to take up the gun and kill each other's children. Let's show them they are wrong. Thanks for your words of wisdom at a divisive time.
xo

Jerry Carroll "I'm making a list of who Bush beat to win:"

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzz...

Jay: "And, before anyone brings it up, the right is not without blame. We certainly went nuts over Clinton, although not anywhere near as much. For example, I don't remember anyone calling Clinton "Hitler" or "Chimp"."

I remember Clinton being called a serial killer, certainly by Limbaugh & Co. and, IIRC, referred to as a murderer in the pages of the WSJ. Not to mention the entirely fabricated Whitewater smear campaign by the GOP.

Amnesia must be a wonderful thing.

I voted for George Bush.
I am not a redneck.
I have a master's degree, live near Hollywood, and am an artist and writer.
My people are on the fringes of society and do just fine there.
All my life, I have treasured many unique, usually left, goofy, John and Tereza-like artsy friends, but, friends, my people do NOT BELONG WITHIN 100 YARDS OF THE FREAKING WHITE HOUSE.

Wonderful entry. Well said. I voted for Bush, as well, and am amazed at the number of blogs out there that totally talk about how Bush is going to turn our nation into this awful thing! We need to work together now, more than ever. Unify everyone toward a common goal of making our nation better. You totally said it well. I have faith in George W.

For the record, I consider myself a far leftie. I did like your blog today. And am very attentive to the uncivil discourse in our country. Not that it is new by any means. One thread that seems to come through the blog and responses is the hopeful expectation that the fundamentalist Christians are not on the ascendancy. I would simply say that the fundamentalist church is experiencing phenomenal growth in the southern hemisphere. they are now sending missionaries to the U.S. I would just say that as we watch the demographics, do not be surprised to see the fundamental church in the U.S. explode in growth. Think back twenty-five years. This segment of the Christian faith was small, the liberal protestant church was the main Christian force. I do see that those who believe that the English text of the protestant bible is both inerrant and infallible are becoming the future of a large and politically dominant U.S. Christian community.

Straw man.

MikeR states:

I've yet to hear one word of explanation - here or elsewhere - for Tom Coburn's flat, on-the-record statement that he would support the death penalty for anyone who performs an abortion.

Perhaps that is because you've neglected to give a link for anybody to verify the veracity of your accusation. Forgive me for not taking your accusation on blind faith.

I voted for Kerry. I have to admit that when the results first came in, I was seeing red. I did think that there was some kind of cheating going on, with all the talk of people being turned down at polling centers and not counting ballots and such.

but a few days later, I've calmed down. Bush won. he won the election fairly. I can't say I like the man, but over half of the country does, and since they excercised their right to vote, I can't really be too mad at them for that.

thanks for this article - you wrote it very well!

To Ari,
I hope you are right about my concerns for the coming years. I do base my thoughts on scholarship. Check out: http://www.david-kilgour.com/faith/atlanticmonthly.htm. Phillip Jenkins writes about this concern.

Nice post Michelle. You know with a few edits, it is not that different than some of the stuff some of the more rational Progressive weblogs are posting. I know I, for one, conceded that the country spoke - and yes the majority - spoke to re-elect GWB. Not many are taking the fraud or black box voting charges too seriously. They were even denounced in big ol' Lefty Salon yesterday.
For what it's worth - I don't think that many Progressives look at Michael Moore at a leader or spokesperson, any more than many Conservatives look at Ann Coulter that way. I don't find him offensive, but I've disagreed with many of his views for a long time; from the silly notion of "gun control" all the way back to when he was bemoaning the loss of the big Auto labour unions.

Since we seem to have some rational moderate Bush-supporters here, can I ask a question? For those of you who are socially liberal, do you worry about the future of those issues in this administration? I'm not trying to fault anyone for deciding other issues were more important this time around and voting accordingly. I'm honestly curious. Do you think I and others are worrying too much about the future of choice, gay/lesbian issues, environment, etc, and that we're not really going to see long-term policies enacted that you disgree with on these issues? Or are you concerned about these things but have accepted that you will lose things you care about in exchange for gains in other areas?

I'm a Brit and I'd like to say that its good to hear your part of the story. We over here are a bit confused because Bush comes across to us as the biggest cretin who ever entered politics. As soon as he opens his mouth we cringe. We can be a bit picky about the use of the English language sometimes.

That said, Bush clearly appeals to the concerns of roughly half the American population and that is something I hope to understand better. I'd love to be clearer about Republican priorities and reasoning.

I wish all you guys the best. There's a lot to be proud of in your nation. But maybe the reason why world opinion is so negative towards the US right now is for precisely the reason that you identified in the 'left'. I get the impression your politicians think that your way is the only way.

There are some very old cultures out there with a lot of wisdom. It would pay to listen to them too, and accord them some respect.

You and this post were mentioned prominently in Mark Steyn's column!

Old cultures? There are old cultures? Haven't they all be replaced by new, more 'progressive' cultures? The only cultures on earth today that I would even remotely consider 'old' reside in Asia and Africa.

Kong

Sarah,

Not truly but socially liberal (moderate, maybe) but:

1) Abortion will never be banned, maybe more restricted but not banned.

2) Civil unions or similar arangements will become the standard in more and more states. (They may not be accepted in all states, but that might eventually hurt those economies).

3) The environment is the biggest canard in the ultra-liberal arsenal. Like an SOME abortion opponents, MOST environmentalists seem to treat this area as an "all or nothing" area. There is and can continue to be a happy medium between economic progress and improving the environment.

4) Civil rights in 99.999% of the cases have not been eroded with the Patriot Act. The so-called "drug war" had a far greater effect of civil and property rights than anything in the last 30 years.

Bottom line, no I'm not worried about any of these social issues... we have established a very strong of a public and private watch-dog organization structure for me to worry about this stuff. Unless of course you believe that drilling in Anwar will forever ruin the environment (it won't) or parental notification laws will bring back illegal, dangerous back-alley abortions (too many safeguards for this to happen). 'Sides, even in your worst nightmares, restoring a social liberal construct is far more simple than establishing democracy across the globe and winning the war on terror.

Hey David Beatty. If you read the article and "quite frankly Britt doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground."

How about rebutting his argument. That is if you can.

Just saying some ad hominem isn't really convincing me that Britt is wrong.

I challenge you to rebut his arguments.

Tongueboy:

These are the sorts of things that make liberals and moderate Republicans cringe.

Washington Post
New Senator
OKLAHOMA Tom Coburn ®
Thursday, November 4, 2004; Page A35

Former three-term Republican representative Tom Coburn emerged victorious in one of the nastiest Senate races in the country. Locked in a tight battle against Rep. Brad Carson (D) to claim the seat of retiring Sen. Don Nickles ®, Coburn was carried to victory by the state's overwhelming support for President Bush.

Coburn, a physician, joins the Senate with a reputation as a maverick and a conservative -- and for making impolitic remarks. During the campaign, he said he favored the death penalty for abortion providers and that he had heard there was "rampant lesbianism" in Oklahoma schools. He called state legislators "crapheads" and raised the ire of Native Americans by questioning their federal assistance programs.

In 1997, Coburn helped lead a revolt against then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). In a book published last year, "Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders," Coburn compared Republican leaders to the biblical Pharisees.

AP Nov. 3

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma

By RON JENKINS

Associated Press Writer

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - For conservative Republican Tom Coburn, running to the left in Oklahoma's Senate race meant lining up with President Bush.

Asked about his opposition to the death penalty, the former three-term congressman said he favored executions for ``abortionists'' and others who take life. At one town hall meeting, he said he had heard lesbianism was so rampant in area schools that girls could only go to the bathroom one at a time.

John Irving,

10,000 v 100,000. I'm sure you are not suggesting that 10,000 civilian casualties in Iraq is in any way not abhorently horrific. The smaller number is of itself surely worthy of being called a war crime (were anyone else responsible...).

And it is worth agreeing that in such a hell-hole, it becomes very difficult to determine who's bullets were responsible for each incident.

Nonetheless, the figure of 100,000 is being published in some reputable journals.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996596

Unless you have better sources...

I want to just want to briefly pay tribute to all the women who allow their men to slap them on the ass while they watch Nascar and drink cheap beer.

This Bud's for you!

'I do not believe gays should have the right to marry because marriage connotes procreation. And we all know 2 males, or 2 females cannot procreate. Don't we? At least, not without some form of a "middleman".'

This to me does not make sense. Marriage has always been about Love, but I'm just a Catholic Raised boy from just outside Houston. I guess down here it means love. By you saying this, you say people who love each other need not apply unless they plan to have kids? What about married couples who do not or can not have kids? Do you march there demanding they get a divorce?

I believe in Families, and that Love is the foundation of families, whether it be a natural born child, third party born, or adopted. Ask any adopted child if they would have preferred to grow up with two dads or two moms or on the street poor and without welfare. I think the answer speaks for itself. I have always beleived Marriage and Love are what bring a family together and creates a family.

PS, I'm gay, and also against abortion. I believe the children should be put up for adoption if the parents do not want them. I really believe women and men should be sterilized until they are ready and can convince a judge, but I'm a bit of a radical who thinks babies should not be born outside of a loving home, and I don't mean one night of hot Christian passion, and yes, it happens, all the time.

I think after 9/11, the country was united. Then Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq, he put in UN Inspectors, which everybody cheered. But before, and long before they could finish the job, he decided to attack. Many Americans stopped and asked, "What is going on?" while Bush kept saying "9/11", "9/11". 9/11 did change everything, but it does not mean the populace should turn a blind eye to fighting. Being raised a Christian, it is hard to evaluate 12,000 civilian deaths(avg, low-end estimate) as protecting the country, or as helping a people. You do not make friends by killing their families, it just doesn't work. It didn't work when Osama attacked us, we went and fought valiantly against Afghanistan(If you recall, you heard how many Dems complaining? That's right, about none. So don't give me that "peace-loving" or "anti-war" crap). So, how does history explain 15,000 deaths for WMDs that don't exist, or worsening a population's way of life, or the instability that comes out of it.

I hope and pray that Iraq will turn into a booming democracy, fair and balanced, with a great economy that doesn't base itself solely on Oil. And I hope and pray Bush can bring that, but looking back at the past year, it's hard to say he can. Too many Americans hate Iraqis to the point that they see 10,000+ civilian deaths and say "Who cares? 3,000 of our people were killed on 9/11". Not only is this country divided, but we have divided ourselves from the rest of the world, including the country we are trying to liberate. We can't truly have the Iraqis join us when we still yearn to spit on them. Bush has gone past this, and does not hate the Iraqis, I believe he is truly trying to help him, but his followers, I do not see this anywhere.

I remember on NPR a story of a soldier who put an American Flag on the vehicle, and the command told him to take it down. "We're not here to conquer, we're here to liberate."

I hope that's what it comes too, but it isn't just the Iraqis mainting peace, we have to break into the world again as citizens, instead of hiding on our continent. We have to face the UN again, and quit hating them. They are they to protect us. We have to invite the World Court back into our own, so we do not do things like in Abu Gharib. The Iraqis will remember the torture, the killings, and that will not help us, and it will not help Bush. If Bush is to be remembered as a great President, let us help him find the way, and not blindly depend on him to do the right thing.

JFH,

Thanks for your response. You may well be right about many of those points, and I hope you are. For the record, I am proud to be an environmentalist and I absolutely agree that compromises can and must be made with economic progress. To me, the decisions Bush has already made on the environment are nowhere near a reasonable middle ground. And unlike some of the social issues, these choices may not be reversible.

I do have to disagree with you that MOST environmentalists think of it as an all or nothing area. There certainly are some that do, but I think they are far from a majority.

Sarah,
Thank you for your thoughtful, constructive post. It ranks up there with Michele's and exemplifies how people should not only agree to differ, agreeably, but also strive to learn from each other in the process.

JFH pretty well makes my post redundant, as I agree with all of it. I'm a progressive (and agnostic, advanced degree, gay friendly, charitable, love cities and diversity), and I do care about the things you do. I voted Democrat for all but President (I won't make this a longer essay, by explaining).

There is a swinging of the pendulum (I've been voting since 1960) and we have a self-correcting mechanism that's informal but quite effective. No one individual can take this great country too far from the course of what the majority of its citizens want and know deep down inside is "for the best." And if that course is foolhardy or irresponsible or destructive, it is not politicians' fault; ultimately they do our bidding or they are "history" (literally and figuratively).

My voting against Bush, even if it were the deciding vote, would have not made one iota of difference in terms of the make up of Congress. And Congress will have to be accountable for whatever legislation comes to pass; but whatever it is, it can be changed if we (collectively) decide it is ill-advised.

I happen to think that one glitch in our constitution is the role of the Executive Branch in nominating key judicial figures; that does give me pause in terms of supporting reelection. I have thought of another way to produce the judiciary, but no one has asked me to put it into the Constitution.

It's a great country, full of good people. Some emotional ones out on the fringe seem to think "it's my way or no way; I'm outta here." It disturbs me to hear New Yorkers on CNN saying things like "I would not want to travel through the red states". As if a red state is all hostile and alein. Heck, even every ward and precinct is a mosaic. Are we so fragile or so self-righteous as to be afraid of diversity (of political thought) and to reject free exprfession (in the form of voter enfranchisement): As Obama said, red states are populated by blue people too, and blue states have lots of of red people. Seeing the stark reds and blues in state boundaries obscures the fact that when you go down to counties in a state you see different colors, and neighborhoods have signs from both parties.

I won't plead "don't worry, be happy". I worry, so it would be hypocritical to take that pleasure from you. But at the end of the day, like right now, I get pretty calm when I think about all the tumult and nonsense and screw ups we have schlepped through as a nation. We'll be fine --- on balance and over time. Democracies and republics work --- on balance and over time --- if they have the strengths and passions found in folks like you.

I certainly wouldn't be calling for violent action. I would not be threatening total strangers with death or wishing ill will on them.

And yet you voted for someone who does.

The mind boggles.

Why does it make you happy to have elected someone that lied to get us into a war? Someone that is lying about how that war is going?

I still don't get it. What did you vote for? Do you even know?

I hope you get everything you voted for. It appears to be the opposite of everything you claim to support.

Damn. Sorry. I'm starting a logical argument. I should of just said "believe in me, for I am righteous!"

Sarah,

Can you point to some specific points where the Bush administration has made environmental decisions that you don't consider "middle ground"... or for that matter irreversible? (Please don't point to arsenic standards or the rejection of the Kyoto protocol; neither of these would be accepted even with Kerry as president)

Contrary to extremist environmental beliefs the ecosystem is much more resilent than we think (Obviously, this is no excuse to "worsen" the enviroment and can be dangerous if taken too far for too long). Look at water polution and air polution in the late 60s and early 70s compared to now. Many "dead" rivers and lakes have fully recovered and air quality is much better.

I'm an environmentalist too, as are most Republicans; we're not going to allow the government to "ruin" the environment in the name of "big business" despite what you hear from the Sierra Club, WWF and Greenpeace.

I have been harassed repeatedly and do live in fear. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

The two parties are mirror images of each other, except for one thing: religion. This belief in the supernatural casts a pall on all the ideas of the right, even those--such as free markets--which may have some validity.

Very well, Rob, point by point (and sorry about the long post, Michele):

1. Powerful and continuing expressions
of nationalism.

An expression of nationalism is not necessarily with "fervor" or "frenzy".
It's a non-sequitor, i.e. it doesn't follow.

2. Disdain for the importance of human
rights.

Human rights are not treated with little value. Perfect? Not by any stretch. If the author is referring to the Patriot Act, there are components that should be reviewed and altered, but again it's a non-sequitor.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats
as a unifying cause.

Bin Laden and terrorists identified themselves as enemies, the U.S. government did not. He misses the point by lumping enemies and scapegoats.
The Jews were treated as scapegoats by Nazi Germany. Nothing of the sort is happening in the United States.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid
militarism.

No for several reasons, including the fact the military can't do anything without civilian approval and military spending is at historical lows with respect to percentage of GDP.

5. Rampant sexism.

Again, a non-sequitor. Opposition to abortion is not necessarily sexist and opposition to gay marriage is not necessarily homophobic.

6. A controlled mass media.

Considering the 90% of mass media reporters voted Democratic in 2000, if anything the main stream media is biased against the current administration.

7. Obsession with national security.

Prosecuting a "War on Terror" does not imply an obsession with national security. Besides, national security is one of the defined powers of the government in the U.S. Constitution.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied
together.

Just because many in the current administration are religious, it does not follow they are militant defenders of religion, nor does it follow a theocracy is going to be imposed.

9. Power of corporations protected.

The personal life of ordinary citizens is not under strict control, nor do corporations have free reign to do as they please.

10. Power of labor suppressed or
eliminated.

Union membership has been steadily declining for the last 50 years, and if anything allowing labor unions monopoly control of negotiating employment contracts has made them stonger.

11. Disdain and suppression of
intellectuals and the arts.

No one is supressing ideas or arts. A non-starter. However, no one is free from criticism from their ideas. If artists and "intellectuals" (any of whom are non-intellectual in my opinion)
have poor ideas, they should be criticized.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

There is no political crime in the U.S. Again, it's a non-starter. If anything, the reason why the prison population is so large is the War on Drugs, which has been going on for quite some time and is supported my almost all major party politicians.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.

There is absolutely no proof this is rampant. While I'm sure some of that kind of thing goes on, it's the exception and not the rule.

14. Fraudulent elections.

If anything, voter fraud is rampant, it's notorious in Philadelphia and Chicago.

Perhaps he is referring to the 2000 Presidential election? That doesn't wash. Bush was duly elected and the Supreme Court ensured Florida followed their own election laws (7-2) by having to recount the entire state and had to do so within the alloted time (5-4).

Now, a couple of more items:

The author's referral to "ruling elite" implies something along the lines of an oligarchy. That's not the case in the United States.

The author's views regarding labor and corporations appears to be straight out of the Marxism/Communism playbook. That political and economic philosophy has proven itself to be ineffective (do I really need to go into why)?

Lastly, the author brings in a bunch of ideas without providing any kind of proof to back them up nor does he really tie anything together.

"What did you all believe in this year? Hate? Anger? You ran your own campaign, one filled to the brim with bile and acidic spittle and you wonder why you feel so black today?"

Are you for real? You really think it was the Democrats running a hate-filled campaign and not Bush? Just curious, how do rationalize it when Bush's team does it against a Republican? Like when they claimed McCain had illegitimately fathered a black child? Or when Bush attacked his service record? I'm sorry I just disagree with you 1000% percent. Bush rant the hate-filled campaign and has a long record of doing so, and one of the reasons I am so sad is that it worked.

How am I suppossed to feel when I find out that on the ballot was a initiative for gay marriage? And that that freaked people out so much they voted for Bush? I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler, but he runs on a campaign of thinly veiled bigotry and fear.

If you are really a "moderate" you would never have voted for this man, who is far, far right.

At first we tried to reason with you. We asked you to keep to the issues, the economy, the war, the environment, healthcare, but instead of being engaged, we were told that we "didn't get it" and were incapable of seeing whatever mysterious quality Bush has people feel they need.

But, unfortunately I do get it. Bush invaded people's churches and spread the word that we were ungodly. He told people we would force them to allow gays to marry in their state. He used a mixture of fear, patriotic propaganda, and disinformation, and it worked. Oh yeah, and he pretended to be southern, that helped too.

I am more determined than ever to fight Bush every step of the way where I can to ensure he doesn't ruin this country, strip our land, drive us further into debt, and lose this war through international ill will. I "get" that you don't "get it" as far as I am concerned, so I don't expect you to thank me.

wah, you say: "I still don't get it. What did you vote for? Do you even know?"

The Democratic candidate for POTUS should be someone I "can vote FOR", as I have done before. It should not be hard for Democrats to get this, for many of them were ABB voters; I was an A (for almost) ABK voter. The election was lost in Iowa.

I regret Democrat leaders seem to "not get it" re: whom they send out carrying their banner. The next time the party nominates an far-left career politician who hasn't managed anything larger than a campaign staff, appears to be a self-centered and self-conscious opportunist, seems to struggle with discovering what he stands for, disses the new interim leader of Iraq, lives an extremely silver spoon ostentatious life, stonewalls questions about his past, is married to a drama queen, and is identified with the "old left" (Teddy Kennedy, etc) .... when that happens again, I will again be unable to vote for him/her.

I voted to return a Democrat senator I admire; I voted for a Democrat first-time candidate for Representative (African American female). I could NOT vote FOR John Kerry no matter what I thought of Bush. If you agree that "all politics is local", I will go further and say "all politics is personal".

STOP ignoring or discounting/disbelieving the voice of the customer. Regular people (not limited to religious wingers) are the gatekeepers to power in this land and you ABSOLUTELY MUST stop ignoring them while "telling" them what is in their best interest.

I worked in the corporate sector and then owned successful businesses before retiring. I know lots more about that than about politics. But Democrats could benefit from study about product design and marketing. By all rights, with a savvy, moderate, reassuring, constructive message and a credible/attractive candidate slate Democrats should have a 60-40 margin in this country (my opinion).

Companies hired me as a consultant to help them fix what they had messed up. My job was to bring the collective wisdom of the organization together, blend it with my own expertise, and build support for the needed change. My sincere suggestion, after the requisite time for venting and forehead bashing, is to pretend you're starting from scratch: "Who ARE we; what do we REALLY stand for? What is the market telling us? How are we perceived in the market? How must we change to make ourselves more attractive, and better understood? What is our strategy to do that? And finally, not until you have that figured out, WHO are our logical standard bearers embodying "what we are" and what is best for America?

The "funnest" part of this is speculating about whom the next candidates could be -- Hillary, Edwards, Bayh, Obama, Richadson, Biden, etc. Later for that. That's got to be an extension of the less glamorous, more fundamental, and harder questions I listed above.

"I am not stupid. Not by any stretch of facts."

If you think that Bush deserved re-election after doing a demonstrably piss-poor job during his first term, then you ARE stupid, on the face of things. No stretch of facts is necessary.

Pali,

Bush came from a far more spoiled, priveledged place than Kerry. He is far more right than Kerry is left, has never known a moment of doubt, stonewalls questions about his past, is married to a stepford wife, and is an ugly, drug-abusing drunk driver, head-up-his-ass bigot.

AND he ruined our economy, is losing this war, was on watch while this country was attacked, has ruined the environment, etc.

Guess what? I work in product design too. When we develop products we meet with customers to discover their needs and how they are not being met. We find out where things are going wrong and jointly plan to solve issues. We call this a PLAN.

I'm just guessing here, but when you are talking about your "product design consulting", you probably really mean marketing. Devising a messaging strategy, you know, hitting on the right argument, or bullshit, you can use to spin your product and make people believe your steaming pile is something they want.

All I can read into your statements of what you want is a "package" of some sort. You're saying Kerry should have had a better commercial. The truth is that Kerry ran far too classy a campaign for someone like you. He had way too much faith you would see beyond the B.S.

Please stop telling me and the other 49% of the country about how we didn't listen to you. We are already sick of the B.S. of the next four years and it hasn't even begun.

Today Bush claimed his 1% victory translated into a mandate from the people to do whatever he wants. He wants to start by revamping social security. Remember that as a big issue he ran on? Me neither.

Oh, and there is no appropriate amount of time for me to stop venting. I am devoting a percentage of my time over the next four years to being a thorn in this jerk's side. I will do my best to make sure there's something of social security left for you and your family, and, again, there's no need to thank me.

What I find interesting is all the advice the democrats are getting about running a moderate candidate, yet the republicans have just elected a far right extremely divisive president who campaigned as the great unifier in his last campaign. He may believe he has a "mandate" but there are 55 million people out there who disagree.

response to last entry on the left's reaction to the bush victory. the ones on the left who are bitter have one or a combo of these problems or characteristics: ideologic morons, yellow dog democrats, true psychiatric insecurities, inablilty to realize that the 60's mentality cant really work anymore( but continue to sit on your lazy ass, watch tv fiction, dvds, movies, smoke dope, drink beer and stick signs in your front yard saying "wage war not peace"), belief that jessee jackson, streisand, the boss, sarandon, redford et al really know whats going on, believe terrorism is just a passing fancy and libs have immunity to death from them, read only the local paper, ny times, la times, wash post, or nothing; watch only network news; listen only to franken. need i say more. hopefully these wonderfully enlightened people will stay where they are. you can bet your ass i wont live or vote there, although visiting and taking in a play or some pacific salmon is ok.

How fortunate that lawrence garr isn't the sole arbiter of who is and isn't stupid.

You are free to think of all the awful people who don't goosestep to your beliefs as stupid, though. It is a free country. Just don't whine if you keep getting outsmarted by all the "stupid" people around you.

Pali,

I'm not clever enough to figure out how to quote parts of your comment in mine, but I wanted to reply anyway. I do agree with you that the pendulum swings back and forth, and that when it all averages out we end up in the middle. Which is where we should be, much I as I might like it to be otherwise. I think the real question is how the scale shifts over time, and it will be interesting to see where the middle stands 10 or 20 years from now.

The fact that both houses of Congress shifted to the right this election is a big part of why I am so demoralized this week. I had resigned myself to the fact that Bush was going to win; I had not prepared myself for that. I generally think that it's good for the country when at least one house majority is opposite the president because it provides a check on the more extreme decisions. Your example of the Supreme Court is a good one. It's one thing to appoint a moderate justice, even one who leans conservative. It's a completely different thing to appoint an ultra-conservative justice. My big concern is that there will no longer be a sufficient check on Bush's more extreme ideas, and that was I why I felt the need to rant about the importance of liberals not giving in and bowing to the new 'mandate'.

I absolutely agree that the country is full of good people on both sides of the political spectrum. In fact, I'd like to make a proposal. I think that all US citizen who live in coastal cities should be forced to spend a month living in small-town middle America, so that they learn to appreciate the people who live there and understand where they are coming from. I also think that all residents of middle-America should be forced to spend a month living in Europe, so that they learn that there other democracies outside the US, and other free societies who have made some very different choices than we have. The US is a wonderful country and a wonderful place to live, but it does not have a monopoly on those things. And I think that our geographical isolation (both within our country and relative to others) has skewed our perspectives somewhat.

Thank you for allowing me to continue worrying :) It seems a little silly to argue for that right, but it feels important right now. I think part of what I was responding to in Michele's post (which I thought was overall very well-written and insightful) was a sense that I was being patted on the head and told that everything would be ok. There is some middle ground between 'the sky is falling' and 'everything is fine', and I felt the need to stake out that middle ground.

Thomas D --
If I may be so bold as to answer your question about what the Republicans should back away from:
Banning gay marriage --
It does not matter that the popular vote is overwhelmingly against it. This is not a matter for a popular vote or any vote at all. This vote is a classic case of the tyranny of the majority.

But, here's the problem...if the tyranny of the majority is a bad idea (and I say it is) then it might be a bad idea for everyone and in all cases. At least that should be the premise.

In this case the "right" in question is marriage (a right that has social value) but there are plenty of instances where the tyranny of the majority is applied to rob someone of fundamental economic rights (e.g. progressive taxation which takes the most amount of money from the people who as a whole have the least amount of votes -- you will not find the leftist forces tell you about that little tyranny of the majority now will you? or, how about the restrictions on immigrants' right to work?)

In fact, the same argument that works to denigrate the polling of issues like gay marriage (i.e. you cannot poll A about the rights of B) work against the notion of abortion (where you have a woman and her doctor deciding to kill a fetus without any input on behalf of the fetus... parties A and B deciding about C) See the parallel?

The point is, it would immeasurably help the Republican party to shed the anti-gay posture and use those exact arguments to make abortions be more clearly seen as a case of the strong and the selfish vs. the persecuted and the voiceless.

In both cases we ought to choose to vote with the persecuted and voiceless (although gays are getting more vocal nowadays...good for them). As should the Democrats. Who'll get there first?

JFH,

I actually hadn't intended to get into a policy debate, but I figured that if I was going to stick up for rational liberals I might as well stick up for rational environmentalists too :) However, since you asked a reasonable question I'll try and answer it. I'm curious though - if you call yourself an environmentalist and believe most Republicans are too (and I agree, by the way), do you really believe that most environmentalists think it's all or nothing? Or was that simply a statement for effect?

As far as environmental decisions, I think the arsenic rule is as low as is technologically feasible at this time (although I would like to see more researched sponsored on better cheaper technology since I really do believe there is a health risk). I also don't think that either Bush or Kerry could have signed Kyoto as written at this time. I've looked at the emissions data, and we've veered way off the curve we were on when the protocol was first written. There's just no reasonable way to meet those specific goals on the specified timelines. However:

A middle ground solution to me would have been if Bush had stepped up and said, "Look there's no way we can afford to sign Kyoto at this time. However, we recognize that greenhouse gas emissions are a serious problem for our nation and the world. Here are our (more moderate) goals for emission reduction, and here are some policies we will implement to ensure that the US makes measurable progress toward addressing global climate change." To simply say "Sorry, no can do" and then ignore the issue altogether is not acceptable to me - especially on an issue of such global significance and impact.

Other issues that come to mind are cutting back the rules requiring power plants to come into compliance with the Clean Air Act. This isn't just about the spotted owl, this affects us and our children. Another area I'd like to see progress in (although I recognize that the Democrats haven't pushed this like they should either) is energy efficiency. If we're going to drill in ANWR, than can we at least take steps to make that oil go as far as possible? There is absolutely no reason why we have to drive cars that get 10 miles/gallon and build buildings that require massive ammounts of energy to heat and cool. In the long run this would even be economically beneficial. Why aren't we doing more about this?

Anyway, I agree that the ecosystem is amazingly resilient. However, like you say it's probably not a good strategy to keep playing with the toy until it breaks. Some of these issues may be reversible but will almost certainly take much longer to heal than to harm. Any use of fossil fuels IS essentially irreversible, at least on a human time scale. I'm obviously not saying we should stop using them altogether, just that we should be careful about how we do it. And I suspect that people whose countries could be flooded by the effects of climate change would prefer not to wait however long it takes for those effects to be reversed.

I do think that most of us are 'environmentalists' at some level these days, regardless of whether or not that's considered an insult in our social circles. Even big business has acquired an environmental conscience, some of which is related to the fact that we've made it economically valuable to them. I realize that we are in a far different (and much better) place than we were 40 years ago, and that we don't need to fight now the battles that we won then. However, I also don't think we can afford to sit back and congratulate ourselves on a job well done, and I do have serious reservations about the environmental impacts of the Bush presidency.

I voted for Kerry out of "intense dislike" for Bush. It left a bad taste in my mouth. I am more distressed that Bush is president than the fact that Kerry lost. I am ashamed to admit that I was an Al Queda sympathizer for 24 hours... You (a republican!!!) summed it all up beautifully. Good work! Hopefully the anger will disapate (mine has). Hopefully one day we will have a president we can all respect one day.

Notice to trolls.

Your IP is recorded when you post here. So, when you post a few different bizarre comments under several different names, not only will all the comments be deleted, but I will laugh at your stupidity.

I voted Bush.

I disagree with an amendment banning gay marriage. The constitution is a document to protect Americans from their government. Not to protect Americans from Fairies.

I also disagreed with Bush's idea of immigration. The Mexican gangs down the street from me now feel they are sanctioned. They're pretty cocky about it too, as they steal our cars here.

No, I voted for Bush because the women-beating murdering terrorists over there, and the eco-terrorist hippies over here, preferred Kerry.

It really is that simple for me.

I guess that means I'm a filthy rich fat-cat big business bible-thumpin trailer-park idiot redneck. (?)

The terrorists over where exactly? You mean Iraq? You know none of the terrorists were in Irag right?

and jerry's comments don't qualify as bizarre?????????

As an Independent with a commitment to Centrist politics, I have trouble agreeing that Election 2004 is politics as usual. There's a lot more to claiming a moderate position than saying you're a social liberal who votes Republican.

Don't you have ANYTHING to say about the corporatist state that has emerged in full flower under Bush-Cheney? As a Republican, shouldn't you have a genetic memory imbed of Dwight Eisenhower's warning re: the threat to democracy posed by the military-industrial complex?

Don't you have just a wee problem with borrow-and-spend fiscal policies with no end to the red ink in sight for the next four years? Have you read a macro-economic policy analysis lately, or do you really believe a stock market driven by the war business actually results in economic stability and longterm prosperity?

Every time I read someone explaining their opposition to gay marriage by raising the 'they can't have kids' argument, it reminds me:
my sister and brother-in-law are legally married, have no children, and have decided quite firmly not to have any.
My husband and I are not legally married (just as married as a Baptist minister can make us), have one son (by adoption) and plan to adopt one more.
Apparently, some people sincerely believe my son would have been better off spending the rest of his childhood in foster care (or a comfy group home) rather than being subjected to two fathers.
Most of the people who believe that voted Republican.

And regarding vitriol from the Left - check out infidelcowboy.com, littlegreenfootballs, or freerepublic for thunder from the Right.