Take heart - very nearly half of us are on the same side you are. But the potential damage over the next four years scares the hell out of me.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

You are all the same, just like how you think the majority of the country are brainless idiots (need I remind you that you just offended, stereoytped and degraded 56 million people, how very progressive and liberal of you)

This only shows how out of touch you are with the rest of the country, yes you live in one of the most liberal parts of the country...when was the last time you talked to a farmer, rancher, barber, temp worker or postal employee from any other sphere of the country? Probably never, so you really don't know what they are thinking, except that you think they are all idiots.

You are so open-minded I think your brains have fallen out, and as far as liberal people supposedly having more heart than anyone...you are spewing just as much hate as the other side.

Although you are a great writer and I enjoy your blog... I have to say it is so evident how out of touch you are with other parts of America.

Funny how "AT" complains about your behaviour and acts morally superior yet doesn't address your simple, staightforward question for even a second. Pretty typical of what we've seen and heard in the past four years...

Deep breath, Jimbo. Time for America to stop the bi-partisan ranting and reach across the isle. I happen to think we're all pretty lucky to be Americans.

From what I hear on NPR, it was predominately the religous right who swung it for bush. Let's hear it for no gay marriage, no stem cell research and a blurring of church and state. Go bush! (or, as everyone in the rest of the world likes to spray paint everywhere: BUCK FUSH!)

The answer to your question is simple, Jimbo... It's not the president's job to improve your life. It's not the government's job to improve your life. That is the responsibility of each individual, regardless of how they vote or what they believe in. How will your life improve? You tell us.

Perhaps you'll take your trip and write killer book accompanied by brilliant photographs you've taken. Perhaps you'll find a job that you like, someone that you can spend your life with, and a really kick ass pair of environmentally friendly pink sunglasses. You hold the keys to your life - not the White House.

I hate to break it to you, but this "vast majority of educated population" isn't a reality. You want to believe that those who share your views are educated and the vast majority, but look at it. How smart are actors and alternative bands? Really? Does being gay, or vegetarian, or a member of Surf Rider or Amnesty International make someone educated? Because they certainly aren't the vast majority. We've all got opinions, and we all believe that ours are the right ones. Does that make it so?

You know better than that. AT is right on the money about the liberal viewpoint these days. Is there a more critical and judgemental position in this country today than that of the liberal toward the conservative? The negativity now comes primarily from your side, which not only offends the conservative - but the majority of the middle as well.

Does the average American family enjoy being mocked for going to church? Do Joe and Jane America, who bust their ass just to put food on the table, keep their kids safe, and scrape by paycheck-to-paycheck to keep their mortgage current really believe that gay marriage is the most important issue facing our country?

Do the stay-at-home Mom's worry more about stem-cell research and the "global community" or keeping their kids off drugs and terrorists from blowing up school buses?

We all know that there are issues that are very important to everyone. We also don't like being told what we should view as important, then handed a plate full of propoganda to support that point of view. Americans like to find their own way... You should appreciate that more than onyone.

Want to know why the Democrats were defeated so soundly across the board this year? They've become obnoxious and arrogant. The roles have been reversed. In the plight for bringing attention to the very serious issues that gay couples face, they've mocked the traditional, nuclear (or nucular) family.

The party loves to use celebrities as their mouthpieces, yet those representatives are more combative and conspiritorial in their messages than the freaking KGB. In their hatred for W, they've gone too far and illustrated an underlying hatred for our country. It turns people off. Hell, it pisses people off.

You want your life to improve? Do something about it. You want a Democrat in the White House? Find a Democrat with a plan - not one who simply makes reference to a plan. You want to know the truth?

It's different for everyone...

There. I'm done.

Now, you tell us. How would your life improve over the next 4 years if the vote were different? Not your friends, or casues you care about. Tell us about you.

I can't believe anyone would argue one side has been more negative than the other. I can't see that either side can be seen as positively viewing the opposition.

This isn't about Democrats being obnoxious, or arrogant even. This isn't about being smarter than the next person, or better than the next person. This is about creating a country where everyone is free to live and do as they please, pursue happiness. Women may choose to have, or not have, abortions. Any person may marry whom they love. People are free to practice any religion, or none, so they choose. It's the freedom to be, to choose to live your life as you like, make every decision for yourself, provided it does not impede on anyone else's freedom or happiness. Tolerance, acceptance. Allow us all to have our own opinions, but allow others to have theirs as well. America is a great country, supposedly the greatest in the world. One would think you all have great freedoms. For the most part you do, but you've just re-elected a president who threatens to destroy all of that. Congratulations.

I realize that this election, as is running a country, is about so much more than this. However, these are some major social issues, freedoms at stake, that precious not-so-minorities who love calling themselves American citizens, are losing.

i never said brainless idiots. i said i think they are WRONG. it's part of being human. we all get to be wrong. and my take on americans being self absorbed and gullible applies to ALL americans, regardless of political affiliation. myself included.

second, you make some mighty big assumptions (not uncommon amongst commenters around here) about me and my understanding and interaction with the rest of the country,

that boy sean you see leaving clearly conservative and yet very funny comments here? my brother in law. sean and i could not be more different socially and politically, and yet we get along great. we discuss politics at length. and we disagree.

my family has lived in texas since 1989. i've spent more time in that most most brightly red state than i have anywhere else in the country. i fly all over the world talking to people - including the midwest. i was raised in east tucson (another red state) and went to college in a small mountain town filled with, literally, cowboys and indians. i was a born again christian (surprise!) for the bulk of my 20s. so perhaps i'm a bit more informed than you assume.

and i am upfront with my opinion. i think bush has been a terrible executive. period. i think there is plenty off evidence to back up that claim.

i didn't vote for him not because of his "values". i didn't vote for him because i think he has been a failure in his job. i don't relate to a blue blood east coast senator. and in the end, bush is just as blue. frankly, i don't give a fuck about their values. i do care about their ability to effectively govern this nation. i do care about their ability to make good decisions and to protect the national interests that mater most to ME.

and one more thing. i don't dislike conservative people. many of my closest friends from high school and college are deeply religious, most are republican, and most live smack in the middle of those red states.

what i dislike is the conservative political agenda that i find narrow minded, hypocritical, and restrictive of personal freedoms. and i will continue to fight against that here and elsewhere.

oh. and for the record. i'm not a liberal. i'm a fiscal conservative, social liberal registered independent. i vote across party lines all the time. i vote environment and educaton first and formost. i vote for sound fiscal policy. i vote for personal freedoms prudent, common sense view of the law and the constitution.

again. i am going to repeat my question, and a legitimate question to conservatives, WHY did you vote for bush, when i think the evidence is quite clear that his performance as a president has been profoundly negative. i want to know why people will continue to support an ineffective leader. show me how i am wrong in ANY of the areas i have illustrated in my post in my evaluaton of the president. i welcome that discussion.

my comment about "values" is there simply to illustrate that if you think bush represents chrisitan values, you need to reread the book.

what's really been hard for me, as a gay person, is to realize that i am one of the reasons so many people went out and voted for Bush.

i don't mind if people go to church and believe in God- my own family does! i've NEVER mocked anyone's family, ever. i'm not a big fan of marriage, gay or straight, but i care about the rights that go with it. and if people want to get married and it's important to them, i respect that and honor it. i cry at weddings!

but once again, people like me are hauled out before, during and after an election to get or explain votes.

if a barber in a red state doesn't like me because i'm gay, that's okay. but please don't use me as an issue in an election and the reason to vote for someone/thing (or not vote for someone/thing). why do that?

Appareantly more people are worried about the queers getting married than about being unemployed, uninsured, hungry, and irradiated by terrorists.

We had better stock up on porn, gas, sex toys, and Springsteen CDs while we still can.

Well, I didn't vote for Bush, but I know many who did -- most of the rest of my family did. Why? It boils down to the word which thou hast forbidden us to speak, or at least their interpretation of it.

I'm not saying this is the reason 56 million people in the U.S voted for Bush, but this is why my family members did.

I think "values" IS the answer, actually, but not in the way you're talking about. I hope to be able to post about it a bit later on today on my blog, or tomorrow at the latest.

I'm posting this just to set a record straight.

The Mighty Jimbo does not live in one of the most liberal parts of the country. He lives in Orange County, and OC is the ONLY county, in ALL of the blue states, that voted for Bush.

Okay. That's all I wanted to say. Back to work for me.

This is fun, Jimbo. I hope I answered your original question in my first comment. Now, why did I vote for Bush? 2 reasons. #1 - I believe him more than I believe Kerry. Laugh, scoff, roll your eyes, and hit the theme to Farenheit 9/11, but I'm serious. Like it or not, I know where W stands and I'm fairly confident that I know what (if anything) he's going to do. I honestly feel that Kerry was going to say whatever the people he was speaking to at that moment wanted to hear in order to get elected. And I don't believe he had any "plan" at all. In my opinion, he was simply trying to get into our pants...

#2 - Dick Cheney. To me, he is the stabilizing factor in the whole scenario. If shit really hits the fan, do you want him in the room? I sure as hell do.

#3 - I'm from Texas... and I'm a homophobe... and God wants all babies to live... and the rest of the world doesn't matter because we are bigger, stronger, and have larger penises... and I hate Michael Moore while loving Arnold Schwarzenegger... and the environment is stupid... and Osama Bin Laden is my favorite South Park character... and John Edwards has an unproportionately fat wife for such a handsome young man... and I hope you all realize that #3 is a joke, with the exception of me being from Texas, hating Michael Moore, and thinking Edwards should trade up... I only mentioned 2 reasons earlier - check it out.

The perfect candidate doesn't exist anymore. For me, it all came down to who I trusted. Has this administration lied? Sure. Was Kerry lying to me? Sure. Did Clinton lie? Sure. You've got to go back to freaking George Washington to break the chain of lies from the White House, Jim.

So to conclude my second entirely too lengthy post on this subject, I voted for Bush because I believe he is what he appears to be. All of the "issues" didn't really factor in. I feel like I know who Bush is. And I couldn't say the same for the other side.

"I honestly feel that Kerry was going to say whatever the people he was speaking to at that moment wanted to hear in order to get elected."

I've heard this kind of thing a lot, living in the Midwest as I do. People didn't like the idea that Kerry would say or do whatever people seemed to want.

And God forbid we ever have a President that actually responds to the Will of the People. Better by far to have a rancorous little despot who ignores half of the country and considers 51% of the vote to be a mandate.

Matt - saying what people want to hear and doing what the majority of people want done are very different, indeed. My stance is simply that Kerry was going to say anything and everything that might get him elected. What would he do? We'll never know. I apologize to Jimbo and the rest of the world for being so visible on this post, but I thank him for the forum. Good stuff.

I'm out.

Weapons of Mass Destruction? Nope.

I have to agree with Sean. I voted for Bush, but it made me physically ill. I was sad that the other option was someone who said he didn't call anyone a liar, and then without even finishing his sentence, said that Bush was twisting the answers. I grew less inclined when Kerry's social security plan was to leave it alone, fund the whole with taxes (from those of us paying SS) and maybe later we'll fix it. I hate that he had no plan on how to get us out of the middle east. I hate that Bush thinks this last medical bill fixed the problem, but leaves us no room to negotiate prices.
THE CHOICES SUCKED - and I voted Bush, because I knew where he stood.
I may have done wrong. Do you know that 25% of americans are registered independent. Do you know that there are probably more that would choose a liberal view. Maybe it's pure idealism, but it's possible that if we actually started voting for those smaller figures, the two parties would start listening to our true values.
Yes - that's values, but not the scary kind Bush leads with.
And as far as conservatives being wrong.....how did you feel waking up $3.5B further in debt yesterday thanks to the liberals that run CA?

I'm Canadian so I can't answer your question, however (like everyone else) I have a point of view.
American's are becoming infected with the same disease that Candadians already have. It's the "Voting against instead of voting for" disease. I think this is exactly why Kerry lost. Many (not all, but a lot) people who voted for Kerry were only voting for him because they didn't want to vote for Bush. What this goes to show is that the Democrats have a big problem. Their only appeal to a lot of independent voters? They're not led by Bush. How can you win an election (and they lost everything, not just the presidency), when the only reason people are voting for you is because you aren't someone else? The Democrats need an overhaul and the people who are puzzled about how any sane person could have voted for Bush, need to look at why these "insane" people didn't vote Democrat. What is wrong with the Democratic party?

Something to write about four years from now? Sharpen your pencil and think about the next election campaign. Rodham-Clinton vs. Bush!
Remember, we're not yet done with that family, the governor of Florida is still waiting.
By then, the supreme court will be able to install him even without the costly election procedure.
On a brighter note - It won't be that easy for him to get the nation's trust because, other than his brother, he is not God-sent. At least not that I have heard of.

Sean, knowing where Bush stands is not an reason to vote for him. I know exactly where Bush stands, and it's precisely why I voted AGAINST him. He stands for amending the Constitution to discriminate. He stands for taking us to war with no concern for global policy. He stands for disregarding the Geneva Convention. You're completely, 100% right. I know where Bush stands. That's not a reason to vote for him. Tell us what he stands for that resonates with you. What stance do you AGREE with him on? That's what we all want to know. What do you agree with him on?

Sean, you might not want to joke about John Edward's "fat" wife at this time. She has breast cancer. Just thought you should know.

There is too much to respond to in here, but I have to comment on one point: for those who voted for Bush because they "believe him." How can any sentient human being actually *believe* him?

Yes, other Presidents have lied. Lying about a mistress, or having sex with an intern in the oval office, is one thing (and apparently some people believe that even this an offense for which a President should be impeached). Puffery in support of a political campaign is par for the course.

Lying in order to lead this country into a war that has cost over 1,000 American soldier's lives and anywhere from 10,000 to 30,000 Iraqi civilian lives takes dishonesty to a completely different level.

If that's your definition of trustworthy, I think that perhaps you're working from a very different dictionary.

MATT - 51% of the vote may not be a mandate in your eyes, but it's more than Clinton received in the 1992 election, which was about 44% of the popular vote. Which is why electoral votes are so important. In that same election, Clinton won so many electoral votes that the number of electoral votes was considered "the mandate," rather than the poor showing in the popular vote. In this election, not only did Bush receive 51% of the popular vote, he smoked the electoral map. Not a mandate? Okay ...

SCHORSCH - Bush versus Rodham-Clinton? Doubt it. We have something called "term limits." Bush can't run again. Keep your ignorance about American politics within the confines of the voting booth, please.

BRIDGET - your situational ethics are impressive. Keep it up.

And to Malsia: you're joking, right?

Under current REPUBLICAN government, our country has gone from a budget surplus to the largest deficit in history. You can't blame that on the "liberals".

MATT - Regarding your comments about the "rancorous little despot" who doesn't respond to the Will of the People: that's precisely what conservatives want regarding gay marriage and Roe vs. Wade - to LET THE PEOPLE VOTE. WILL OF THE PEOPLE, just like you said.

Why are Democrats so undemocratic when it suits their pet issues? Rant and rave about the "will of the people" all you want ... bet you'd hate to see Roe vs. Wade overturned and handed back to each individual state for the voters to decide upon. Which is what would happen if the Supreme Court decided to ever "overturn" it.

Ditto with gay marriage. The people voted in 11 states on Tuesday. Said no. You people are bitching about it. But it was "will of the people," no? But then you insult their intelligence and say their will must be wrong and uninformed, and so on and so forth. So, the "will of the people" is good for ... what? For agreeing with you?

Interestingly enough, the biggest opponents to gay marriage do not come from the narrow Republican base you all think it does. The opposition comes from the Democratic base - blacks, the elderly, blue-collar workers. Bush lost Oregon, but that state still passed the ban on gay marriage. Huh.

Anne: I can't determine whether that was a compliment or a slam. Given that people operating in the real world must always apply their ethics in a situational context, I'll take it as a compliment. Because surely you're not suggesting that the three examples of dishonesty I presented were equally wrong.

If you were, your position actually proves too much. If you believe that lying in every circumstance is a grave offense disqualifying the liar from holding the office of President, then you cannot vote for George W. Bush. We *know* that he lied about there being evidence linking Iraq with Al Qaeda. We also know that he lied about Saddam Hussein trying to obtain nuclear weapon supplies from Africa.

He lied, we went to war, and a lot innocent people have died as a result. If that doesn't sufficiently bother your conscience to prevent you from voting for him, then I'd say I'm not the one with the ethical problems.

ah the will of the people. the will of the people also supported slavery once. and state sponsored segregation. the supreme court is there to protect us from our very selves.

eventually most of the arguments on gay marriage and other such crimes of lifestyle and vice will boil down to basic freedoms and rights. and if history is any indication, eventually, what is right will prevail. perhaps not during this administration.

One more response to Anne:

You're right that the bans on homosexual marriage passed by 10 states were by the "will of the people". Or at least the will of the majority. The problem is that the fundamental rights of a minority should not be determined by a majority vote. That's why the Bill of Rights exists -- to protect basic civil and human rights (such as the right to marry) against tyranny of the majority. Example: the anti-miscegenation laws (all presumably established by the "will of the people" expressed through the legislative process) were therefore declared unconstitutional in 1967. This situation is no different.

Oh fer cry ay ay ... don't even start with comparing gay marriage to civil rights. It's insulting to an entire race of people.

And honestly, I have no problem with gay marriage in theory. I do have problems with the way by which people go about arguing for or against it and the ways by which people think it ought to be handled.

Wow Jim, you attract a very diverse crowd! I painstakingly read all the comments - even the ones that make no sense at all. I only have one comment to add: Anne, if you think gay marriage shouldnt be compared to civil rights, you might have to spend some time actually thinking about things instead of responding in blogs. Take some time, understand what equal rights for all actually means.
Hey Jim , thanks so much for writing your post. Great words, all very heartfelt.

"Oh fer cry ay ay ... don't even start with comparing gay marriage to civil rights. It's insulting to an entire race of people."

As a member of both races (assuming we're talking black and white) and a direct beneficiary of the abolition of anti-miscegenation laws, I can tell you that it's not at all insulting.

On the other hand, I'd venture to guess that your reaction would be pretty insulting to about 10% of the population.

There's simply no valid legal reason why the government should fail to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex, if it must recognize a marriage between two people of different races or creeds.

Listen, for your punching bag is about to speak:

I haven't said gay marriage should be banned. I'm fine with gay marriage. I AGREE that the government should recognize it because doing so harms no one. It's the rhetoric and the belief it's an issue for the Courts with which I struggle - the finer points of my concerns would require giving a lesson in Constitutional law and history that, as Julie pointed out, is an effort wasted on blog responses.

My point about "will of the people" was in specific response to Matt's ranting about Bush not listening to "the will of the people." This has gotten off on a tangent that originated from my being devil's advocate that the "will of the people" had actually made decisions about gay marriage people aren't happy with.

Julie - I am not offended by your attempt at snippiness. I live with a political lawyer. I've heard worse from better.

To quote Sean - I'm out!

And to the poster who made a comment about Bush vs. Rodham-Clinton, I apologize for mistaking your Bush reference to mean "George W." rather than Jeb. I inadvertently skipped a line. Mea culpa.

Gee Anne, it's a shame you won't give your lesson. It would be so interesting to see how what you teach differs from what I learned in my several Constitutional Law classes during law school years ago...

*disappointed sigh*

Not all lawyers are liberals. And I'm sure Scalia and Thomas would make meat of you and what you learned and how you apply it.

Cheers!

anne, now i have been enjoying this so far, but even i gotta admit, that last argument was a little weak. she wasn't asking for a lesson from scalia. she was responding to your claim about your knowledge of constitutional law. be careful with assumptions about the background and knowledge of the people. this goes for everyone here.

i like the discourse, but let's all try to stick with logic and not lashing. no matter what side of the fence.

and yeah, as it's my blog, i can make the rules. so thppppttt!

;-)

now, despite almost 40 comments, i still see precious few responses from people explaining why they voted against the evidence. if you voted bush, please, speak up!

Anne, that was just plain weak.

No, not all lawyers are liberals. In fact a good portion (possibly a majority?) of lawyers *aren't*. If we were, Congress would have a lot less internal argument and the Supreme Court would be very different. But that's beside the point: I don't believe that I (or anyone in here) ever claimed all lawyers were liberal.

As for Justices Scalia and Thomas, they're both very intelligent men and I would never claim to be smarter than either of them. But their jurisprudence is simply a point of view -- a form of conservative activism disingenuously termed "strict constructionism" -- and is no more valid than, say, Justice White's (see Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)) or Chief Justice Warren's (see Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)). Moreover, as far as I know they've specifically *declined* to opine on the subject of homosexual marriage as yet, so there's no way of knowing whether they'd disagree with me or not.

I must apologize - I didn't realize that breast cancer made you fat... I was simply serving up some of my juvenile humor in point 3 earlier. No offense intended to fat chicks or breast cancer patients.

But fear not, good people. In 2008, I will be eligible for the first time to run for president. And run I will.

I loves me some Digital Catharsis.

My point was there can be differing opinions on the role of the Courts in our society based on whether you're a liberal or conservative. I mentioned that I'm not entirely comfortable with the Courts stepping into the gay marriage debate and prefer, in general, self-government by the people. Which means less interference by the Courts and their judicial interpretations of the Constitution. On the other hand, I also recognize the necessity of the Courts to step in and make decisions to, as someone put it, protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority."

If you read my post closely, you will see that I admitted that I struggle with exactly why I'm uncomfortable with the Courts stepping into this issue. Which, if you ask me, would be a clue to some of you that it would behoove you to take a persuasive, rather than combative, approach to discussing the issue with me.

Bridget opted to get catty and challenge my admitted concerns with her alleged knowledge of Constitutional law and interpretation from law school (that tact really brought me back to grade school, by the way). My point with Scalia and Thomas was to point out that she doesn't hold the patent on intelligent perspectives and interpretations of the Constitution and the role of the Courts in society, some of which would leave the issue of gay marriage to the states.
Bridget appeared (note: APPEARED) to think she did.

Frankly, I think we're either talking past eachother or not really interested in having a civil discussion. Maybe both. We'll agree to disagree. Let's resume talk about vegetables.

Anne, your explanation there does shed some light on your prior responses. I hadn't been getting that from what you were saying at all...

As for my attitude, I don't believe anything I've said in here has been "catty". I was interested in having a civil discussion and I think my commentary has been fairly civil, considering what I've been met with. I'm sorry if you disagree. I do note that throughout this back-and-forth, one of us has been responding to the substance of the other's posts, and the other one hasn't.

You haven't addressed a single comment to me without attacking me or my opinion (rather than responding to what I said). You began our discourse by claiming that I have "situational ethics" and telling me to "keep it up." Your next response to me brushed aside my opinion by stating that it was insulting to an entire race of people -- a race I happen to belong to. [FYI that was your response to my "tryanny of the majority" comment that you now refer to.]

My mentioning that I went to law school was snarky, but certainly warranted in response to your condescension to all of us. You lawyer-dropped in a prior (and quite snarky) dismissal of Julie. I was just letting you know that your presuming to know the Constitution better than everyone else in here was rather hasty.

Hey Anne, believe it or not, I wasn't trying to be smippy. Guess there isn't any way to put this that will sound othewise, but I really DO believe that if you (and others) truly think about it for awhile, you'll find that it IS a civil rights issue. Even if the other races you are speaking about don't agree. Which, is pretty sad in itself.
But hey, go ahead and brush it off as snippy. It's easier for both sides to do that rather than listen or sit quietly and think about things.

As for me, enough with the commenting and reading of comments for awhile. I'm not entirely sure that I know what to do with the anger and the shame I feel for over half this country, but I DO know that things WILL change. The world will continue to move forward with progressive ideas no matter how much conservatives try to pretend it wont.

Thanks for letting me say this, as I do not have a blog of my own. (Although my email does work - so if you want to send snippy emails of your very own in response, hey, whatever floats your boat.)

Jimbo, you are looking for reason. Rationality. Decisions based in facts.

The reasons the red states voted for Bush were visceral. Emotional. Belief-based.

These are two completely different states of consciousness. They live in different realities, have entirely different perceptions of the world around them. You are asking people who speak a different language to understand your question and answer it in the language you speak.

It's not going to happen. I've come to that realization in the last 24 hours. I may live in a blue-ish state, but this state has increasing become reddish over the last two decades, cannot seem to find a middle ground between purging what did not work of its old blue past and accepting only that which is justifiable under red.

I've talked to wealthy midwesterners who whine about security and taxes, who've taken their share of the tax cut pie and stuck it in the bank (not investing it, as was expected); I've talked with jobless manufacturing folks who believe those tax cuts will somehow create jobs, scrambling to pay the mortgage and going without healthcare. I've talked with farmers and autoworkers who feel terribly threatened by any overseas business.

Their decisions to vote for Bush weren't based in fact.

Here's what I think might snap them out of it: a civil war. No weapons, just money. We cut them off cold, no blue state money for any red states. (This is being discussed broadly across the internet, BTW.) Maybe the cold, hard facts of the loss of our nasty liberal greenbacks will snap them out of their emotional state and clue them into reality. (I, for one, am pretty damned sick of having an enormous and unguarded international coastline surrounding my entire state and insufficient tax dollars to protect it, but f*cking landlocked interior Wyoming with a fraction of this state's population gets a huge chunk of homeland security funding. There's no rationality in that, it leaves this country less secure, and it should end. Period.)

And unfortunately, we have to come to grips with the fact that more than 50% of the population does not believe that 1) homosexuality is based in genectics (they think it's a choice), and 2) homosexuals who *choose* to practice their *alternative* lifestyle are not entitled to protections under the law. Note carefully the use of the word *believe* -- it's not based in facts.

"I may live in a blue-ish state, but this state has increasing become reddish over the last two decades, cannot seem to find a middle ground between purging what did not work of its old blue past and accepting only that which is justifiable under red."

"I, for one, am pretty damned sick of having an enormous and unguarded international coastline surrounding my entire state and insufficient tax dollars to protect it, but f*cking landlocked interior Wyoming with a fraction of this state's population gets a huge chunk of homeland security funding."

You wouldn't happen to be in Michigan, would you? I only ask b/c I am, and your description is dead-on for this state.

Wow, this is a great read. Little too heavy for me but I wanted to address one of Bridget's comments. I'm one of the people who felt strongly that Clinton should have been impeached, but not for the reasons you think. I could give a flying shit he was blown in the oval office. What I care about is that he lied under oath in and was in contempt of court, a crime I would spend 20 years in jail for had I done it. It was a mockery of our judicial system and proved he was above the law and unaccounted for his actions. Who'd he blow to get away with that?

Tina: yes. And you know what that Republican asshat Engler did to this state, then, don't you? Saved nothing for a rainy day and that day came, leaving us $2B in the hole.

Sean, I knew you were joking. I just thought I'd warn you about the breast cancer thing so you don't end up putting your foot in your mouth among family, friends, and co-workers.

As for fat being related with breast cancer, yeah, it turns out that if you're overweight, it increases your chances of getting breast cancer.

there have to be more conservatives than just anne, sean and malise who read his blog. come on! speak up!

Therein is one of the other challenges progressives face. WE are the real conservatives.

I don't believe we should have any programs that we can't pay for without making cuts elsewhere. The Iraq War was sold to the American public on the premise that Iraqi oil would pay for it -- but that's proven to be inadequate or wrong. What's the fallback, what's Plan B? That should have been in place at the time authorization was requested in October 2002. Now the deficit is beginning to pant at the door like the proverbial wolf (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/breaking/breakingnewsarticle.asp?feed=OBR&Date=20041104&ID=4073973), threatening the global economy. Higher oil prices exacerbate the problem, yet this administration does nothing to encourage conservation let alone provide serious investment in new alternative fuel technology.

WE are the real conservatives, those of us who worry about the deficit. Let's hear one of those *neo*-conservatives explain how this Bush-based financial imbalance is a great thing.

The plan should be straightforward, Rayne, but you "real" conservatives are far too civilized to accept the harsh reality of it. Let's use the Iraq scenario, since that and gay marriage are the rallying cries of the day.

Our military goes to Iraq. Let's even say that we were lied to and led there on false pretenses (but you want WMD? Every other person over there is a WMD). So we go. That costs us a lot of money. It costs us more time, money, and lives trying to set up a form of government that they will never understand or embrace. And why? Because that makes the new "real" conservatives happy. Ahhhh, we're teaching the idiot sand farmers and rock throwers to live like us... please.

Anyway, we're over there, yet our gas prices keep going up. BTW, we were never told that oil would pay for it all - that was an assumption made by all of the acid-dropping college kids and douchebags who look to NPR for water-cooler banter. Blood for oil? We should be so lucky.

As it turns out, these poor oppressed people keep blowing up their own oil pipelines and suicide bombing anything that might possibly be of help to them in the future. And the costs just keep growing. And growing. And growing.

What can we do, what can we do? The first thing we should have done, and the first thing that the "real" conservatives accused the administration of doing - TAKE THE FUCKING OIL.
That's the answer. We're there. We're trying. And we're the footing the bill.

But we can't do that, can we? Sure, it would solve a ton of problems over here. Sure it would offset the cost of the war tenfold and kick-start the hell out of the economy. But we can't, can we? And why? Because that would give all the "real" conservatives another reason to waffle and crucify the government. Everyone is so concerned about democracy and human rights in that god-forsaken shit-hole, when the issue boils right down to money. You said it yourself.

It's not about weapons. It's not about human rights. It's not about democracy. And it sure as hell isn't about gay marriage. It's 100% about money. And, like it or not, you can't point that finger because we haven't done a thing with that oil except try to protect it for the sake of the very people that are killing our soldiers and blaming us for the issues surrounding the "global economy."

You want plan B? Conquer and divide. Sadly for the global economy, Blair was the only foreigner with a big enough sack to put any skin in the game, so F the rest of them. It was our money. It was our soldiers. Now it's our oil. That's plan B.

I'm SEAN and I approve this message.

"What's our oil doing under their soil?"

Okay, I can't stay quiet on this one. You want us to steal oil that's not ours from people who didn't want us there in the first place? I don't remember hearing the Iraqi people begging for our help. The U.S. chose to go in there, therefore it's the U.S.'s bill to pay. Holding the citizens of a country we invaded responsible for the bill of our invasion is just ridiculous.

"but you want WMD? Every other person over there is a WMD" PLEASE tell me that you don't think every single person in Iraq is a terrorist. PLEASE tell me I misread that statement. The implications of me having read that right are just...sickening, so I'm am seriously hoping you meant something else.

Sorry Jimbo, I just realized I never answered your question. I voted for Bush and honestly, it makes me sick why. I was truly undecided until I stepped foot in the booth and the only reason I casted my vote for him was out of fear. I was so torn between the two, I mean, I'm pro life, pro stem cell research, yet don't think Kerry had the balls to defend us. That really bugged me. I also hated the way Kerry would blend to fit whatever situation he was in and say whatever he thought people wanted to hear. I'd rather someone stick to their guns whether you like it or not. Silly reasons I know. Deep down, I don't feel confident in my decision at all which doesn't matter at all now however, my state was blue!
BTW, out of all of these posts, BMW's hit me the hardest. I feel for you, really. I can identify on a small level, I'm white married to a black and have felt discrimination and hatred. I couldn't fathom not being able to marry him nor do I think anyone should judge who you love.

thanks paula. that was a good and honest answer. that you feel the at decorated viet nam veteran and member of the us senate would be incapable of defending the nation says worlds about the power of the republican spin machine and the incompetence of the democrats.

Of course I didn't mean that every single Iraqi citizen is a terrorist. That would be very terribly narrow-minded and deplorable to say. I meant that every OTHER Iraqi citizen is a terrorist... OK, I'm joking again. Somebody stop me.

The entire nation - that entire part of the world - is one big time bomb. If you don't feel that Iraq, under Saddam's rule or otherwise, was/is a threat - you're either crazy or naive.

And all's fair in love & war, Shawn. I'm 100% NOT in favor as spending money and losing lives over there for nothing at all. We're already engaged, and the accusations were waged well before the war was. We're doing the time, show me the crime.

SEAN 2008, Because America Said So...

p.s. i'm just trying to keep the comments flowing on this one in an attempt to break the world record of 103, set in 2002 by a Guatamalan gentleman seeking advice on a self-administered vasectomy...

"And you know what that Republican asshat Engler did to this state, then, don't you? Saved nothing for a rainy day and that day came, leaving us $2B in the hole."

Oh yeah, I know. A close friend of mine's husband works for the State of MI, and had to take a big pay cut AND 40 hours of forced, unpaid furlow time in Granholm's attempt to get us out of debt. The University of Michigan, where I work, has taken cuts in state funding, which means I've gotten paltry 2.5% and 3% raises the last two years (and I wasn't exactly raking in the dough to begin with). Engler is the devil, as far as I'm concerned!

Where in MI are you, if you don't mind me asking?

I can only imagine what a buddy of mine I met on this very blog is going to say, but...

I'm a Republican and I voted for Kerry. First time I ever voted Democratic on the presidential ticket. Even went down ballot and voted for a few Democrats for Senate, Congress and state office.

Two things about that.

1) I don't believe in rewarding incompentence. And Bush is the most incompetent president since Carter. Shouldn't have gotten a second term, period.

2) I voted the way I did because I my own party has abandoned me. There's not much room for us moderate McCain Republicans anymore. You Democrats think YOU get blasted by Republicans? Try being a moderate Republican. Heaven forbid those of us who believe in fiscal responsibility, responsible government, and moderate social programs have a say in the GOP.

The bottom line? The majority of Bush voters in red states voted clearly in opposition of their own self-interest economically. They would directly benefit FAR more from any number of Democratic candidates, but they vote the elephant. Why? Because the GOP is smart. They've convinced these folks without economic or social standing that the only thing they have left -- their way of life -- is under attack. Those damn liberals are going to take away your guns, burn your Bibles, make you eat French food, and have gay sex on your front lawn. Doesn't help that the elite of the Democratic party are Yankees or West Coast hippies -- two groups that have been looking down on the red-staters and their way of life for years.

Look at the only Democrats to win in the last 40 years -- LBJ, Carter, Clinton. Good ol' boy Southern Democrats. There's your road map, blue-staters.

The world has gotten a lot smaller, and weapons a lot scarier. 50 years ago, if I wanted to attack England, I needed a country. I needed a big country under my control with a whole bunch of people who would fight and die for me. Not so today. Today I need a Pepsi can full of anthrax and a plane ticket, and I can kill thousands. Clearly, we have to do something. The debate is over what.

I see the war that we are now in as the next major phase in history. I think history is defined by the spread of freedom for mankind. Going back to the 18th century, we saw the American Revolution and the establishment of all the key concepts about modern government we take for granted. Later we saw the downfall of the monarchies, the end of western slavery, and the end of colonialism. In the 20th century we saw the end of communism (almost).

All of these struggles were victories for freedom. And the thing that is easy to forget is that victory was hardly assured. 13 isolated, rag-tag, bickering colonies defeated what was then one of the greatest military powers the world had ever seen. The Confederacy clobbered the Union for two years straight. Hitler rolled over Europe. Nation after nation fell to communism. Things looked grim. It was the courage and clarity of great men- Washington, Jefferson, Licoln, FDR, JFK, Reagan, Churchill and others who had the clarity to see what was happening, the vision to see a better world, and the strength of character to fight for it, not just against their external enemies, but against internal critics, who out of either malice, cowardice, or bad judgment failed to see or refused to act.

I think Bush has a similar vision for the world. Although he may not speak as clearly as I’d like, if you listen, he recognizes three things that I don’t think John Kerry believes:

1. We really are in a fight for our lives.
Radical Islam hates us. Not because we support Israel, or the fact that we have troops in Saudi Arabia or whatever. They hate everything we stand for. Think the Patriot Act threatens your freedom? – visit Iran. Think it sucks to be gay under the Bush administration? - go to Egypt or Palestine. Think the Republicans are rolling back women’s rights? – ever heard of honor killings? Think Ashcroft wants to bring Jim Crow? The slave trade is alive and well over there, right now. They stand for the opposite of everything we fight for. They killed about 3,000 people on 9/11. Do you think they would have hesitated to kill 300,000, or 3,000,000, if they could have? I don’t.

2. Freedom is the birthright of all, including Arabs. And no, I don’t mean in a “God chose GWB to liberate the world” kind of way. I mean in a “We hold these truths to be self-evident” kind of way. No one deserves to live under the kind of oppression at the hands of the government that’s supposed to protect them. And there is no one else with the strength or the stomach to do anything about it.

3. These two ideas are very closely linked.
We can trust the U.N., close our eyes, bury our heads in the sand, wish for it all to go away, but it won’t. Pre-emption isn’t the answer either, although in dangerous times it beats the hell out of doing nothing. The answer to our own security lies in the spread of freedom to the Arab world. Democracies don’t attack each other. That part of the world is beyond screwed up, but we have to start somewhere. The old way is not working, and really hasn’t been for some time.

I don’t think John Kerry believes we’re in this kind of fight. He said all the right things, but he never convinced me that his heart was in it. I think America is the greatest nation ever, and have no shame in saying so. No other country has sacrificed for others the way we have. I think Kerry, and many liberals in this country, still have some kind of Cold War, Vietnam hangover where they’re not really sure we’re the good guys. I’m sure.

Also, I've never thought this line of reasoning represented a vote motivated by fear. This is a vote motivated by hope.

I voted for Bush because:
Finally a president who meant what he said.
A man who is faithful to his wife.
A man who doesn't pander to Hollywood.
A man who is not ashamed to say he prays and give credit to a higher power, who helps him.
A man who doesn't try to please all the people all the time.
A man who shares my deeply held belief about freedom and what a GREAT country America is, and someone who knew Saddam Hussein has murdered 400,000 innocent men, women and children.
I did not care if there were weapons of mass destruction, Saddam himself was a weapon of mass destruction.
We are better off today, with this man gone from power, who can argue that?
Who are these people that say we should have not gone in there, I thought we should of done this YEARS ago."
(www.andrewsullivan.com)

No he has not been the perfect president, have we had a perfect president? Are there always lies and manipulation? Yes.
But I do think that Bush is trying to do the best he can. Anyone who thinks he knew every part of information about WMD's in the Middle East needs to read about how human intelligence is gathered. There is no black & white, only plenty of grey...Bush was fed some bad information and sketchy details from unreliable sources. Human intelligence is by no means perfect, I believe the CIA and FBI try very hard to get the best info they can, but in this case it wasn't perfect.
But I just don't understand how such "liberal" people, lovers of peace, could be so selfish and not be willing to let others in this world have a chance. Since when did torture chambers, mass graves and use of chemical weapons become something we just turned a blind eye to? It never should. Do you think the averag Iraqi would rather have freedom or be out of electricity for 8 hours of each day? I'm pretty sure freedom has a sweet and sour taste to it right now.
As Americans freedom has no taste to us anymore, it doesn't excite us, there is no revolution to join and fight so we can be free. Can you imagine waking every day with the longing to be free, to walk the streets in peace without fear of a dictatorship? I can only imagine it yet that alone makes me feel so blessed to be here in this country...a very mixed up and confusing and unperfect place to be sure, but a free place.

I would rather pay a few more dollars at the pump if it means a chance for some other global citizens to enjoy the freedom that I do. I would re-join the military if I was asked, I'm not a globalist by any means, but trying to help out other oppressed people is a good thing in my book.

Say it works...say that in 15 years half of the middle east countries are working toward democracies...would it be worth it or should we revert to isolationism and let the rest of the world fend for themselves?

I voted for Bush because my view of the world aligns more with his than anyone else, not all of it, but most of it.

Joe. Gay sex on your front lawn? You live in my neighborhood? :-)
Well said. Really. And I "feel your pain." I sent Jimbo an email response attempting to sort it out myself, and address some of his main points. It ended up being about five pages - - clearly not for a comments section. It actually helped me sort some of my positions out, and it's clear that I am very conflicted.

Yeah, I voted for Bush. Why??? Cuz I had to vote for one of the two. And it came down to these things. Bush gives you an answer. Like it, love, or hate it, It is an answer. Kerry seem to answer both sides at the same time. A perfect example is during one of the debates, he said that if illegal aliens were in the country working and paying their taxes, they should be 1) allow to stay since they were working and productive and 2) be deported since they were here illegally. Which one is it??

Kerry also for all his "plans" never said what he was going to do. We kept hearing of "plans".

Bush also was the one that kept me feeling safe in the threat of global terrorism. Kerry did not. I thought a vote for Kerry was a vote saying that the terrorists had won. BTW, the Iraqi people have been begging for our help in removing him for years. Well, at least the Kurds had asked for help. But a good portion of them are buries in mass graves now.

I have included my blog address. Read the last post and the one 2 before it. That says who I am and where I stand on the views.

mmmm threats. VALUES VALUES VALUES

oh and I'm sorry, I wasn't thinking about your life when I voted, I was thinking about my kids, my family and our future. We wrongies are selfish like that.

Now, I'm wondering, when you hunt me down, will you be wearing camoflauge?

Tina -- a couple hours north of Detroit, towards the end of the automotive industry's reach. Damn, you do know exactly what I'm talking about, don't you? Engler is evil incarnate, an anti-conservative. Grrr...

Another issue that really frosts my chaps is the need to cut 700+ teachers in this state due to necessary spending cuts -- and yet the f*cking Bush administration pushes through their unfunded No Child Left Behind program that further reduces the number of teachers available to the class room (many, if not most school systems here have had to reallocate teachers and dedicate them to handling the flipping paperwork required by federal law under NCLB, meaning fewer teachers).

Yeah, that'll make Michigan and other states that are losing jobs so much more competitive in the global market place...

Welcome to Bush's Family/Moral Values. Leave No Child Behind on reduced education.

Sean -- It IS about human rights.

Every child in this country should have access to basic medical care and a good education if we are to build a strong American future -- but failing to fund either is a denigration of their right to that future and fails as a model to the rest of the world. We are far behind too many other countries on education and on infant mortality, children's health, literacy and child poverty; imagine what a dent in these issues we could have made with the money we spent on Iraq. Imagine how strong this country could have been and now will not be in 18 years because of this shortsightedness.

And it definitely IS about weapons -- like not undermining our military experts and subverting their efforts to protect our country and our troops by doing things on the cheap and just plain doing STUPID things. Abu Ghraib: STUPID, a perfect example of how not to run a war, now an example to every other potential enemy that they too, can ignore the Geneva Conventions. Abu Ghraib was a permission slip to every other country to vacate the idea of human rights. Al Qaqaa: STUPID, a perfect 380-ton example of protecting the oil and NOT protecting the *known* WMD, not to mention the 22-lbs. of missing uranium that walked from unguarded Tuwaitha. The entire invasion and subsequent occupation: STUPID, as in ill-prepared and ill-prosecuted. How well do you think troops function in 130F+ heat when they are given only (3) bottles of water a day to drink? Don't try to argue your way out of that one - I have proof of this ignorance and many other points like it. Like troops still missing body armor or vehicle armor...

And it IS about WMD -- like the 6 or 8 nuclear weapons that have been built in North Korea since we fucked up and pulled out under Richard Perle's plan of active disengagement. Why are we spending billions of dollars on a sand pit instead of constructive engagement with the countries that actually do have nuclear weapons, like Iran or North Korea?

How is any of the above examples of good conservative values? It's pure and utter failure to execute any objective and frankly, that's not conservatism. It's disgusting and repulsive, it makes us the laughingstock of the world.

And it most definitely IS about democracy. Everything this administration has done to date is how NOT to run a democracy and the world knows it. Ronald Reagan is surely spinning in his grave. Even Nixon could take lessons from this administration on being an arrogant dick; he at least had respect for dialogue and engagement in regards to influencing the spread of democracy. "Only Nixon could go to China" is a figure of speech, for fuck's sake.

Hell. I never thought I'd miss either Reagan or Nixon.

And if we needed to rescue those poor people from Saddam the evil dictator, then what about the several African nations who suffer under similar oppression?

Oh, they don't have anything we need, so we can go on ignoring them while genocide continues and is hardly covered by our media, to the point that Laura Bush's new puppy is bigger news.

And the Governator of California owns, what is it up to now, six hummers? But we're not selfish or self-serving.

I'm checking out Vancouver, thinking of moving there. I have several Republican friends and get along with almost everyone, but this societal selfishness, parking lots crammed with SUVs, education always taking a back seat to other priorities no matter how much they legislate otherwise, narrow, unsophisticated world view and Bush's constant fear-mongering; I'm not liking the atmosphere here. Having a president who's basically thumbing his nose at the rest of the world does NOT make me feel safer, quite the contrary, I feel like he's drawing wrath upon us like a lightning rod, and personaly, I don't want to take a fall for him.

Rayne - all great points that I'm not about to argue. My dialogue concerning Iraq was simply a very sarcastic "Plan B" in which we could reverse the financial impact of our involvement by claiming the spoils... I don't think for a second that we've made any global friends at all in a very long time, but I do think that fireworks show a year and a half ago made some crazy-ass people tap the brakes on fucking with us.

Bean - I love my SUV's, and I am very thankful that we have so much (even if others have so little). Arnold has earned his Hummer fleet, and it's not our job to go around helping everybody else. There's bad shit everywhere, and that's never going to change... Well, everywhere but Vancouver.

Life ain't fair, and it sure as hell isn't a John Lennon song. But congratulations on the move, eh?

I'm done pissing people off for this week. Jimbo, can we get into a round-table on the status of your sex life or your disdain for corporate America, please? At this rate, I'll never win the 2008 election.

SEAN 2008, Legalize It and Pass It Around

I voted for Bush for the following reason: I heard lots of bashing from the Democrats, but never a definite plan on how they would have handled the events of 9/11 and it's aftermath any better. No, I don't agree with everything he's said or done. And yes, his complete lack of eloquence makes me cringe.

Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. But it doesn't gain my respect nor does it get my vote.

those are all legit answers people, and yet most of you still admit to bush's failures.

jeeeesus, maytag doesn't have a spin cycle that's half as good as karl rove's.

and now we are all just hung out to dry.

Sean, your Plan B already failed. It was one of the many rationales that this administration used to justify the expense of the war, that Iraqi oil would reimburse our investment. So far it's been a disaster and allowing known WMD to fall into the hands of insurgents means that the oil production infrastructure will be under constant siege as long as we are there. Those same unprotected-now-missing WMD are quite likely going produce their own fireworks show, their own shock-n-awe. RDX (like that which went missing from Al Qaqaa) was used in Bali blast October 2002 that killed 211 people, and at the UN offices in Baghdad. You can bet there will be plenty more fireworks shows like those.

We would have been able to recover the oil -- had this administration listened to its own military experts like General Shinseki and put more feet on the ground. But they canned Shinseki for telling the the truth. Plan B then tanked.

So what's Plan C? I think an *effective* Plan C is going to need a fair amount of eating crow...

Actually, you might as well move to Plan D now that the NYT has reported 4,000 shoulder-fired surface-to-air-missiles are missing (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/politics/06weapons.html).

This adminstration couldn't find its butt with both hands.

Fine. Plan D - Send Kerry and Edwards over there to run the new Democracy... That should about do it.

:)

Hi. I was linked to this site through ordinarymorning.net -- I think.

Well, I hope you don't feel too thwarted.

Personally... politics baffle me. But I think mostly the current system is ineffective.

I think this site (http://www.electoral-vote.com) presents a clear, logical and intelligent evaluation of the current political system in the US. I especially like the section on the electoral college (www.electoral-vote.com/info/electoral-college.html).

I think any of the proposals in that discussion would serve as wonderful solutions.

Actually, Sean, we tried that. But you and people like you voted against that Plan, mostly in favor of the word-that-starts-with-the-22nd-letter-of-the-English-alphabet-for-which-Jimbo-would-hunt-me-down-and-beat-me-senseless.

Fortunately for your sake and theirs, we are just going to kill and maim our way to the next Plan...believe it's "F", for "Fallujah" and not coincidentally, "f*cked up".