« The Clash of the Titans: The First Presidential Debate | Main | President Asks Bush and Clinton to Help Raise Funds for Tsunami Relief »

November 04, 2004

It's All Over, Folks!

George Bush Wins the 2004 Presidential Election.

According to CNN Election results, Bush won on Tuesday Nov. 2 by 51% to 48% over John Kerry. SoftVote's Presidential Poll predicted the final outcome 49% to 47%.

SoftVote's Presidential Poll was right on track and states that were given to a particular candidate, in the end, were won by that candidate. At first the race was too close to call but Bush managed to gain ground after polls showed that Bush was getting votes from Hispanics, Jews, seniors and women. "It's clear that the Bush campaign worked hard to connect with the Hispanic community and it paid off," said Janet Murguia, executive director of the National Council of La Raza, a nonpartisan Hispanic advocacy group (Read more: http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/ny-uskeys1104,0,7705666.story?coll=ny-election-stories).

SoftVote's Results:

As for SoftVote's position after the 2004 Election, it will still be a place for people to exchange ideas on political issues, expect that instead of being a presidential poll it will be dedicated to being a political blog. Everybody is welcome to post on anything that is related to politics and you can also add your site on SoftVote's links page.

Posted by Elouise at November 4, 2004 11:01 AM

Comments

GOD HELP US

Posted by: d. jones at November 4, 2004 12:18 PM

djones,abel,JM,and yes even Wayne good luck and thanks for the Spiited debate. We must now fall behind this man because the future of America demands it. The election is over and it is time to find common ground and put differences aside.

I am looking forward to hearing from you in this blog in the future. Lets move forward!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 4, 2004 01:19 PM

I for one think that the people have spoken in more ways than one. Not only did they give President Bush 4 more years, but they spoke loud and clear putting more Republicans in the House and Senate.

My personal opinion on Dashal losing his seat was because he masterminded the continious fillabustering that the Senate waged against President Bush's nominees. No real political work could be done, because it seemed like every week the Democrats were fillabustering about something.

I too hope that Congress can come together and work for what's best for this Great Country. Maybe now it can be done since there is no need to try and destroy President Bush. They now know he has only 4 years and can't be re-elected, so maybe, just maybe they can get down to the business of running this country and representing their states better.

I was out of touch for a while but in reading the posts I see they were the same tired old songs.

Guess I didn't miss much.

Good luck to everyone and lets hope that the next time we all meet it can be civilized and keep the name calling out of the conversations.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at November 4, 2004 03:07 PM

This has been a great blog. As we move from the election to the next four years, let's hope we will do so with civility. The time for partisan attacks is over and it's time for both sides to come together and find a peaceful and willing compromise to the problems that face our nation. If we ALL work together we can get the job done. Democrats and Republicans alike have work to do on moving towards a more central view that is beneficial to the whole country.

Let's hope that the voice of the malcontents in this country, like Michael Moore, can be seen as they are, merely constant complainers who see littel good in this country, but let's understand, this is America and his freedom to speak is the same as ours. Let's just not be so quick to take the voice of dissenters as truth and do some homework on our own.

My fear is that the next year is going to be difficult for the President because America has spoken on issues of moral values and the direction we want to see this country move towards. That's not going to sit well with the most extreme liberals and I believe there will be a lot of unsubstantiated verbal attacks in the media, who is obviously trying to shape the will and moral fiber in this country with their overly biased opinions. There's is not the only voice in this country, there is the voice of the people and the majority has spoken through their votes. It's my prayer that the media starts taking note of the voice of the people and reporting in an honest and clear manner.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 4, 2004 03:31 PM

Louis,
I am not one to usually hold a grudge, but after the posts I have read with your name on them I think we deserve more than a speech from you. How bout an apology for starts? On Nov 1st you posted how Bush is the anti-christ.

We can move forward once you have made the proper apologies.

Posted by: Wayne at November 4, 2004 10:21 PM

d.jones,
Nobody likes a sore little loser.
Go cry to Michael Moore.

When will your side learn? Republicans picked up more than just the white house on this one.

Posted by: Wayne at November 4, 2004 10:22 PM

Jim Rodkey,
I have been attacked for months now, I was not running for any office and yet Abel, d.jones, Louis and the extreme left here felt the need to attack me personally.

I can not move forward without some sort of an apology. I really don't care what anyone thinks about this, this is the way I am and will not change.

Posted by: Wayne at November 4, 2004 10:25 PM

d.,

It will be ok, so your guy did not win, does that mean the world will come to an end? Look, the best thing to do now is get behind the President just like Kerry has done. We together can make the USA even stronger and more ready to handle the war on terror. In a symbolic gesture, I am extending my hand in friendship, will or can you do the same? It was a long fight but now it is over, please let's get behind our President and support everything he does as long as it is legal and moral. Let's all be friends and make this country the best it can be!

David M. Lowery
Plano, TX

I posted this on another topic, I just want d. to see it.

Posted by: David Lowery at November 4, 2004 11:45 PM

My view regarding George W. Bush's election? First, I'm not confident that Bush really won the election. I'm not even sure that we even had a meaningful election and that all the votes were collected and counted. One thing that I do know is that I can't ever support a theocratic, lying politican who demonizes opponents during elections. If I did, the entire exercise of having a two party system would be pointless and Democrats would really beome Republicans. Although I recognize that the Democratic party has really been drifting in this direction for the past twenty-thirty years, I would really hate to see our party forget its Liberal and Progressive heritage.

Frankly, if I really wanted to be just another misguided "compassionate" Conservative and advocate so-called moral values above what I consider to be a sane domestic and foreign policy, I'd simply become a Republican. It is truly sad to see a few of my friends espousing the problems that we have in our country and believing that they are the solution. They want to win elections so much that they would become pseudo Republicans to become successful.

Frankly, the truth is that I don't like the direction in which our country is heading. I see moderate Democrats like Senator Daschle being unjustly defeated. Elections are no longer about candidates' positions or morals. They are about Republicans using a wholly owned subsidiary media to shape public perceptions of Democrats and "demonizing" our candidates regardless of their actual record or beliefs. There's no question in my mind that the SwiftBoat Veterans lied about John Kerry and "demonized" him in order to defeat him. There's also no question in my mind that George W. Bush's cronies were behind this effort.

I suspect that our elections are now more about rigged voting machines that shave off Democratic votes in Democratic precincts while at the same time adding votes to the Republican precints. Frankly, I'm afraid that I'm seeing our current two party system turning into a one party system with the help of misguided voters who tell us that our candidates must transform themselves into Republicans if we wish to win elections.

I could never stand for that. I believe that it much more important to promote our Liberal principles as opposed to merely working to get our people elected. Doing the latter is in no way "moral." In my view, without principles, a political party that exists merely to seize power is not a force for positive social change and thus, unacceptable. That is the problem with most Republicans today and why I could never accept the "Republican" view of reality.

I agree with a friend of mine who said, "I don't give a good goddamn who derives pleasure from putting what organ into which orifice of whom. I could care less who marries whom or, for that matter, what. I care about personal liberty. I care about feeding the people. I care about access to medical care. I care about living in peace."

My friend continued, "If these political aims don't square with the moral values of those in the heartland - too bad! Please note that my political beliefs don't require that anyone change his/her sex life, surrender their civil rights, starve, become homeless, give the lives of their children to war or die of treatable diseases. I would never force you to enter in to homosexual marriage, nor bear a child you did not wish to carry to term. If this is unacceptable to those paragons of moral virtue in the heartland - they can pray for me."

My point here is that I will never accept what George W. Bush is about. He's definitely not about the things that are important to me. Frankly, I don't believe that our country is in good hands right now and I'll be concerned for us in the coming years. I used to think that I would accept George W. Bush if he were truly elected by the majority of the American people but now that he has been elected---I think, I still cannot believe it. I'll accept him when he accepts Closed Union Shops in Labor Law and that American workers everywhere, have the right to organize into powerful Labor Unions advocating them.

I have already lived without a President for four years and I guess living the same way for another four years won't be too much of a problem. I'm not too much into praying but yes, I'll be praying for our country these coming four years.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 5, 2004 12:29 AM

I'm not crying, I'm really angry that people made a very foolish decision.

Republicans are just for millionaires and corporate interests, they don't care about the middle class.

Glad you're happy now, Wayne, America will fall apart under a new Bush term. Now we're going to see larger deficits, another terrorist attack, another war, more job outsourcing, and more international anger.

People are fed up with troops dying in Iraq and the lack of jobs so that's why a lot of people wanted him voted out of office. Unfortunately, they cared more about his so-called "moral" values. Please tell me - do moral values include sending people to die in a war of choice, do moral values include losing people's jobs and cutting their overtime pay, do moral values include pandering to the multi-millionaires with big tax cuts, do moral values include holding secret meetings with big oil executives, do moral values include sending one million more people into poverty since you took office, do moral values include ignoring the Bill of Rights and taking away some of our freedoms in the name of the Christian-right? I don't think so. Were people opne to change in the White House? Of course they were. But no the Republicans succeeded into brainwashing millions of ignorant people into thinking that getting your kid back from Iraq and finding a decent-paying job are less important than seeing two men holding hands in Holy Matrimony. If you're wondering why the economy is poor, think about this: when he was Governor of Texas GW JR ran three oil companies into the ground, those oil companies went out of business. No wonder there are so many economic woes.

America - Where only a knucklehead becomes president.

Posted by: d. jones at November 5, 2004 09:43 AM

David, get a grip. Historically, if there were dirty voting misdeeds it is most likely to occur in Il. or PA with busloads of mentally ill being promised candy or drunks being promised booze by union thugs who then try to dissuade conservatives from voting by loading up the lines with people who have already voted. The democrats are lock step in the disenfranchisement movement. Finally, look at the states you lost, many of them were hit hardes financially by the Clinton recession where Unions were most likely to swing the vote. What did the Bush administration do? They got smart and sent more monitors even international monitors to the poll than ever before specifically to the precincts where past has shown the dirtiest tricks...more votes than voters, etc. You need to go lick your wounds and face the facts that people were not going to vote for a vietnam war protestor no matter what you tried otherwise to portray him as.

It is a beautiful day!

Posted by: Christopher at November 5, 2004 10:32 AM

It was really my hope that after the election, people would have come together. I've been watching the news and they keep saying that the anger on the other side is so intense that they will not give in. They will not listen to reason and they will not seek to unite America. I really thought they were wrong and then I read D Jones and Abel's comments.

I guess Wayne is right. All of us who have supported the President have been called all kinds of names. We have argued our points and in the end, those who agreed with us ourweighed those who disagreed. That's called a majority consensus.

Tom Daschele isn't a moderate Democrat, never was. Tom Dascele was an obstructionist and never had a bi-partican bone in his body. The dictomomy of America is changing. The focus is moving away from the liberal views that gained their footage in the sixties anbd have been growing. Americans see the garbage in the movies and on television and they are concerned how it is affecting their children. They see the court system trying to overthrough the Constitution and they don't like it. They see gay marriage being forced on them and they aren't ready for it. That watch and see gays portrayed and nice and normal while people with any Christian values are portrayed as blundering idiots and evil. They've had enough and they've spoken.

I really don't believe that most of us are expecting the liberals to simply sit down and shut up. We would like if they'd stop whining so much and start working with us so that we can find a common ground to move forward. The problem with the other side is that they absolutely can not imagine that they might possibly be wrong. Therefore, as I have learned all to well in these blogs, they will say and do anything to prove their point. Even if that means making things up. While I don't want to believe it, I can't help but feel that somewhere in D. Jones twisted logic, there is hope that they prediction made in the 9:43 blog will happen and they will be happy.

I believe the country will be more secure. I belive that jobs will increase and I believe the economy will get stronger. I trust the President's policies, a lot of informed people agree. You think his policies are bad, there are some who agree with you. In four years, I really belive that, if the Democrats continue with their vendetive voices, more Americans will see the destructive and devisive path they want for America and they will continue to shift away from the Democratic Party. It's not because they are ignorant, as Jones and Able want us to believe, it's because the Democratic Party has left them.

We need to understand that there are some Democrats and some Republicans who don't care about the middle class and are only interested in the corporate world. It's not just a Republican problem. But it's important to remember that the corporate world drives the economy, creates the jobs we need and provides the healthcare (something that to many people think the President does). There is corruption in the corrporate world but all of them are not evil. All the Prsident can do is generate policy that rewards positive action and punishes negative action in the corporate world.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 5, 2004 11:38 AM

Wayne you are proof that enough is enough! You want an appology because Bush wone and you think you were personaly attacked? I do not know you from Adam and could care less about if you think your feelings were hurt.

We need to put the partisan attacks aside and TRY to get along the next four years if we can. Time will tell if the choice that was made was correct or not lets wait and see! We have to try and move this country forward! THis country is facing some very tuff times ahead and it would not be any differnet if was Kerry that got elected.

Put your ego aside, the election is over and helping to heal this country instead of crying about people taking your view differnet and disagreeing with you as personal!

I have a strong feeling that it would be someone like you that wants appology's!

Yes, my feelings for Bush have not changed, I dont trust him but I will try my best to be supportive as an American can be. I am upset that he wone, but I respect the fact that he did.

Time will tell if the country was right by electing him. God help us! Please that is my gut feeling!

So Wayne if I hurt your we little feelings I am sorry! So lets move on!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 5, 2004 12:02 PM

Wayne you know what about all of the Liberal jabs and hate comments from the like of you and some others. You are the first to ask for an appology! Differences exist and people make comments that they should have not have made about one onother on more than one time in this blog, I dont want an appology and I dont feel any different about Bush and I am not going to appologise for anything I said about him, nor will I expect any from you about your comments about Kerry!

Get over Wayne!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 5, 2004 12:06 PM

Wayne so you know what exactly I am! I am not part of the extreme left as you put it! I am more moderate and possibly conservative on more issues than you. I live in a very conservative community of 56000 people that is two thirds republican. I have held public office here for twelve years as a Democrat. I do not think I would have been re-elected 3 times if I was an extreme leftist! I have been called by many more conservative than many republicans here if anything. My roots are Democrat and my beliefs are not liberal. I am a fiscal conservative, more so than Bush and half of the Republican Congress, I am a devote Orthodox Christian with strong moral and family values. I attend church each Sunday with my wife and four children. I am a Democrat! How is that Wayne?

So get off your high horse and get over it! Just because people like Bush wear there religions on their sleeve do not make them better than anyone else. Actions and deeds speak louder than words where I come from, we will see if Bush's actions and deeds follow his claims!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 5, 2004 12:22 PM

Abel,
Why don't you look into the past for the Democratic heritage? You wrote "I would really hate to see our party forget its Liberal and Progressive heritage." How soon you forget. The Democratic party in the early 1900's through the 1950's was anything but liberal and progressive. They ruled the south. The Democrats were the ones who were fighting against CIVAL RIGHTS, not for it. They were called Dixiecrats and were truely hated.

I am a REPUBLICAN and I am not for millionairs, but you know that's like the pot calling the kettle black. Which two candidates had more wealth? Was it Bush/Cheney or Kerry/Edwards? Give me a break. I am a hard working former Marine who loves my country and was and am still willing to give my life for it. I am not wealthy, in fact I have bill collectors calling me every day, but that is my fault for over-extending my credit. I am to blame and I will fix the problem. I did see my income go up during the Bush presidency by 27K. That's 17K more than 8 years under President Clinton. I like what he has done for this country, I like the way he is willing to defend it from terrorism and as I have said before. The loss of life in Iraq is sad indeed, but it is still below 1% of the total personnel who served over there. In a military engagement the acceptable rule is 10% loss of life. We haven't even come close to that and will most likely never get there. We lost more people in 1 hour storming the beaches at Normandy. The men and women serving in Iraq support the President 9 to 1. They believe in what he is doing and are upset with the press coverage back here in the US. It's not nearly as bad as the press makes it seem.

So why don't you and d. jones just get off you're whining butts and at least try and clear the air, put the past behind you and look forward to a new future.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at November 5, 2004 02:22 PM

This post is something for which I will probably be criticized. It is not sour grapes. I wish Mr. Bush success on the one hand, but I don't expect much on the other. During the past election cycle, I tried to think of something that I would consider to be a major accomplishment. Jim Rodkey mentioned the Bush education reform. But yet, I have read the negatives about that, too. I was not able to think of any significant accomplishments for Mr. Bush.

I believe what is happening in this country is truly the vaunted cultural war. I read about the disgust with the Hollywood crowd, but I have to chuckle about this because I wonder how many of the people complaining about Hollywood still go and see the latest flick. I haven't seen a movie in years. I agree that a lot of what we call entertainment appeals to our crudest senses. Personally, I don't pay to see garbage. If there is garbage on TV, I don't watch it (unless its FOX news from which I get some laughs!) We encourage this junk. So, I have to say that as Americans, we need to show some decency when it comes to entertainment. What we allow to be presented to Americans is also presented around the world and it gives foreigners reasons to be negative toward America. This is not a call to government censorship, but a call to self-censorship. Why can't entertainment be more like it was in the 1960's? I still watch repeats of television from that time period because it was done so well. I still laugh at episodes that I have seen several times. We are causing our own problems.

But..., on the political side, we need to be very concerned about a government that seems to be intent on taking some of our personal freedoms away from us. I posted a question about gun control recently that no one responded to. The NRA wants Americans to think that our government will take all weapons away from gun owners, which just makes these members so damn mad that they will consistently vote for the Republican presidential candidate who always mirrors the NRA position. But yet, we had a Republican administration that was taking away some of our personal freedoms through the Patriot Act. Why is it more important to have guns, but not important if we lose some of our other more relevant and important personal freedoms? I don't believe for one minute that our government, regardless of which party occupies the White House, would try to take the guns that hunters use away from them. The concern is automatic weapons, and rightfully so. Why is it that we, as Americans, feel it is necessary to posess automatic weapons? For what are they needed? I really wish that someone would provide a sane answer to this question.

I am a centrist Democrat and I don't see myself switching parties because of any election loss. I have more gumption than that and I would rather fight to change the Democratic party from within. Like Abel, I agree that the Republican party is more inclined to help the upper classes. Anything below the upper classes will be thrown some crumbs to make them feel like they are getting something. The crumbs that the average American received from the Republican party this past election cycle was a small tax return (of which I didn't even get one) and some moral issues propaganda that only further divides Americans. There is a group of people within the country that sees it as their duty to force their opinions on moral issues on the remainder of the population. This is not an issue of presenting their case and allowing you to choose. It is an issue of telling you that you have to follow without a choice. That is a dangerous proposition to all Americans. Like it or not, we are a country of many different ideas, peoples, and cultures, etc. I believe in self-control and its not easy at times. I don't need the moral police telling me what is right or wrong. This situation would be no better than what occurs in Saudi Arabia today. They have a group of people who watch their population to encourage moral discipline. Punishment is given on the spot by the morals police against those that they believe have broken rules of morality. That is not the way that I believe America should be governed.

Also, I agree with Abel on the idea that the Democratic Party was founded as a progressive party. I disagree that anyone who feels that the party needs to be more balanced is no better than a Republican. Time changes things and unless a political party is willing to change with the times, the party will become irrelevant. I think that there are plenty of issues that the Democrats can support and strive for that the Republican party will not. That will be the differentiator. The Democrat party is truly a party of many different faces. The Republican party is the party of mainly white America. I find that interesting as a white male. The white American population is circling their wagons in the Republican party to protect their interests. I understand why this is happening, but one must acknowledge that our country is a mix of many different races. Trying to ignore this fact puts us in peril. Why can't everyone be treated the same regardless of race? Are all Americans not worthy of this? Opportunity for everyone will only make America a safer (and better) place.

I big issue in this election, at least in some states, was the issue of sexual orientation. Homosexuals have been among the population for ages. Many people seem to believe that homosexuality is choice. I think that it is probably biological in nature. What concerns me is that homosexuals are the population that is still looked upon as second class citizens. I agree that many homosexuals present homosexuality in a way that is so bizarre. That only defeats their cause. I know homosexual people who are just like anybody else except that they prefer their own sex when it comes to intimacy. What is sad is that many of these people live a life of confusion and shame because people cannot accept them for who they are. People need to be reminded that God watches the way we treat people, even the ones that you do not agree with and may even despise (that is another issue). We all will be judged when we die and I suspect that God will question us on our negative treatment of other groups like blacks, Jews, homosexuals, etc. that are different from us. Please keep that in mind the next time your are tempted to have negative thoughts about some other group. These thoughts may just be prejudice that you have disguised as some other concern.

One final thought for now. Many Democrats believe in God, too. It is insulting to me for anybody else to say otherwise. Republicans do not have a lock on God. God is above politics, in my opinion, so don't delude yourself.

Posted by: JM at November 5, 2004 02:32 PM

I just wanna take a moment to brag. hahaha.... 55 to 44 senate seat majority. A 30+ seat majority in the House. More Conservative Supreme Court, and Federal Judges...... 44 of 50 state legislations.... Tom Daschle got whipped... 1 more Republican governor, in an already Republican controlled Govenors Association... Life is good... 337,000 new jobs created last month... 20,000 more in september than previously thought....Life is great...

I feel sorry for Abel and D. Jones. Living in a world of denial and mistrust.... Bush recieved a mandate to pursue his conservative agenda... and by golly, I personally can't wait till I can take my social security and invest it myself into collective tech stocks and long term government high income trusts... I can't wait till Bush lowers sends his next tax cut through in late 2005 (as I've been told by the 2nd ranking US senator McConnel will total $700 billion over 6 years...and reduce taxes across the board, revise capital gain taxes, and remove entirely the marriage penalty).... Life is good...

Posted by: Conservatism at November 5, 2004 03:02 PM

Louis,
You hold a political office somewhere? Why can't you spell then? This is truly scary that someone who mispells won, not wone, can be in charge of anything.

You are an "orthdox christian"? Is this why you advanced a theory that Bush is the anti-christ? Let's get real here. You are no conservative.

I don't have anything against liberals, it is the extreme liberals and the extreme conservatives that bother me. You need to get a clue, and don't let the people of fantasy land know how you really feel or you will not be re-elected the all and pwerful Oz next time. The lollipop kids will vote you out.

Posted by: Wayne at November 5, 2004 04:27 PM

Abel,
You will never get it, will you? You have heard the people of America loud and clear and still do not get what they are saying.

Let me translate for you, We are a conservative nation that will back down to no one and nothing. We are strong and confident, we hold our moral and family values high and want someone to protect them.

Any trouble you have in understanding this, let me know and I will help you. This is my compasionate side and in my adopt a liberal program, I have chosen you.

Posted by: Wayne at November 5, 2004 04:40 PM

Louis,
Being as proud as you are of the office you hold, why don't you tell everyone exactly where this office is and what it entails. If you are so conservative you have no fear of being voted out next time around, right? If you are so loved in a republican community let them know what you really think and let them vote for you next time around.

My thoughts? You will not tell anyone what office you hold because you either do not hold any office or you know you will get voted out if they find out what you are really about.

I have never jabbed at a true liberal, I have only attacked those that have attacked me first, and they have been on the extreme left, like yourself.

Posted by: Wayne at November 5, 2004 04:45 PM

Democrats,
Take back your party and oust the extreme left. They are destroying your noble cause. I am speaking to true open minded and open hearted democrats who I beleive are true patriots. Don't let the likes of M.Moore, Al Sharpton and such ruin your fine party. You have hope in Barak Obama, Joe Lieberman and others that want to move the country forward no matter who is the architect.

If the democrats were to offer someone like Barak Obama, they may even get my vote.

Take back your party!

Posted by: Wayne at November 5, 2004 04:49 PM

I'm slowly beginning to feel that the liberal idea of compromise means do it their way or else. They really don't seem to understand that we both have to give a little in a compromise. While we extend the hand of peace to the other side of the aisle, it seems were getting a lot of hateful responses. Not only do they seem to think that all Americans have to do it they way they want it done, they are sore losers as well. Apparently grace and dignity are not on the Democrat agenda as well.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 5, 2004 05:55 PM

Hey all, I know I stopped contributing a while back, but I kept reading, and I kept laughing. Good luck and take care, and GO W!!!! wooohooo!!!!

Posted by: Rick OH at November 5, 2004 05:57 PM

Hey guys,
It's been a fun ride. Luck to you all. Wayne, once again, congratulations! Due to the new Florida Equal Voting Rights Act {FERVA}, now that the migrant citrus workers and whole cemetary plats are registered Democrats, you can register your little one too. Hey, if it works for Pince de Leon... . Jeb will appreciate it two years from now.
To the Band of Brothers (D): (aka the former 'Axis of Idiocy', but now that Bush won, I'm feeling more charitable) You have posted sincerely and from the heart, and even if we disagree, I will never fault anyone for their viewpoint. If it happens to be wrong, well, I tried to straighten you out. We each have our interest and stake in the election, and Kerry supporters had something to lose. Well, I hope it won't be much. Politics is like religion- 99.44% we can agree on, but it's the other 0.65% that causes all the holy wars (and recounts) in history. Oh, and d., give us your first name so we know whether you ride sidesaddle or not. It's a mystery to otherwise plague the rest of us for the rest of our born days. Your comments are worthy of captaining an editorial column. You could be the next Howard Stern of politics. JM and Abel can join you and form a syndicated newsletter called 'the Lost and Disenfranchised'. JM could be Capitol Hill hairstyle fashion consultant, and Abel can track organized crime er, I mean, union lobbiest group activities.
As for me, it probably wouldn't have made a great deal of difference who won, as when it comes right down to it, the Presidency is the elected babysitter to Congress where the laws concerning domestic policy is concerned. I just happen to put a lot more investment in charecter and morality in the candidate, and that is what was Kerry's downfall. Turns out the swiftvets made a difference not by discrediting Kerry, but by challenging his integrety, which is a far different thing altogether. People only looked closer at Kerry by what the Swiftvets said, and made their own decisions. Kerry's reaction shows he is not cool under fire- and voters watched his reactions and rantings about the little inconsequentials and wondered what response another attack would bring. Kerry is transparent; you can just see it in his eyes when he feels he is being backed into a corner, and the voters sensed this. Or so all the 5th quarter quarterbacks tell us. Vulnerability like that is just a gilded invitation to terrorists, and Kerry would threaten our national security by his personal vulnerabilities. I am glad he will rermain a junior mis-representitive for Massachusetts. Next time maybe the democrats will make a better choice. Seems every time they forward a candidate (Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry) they end up scraping the bottom of their barrel every time. And that's no way to run an asylum. ;)

Posted by: Dave at November 5, 2004 07:05 PM

Wayne, you are right in seeking an apology. Ufortunately, the Band of Brothers are not the compassionate, caring, respectful citizenry they proclaim themselves to be. Forgiveness is a sign of weakness. They escoriate you when you dare suggest they have been less than civil. As they have us all.
Let's turn the tables and imagine something here. What would they be saying if the Winter Protestor HAD been elected? Would they be a tenth as conciliatory as they have been acrimonious? You need to look at the source. The liberal mindset is preoccupied with its own discontent and perceived victimization. That is why my brother in law, a surly, disenfranchised union man on the Union Pacific will spend endless hours shuttling 100 miles between Milwaukee and Portage in non-paid union activism while my sister needs to be tended by neighbors. His abuse has made a sweet quiet spirit a danger to herself and others, and he denies his lack of support now and abuse back then instigated her bi-polar disorder. Am I blaming unions? Liberals? No, of course not. Shameful and ridiculous to even imply it. But it is all about himself, the union activism, and the job, and not about his family. He is using his own energies in destructive ways to justify his disenfranchisement. It is self-perpetuating, and lays waste to those things around him that should get in the way. Like my sister. So while I add my prayer that the wounds of divisiveness will heal, for some it is not in their best interest to do so.
I have found the Band of Brothers' comments very revealing here. I ask you all to ask yourself this as your own judge and jury, and be honest with yourself- how are you viewed by your neighbors, in your community? Sullen, mean, withdrawn? More pointedly, how do the neighborhood children charecterize you? Is your house the one sought out, or is it avoided by trick or treaters, or you are known not to participate in such silly neighborhood activities? Whose fault is that? And is not ridiculing someone who has fairly pointed out your inconsiderate and demeaning behavior a sealing testimony of your own self-loathing malcontent being outsiders, always looking in from outside, observing yet uninvited? It is the Brothers' attitude here that is the key. That attitude has destroyed other peoples sanity. I have seen it. It has destroyed families, I have seen it. It has destroyed and will destroy the civil discourse, because it is an attitude of disenfranchisement, not of unity. An attitude of seperation rather than concensus. Embracing this attitude is a choice of concious will, so if they are feeling disenfranchised, they have no one to blame but themselves. Don't look to them for anything. Their riudicule of you, and me, and everyone on this site is misdirected self-ridicule. Their hate of the world and all that is good, and uplifting, and hopeful, and aspiring is only a self confession of hurt and shame. Such hateful people steeped in self-loathing are to be pitied that they can only see me and you as they see themselves. They have made enemies of themselves, and it is impossible to hold another person in higher esteem than they hold themselves. The most tragic thing of all? This is their choice. As much as they may hate others and themselves, it was and remains their choice. More power to them anywhere other than the ballot box, or we will be dragged down into the dark misery they have chosen for themselves. Which is, after all the way they want it. Don't get sucked in. They've made their choices, now they can live with them. Alone.

If any of you 'brothers' respond in kind, (as I know you will), to this post, you will only prove my point. Save it for yourself.

Posted by: Dave at November 5, 2004 08:42 PM

Louis,
I forgot to ask you to tell your constituents thank you for making the Bush re-election possible. If it were not for the large republican town you live in he may have lost.

Thanks for working for Bush!

Posted by: Wayne at November 5, 2004 11:12 PM

If Republicans are the party of White America, why does George Bush have more ethnic diversity in his cabinet than any other President. Haven't you paid attention. Support for the President rose in all minorities, that means Democrats lost some of these people. The Dems don't seem to want to stop and ask themselves why? You claim that the Democratic Party is a voice for all People, yet when was the last time you heard a Democrat at the Convention speak who is Pro-life. You won't because they aren't. Yet, on the other hand you criticize Republicans as being narrow minded. Did you even watch the Republican Convention? Speakers from diverse enthnicty and diverse positions on many subjects.

It is because of the liberal Democratics unwillingness to compromise on anything that this country is divided. It's been divided for a long time. If you understand that the Congress and the Senate is the legislative body then you must understand that Congress and the Senate put laws into action. Dems love looking at the Clinton years while ignoring the the fact that Republicans control those legislative bodies and it was their willingness to work with the President that allowed policy change to make smooth transition. We have seen four years of filibustering on the part of the Democrats and it's likely we'll see four more years but people are watching. More people are paying attention and the more they seen Democrats playing politics while the Republicans try and effect a change for this country the more they will continue to move away from the Democratic Party.

I keep reading the mocking of religion and values in these blogs. Keep it up, and watch the numbers grow in the Republican ranks. Understand this! 86 percent of the American people profess faith. The more the Democrats run from faith and embrace the liberal left and the likes of Michael Moore, the more voters will consider changing parties. Democrats talk about social programs, Republicans do something about it. Democrats continually challenge the constitution, while Republicans support it. The Democratic Party of John Kennedy is almost gone and they've become a part of the Republican Party because Republicans have made it clear that there is no subject that can't be discussed as America continues to grow and as we discuss we learn, me make necessary adjustments and move forward embracing, not trashing traditional values while finding ways to make things work for those who feel they are outside the system. There's a lot of Republicans out there, myself included, that don't have a problem with Civil Unions for gays with full rights of a married couple, but the institution of marriage is a sacred bound between a man and a woman. There are a lot of Republicans, myself included again, that feel that abortion laws need to be changed to protect the life of the innocent. In cases of rape, incest and physical harm to the mother, consideration needs to be made but the wholesale slaughter of innocent children is not a choice, it's murder of the most helpless citizens of this world who have no voice of their own to speak with.

Most Republicans think big government is a mistake. To much money gets bogged down in the administration. In the past, over 40% of all monies given to education and welfare reforms went to administration costs, not directly to those in need. We need reforms but the Progressive Idea of replacing programs that don't work with new programs that don't work isn't very Progressive. Republicans, being more conservative, understand that change is good but we move forward cautiously. We allow studies and test groups and when we see evidence of something that will work, like No Child Left Behind and faith-based intiatives, we move forward. There's been a lot of whining about the funding lacking in No Child Left Behind. Nobody stops to ask why some schools aren't getting the funds. It's because they are being held accountable to what they do with the money and when they don't produce, they don't get the funds. Accountability, the central themes of every Republican policy. If women and men were more accountable, there wouldn't be a need for abortion on demand. If people who could get out and work would, welfare wouldn't be the mess that it is. If tax codes were reformed to entice employers to provide healthcare, keep jobs in America and invite all Americans to invest in their own future, we wouldn't have problems with healthcare, jobs and social security. Accountability, look it up, you might not find it in the liberal dictionary but it's in every Traditional, conservative and Republican dictionary.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 6, 2004 04:30 AM

I am impressed that this site was 100% accurate in showing how each state was voting. It appears that conventional wisdom was incorrect and the undecideds went to Bush which had they chosen Bush at this site the % Bush won by would even be 100% accurate. I am glad it is over and I am glad that I voted for Bush even though I didn't vote for him in 2000.

Posted by: Jeanette at November 6, 2004 08:20 AM

By the way, I am not directing my last post at specific people, just those spiteful ones with the attitude problem. The guilty ones know who they are, and their posts reflected it- not staying on the issues, always slapping down people instead of their ideas. That is what I am referring to. Those who are offended and are guilty of the attitude I outlined, well, now you know how it feels. What goes around comes around.
This is Dave Little and I approve this election. :)

Posted by: Dave at November 6, 2004 02:58 PM

The Democratic party has lost its direction trying to be everything to everybody. This election came down to basic values & convictions. John Kerry may have values but tried to hide them and showed no convictions on the major issues of the day. Bush won more votes by standing on his principals and convictions and was not swayed when it looked like it was unpopular. If the Democratic party wants to win find a canidate that stands for something and will standby his/her convictions

Posted by: wpnsgy at November 6, 2004 06:19 PM

Dave:

You comments are pathetic. You are right, I won't bother because your comments aren't worth any more response than what I have already given.

Posted by: JM at November 6, 2004 06:50 PM

I have a funny feeling that Louis from Canton Ohio will not tell us what kind of office he holds. The reason is he does not have any faith in his beleifs.

Speak up Louis, what political office do you hold?

Posted by: Wayne at November 6, 2004 10:18 PM

My view regarding George W. Bush's election? First, I'm not confident that Bush really won the election.

Abel I read the first two sentences from this comment and immediately knew it was from you. If your not confident in our election system then does that mean we wont have to listen to your political views as you see them. You complained when Bush didnt get the majority of the vote in 2000. Now that Bush got the majority of the votes in 2004 you say that all of your candidates votes were not counted.

One thing that I do know is that I can't ever support a theocratic, lying politican who demonizes opponents during elections.

Abel if you do not want to support our president what this election has proven is that we do not need your support. Does this mean that you will not support America after Bush puts forth his agenda and makes it reality. You may not support it but you will have to get used to it.

They are about Republicans using a wholly owned subsidiary media to shape public perceptions of Democrats and "demonizing" our candidates regardless of their actual record or beliefs

Hey Abel Kerry had all the opportunities to state his record in the Senate during his convention and during the debates. He chose to ignore his record [for obvious reasons] and instead chose to attack Bushes policy.

Abel:Frankly, the truth is that I don't like the direction in which our country is heading.
Please note that my political beliefs don't require that anyone change his/her sex life, surrender their civil rights.

Abel this nation is on the wrong track when people such as the ACLU want to take God out of this country or they want to take the United States Flag and tell you that you do not have that right to fly the flag any way you choose. Are these the Liberals that you want to be associated with or are you saying you are a different kind of liberal .Dont worry Abel the gay marriage was turned down and hopefully abortion or a least partial birth abortion will be overturned and this nation will get back on track.

Posted by: Mike NY at November 6, 2004 10:38 PM

NOW IT'S TIME TO FIX WHATS BROKE. PRESIDENT BUSH HAS SET OUT AN AGENDA THAT WILL BE BOLD. NO OTHER ADMINISTRATION HAS SET OUT TO FIX THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS THAT WILL LEAVE OUR CHILDREN TAXED OUT OF ALL REASON. THE KID OF TODAY SHOULD NOT BE PAYING FOR US OLD FARTS TO THE DETRAMENT OF THEIR FUTURE FAMILIES. WE HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER TO SAVE S.S.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 7, 2004 01:42 AM

FROM NOW ON I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE WAR ON TERROR AND IRAQ ARE DIFFERENT THINGS. THE WAR ON TERROR REFERS TO ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD WHERE WE FIGHT TERRORISTS

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 7, 2004 01:44 AM

The Associated Press reported that a North Carolina Republican Headquarters was broken into and vandalized. This planned and orchestrated event began by 100 people wearing masks staging a protest march to distract a handful who broke into the headquarters to vandalize it. People, this is called terrorism. Anyone who uses this kind of violence to make a political point is a terrorist. The vote was cast and the President won, if you don't like the way America works, then try to change it through a legal process not an act of violence. It's just more proof of the intolerance of the so-called tolerant left.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 7, 2004 02:47 AM

Mike NY,
Do you really think that the hate mongers (Abel, d.jones, Louis and JM) are going to help heal this nation? They are just using this as a tool to pry America apart further. If Kerry won they would be yelling that we have to do things their way now.

I hope you aren't holding your breath for an apology or even compromise. It will not happen.

Thankfully most Americans are reasonable and tolerant and truly are patriotic as was shown on Nov 2nd.

I hope the TRUE democrats take back their party from the likes of M.Moorre and Abel, Al Sharpton and d.jones, Jesse Jackson and Louis, and lets not forget Al Gore and JM.

When the extreme liberals are completely out of power we will be able to heal our nation, with liberal, moderates and conservativers alike. Remember, not all liberals are bad, look at Joe Lieberman for example.

Keep up the good fight.

Posted by: Wayne at November 7, 2004 10:47 AM

I don't think liberals will ever understand what this country is about or what this election said to all elected officials. This was not only about moral values, but about common sense. We don't want the separation of Church and State taken to the extremes defined by the ACLU. We don't want "Under God" taken out of the constitution. We don't want the "Ten Commandments" removed from a courthouse. We don't want "Happay Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". We don't want liberal judges writing law and shoving people's sexual orientation down our throats. We all know Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and will ultimately fail if we don't do something soon. To deny it is stupid. We have had enough of 30 years of terrorist attacks not being dealt with properly. We have had enough of Political Correctness which only seems to apply if Republicans don't abide by the Liberal definition. We have had enough of being called religious nuts, or uneducated morons, or gun toting bible carrying wackos. I am a New Yorker and am not any of those things. We have had enough of liberals saying character doesn't matter, it most certainly does. We have had enough of the left wing hate and telling us there is something wrong with having morals and values. No there isn't. There is something wrong with a party who thinks Hollywood and sex drugs and Rock N Roll is what middle America is. What the hell do they know about Middle America, they all live in LaLa land. We have had enough of a corrupt UN who puts Sudan on the Human Rights Council and then claims there government is committing genocide. We have enough of corrupt Banana Republics, enough of corrupt European countries (France, Germany to be specific), All of who were on the take with the oil for food program. We have had enough of their holier-than-thou attitude when they are nothing but crooks. We have had enough of the Liberal medias condescending attitude towards anyone who doesn't think like they do. We have had enough of the so called all inclusive tolerant Democratic party who belitles and rants and raves about those who have a faith and doesn't agree with their platform. We have had enough of their lack of respect for the leaders of this country and the people who support them. I could go on and on but, to make a long story short - WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH AND ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE. ON NOVEMEBER 2ND, YOU HEARD US LOUD AND CLEAR FROM COAST TO COAST AND YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE FIELD OF RED FROM COUNTY TO COUNTY, NORTH AND SOUTH, EAST AND WEST, FROM SEA TO SHINING SEA. TAKE THAT EUROPE, TERRORISTS, HOLLYWOOD (ESPECIALLY MICHAEL MOORE), AND LIBERALS FAR AND WIDE. IN THE WORDS OF THEERZA H. KEERY - SHOVE IT.

Posted by: Sue at November 7, 2004 01:20 PM

JM- Sorry you feel that way. Atitudes can be changed, but not while they are still embraced.

Jim- excellent posts. It is odd how what Democrats decry and mock are what are perceived as charecter and values. The voting public have begun to really notice this, and that's why the Republican vision was embraced in the White House and in the halls of Congress. Kerry has done this country a great service by showing how desperate the Democrats are in trying to convert the world to their worldview by mocking everyone who doesn't agree with them. In contrast, the term 'big tent' only has been referred to in conjunction with the Republican party, because it doesn't matter what your personal beliefs are, because they are outside the bounds of public policy, and therefore a non-issue. If liberalism wouldn't treat their worldview as a religion and using legislation to convert others by force, they wouldn't find themselves marginalized and seen as extremists. Extremists are always in a minority. They have, so to speak, painted themselves into a corner.

Another factor I believe people caught on to is with Kerry himself. Most people have recognized that Kerry was talking the way he did in 1971- one phrase that he used recently outlining his policy in Iraq is 'establishing a timetable for withdrawl'. Sound familiar? It is not a new theme:
"I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to SET A DATE FOR WITHDRAWL the prisoners of war would be returned.
"I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that".
-- John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 22, 1971.

Posted by: Dave at November 7, 2004 02:57 PM

Mike, I couldn't agree with you more on the wrong track question. I felt that more people were answering that question from the perspective that they thought the country was going in the wrong direction because of activist judges and an extreme leftist agenda to remove religion from public life completely. Those people felt that George Bush was trying to get the country back on the right track with a more sensible approach and those people helped to get him re-elected. The ACLU has the separation of Church and State Mantra memorized but they do so while ignoring that the Bill of Rights says that the government shall make no laws restricting nor promoting a religious view. For years they've been making laws restricting and now any attempt to take it back to where the country was is interpreted as making laws promoting. It's always been amazing to me that the ACLU people talk about Civil Rights and then do everything they can to deny the rights of those who are Civil while elevating those who seek to violate the law, disgrace religion and corrupt society through so-called art and literature all the while expecting the government to stay out of everything except the funding). Their idea of freedom is that the government should give out free welfare without asking about drug abuse or accountability. They think that pornography as art should have no restrictions and that the government should fully fund them. They fight for the rights of felons, people who have violated federal law, to vote. This is the wrong direction. Accountability is the right direction.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 7, 2004 08:10 PM

Yes, the Republicans won but what did they win? Do they think that the American people are going to unite once more like they were shortly after the 9/11 Terrorist attack in New York City and Washington DC? Well, forget it, that just won't happen. Like I previously said, George W. Bush cannot ever bring us together because he lied to us. We can never trust him again.

I attach the following POST by Debi Smith because she does such a good job at explaining why. She does a much better job than I ever could so I hope that you'll take the time to read her POST.

An Invitation to the Conservative Right from a Liberal Lefty
By Debi Smith
Ashland, Oregon

Contrary to the catchy heading of this letter, I actually rather disparage labels. For one, they really don't paint an accurate and complete picture of who an individual is. We're far more nuanced than that. Right? I could be wrong but I'd bet there's at least one area in your life where you might tend to be at least a little more liberal than conservative. I know I can admit the reverse. In fact I've been accused before of being a closet conservative. But labels shambles. They're like suffocating little boxes. They trap us and our thinking capabilities inside, and perhaps even worse, they create division. Division which is now being reflected in our families, friendships, communities, churches, places of work, and has become a widening chasm threatening to engulf our entire country...no matter what our labels read.

Perhaps the only way we can avoid disappearing into this chasm is to come together and begin dialoguing and listening to each other - compassionately. Not hysterically or with crazed, shrill, frantic voices. Let's leave that to the far left and right talking heads that get paid mass sums to rile us up. This is an invitation to the real people that make up this country. Not the pundits, pollsters, media, politicians, or the corporations that have bought and paid for all of them. No, this is an invitation to regular folk. To the moms, dads, grandparents, sons and daughters - of every color, social status, educational background, and belief system - who, in one unbelievably diverse and amazing tapestry, form the fabric of this great country. I'm almost certain that if we sat down in a room together and each made a list of the things most important to us, we'd find ourselves agreeing on many of them. But how often do we consider that? Perhaps this would be a good place to begin. Discovering what we agree on. What we tend to disagree on is how to go about achieving the things we believe in, a much bigger and inherently more difficult task yes, but one that's made easier by gaining a modicum of understanding into why we each believe the way we do. A task made easier by first recognizing our shared and incontrovertible beliefs, hopes, dreams, and desires. For example, I assume we would agree that we both want access to clean water? How about healthy air? Can you see where I'm headed?

But...before we discover what we agree on, a pressing question looms above all others and begs answering. There are close to 56 million people in this country (or more, if you take into account all the voting irregularities in Ohio alone), along with a large portion of the world citizenry, who are very confused and completely flabbergasted as to why you've just re-elected George W. Bush. If for no other reason than the fact he lied to you regarding Iraq. Not just one lie, but many. Saddam was not involved in 9/11. Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States. There were no weapons of mass destruction. And to date, 1145 American Troops and 145 Coalition Troops have lost their lives fighting in this unjustifiable war.

I know you don't want to hear it, but many of us are also wondering about a seeming contradiction of yours. Why do you go around wringing your hands about the sanctity of all life but ignore the murder of thousands and thousands of innocent people in Iraq? Approximately 100,000 Iraqi civilians - men, women, children, grandparents - have been blown to bits by our precision smart bombs and administration lies. And why do you then, to top off this absurd contradiction, re-elect the very person responsible for the murder? If Jesus is someone you admire and look up to, can you imagine him supporting all the lies and bombing of thousands and thousands of innocent people whose only mistake was being born in the middle of the richest triangle of oil on the planet? And if you can't, could you please explain this contradiction? I hope you don't think this is just an angry diatribe. It's just that I can't wrap my head around it and maybe you can help me understand your reasoning. (And in case you think I'm 100% pro abortion, you'd be wrong. One of those nuances I mentioned.)

Okay, so there's one big question off my chest. But before I sign off, I'd like to ask just a few more questions...if you don't mind.

Why did you vote for a man who has the worst job creation/loss record since Herbert Hoover?

Why did you vote for a man who wants to take away your overtime pay?

Why did you vote for a man who doesn't care what kind of air you and your children breathe?

Why did you vote for a man who wants you to pay more for your prescription medications?

Why did you vote for a man who doesn't heed the warnings of scientists regarding global warming?

Why did you vote for a man who has been the worst steward of the land in presidential history?

Why did you vote for a man whose real interest seems to be pleasing his corporate financiers?

Why did you vote for a man who took the largest budget surplus ever and turned it into the largest deficit?

Why did you vote for a man who, in 2001, ignored specific and credible reports that an attack was eminent?

Why did you vote for a man, who at every turn, tried to block credible investigations into the 9/11 attacks?

Again, I must ask, why did you vote for a man who took this country to war on lies?

Why did you vote for a man who sends your children, ill-prepared, to that war and then cuts their benefits?

Why did you vote for a man who has so far spent between 145 and 200 Billion of your dollars on this war?

Why did you vote for a man whose friends are the happy beneficiaries of much of this money?

This is by no means a complete list of my questions, but it's a good start. Perhaps we can meet for coffee sometime, your place or mine, and you can help me understand why you've just re-elected George W. Bush. Then maybe over a second cup of coffee we can begin that list I mentioned. The one where we talk about our hopes and dreams for our children, and their children. About what sort of legacy and world we'd really like to leave them. Maybe from that place where we agree, we can gently move into the less agreeable areas with more respect for each other. We need to define our vision for America. You and I, the regular folks. If we don't, I fear the creaking jaws of the growing divide will one day open big enough to swallow us all. We owe ourselves, and all future generations, here and around the world, better than that.

Looking forward to the pleasure of your reply and hoping you'll take me up on that coffee.

Sincerely,
Debi Smith

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debi Smith - meal making, laundry washing, toilet swishing, bill paying, teen chauffeuring, hug giving, homeschooling, information gathering concerned American - writes from Ashland, Oregon, where she shares a home with her husband, two children, a cat, and a dog.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 7, 2004 08:14 PM

Louis,
I have looked for an elected official with your last name and could not find one. Your last name is Giavasis, isn't it? Or is this a lie in your other post? Come clean and tell us what office you claim to hold.

Posted by: Wayne at November 7, 2004 11:12 PM

Abel Why so bitter? We are both old timers if your post are correct. I have had to put up with the democrates as the majority party several times. Do you think I liked that? But my party did not act as obstructionests, they worked with the democrates tried to moderate them as good as a minority party can but did not philabuster. So stop and think, do you hold the american public in such contemp as to obstruct the refrom long needed for SS or tax law or needed judges. Stop and think about what your doing to the country when you spot such venum. I had to take it now its your turn. I lived through the dark days of democratic dominance you will live through this.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 8, 2004 03:11 AM

Abel,
You just posted someone eles's thoughts AGAIN, from a blue state. It is probabbly safe to say she is a far left person. You forgot to point out one important piece of information. Why you said she is from Oregon, you forgot to tell us that she does not have very far to move to Canada.

And you left out the article about the crazy man that shot himself because Bush won.

Posted by: Wayne at November 8, 2004 07:43 AM

Christopher,

I think you meant to reply to Able, not me. I know the election was fair, there is no way that this election could be contested. Any way I voted for President Bush, I think he is the next best thing to President Reagon.

Posted by: David Lowery at November 8, 2004 11:07 AM

Wayne, you are a miniscule legend in your own mind! Get off of it. Yes I am elected here in my home town. Here Bush won 4 years ago in my county and Wayne he lost this time with a total vote count 89,859 to 92,295.

It does not matter because he won the election and Ohio. You know I would be happy to let you know where I live. Canton, Ohio brother. You can check our web site www.plaintownship .com

As far a Bush being the anti Christ, that was something I pulled off a web site that I thought was funny and how far people will reach to make someone look bad. I did not call Bush the anti Christ and if you took it that way I sincerely apologize.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 8, 2004 01:30 PM

Abel-
Debi Smith - meal making, laundry washing, toilet swishing, bill paying, teen chauffeuring, hug giving, homeschooling, information gathering concerned American - writes from Ashland, Oregon, where she shares a home with her husband, two children, a cat, and a dog.

Is this part of the article, or an extemperanious attempt to lend credibility to her views? It isn't necessary. The presupposition that a person's opinion is not valid unless they have a string of doctorates, or in this case, a detailed assessment of the character, attitude and belief of a loving caring mother does not lend weight to her opinion. At the same time, it neither discredits her views either- a busy, involved mother primarily focused on hearth and home. It's like extolling the virtues of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and Cheetos because they are Bush's preferred lunch. Is Bush wrong because hot sour cream steak strip fajitas are REALLY the best lunch there is? Speaking of that, mine are getting cold...

Posted by: Dave at November 8, 2004 02:17 PM

Jim Rodkey:

It is only your opinion about why people feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. I believe that the reason Bush's low rating scores has much to do with why people feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. They are connected. For those people who you describe as being fustrated with the so-called liberal agenda, (more like an extreme right-wing agenda in my opinion), George Bush is their champion. I highly doubt that these people would rank Bush high in one survey and then say the country is headed in the wrong direction in another. That just doesn't make any sense. Bush can do no wrong in their eyes. He lead the country the past four years, so these people would have to say (if they truly support what he has done), that the country is headed in the right direction, wouldn't you think? To the other HALF of the country, his stewardship has been rather lousy. A 51% to 48% win does not a mandate make. It's barely a majority! George can bluster about his mandate, but I suspect that he is not going to have a pleasant 4 years. A lot of that will be due to his own doing. Now, before you start accusing me of wishing this on him, I don't. I would like our country to head in a positive direction. Since he is our elected President, he is the one that I expect to try to accomplish this. If he doesn't, he can't blame anyone else this time around. The buck stops at his door. Not that it matters, though, because he can't run again if he wanted to.

Abel: Thanks for the post from Debi Smith. So much of what she listed were the reasons why I could not vote for George Bush. The biggest reason, though, was that when I tried to think of any major accomplishment during his first administration, I couldn't think of one.

Posted by: JM at November 8, 2004 05:03 PM

Wayne:

In your post, you state that I am a Liberal. On the contrary, I am a moderate. Just because I haven't agreed with most of what you and your cohorts were posting, does not make me a liberal. I have more of a conservative streak than you will ever know. My politics have changed from extremely conservative to moderate because I chose to do so. I was disillusioned with conservative thought, especially the extreme right wing conservatism. I will never head in that direction again. I prefer the center and I have firmly planted myself there. So... please get over the labeling because you don't know me and I have not written anything on this blog that could pigeonhole me as a liberal. I don't adhere to the principles of communism nor socialism for that matter. I also don't support facism or any extreme right wing philosophies. I am also suspicious of much of the evangelical strains in Christianity, especially since they involve themselves so heavily in presidential politics. I stated the following at least twice before. If someone is born again and feels the necessity to change the world, then they are better off doing this through their church than through running a secular government. Politics corrupt and it is not unheard of for a "religious man" to become corrupted. A christian should frown on lies and politics is full of them.

Posted by: JM at November 8, 2004 05:17 PM

Wayne- try the local humane society. Is dogcatcher an elected official?
Arf!

Posted by: Dave at November 8, 2004 08:09 PM

Wayne, I am not afraid to speak up! You do not intimidate me nor do your repugnant ideologies. You can exalt with jubilation with the outcome of this election now in your petty accusations and insinuations of me and others that disagree with you. Go right ahead Wayne; criticize me or what ever you want, it is really funny reading exactly what you accuse me of doing while you do it yourself. You and your comments are incredulous and disingenuous. That is exactly the reason I am not Republican, people like you can call people names, put them down because they don’t embrace your parties views and at the same time criticize those people for doing the same thing. It is called hypocrisy Wayne and you are text book. I really look forward to reading more of your extrapolations. Wayne, please do not expect me to mollify you because of the supposed epiphany that has taken place within the Republican Party with some type of manifestation called George W. Bush. Wayne before you criticize me on my grammar or anything else I really believe you need to gain or posses an intuitive grasp of reality. This may be an illuminating discovery for yourself and the others like you that wish to continue to profess compassionate conservatism because I do not believe anything you have to say has any felicific qualities. I am sure I will be reading some more of your pedant vainglorious insight about our newly elected theocracy. Talk to you soon Wayne! It may take you a while to look up the meaning to some of these words to uderstand what I have said. But if anything Wayne it will be a learning experience for you.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 8, 2004 08:21 PM

Abel, the reason George Bush can't unite the country has little to do with him and everything to do with all the whining liberals who don't want to work towards a compromise and like you, are unwilling to come together for the good of the country. You keep saying he lied, I asked for proof, you never gave it and now you are still repeating the mantra. Get over it. Kerry lost because more Americans thought they couldn't trust him. I agree. If you can come together after a legal vote and accept the outcome, and then still insist on promoting you misguided version of the truth than I feel sorry for you and all others who WANT to see America divided by their unwillingness to conceed and their unwillingness to work together.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 8, 2004 08:44 PM

This POST is meant for those of you who "won" the 2,004 election for George W. Bush. Read the following POST and find out what you really won.

Me? I have admitted that we made a grave mistake to attack and invade a small nation that never, not even once, threatened us. George W. Bush speaks of others like Saddam Hussein as if they alone are "evil." I accept the fact that we also sometimes make mistakes and do evil deeds.

Personally, right now, I think we should bring our soldiers home. Continuing with all our killing in Iraq surely cannot be God's work. The POST follows:

Aggressive War: Supreme International Crime
By Marjorie Cohn
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 09 November 2004

Associate United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal. In his report to the State Department, Justice Jackson wrote: "No political or economic situation can justify" the crime of aggression. He also said: "If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."

Between 10,000 and 15,000 U.S. troops with warplanes and artillery have begun to invade the Iraqi city of Fallujah. To "soften up" the rebels, American forces dropped five 500-pound bombs on "insurgent targets." The Americans destroyed the Nazzal Emergency Hospital in the center of town. They stormed and occupied the Fallujah General Hospital, and have not agreed to allow doctors and ambulances go inside the main part of the city to help the wounded, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The battle of Fallujah promises to be far more shocking and aweful than the bombardment of Baghdad that kicked off Operation "Iraqi Freedom" in April 2003. A senior Marine Corps surgeon warned that casualties will surpass any level seen since the Vietnam War.

There have already been 100,000 "excess" Iraqi deaths since Bush launched his first strike on Iraq 18 months ago - that is, above and beyond those killed by Saddam Hussein, sanctions, U.S. bombings, and disease, all put together, in the 15 months prior to the invasion.

A study published by the Lancet found that the risk of death by violence for Iraqi civilians is now 58 times higher than before Bush began to liberate them in April 2003.

Bush's war on Iraq is a war of aggression. "Aggression is the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this definition," according to General Assembly Resolution 3314, passed in the wake of Vietnam.

The only two situations where the UN Charter permits the use of armed force against another state is in self-defense, or when authorized by the Security Council. Iraq had not invaded the U.S., or any other country, Iraq did not constitute an imminent threat to any country, and the Security Council never sanctioned Bush's war. Bush and the officials in his administration are committing the crime of aggression.

Virtually every Western democracy has ratified the treaty of the International Criminal Court, except the United States. Bush knows that the Court will prosecute leaders for the crime of aggression. Mindful that he and his officials could become defendants, Bush renounced the Court, and extracted bilateral immunity agreements from more than 80 countries.

This year, however, Bush unsuccessfully sought to ram through the Security Council an immunity resolution that would exempt U.S. personnel from the Court's jurisdiction. But shortly after the photographs of U.S. torture of Iraqi prisoners emerged, the Council refused to put its imprimatur on preferential treatment for the United States.

Bush knows that the Court will also punish war crimes. Pursuant to policies promulgated by Bush and Rumsfeld, U.S. forces have engaged in widespread torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Bush admitted in his 2003 State of the Union address that he had sanctioned summary executions of suspected terrorists.

Torture, inhuman treatment, and willful killing are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, treaties ratified by the United States. Grave breaches of Geneva are considered war crimes under our federal War Crimes Act of 1996. American nationals who commit war crimes abroad can receive life in prison, or even the death penalty if the victim dies. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, a commander can be held liable if he knew or should have known his inferiors were committing war crimes and he failed to prevent or stop them.

The first U.S. attack on Fallujah, last April, killed 900-1000 people, mostly noncombatants. It was conducted in retaliation for the killing and mutilation of the bodies of four Blackwater Security Consulting mercenaries. Collective punishment against an occupied population for offenses committed by others also violates the Geneva Conventions.

Bush has sought to cover his crimes by putting an Iraqi face on his brutal war. The New York Times reported: "Thousands of Iraqi troops have moved into position with their American counterparts and are expected to take part ... American soldiers are to do most of the fighting on the way in, clearing the way for the Iraqi security forces to take control once the insurgents are defeated. With this method, Iraqi and American leaders hope for the best of both worlds: American muscle and an Iraqi face."

If Bush were a student of history, he would realize that Iraqization, like Vietnamization, will fail to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

Working hand-in-glove with the U.S. government, interim puppet prime minister Iyad Allawi helped to soften up the rebels by declaring martial law throughout most of Iraq. His authority came from legislation the human rights minister characterized as "very similar to the Patriot Act of the United States." It enables Allawi to conduct extensive surveillance, impose cordons and curfews, limit freedom of movement and association, and freeze bank accounts and seize assets.

"Iraqi confidence in the interim government has plummeted in recent months as the insurgency in Falluja and elsewhere has gained in strength and lethality," according to The New York Times.

And although foreign Islamic extremists have joined the fight, most resisting the American occupation are Iraqi. "Didn't the Americans bring with them the British and the Italians?" asked Suhail al Abdali. "Well, we have multinational forces, too," he said wryly. Then al Abdali added, "They will pay the price with the blood of American sons who came to occupy Iraq. They won't take Fallujah unless they fight street to street, house to house."

Twenty-six prominent Saudi scholars and preachers wrote in an open letter to the Iraqi people: "The U.S. forces are still destroying towns on the heads of their people and killing women and children. What's going on in Iraq is a result of the big crime of America's occupation of Iraq." They stressed that armed attacks by militant Iraqi groups on U.S. troops and their allies in Iraq represent "legitimate resistance."

"The attack on Fallujah is an illegal and illegitimate action against civilians and innocent people," said the Association of Muslim Scholars, an influential Sunni clerics group. "We denounce this operation which will have a grave consequence on the situation in Iraq," declared spokesman Mohammed Bashar al-Faidhi.

Baghdad University political science professor Salman al-Jumaili warns, "What happens in Fallujah will spread out across other Sunni cities, including Baghdad." Al-Jumaili expects the Fallujah offensive will spin out of control, with fighting hop-scotching from one town to the next.

A senior U.S. diplomat agrees. "I would never tell you that violence in Sunni areas won't get worse when you open up a battle," he told the Los Angeles Times, on condition of anonymity.

Following the Holocaust, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing . . . to initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Bush's aggressive war against the people of Iraq promises to kill many more American soldiers and untold numbers of Iraqis. Nuremberg prosecutor Justice Jackson labeled the crime of aggression "the greatest menace of our times." More than 50 years later, his words still ring true.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marjorie Cohn, a contributing editor to t r u t h o u t, is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists.
-------

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 9, 2004 01:00 AM

Name a time when Americans were 'united', pre-9/11? Bush got a majority of the votes this year. The first time a president has done that in 1988. Clinton didn't. Not in 1992, nor in 1996. Gore didn't in 2000. Bush did in 2004. Remember that! The senate is in FIRM control of the Republicans now. 55-44 (1 democratic leaning indy from Dean Country) The house is in FIRM control of the Republicans, by 30+ seats. The courts are in the control of conservatives by a 5-4 margin, and most likely 6-3 by 2008. The federal courts are in control of conservatives. 44 of 50 state legislations are controlled by republicans. The majority of the governorships are in control of Republicans. The subcommittees and committees are in control of Republicans. The military is in control of Republicans, and they voted nearly 4-1 in favor of Bush according to several large polls. The list goes on...... If the conservative agenda is wrong for you, then there's a LOUD majority of Americans that disagree, or else Republicans wouldn't control everything in the country. I hate to think that you're turning a blind eye to the wants of this nation, and calling the 60 million strong... wrong. This nation begs for leadership, they voted it into office all across our land on Nov. 2nd. Don't forget that....

The headline is still unchanged: Bush leads!

Posted by: Conservatism at November 9, 2004 01:07 AM

JM, I stated it was my opinion when I posted my thoughts on the wrong direction issue. I am also aware that there are a lot of others who believe the way I do. To be fair, when the question is asked simply as do you think the country is headed in the right or wrong direction, you are going to get a lot of people saying the wrong direction for a lot of different reasons. I was polled before the election by two different polling groups, both times I rated Bush high and then answered wrong direction to right/wrong answer. If you go back over the history of the Bush Presidency you will see a similar trend in the right/wrong direction question even when the President was in the 80's in the approval rating.
My point is simple, there are activist judges who are attempting, at every chance they get to quiet the voice of the majority and overturn state and federal laws and constitution. These activist judges operate from a liberal bias. Many Democrats are now pointing to Newsome's decision to allow Gay Marriage in San Francisco as a defining moment in the loss of John Kerry because people saw the country going in the wrong direction. I saw the President three times in Pennsylvania and all three times he got the loudest applause when he spoke of frivilous lawsuits and activist judges. Again, a sign that the people supported the President and had hopes he would take us back on the right direction. Poll after poll is showing that voter turnout had a lot to do with a concern for values again supporting a believe that the President will take the country back in the right direction supporting more traditional values.

One more time-How many times do we all have to say that we thought that President Bush made mistakes but still thought that he was the better of the two candidates? Bush can do wrong, Bush has done wrong. But even with the mistakes, I still believe that he makes a better President that John Kerry. The problem was the opponent for most of us. Many of us would have considered Dick Gebhard or Joe Lieberman. I certainly would have, especially Joe Lieberman. He was tough on the terrorist and has a more centrist view of most issues, which I believe is critical in helping support the unity of this country but he can't get his party to support him because he isn't liberal enough.

It seems to me that the Democrats aren't willing to learn from their mistakes. Thinking of replacing Terry Mcauliffe with Howard Dean has to be a joke. They aren't really serious are they. That's not a step forward, that's taking major steps backward.

I agree with you that the President isn't going to have an easy 4 years. He's made a lot of major promises and he's going to be expected to live up to them. He's also going to be expected by the Republican Party to lay the groundwork for a successful campaign for a relatively unknown future Republican Candidate for the Presidency since Dick Cheney isn't going to run. This will be a chance for the Democrats to show that they have the best interest of the country at heart and that's NOT Hillary Clinton. They will have to come with a candidate that is more centrist in their views and one who doesn't have the checkered past of someone like John Kerry. I don't see that happening from all the rhetoric and division within their own party.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 9, 2004 01:34 AM

Louis,
I visited the site you provided and saw your picture. Your a handsome guy.

With that being said, your big words do not make you any smarter. I may not know what every one of them mean but I get their point. You may think you can confuse me with big college words and intimidation techniques, but I assure you it will not work.

Back when we first started to post to each other, I beleive it was you and your buddies that started the mud throwing with me. I have treated people with the same respect they have shown me. All I have asked for is an apology and in return have given one for anything that was said out of line.

You have not given an apology to anyone you have insulted and yet you call yourself a leader? You do not know the meaning of that word. You state you have been elected and re-elected to a trustee position. I am sure this is an important position to hold in your community and I respect you for it. I also respect the fact that you let me get a hold of your e-mail address through the web site you provided and will not stoop to the level of sending you stupid e-mails.

Can we put this behind us? All you need to do is apologize and we are off to the races. I apologize for anything that I said that was out of line. It is now up to you. All it takes is a sincere "I am sorry" on your part.

Let's see your compassionate liberal side.

Posted by: Wayne at November 9, 2004 08:14 AM

Jim Rodkey:

I don't believe Howard Dean is the right choice either. As far as Hilary Clinton is concerned, I don't know why people are so against her. I don't think she is as left of center as others want you to believe. Sometimes serving in public office makes you move more toward the center to keep the majority happy. I believe that she has done that. I would prefer a different Democratic candidate for 2008. One choice would be Senator Joe Biden from Delaware. Although I really like Joe Lieberman, I don't think that he could win against a charismatic opponent. But I would vote for him if he were to run.

Posted by: JM at November 9, 2004 11:49 AM

Abel, What was illegal was the senseless slaughter of ove a million people under Saddam Hussein. The attack on Fallujah is not an illegal conflict because it is being supervised by the now current government in Iraq to rid their country of terrorists who are trying to regain control of the country. When Iraq is free and the people have a democracy in that country and peace begins to take hold in the Middle East, will you continue this nonsensical bashing of a movement to bring peace into the world.

This is war like never before. Terrorists are civilians so yes, civilians are going to die in this conflict. Bad Civilians. Civilians with an evil intent against free people all over the world. Your side will say anything to discredit the work of this adminstration and military and it's getting pretty dull and monotonous. The alternative, the other view on this war has never been an option to anyone who wants to see peace in this world. Ignore the Terrorists, give them freedom to move about the world attacking and killing innocent people and then warn them and say don't do that again. If we could reason with these people, it would have stopped years ago. They can not be reasoned with because they are unwilling to allow people to be free. I am, quite frankly, sick of all the journalists who think it is there purpose in life to discredit any attempt to bring peace to this world using military force to silence an enemy who will not come to the bargaining table with honest intent. Your side was the first to cry that the President didn't do enough to prevent 9/11. Now that he is doing everything to prevent a future attack against our country, you still whine. Get over it. Again, a journalist who isn't involved in the fighting, a journalist who doesn't really understand what the people of Iraq really want, a journalist who doesn't care that the insurgents are made up of more than just nationals-but people who want to destroy the chance of freedom for all Iraq people. These terrorists aren't to far removed from people like you who just can't stand the fact that the majority has spoken and they lost and now are willing to do and say anything to discredit the work and integrity of those who want to make America a better place.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 9, 2004 02:56 PM

I just can't let Abel's article go unanswered. The liberal lies of this purtid article needs to be exposed for everything that it is. The claims in the article come out of the Terrorist supported network and from the hospital that reported that civilian deaths are increasing based on the hospitals figures. It totally ignores the hundreds of thousands that never saw a hospital and were buried in mass graves just like Hitler did during the Holocaust. The numbers include terrorists as civilians because they are not an organized army supported by a country. What they don't say in the article is far more revealing than what they do say. Hundreds of terroists are dead, thanks to the actions of American and the new Government in Iraq. The article lays claim to 26 scholars and ignores the thousands of Iraqi's who are thankful for the toppling of Suddam and hopeful for a day when terrorism no longer has a stronghold on their country and they can be a free country.

They, like us, want this war to end. They, like us, want American's to go home, but not before the job is done and their country is secure. They, more than any whining liberal journalist in this country, understand the horror of terrorism and it's affect on their country and their children. It's journalist, like Marjorie Cohn, that disgrace the good people of Iraq and the true nature of this war.

Any war is an act of agression, even on the country who is attacked. It was American aggression in Europe that helped to end World War 2 and brought an end to the horror of Hitler. Before the War America sat idly by and allowed the Nazi party to rise and gain strength, in part because of journalists who wrote that it wasn't out war and we had nothing to do with it. Then came Peral Harbor. We learned from history, but not to well. We have sat and negotiated with terrorists, we have replaced dictatorial regimes with new dictators. And then came 9/11. NEVER AGAIN. We should never sit idly by and allow the horrors of a man like Saddam to stay in power and we owe it to the world to never again allow this sort of madness to go on.

I am proud of my vote for George Bush in spite of any ridiculous post Abel is going to find on his liberal anti-American sites. I am proud of the actions of the troops in this totally Legal war and their just and moral actions against terrorists ANYWHERE they are found in the world. I will continue to denounce those who would call this war illegal and thereby call our troops War Criminals. In America you are free to complain about anything, but don't forget that these people you want to identify as War Criminals are the ones who are sacrficiing everything to give you that freedom. Also, don't forget, if you hate it so much here in America, YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 9, 2004 03:13 PM

Truthout and polls are used by liberals to bolster their arguements a lot on this site, and they are bunk. According to the polls, I would be against Bush because the economy isn't the way I want it, my income isn't what I'd want it to be, I don't like the fact that innocent Iraqui civilians are being killed alongside terrorists from collateral damage. According to those results, I would be an opponent of Bush and his policies. The truth is that Bush does not control the economy, my job compensation or health care benefits, nor can he be held accountable for the actions of the terrorists. Were not there ectasies of joy when the tax rebate checks came out and filled our wallets, and were there not equal scorn and people calling Bush 'yellow' immediately in the wake of 9/11 for not going in and flattening the middle east looking for the terrorists? Well, now those tax cuts and rebates are being blamed for the quivering economy, and that flattening is costing an enormous investment in funds and lives. You don't have to like it, but it's what we wanted. Truthout is the same way, and that seems to be a favorite of Abel's to legitimatize his position. I haven't referred to one poll to bolster my views because like most conservatives, I don't need anyone else, especially nameless people I don't know and will never meet, to bolster my owwn views. Liberals look to other people to validate their opinions so they can't be held accountable when they are flat-out wrong. Lemmings! All of you! Lemmings!!

Posted by: Dave at November 9, 2004 03:28 PM

Today's history lesson:

Liberals and Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early human ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That is how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as "The Conservative Movement".

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the "Liberal Movement". Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as 'girleymen'.

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the trade union, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years, conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jacka**.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting revolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men.

Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, soldiers, athletes, and generally anyone who works productively outside government. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to "govern" the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans are. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tame and created a business of trying to get MORE for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history

Posted by: Devil Dawg at November 9, 2004 04:20 PM

JM,
How can you claim to be a moderate when you supported the biggest liberal in the senate? I do not think Bush is far right wing, do you? I assumed you were liberal and maybe I was wrong. I am sorry if I was, it just seems to me that if you supported Kerry you were either liberal or not informed, and since you seem very well infromed I thought you were on the liberal side.

Don't get me wrong, I think we need liberals in this country so the conservatives don't go to far right. And in turn the conservatives hold the liberals from going to far left. I hope the democrats have learned this lesson and choose a candidate that is more center in the future.

America deserves two really good candidates next election, someone who does not just say they are for the middle class but actually are for the working family.

I hope we can continue to debate our issues in a civilized manner. Have a good day.

Posted by: Wayne at November 9, 2004 04:51 PM

Louis,
Just for the record, does the election of a president receiving 51% of the popular vote make it a theocracy? Or a democracy? If Kerry received 51% would it still be a theocracy? Or would everything be OK in Canton Ohio under the candidate you were routing for?

I am not trying to pick a fight here, but you were talking about hypocrisy and it sounds like we wouldn't be having this conversation if your guy won. What do you call that? What happened to moving forward under our president? Your last post does not sound like you want to move forward and heal this nation.

I am not trying to intimidate anyone here, just point out that for months you and Abel and d.jones have attacked me for my beliefs in Bush and now I am supposed to forget about how I was called brain washed, dumb, close minded and every other name thrown at me. Why? Why would I just let that go without an apology? Why would anyone?

When you posted about Bush being the anti-christ you never stated it was a joke, and for that matter, is that something that is funny to joke about? Would you like it if someone thought you were "real good buddies" with Gov. Jim McGreevy? That would not be funny either.

What is funny is the way Bush trips over his own toungue, the way he murders the english language, but calling him the anti-christ? Not funny.

Louis, we can go back and forth here, you can overwhelm me with big college words, and I will tell you I did not attend college, I have a HS diploma and work hard for a living. Your big words do not mean you are smarter than me, only more educated.

Posted by: Wayne at November 9, 2004 05:02 PM

Rudy For President in 2008.

Posted by: Queens,NY at November 9, 2004 05:03 PM

Abel, that’s it, I am voting you off the island. Your long rambling posts filled with venom, it's just too much. President Bush won the election get over it.

JM, like ya buddy but you are a liberal, I feel bad for ya too. Your posts don't lie and the fact your polite sets you apart from most liberals on this message board, but you are liberal. I am conservative, and proud to say so,you should be proud to say your a liberal if you believe what you post.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 9, 2004 05:34 PM

Wayne,

Nothing has changed and I tried to tell you that prior to the election. So George W. Bush is supposed to have won the elction---and I still cannot believe that he did but that's another story. That doesn't change anything, even if he did---the fact is that George W. Bush lied to the American people and invaded another country without provocation.

Bush lied to make it look like there was some provocation but a lie is still a lie. Are we supposed to accept his lies just because he won his election? Forget it, that's not going to happen. Lets remember that Richard Nixon won his reelection with a huge majority and soon resigned to avoid impeachment.

George W. Bush used God to help him in his election and that's a sin. That was enough for me to vote against him but I'm sure that others will claim that he only did what was right.

One more thing, there's nothing that you or I can do to "heal" our country. Lets just try to survive George W. Bush for another four years. That doesn't mean, however, that George W. Bush should be allowed to have his way all the time. We, as citizens, messed up in allowing him to invade Iraq and we should never allow him to do something like that again. That's a responsibility that all of us carry.

You say, "for months you and Abel and d.jones have attacked me for my beliefs in Bush and now I am supposed to forget about how I was called brain washed, dumb, close minded and every other name thrown at me." Well, what did you expect? We only called you what you were---what's wrong with that? You need to learn to live with those descriptions if you refuse to change. You certainly don't rate an apology until you change your way of viewing reality.

I don't know about calling George W. Bush an anti-Christ. I never called him that although I don't consider him as being very Christian due to all the innocent men, women and children that he has murdered during his illegal Iraq "mis-adventure."

Your misguided POST follows:

"Louis, Just for the record, does the election of a president receiving 51% of the popular vote make it a theocracy? Or a democracy? If Kerry received 51% would it still be a theocracy? Or would everything be OK in Canton Ohio under the candidate you were routing for?
I am not trying to pick a fight here, but you were talking about hypocrisy and it sounds like we wouldn't be having this conversation if your guy won. What do you call that? What happened to moving forward under our president? Your last post does not sound like you want to move forward and heal this nation.
I am not trying to intimidate anyone here, just point out that for months you and Abel and d.jones have attacked me for my beliefs in Bush and now I am supposed to forget about how I was called brain washed, dumb, close minded and every other name thrown at me. Why? Why would I just let that go without an apology? Why would anyone?
When you posted about Bush being the anti-christ you never stated it was a joke, and for that matter, is that something that is funny to joke about? Would you like it if someone thought you were "real good buddies" with Gov. Jim McGreevy? That would not be funny either.
What is funny is the way Bush trips over his own toungue, the way he murders the english language, but calling him the anti-christ? Not funny.
Louis, we can go back and forth here, you can overwhelm me with big college words, and I will tell you I did not attend college, I have a HS diploma and work hard for a living. Your big words do not mean you are smarter than me, only more educated."
Posted by: Wayne at November 9, 2004 05:02 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 9, 2004 09:26 PM

JM, Hillary Clinton would be a bad choice because even Democrats describe her as polarizing. It would result in another election that divides the country. Joe Biden is a fair choice but he's going to have to be on guard for some of the inflammatory comments he's made against Republicans. I really like Evan Byah and think he would make a great Democratic Candidate. While being centrist on most issues, he remains respected in the Senate, is not marred by any scandal that I'm aware of and is also know for working with both sides of the aisle to ge the job done. I agree that Joe Lieberman isn't charismatic enough but I still believe he'd make a great President.

There's a lot of talk about the demise of the Democratic Party and it's that sort of arrogance that will bring about a Republican defeat. The extremism of the Right will hurt the Republican Party as much as the Extremism to the left has hurt the Democratic Party.

I am really longing for a 2008 election that is about issues and substanceand a lot less mud-slinging. I would like to see two candidates that have strong moral clarity, can openly explain their positions without contradiction and really give Americans a choice, not of the best of two lesser candidates, but the best of what this country has to offer. Wasn't it Walden that said, those who aspire to political office don't deserve it? I'd really like to think that's not true.

One final thought on Hillary. While I personally don't have anything against a woman running for President, I'm not sure America is ready for it. I'm not as rabid against her as many conservatives, but I do think it would only serve to be devisive and wouldn't be in the best interest of the country and that has to be part of the process of selecting a candidate. There's more to running for President than believing you party has the right slant on the issues, you need a candidate who doesn't bring the baggage of corruption with them. That's always going to be hard when you run a Senator because there's often the implication of trouble because of lobby support. A strong Governor like Bill Richardson would also be another good choice as a Democratic Candidate. He's not from a noted nothern liberal state, he's a moderate, he would be strong in Hispanic support and he has the respect of many Republicans and the media.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 10, 2004 01:36 AM

Dave,

I think that the thing that I carried with me the most from John Kerry's Senate testimony in the 1970's was his statement that the current adminstration's policies were creating monsters in Vietnam who were going to bring their actions back to this country. He seemed to be saying that the actions of violence forced on the soldiers in Vietnam were creating people who would continue to commit these crimes of violence when they came home. It never happened. Why? Maybe because he was lying and it really wasn't the administration's policies to create violent monsters. They were good people fighting in a war they could not win because they lost the support of the political representatives in Washington. As I've watched the Iraq war, I sense that certain politicians and many in the media are trying to do the same thing again. Turn the public opinion against the war so that it loses it's support with the people back home. The real difference between Vietnam and the War in Iraq is that it is all about terrorism and if they win in Iraq, they aren't going to stay there, they are going to do what they've done in the past and continue their attacks. No matter how hard they try, you can't turn Iraq into Vietnam, and they do try. It is really going to be interesting to see what they say after the elections next year. It's is going to be really interesting to see what they say where there is peace in Iraq and it pressures other nations who support terrorism to yeild to the pressures of a free society. I really do believe this is the true path to peace in the world, a peace that might even be realized in our children's lifetime.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 10, 2004 02:00 AM

Wayne I am sorry! Okay. I tried the day after the election to say that. I also said if you g