NationStates Jolt Archive

This election campaign was extremely hard fought by both sides. Despite the fact that I harbor great antipathy toward one candidate for reasons which have little to do with "politics," my hat is off to all participants for fighting very hard for their positions and their candidates.

This election was an historic one in many ways, not the least of which was the high voter turn-out, which by all reports was one of the largest in history. This alone was a victory of sorts for both candidates, as well as for the stability and vigor of the American system of government.

If you were eligible to vote and did so, I salute you. You have exercised one of the most valuable and hard-won freedoms in the history of humankind. If you were eligible to vote and did not, shame on you. Countless men and women throughout history fought for, and many of them died to bring to you this pricelss gift which you chose to ignore. This obviously does not apply to those of you who elected to not vote as a form of protest.

So now what?

For those who won the election, the burden to prove the rightness of your cause now rests squarely on your shoulders. The hard fight to win was only the beginning. Now you must work twice as hard to prove that you deserve the votes of those who supported you. You have a wonderful opportunity to show the Country, and the world, that the voters' faith in your words are matched by your deeds.

To those who backed candidates not elected, well done; you fought hard for your convictions, but your job is also just beginning. Now you must prove you can remain an effective counterbalance to those whose candidates were selected by the voters.

Some of you have expressed a desire to withdraw from political involvement and some have even expressed a wish to leave your Country. Please do not do either! We need you. Both sides desperately need you to keep those who won honest. Call them to task. Make them prove again and again that they now represent all of us and not just those who voted for them. This is, if anything, an even more demanding job than that of those elected. Please don't let us down.

What did we learn?

We learned that the entire electoral machinery needs work. There were still problems with insuring that all who wished to vote and who were eligible to vote, were actually able to do so, and that all votes were counted. This is unacceptable.

We learned that there are still far too many who, for whatever reasons, hold their freedom to vote in low regard. This is also unacceptable. All of us need to emphasize again and again and again just how important it is to the Country to take advantage of this incredible right.

We learned that almost everyone has an ax to grind and that we need to carefully assess all who claim to have "the truth."

We learned that it is far too easy to influence elections with massive amounts of money. This needs lots of work and creativity in developing acceptable, workable solutions.

We learned that each and every one of us has something to contribute to the process.

We learned that there are many, many people, both at home and abroad who have a stake in the outcome of our elections and who will often resort to less than honorable means to do so.

And we learned that all who participate in the process win, regardless of the outcome.

Additional "learning points" are solicited.

Hugs all around.

Can we have milk and cookies now?

Hugs all around.

Can we have milk and cookies now?

Of course! The line forms at the White House door! :)

Wow.

It seems I may have been wrong about you, Eutrusca.

Hats off.

Very good … lets work hard to make this country the best we can … remembering all opposing points of view for better

There will be a lot of conflicts but we have to remember not to hate the other side … only to fight with them over the important things :)

Keep up the fight everyone … be civil but don’t back down from your principals
(but always consider a modification to them where needed) we can all learn from each other


I am proud of both the democrats and republicans and all of us in-between for the fight good fight … lets work hard and keep doing what we believe in

Wow.

It seems I may have been wrong about you, Eutrusca.

Hats off.

Thank you!

Yay, let's celebrate! Even though Kery wasn't very different on the ground and wouldn't have had much of a margin of action anyway, the election (not saying re-election) of W means Americans democratically justified carpet-bombing of Afghanistan, concept of preventive war, sitting on international laws, invasion of Iraq, slaughter of civilians, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, making fun of UN, spewing on old allies, achieving "clash of civilisations", - spitting at the face of the world, in short. I find this election very symbolical, and I'm glad everyone can now clearly see the face of the self proclaimed beacon of human rights.

(opening a bottle of Veuve-Clicquot, I don't like milk)

Yay, let's celebrate! Even though Kery wasn't very different on the ground and wouldn't have had much of a margin of action anyway, the election (not saying re-election) of W means Americans democratically justified carpet-bombing of Afghanistan, concept of preventive war, sitting on international laws, invasion of Iraq, slaughter of civilians, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, making fun of UN, spewing on old allies, achieving "clash of civilisations", - spitting at the face of the world, in short. I find this election very symbolical, and I'm glad everyone can now clearly see the face of the self proclaimed beacon of human rights.

(opening a bottle of Veuve-Clicquot, I don't like milk)


Yay look here comes the grinch … if you would like to argue about what the election specifically means to you … argue it in one of the other 1000 threads … this one is about a congratulations for the fight … not for the meaning behind it

It's the greatest victory since the Oxford flower arranging team beat Harrow by twelve sorebottoms to one!

I agree, this was a well fought an honorable campaign. Now that its over, however, we need to focus on re-building ties between both parties. Remember, we may all belong to a Political party, but before that we are all AMERICANS!

I agree, this was a well fought an honorable campaign. Now that its over, however, we need to focus on re-building ties between both parties. AMERICANS!

That is a nice thought and sure to guarantee Republican victories for years to come. They play vicious, attack politics, but now Democrats should role over and play nice doggy, is that it?

Let me give you an example. In the past election there was a particularly nasty GOP campaign for the state senate seat in Ohio's district 20. The Democratic candidate was the former AP reporter Terry Anderson. Anderson was kidnapped and held hostage by Hamas in Lebanon for 7 years in the 1980s. He did what you are calling for - discussed ideas, stayed away from the personal, played nice.

His GOP opponenent handed out fliers with an unidentified picture of Anderson confronting one of his Hamas captors years later on CNN. The flier claimed Anderson met with terrorists and was therefore weak on terrorism. Anderson is a Vietnam vet, a former university professor, a local businessman, and a former victim of terrorism, yet she ran a nasty smear campaign for a local state office claiming he was weak on terrorism (http://www.athensnews.com/issue/art...?story_id=18651).

The result? She won by 9%.

This is the hallmark of the new Republican party. Don't give me that building ties between the parties crap. I don't want the Democrats to fight as dirty as the Republicans - I want them to fight dirtier.

Honorable campaign?! How fucking laughable.

There will be no building ties between the two parties. The extremist Christian right has their dirty little fingers dug in too deep into the Republican party. They also played a huge part in getting GW elected. He has some favors to repay.

Freedomfrize is right. The American people have spoken and it looks pretty ugly behind their "Wecome Y'all" smiles.

22% of people voted for "moral reasons". are you people so stupid that you think that with kerry as president the queers will run rampant getting married or something? i think alot of people have great misconceptions about the "issues" during this election. :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :eek:

22% of people voted for "moral reasons". are you people so stupid that you think that with kerry as president the queers will run rampant getting married or something? i think alot of people have great misconceptions about the "issues" during this election. :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :eek:

Queers?? where???

HIDE!!!
RUN!!!

There will be no building ties between the two parties. The extremist Christian right has their dirty little fingers dug in too deep into the Republican party. They also played a huge part in getting GW elected. He has some favors to repay.

but preteding to play nice makes it easier to distract your opponent while your friend stabs him in the back!

*Lifts his mixed drink called a "Republican Government"*
Cheers folks, all well done, two of the best campaigns in the modern era!

I agree, this was a well fought an honorable campaign. Now that its over, however, we need to focus on re-building ties between both parties. Remember, we may all belong to a Political party, but before that we are all AMERICANS!

Honourable my fucking arse. How much mud were both sides slinging? It soon became about which candidate told less lies.

Good show, Eutrusca! Thank you for starting this thread. We definitely need to remember that we are all Americans, and must work together to better our nation, regardless of who is President.

Originally Posted by Da Ganta Nation
22% of people voted for "moral reasons". are you people so stupid that you think that with kerry as president the queers will run rampant getting married or something? i think alot of people have great misconceptions about the "issues" during this election.

A "moral reason" doesn't mean that a conservative voted against gay marriage and abortion. It means that a person voted with the candidate who shares their views on what is moral and "right." Just because a person is a liberal doesn't mean they lack morals, or wouldn't vote because of them. I know people who felt that it was immoral to invade Iraq, and therefore, they voted for Senator Kerry for "moral reasons."

Morals hold our society together, and if someone didn't vote their morals, I would be sad to hear of it. It would be going against the very principle of democracy that the founders of our nation cherished.

Y'know im sick of this. We used to be an honorable country! We used to be fair! We were UNITED! But now, people like you are messing with everything! You put your political party BEFORE your nation! You put PERSONAL GAIN before the will of the people! I used to wonder why the world hated America, and i think ive found it.

(Oh, and when i said Honorable campaign, I meant it. Yesterday both men acted as Gentlemen. There was no prolonged, mud-slinging, political lawyer battle like Al Gore made.

I guess im the only one who can see past the fog of partisan politics.)

I guess im the only one who can see past the fog of partisan politics.)

I guess one's eyesight improves after his or her political party sweeps control of the government. It is very easy for those running the show to want to do away with the fog of partisanship.

First off Eutrusca - this was a very well written post. I would only like to make a reply to a couple sections.

To those who backed candidates not elected, well done; you fought hard for your convictions, but your job is also just beginning. Now you must prove you can remain an effective counterbalance to those whose candidates were selected by the voters.

This may be more difficult than it sounds. In the last election, Bush barely won - and even then not by popular vote. However, he governed as if given a clear mandate. In this election, he actually got a slight majority of the popular vote and has already declared a "broad victory" even though he won only a few states by more than the election margin of error. Some responsibility has to be put on Bush's shoulders to stop forgetting that he is *everyone's* president, not just the president of those who agree with him. I sincerely hope he will take on this responsibility, but past performance makes me doubt it.

Some of you have expressed a desire to withdraw from political involvement and some have even expressed a wish to leave your Country. Please do not do either!

If I left the country, it would not be out of protest or out of a misplaced lack of patriotism. However, if Bush continues to treat science as he has for the past four years, the profession itself will continue to be degraded in this country. I don't know about you or your current profession, but if I cannot practice it with integrity here, I will find somewhere that I can.

We learned that the entire electoral machinery needs work. There were still problems with insuring that all who wished to vote and who were eligible to vote, were actually able to do so, and that all votes were counted. This is unacceptable.

We knew about those problems beforehand - and legislatures decided that dealing with them would be too expensive. Did you know that it is policy to not even touch absentee ballots unless the margin is close? Do you realize whose vote never gets counted in states like GA, which always goes Republican -- the votes of the military overseas. That, at least, should piss you off to no end, as it does me.

I guess one's eyesight improves after his or her political party sweeps control of the government. It is very easy for those running the show to want to do away with the fog of partisanship.

Even when Clinton was president i wanted to be done with Partisanship. Even though i come from the Democrat Homeland(New England, Massachusetts to be more precise) i have always wanted to do away with partisanship. It is holding our country back.

Even when Clinton was president i wanted to be done with Partisanship. Even though i come from the Democrat Homeland(New England, Massachusetts to be more precise) i have always wanted to do away with partisanship. It is holding our country back.


You want countries without partisanship? How about China or North Korea? Not much partisanship there. Sudan is a pretty good place, as well, if you want to avoid partisanship. Of course there have been some fine examples of real non-partisan paradises found in history - 1938 Germany and General Pinochet's Chile in 1975 come to mind, but there are so many to chose from.

Partisanship is not the curse of democracy - IT IS DEMOCRACY!

That is a nice thought and sure to guarantee Republican victories for years to come. They play vicious, attack politics, but now Democrats should role over and play nice doggy, is that it?

Let me give you an example. In the past election there was a particularly nasty GOP campaign for the state senate seat in Ohio's district 20. The Democratic candidate was the former AP reporter Terry Anderson. Anderson was kidnapped and held hostage by Hamas in Lebanon for 7 years in the 1980s. He did what you are calling for - discussed ideas, stayed away from the personal, played nice.

His GOP opponenent handed out fliers with an unidentified picture of Anderson confronting one of his Hamas captors years later on CNN. The flier claimed Anderson met with terrorists and was therefore weak on terrorism. Anderson is a Vietnam vet, a former university professor, a local businessman, and a former victim of terrorism, yet she ran a nasty smear campaign for a local state office claiming he was weak on terrorism (http://www.athensnews.com/issue/art...?story_id=18651).

The result? She won by 9%.

This is the hallmark of the new Republican party. Don't give me that building ties between the parties crap. I don't want the Democrats to fight as dirty as the Republicans - I want them to fight dirtier.


No not role over and play doggies … keep it civilized and fight for what you believe in and both sides don’t go into that childish “they started it” phase

Quit acting like children and keep working hard

I guess one's eyesight improves after his or her political party sweeps control of the government. It is very easy for those running the show to want to do away with the fog of partisanship.


Brings whole new light about my more leftist friends wanting to do away with “partisanship” about 6 years ago … thanks for clearing it up …

The OP presented a note of reconciliation and cooperation.

Shameful.

I suppose that he was asking for trouble by not being a petty, bitter, partisan dick.

No, we know it started with Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. It has continued with Tom DeLay and Karl Rove.

It is not for the Democrats to engage in whinning about how mean the Republicans are. I want them to become every bit as vicious, ruthless, and underhanded. Anything Democrats do to block and obstruct the GOP agenda is fine by me.

As the Conservative icon Barry Goldwater said, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

Etrusca, I know someone probably has started or will start an argument with you over this, but, even though I disagree with a great deal of what you post on here, I completely agree this time.

It is wonderful to know that so many people are becoming involved with the political process with apathy being so high in the past. And I also believe that such a devisive election could spawn a very productive next four years, as hopefully most people will be willing to let go of their vendettas after witnessing the infighting it has created.

I voted for Kerry and personally believe Bush's first four years to be disastrous and would have preferred to see Kerry elected, but I figure it like this: If you learn from your mistakes, Bush must be a genius by now. Hopefully he will follow through on his promise to earn his naysayers trust again, although for me it is a long journey. But, I'm willing to meet him halfway and I hope most of the other angry liberals on here do to.

No not role over and play doggies … keep it civilized and fight for what you believe in and both sides don’t go into that childish “they started it” phase

Quit acting like children and keep working hard

Thats what i said. All i said was be civilized. Ogiek, however, started acting as if i said "Alright, Republicans do whatever they want and Democrats are slaves." What i said (and meant) was that we shouldn't start putting our political parties BEFORE our nation as a whole.

I voted for Kerry and personally believe Bush's first four years to be disastrous and would have preferred to see Kerry elected, but I figure it like this: If you learn from your mistakes, Bush must be a genius by now. Hopefully he will follow through on his promise to earn his naysayers trust again, although for me it is a long journey. But, I'm willing to meet him halfway and I hope most of the other angry liberals on here do to.

Oh, my God! This is why liberals never win. "Please scatch us behind the ears and we will forget all the times you kicked us." What lapdog mentality.

Did the Republicans meet Clinton halfway? Hell no, they went after him tooth and nail, like a pack of rabid wolves. They tore at the man personally, at his wife, at his child.

But now we liberals should all just sit around the George Bush campfire and feel lucky we have been invited to witness his greatness.

What crap.

Oh, my God! This is why liberals never win. "Please scatch us behind the ears and we will forget all the times you kicked us." What lapdog mentality.

Did the Republicans meet Clinton halfway? Hell no, they went after him tooth and nail, like a pack of rabid wolves. They tore at the man personally, at his wife, at his child.

But now we liberals should all just sit around the George Bush campfire and feel lucky we have been invited to witness his greatness.

What crap.


And they were wrong to do it too … like I said don’t start that whole
3 year old
“But they did it first” mentality

We have to do our best but because some extremists on one side went after us doesn’t give us the right to do the same.

Grow up

First off Eutrusca - this was a very well written post. I would only like to make a reply to a couple sections.
Thank you. I appreciate that. :)


This may be more difficult than it sounds. In the last election, Bush barely won - and even then not by popular vote. However, he governed as if given a clear mandate. In this election, he actually got a slight majority of the popular vote and has already declared a "broad victory" even though he won only a few states by more than the election margin of error. Some responsibility has to be put on Bush's shoulders to stop forgetting that he is *everyone's* president, not just the president of those who agree with him. I sincerely hope he will take on this responsibility, but past performance makes me doubt it.
Well, at least this time he's talking as if he would like to be more conciliatory. We'll just have to wait and see, I suppose.


If I left the country, it would not be out of protest or out of a misplaced lack of patriotism. However, if Bush continues to treat science as he has for the past four years, the profession itself will continue to be degraded in this country. I don't know about you or your current profession, but if I cannot practice it with integrity here, I will find somewhere that I can.
That is one of the primary problems I have with this President, that and environmental issues.


We knew about those problems beforehand - and legislatures decided that dealing with them would be too expensive. Did you know that it is policy to not even touch absentee ballots unless the margin is close? Do you realize whose vote never gets counted in states like GA, which always goes Republican -- the votes of the military overseas. That, at least, should piss you off to no end, as it does me.
Yes, it does piss me off, but then again, so do lots of other things over which I have little or no control, so what else is new? Heh!

Sorry, but George W. Bush and Dick Cheney announced loud and clear that they were only president and vice president of half a country.

Where ever they went to speak during this election they required Americans who wanted to see them to first sign a loyalty oath saying they would vote for the GOP candidates. They physically threw out people who disagreed with them - not for being disruptive, mind you, but simply for holding a different opinion.

Geroge W. Bush let me know clearly that he is not my president...and he is right.

And they were wrong to do it too … like I said don’t start that whole
3 year old
“But they did it first” mentality

We have to do our best but because some extremists on one side went after us doesn’t give us the right to do the same.

Grow up

If I remember correctly, you were one of the principle smear artists on here when it came to John Kerry and his voting/war record. I really don't blame Ogiek for not being happy, and you calling him childish is a little pot kettle black. I say the Republicans on here, with a few exceptions, have little right to call for unity. I do, however, believe the democrats on here should be men (or women) and push for it on their own.

Sorry, but George W. Bush and Dick Cheney announced loud and clear that they were only president and vice president of half a country.

Where ever they went to speak during this election they required Americans who wanted to see them to first sign a loyalty oath saying they would vote for the GOP candidates. They physically threw out people who disagreed with them - not for being disruptive, mind you, but simply for holding a different opinion.

Geroge W. Bush let me know clearly that he is not my president...and he is right.

*sigh* i give up on you.

Once someone has their mind set on keeping their nation devided without trying to fix it, they always will be.

Sorry, but George W. Bush and Dick Cheney announced loud and clear that they were only president and vice president of half a country.

Where ever they went to speak during this election they required Americans who wanted to see them to first sign a loyalty oath saying they would vote for the GOP candidates. They physically threw out people who disagreed with them - not for being disruptive, mind you, but simply for holding a different opinion.

Geroge W. Bush let me know clearly that he is not my president...and he is right.


hmmm never heard the loyalty oath thing

*sigh* i give up on you.

Once someone has their mind set on keeping their nation devided without trying to fix it, they always will be.


Yes there will be … then the rest of us see what it is really about and understand it is just one point in a cycle, things will work out one way or another

*sigh* i give up on you.

Once someone has their mind set on keeping their nation devided without trying to fix it, they always will be.

Give me a break. Find someone else to march in lock-step with your "we-are-all-one" mentality. It was Gingrich, Limbaugh, Bush, DeLay, Rove, and Co. who have spent years telling people like me that we are unpatriotic, that we are not good Americans, that we have no morals.

Sorry, the days of being a good puppy are over.

Thank you!

Nah...pretty damn good post...

Geroge W. Bush let me know clearly that he is not my president...and he is right.

hahaha...ok then...who is?

*rolls eyes*

Yes there will be … then the rest of us see what it is really about and understand it is just one point in a cycle, things will work out one way or another

Hmmmm....

I guess this re-affirms my most common phrase: "Life sucks, then you die."

The loyalty oath wasn't an all-pervasive thing. The only time, in fact, that I'm absolutely sure of it happening was at a rally in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, where Dick Cheney spoke. Several other times when the candidates were here, there was not such thing, however, people wearing Kerry regalia were removed from events, whereas people wearing Bush regalia at Kerry rallies were not. But that's just New Mexico. I can't attest for the rest of the country.

hmmm never heard the loyalty oath thing

Bush-backers-only policy riles voters at RNC rallies
By Steve Larese, Globe Correspondent | August 9, 2004

RIO RANCHO, N.M. -- A Republican National Committee practice of having people sign a form endorsing President Bush or pledging to vote for him in November before being issued tickets for RNC-sponsored rallies is raising concern among voters.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/09/bush_backers_only_policy_riles_voters_at_rnc_rallies/

I'm appalled at all the people who post on this thread, STILL bashing one party or another.

America needs to be re-united (loosely quoting Bush).

Kerry was fighting for "A Stronger America".

I know that both major candidates have congratulated the other party on their efforts to change America for the better.

Anyone who still holds grudges, even after their perferred choice for leader has congratulated the opposition, should try to be more forgiving of our faults as humans.

Here's something to lighten the mood of this post.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/llama.php

totally random, silly, and innocent.

Give me a break. Find someone else to march in lock-step with your "we-are-all-one" mentality. It was Gingrich, Limbaugh, Bush, DeLay, Rove, and Co. who have spent years telling people like me that we are unpatriotic, that we are not good Americans, that we have no morals.

Sorry, the days of being a good puppy are over.

...

Hey, if you want to preach civil-strife and anti-unity and make America MORE divided, go ahead. T'is your life, you can waste it however you want.

I'm appalled at all the people who post on this thread, STILL bashing one party or another.

America needs to be re-united (loosely quoting Bush).

Kerry was fighting for "A Stronger America".

I know that both major candidates have congratulated the other party on their efforts to change America for the better.

Anyone who still holds grudges, even after their perferred choice for leader has congratulated the opposition, should try to be more forgiving of our faults as humans.

Thats what ive been saying, but all they're gonna do is tell you "noooo, we're better off divided." So i sugest that you stop trying...

I must say im relieved that at least the election has been decided by the voters and not the courts. Though we are already hearing stories of the FBI silencing commerical radio stations, confiscating servers and deleting websites across the world as well as tales of voter harrasment...
The reaction to Bush's re election has been less than positive here in Britain and across the world. We can only hope that in this term Bush realises that America is part of the world and that he cant go around forcing his christian ideals and ideas on 'democracy' on the rest of the world.
Personally I think the whole 2 party system makes it all the more divisive, as oppossed to here where we have some 6 parties represented in the Scottish Parliament; Labour, Scottish National Party, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, Socialists and Greens... also our election system works on proportional representation, a far more representative system than Americas electoral college.

Oh, my God! This is why liberals never win. "Please scatch us behind the ears and we will forget all the times you kicked us." What lapdog mentality.

Did the Republicans meet Clinton halfway? Hell no, they went after him tooth and nail, like a pack of rabid wolves. They tore at the man personally, at his wife, at his child.

But now we liberals should all just sit around the George Bush campfire and feel lucky we have been invited to witness his greatness.

What crap.

Let me make this point, in the first 4 years of Clinton's presidency, the Republicans tried their best to rip him apart. What happened? He was reelected. In his second term, the Republicans upped their attacks. What happened? A punching bag of a vp and a candidate which was almost universally disliked may have been screwed out of an election, and Clinton goes down as one of the most liked presidents in recent history.

In this election, the democrats do their utmost to destroy Bush. What happens? He gets over half of the vote. People don't want to join a party that is constantly bickering and fighting, it gives off a bad image.

Also, I don't get how saying the republicans did it makes it ok for democrats to do it. That is the worst argument you can possibly make.

As for now, I will not be a lapdog. I will meet this president halfway if he is willing. I would say he would be more willing to do so without so many detractors questioning every single decision he makes.

I must say im relieved that at least the election has been decided by the voters and not the courts. Though we are already hearing stories of the FBI silencing commerical radio stations, confiscating servers and deleting websites across the world as well as tales of voter harrasment...
The reaction to Bush's re election has been less than positive here in Britain and across the world. We can only hope that in this term Bush realises that America is part of the world and that he cant go around forcing his christian ideals and ideas on 'democracy' on the rest of the world.
Personally I think the whole 2 party system makes it all the more divisive, as oppossed to here where we have some 6 parties represented in the Scottish Parliament; Labour, Scottish National Party, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, Socialists and Greens... also our election system works on proportional representation, a far more representative system than Americas electoral college.
The radio station to which you refer was a "pirate" station in California which had no license and thus no legal right to be on the air.

It's the greatest victory since the Oxford flower arranging team beat Harrow by twelve sorebottoms to one!

XD i know that!!

bat was harrow not armed with a heavy machine gun? (or was that another quote?)

Let me make this point, in the first 4 years of Clinton's presidency, the Republicans tried their best to rip him apart. What happened? He was reelected. In his second term, the Republicans upped their attacks. What happened? A punching bag of a vp and a candidate which was almost universally disliked may have been screwed out of an election, and Clinton goes down as one of the most liked presidents in recent history.

In this election, the democrats do their utmost to destroy Bush. What happens? He gets over half of the vote. People don't want to join a party that is constantly bickering and fighting, it gives off a bad image.

Also, I don't get how saying the republicans did it makes it ok for democrats to do it. That is the worst argument you can possibly make.

As for now, I will not be a lapdog. I will meet this president halfway if he is willing. I would say he would be more willing to do so without so many detractors questioning every single decision he makes.
Good post! I keep waiting for some candidate to begin his or her campaign by totally disavowing personal attacks on her/his opponent ... and then STICKING TO IT! I suspect that, if he/she had a good record and workable plans for her/his proposed programs, it would feel like such a "breath of fresh air" people from all parties and political persuasions would turn out in droves. :)

I don't want the Democrats to fight as dirty as the Republicans - I want them to fight dirtier.
I can't imagine how it is possible to fight dirtier than Republicans, short of firebombs and such.

I can't imagine how it is possible to fight dirtier than Republicans, short of firebombs and such.


Oh they will find a way … then republicans will work to get dirtier then the democrats even worse

Doesn’t ANYONE see where this is heading if we don’t think like adults?

I know it is a tired old idea but it has proved itself true over and over again

The only time a party here tried similar 'smear' tactics was when the conservatives were trying to stop Blair being re elected. Result? Biggest electoral winning margin in history for Labour. Having seen programmes on the kind of thing thats been shown on your screens during the run up to the election I can see why you would prefer a candidate who would stay 'clean'

Oh they will find a way … then republicans will work to get dirtier then the democrats even worse

Doesn’t ANYONE see where this is heading if we don’t think like adults?

I know it is a tired old idea but it has proved itself true over and over again

I know! Of course, there will aways be someone out there who wont listen to reason.

…this one is about a congratulations for the fight… ....about a congratulations for the right

Give me a break. Find someone else to march in lock-step with your "we-are-all-one" mentality. It was Gingrich, Limbaugh, Bush, DeLay, Rove, and Co. who have spent years telling people like me that we are unpatriotic, that we are not good Americans, that we have no morals.

Sorry, the days of being a good puppy are over.
Very true thoise people did say all that.

Bush will not do anything to to try to meet democrats halfway. If I turned out to be wrong I'll apologize but till he does. I am not meeting him halfway.

I want to see repentance of his non-unity acting. "uniter and not a divided" apologize first Bush.

Always been my primary problem with Bush he has too much Pride. Never is sorry.

A "moral reason" doesn't mean that a conservative voted against gay marriage and abortion. It means that a person voted with the candidate who shares their views on what is moral and "right." Just because a person is a liberal doesn't mean they lack morals, or wouldn't vote because of them. I know people who felt that it was immoral to invade Iraq, and therefore, they voted for Senator Kerry for "moral reasons."


Well considering the fact that the in the same election 11 states put anti-gay marriage amends in their constitutions, tends to suggest otherwise.

Gay marriage was a big reason for the turn out.

Very true thoise people did say all that.

Bush will not do anything to to try to meet democrats halfway. If I turned out to be wrong I'll apologize but till he does. I am not meeting him halfway.

I want to see repentance of his non-unity acting. "uniter and not a divided" apologize first Bush.

Always been my primary problem with Bush he has too much Pride. Never is sorry.

It is hard to be sorry when you never believe that you are wrong.

He has said publicly many times that he never takes time to reflect on his decisions or views. That is scary.

Good post! I keep waiting for some candidate to begin his or her campaign by totally disavowing personal attacks on her/his opponent ... and then STICKING TO IT! I suspect that, if he/she had a good record and workable plans for her/his proposed programs, it would feel like such a "breath of fresh air" people from all parties and political persuasions would turn out in droves. :)

In the race for the state senate seat in Ohio's district 20 the Democratic candidate, Terry Anderson, offered no personal attacks, discussed ideas, stayed away from the personal, played nice. Anderson was a former AP reporter who was kidnapped and held hostage by Hamas terrorists in Lebanon for over six years in the 1980s.

His GOP opponenent handed out fliers with an unidentified picture of Anderson confronting one of his Hamas captors years later on CNN. The flier claimed Anderson met with terrorists and was therefore weak on terrorism. Anderson is a Vietnam vet, a former university professor, a local businessman, and a former victim of terrorism, yet she ran a nasty smear campaign for a local state office claiming he was weak on terrorism (http://www.athensnews.com/issue/art...?story_id=18651).

During their scheduled debate Anderson read a statement about how he was smeared and refused to stand on the same stage and engage in mudslinging with his opponent. The story was picked up nationally and internationally.

The result? His Republican mudslinging opponent was rewarded by the voters with a victory.

People complain about mudslinging and dirty politics, but they invariably reward the dirtier politician.

In the race for the state senate seat in Ohio's district 20 the Democratic candidate, Terry Anderson, offered no personal attacks, discussed ideas, stayed away from the personal, played nice. Anderson was a former AP reporter who was kidnapped and held hostage by Hamas terrorists in Lebanon for over six years in the 1980s.

His GOP opponenent handed out fliers with an unidentified picture of Anderson confronting one of his Hamas captors years later on CNN. The flier claimed Anderson met with terrorists and was therefore weak on terrorism. Anderson is a Vietnam vet, a former university professor, a local businessman, and a former victim of terrorism, yet she ran a nasty smear campaign for a local state office claiming he was weak on terrorism (http://www.athensnews.com/issue/art...?story_id=18651).

During their scheduled debate Anderson read a statement about how he was smeared and refused to stand on the same stage and engage in mudslinging with his opponent. The story was picked up nationally and internationally.

The result? His Republican mudslinging opponent was rewarded by the voters with a victory.

People complain about mudslinging and dirty politics, but they invariably reward the dirtier politician.

In Illinois, Barack Obama ran a very clean race, avoiding personal attacks against Alan Keyes, who openly questioned Obama's blackness on multiple occasions and said that Obama held "slaveholder views". Obama recieved over 70% of the vote.

Give me a break. Find someone else to march in lock-step with your "we-are-all-one" mentality. It was Gingrich, Limbaugh, Bush, DeLay, Rove, and Co. who have spent years telling people like me that we are unpatriotic, that we are not good Americans, that we have no morals.

Sorry, the days of being a good puppy are over.

I'll agree with this point. All we've heard for four years is how un-American you are if you disagree with anything this president does. Now, after constant labels of traitor or coward or whatnot, we're supposed to forget all of that and all join hands as proud Americans? I don't think I can do that. I'm a traitorous non-American you see.

Wow Eutrusca, this was very good when compared to your usual diatribe! :p

I am happy you feel well and have an upward look to things. Guess that is one of the spoils of victory.

I am more in the disillusioned group along with many Bay Area types. We are a different mindset I guess. A different country.

I always gave the heartland the benefit of the doubt on most things as one side of the family is from there and my grandparents were farmers.

The only time I would speak ill of them is if it were my relatives or if it were people like Rev. Phelps. Yet I can't count how many times I have heard comments about that liberal fag state or the land of fruits and nuts.

There is all this talk about patching differences and yet there is the occasional "Love it or leave it" comment.

I don't see good times ahead. I see many things under attack as we seek to end the economic downturn or to make people "more responcible for themselves"

I hear many of the heartland bash social assistence and yet they get rather defensive about Farming subsities and some will even get very violent if you suggest it in itself is welfare.

The envirnoment seems to be something to plunder rather then admire.

I don't see much mending especially when the Shrub suggests that bipartisanship might sometimes have to take a back seat to the hardball realities of achieving his goals.

He already has a mindset and I don't think uniting is part of it. As he said "I will reach out to those that share our goals." So bascially, you are either with us or against us.

Ahhh well. What's done is done and all we can do is to hunker down and ride out the storm.

In the race for the state senate seat in Ohio's district 20 the Democratic candidate, Terry Anderson, offered no personal attacks, discussed ideas, stayed away from the personal, played nice. Anderson was a former AP reporter who was kidnapped and held hostage by Hamas terrorists in Lebanon for over six years in the 1980s.

His GOP opponenent handed out fliers with an unidentified picture of Anderson confronting one of his Hamas captors years later on CNN. The flier claimed Anderson met with terrorists and was therefore weak on terrorism. Anderson is a Vietnam vet, a former university professor, a local businessman, and a former victim of terrorism, yet she ran a nasty smear campaign for a local state office claiming he was weak on terrorism (http://www.athensnews.com/issue/art...?story_id=18651).

During their scheduled debate Anderson read a statement about how he was smeared and refused to stand on the same stage and engage in mudslinging with his opponent. The story was picked up nationally and internationally.

The result? His Republican mudslinging opponent was rewarded by the voters with a victory.

People complain about mudslinging and dirty politics, but they invariably reward the dirtier politician.

When was the last time running a clean run worked?

In Virginia, Portsmouth a democrat David Ashe a vetern from Gulf War and stuff ran for senate and lost even though he ran a clean campaign. He also had a opponent who fought dirty.
So clean means nothing because people believe the lies.

This election campaign was extremely hard fought by both sides. Despite the fact that I harbor great antipathy toward one candidate for reasons which have little to do with "politics," my hat is off to all participants for fighting very hard for their positions and their candidates.

This election was an historic one in many ways, not the least of which was the high voter turn-out, which by all reports was one of the largest in history. This alone was a victory of sorts for both candidates, as well as for the stability and vigor of the American system of government.

...And we learned that all who participate in the process win, regardless of the outcome.

Um... how exactly have you come to this conclusion? In what way have Kerry supporters "won"? Or is this coming from the mindset of "by merely participating, we're all winners?"

No thanks. I prefer to deal with disappointment through honest evaluation, not feel-good 'Special Olympics'-esque pablum.

Um... how exactly have you come to this conclusion? In what way have Kerry supporters "won"?
I think because Kerry conceded she felt that was a victory for them lol.

I have a question. Will this be any worse than Margaret Thatcher's prime ministership in the 80s? This goes in cycles people, I mean, the US and UK were liberal in the 60s and 70s, conservative in the 80s, liberal in the 90s, conservative in the 00s, so it will just be a while before we get tired of being conservative. The world can't make up it's mind!

I have a question. Will this be any worse than Margaret Thatcher's prime ministership in the 80s? This goes in cycles people, I mean, the US and UK were liberal in the 60s and 70s, conservative in the 80s, liberal in the 90s, conservative in the 00s, so it will just be a while before we get tired of being conservative. The world can't make up it's mind!

The United States was not liberal in the '90s. True there was a Democratic president, but any rational examination of his record shows him to be moderate-to-conservative in his policies. He was also dealing with a very conservative Congress.

This contrasts with the first half century of liberal ideology. After a brief bump of conservative politics in the 1920s the U.S. government resumed progressive policies begun in the 1900s and 1910s. From 1932 until the late 1960s American politics was dominated by liberalism (at least American style liberalism - which even in the 60s was less liberal than the European brand).

Nixon's "silent majority" forshadowed a conservative takeover that began with Goldwater in the 1950s and culminated in the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s (although people forget that Jimmy Carter - a conservative Democrat - was the one who increased military spending). Since then America has been trending more and more conservative in elections.

Socially the United States is split between urban, secular liberals and rural, religious conservatives (with the southern states and their "more guns, more Jesus" ideology dominating).

How far will this right-wing movement go? Who can tell, but their hubris will eventually bring them down. One can only pray there is a recognizable country left when they are finally discredited and removed from power.

And the UK is currently Labour controlled, originally a socialist party but I guess pretty similar to the Democrats. Tories aint been in power for the best part of a decade and they aint coming back anytime soon.

The United States was not liberal in the '90s. True there was a Democratic president, but any rational examination of his record shows him to be moderate-to-conservative in his policies. He was also dealing with a very conservative Congress.

This contrasts with the first half century of liberal ideology. After a brief bump of conservative politics in the 1920s the U.S. government resumed progressive policies begun in the 1900s and 1910s. From 1932 until the late 1960s American politics was dominated by liberalism (at least American style liberalism - which even in the 60s was less liberal than the European brand).

Nixon's "silent majority" forshadowed a conservative takeover that began with Goldwater in the 1950s and culminated in the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s (although people forget that Jimmy Carter - a conservative Democrat - was the one who increased military spending). Since then America has been trending more and more conservative in elections.

Socially the United States is split between urban, secular liberals and rural, religious conservatives (with the southern states and their "more guns, more Jesus" ideology dominating).

How far will this right-wing movement go? Who can tell, but their hubris will eventually bring them down. One can only pray there is a recognizable country left when they are finally discredited and removed from power.


Yes, but once the liberals get elected the world wont get all fine and dandy. It MIGHT get better, but it sure as hell isnt gonna be all peachy fine. Im betting $20 that the Liberal Controlled U.S.(in the mid 2040's) will screw up BIG TIME. Then it will be just like modern day, just reversed. And then it goes back to just like today in 2050, then reverse in 2110, then the same in 2163, then*TLS goes on and on and on.*

Yes, but once the liberals get elected the world wont get all fine and dandy. It MIGHT get better, but it sure as hell isnt gonna be all peachy fine. Im betting $20 that the Liberal Controlled U.S.(in the mid 2040's) will screw up BIG TIME. Then it will be just like modern day, just reversed. And then it goes back to just like today in 2050, then reverse in 2110, then the same in 2163, then*TLS goes on and on and on.*

I have long suspected that the primary reason for these "cycles" is a desire ( conscious or unconscious ) on the part of a majority of the US population to seek a middle road over the long term. By alternating between the two major parties, the long-term effects of the previous cycle ( whether conservative or liberal ) are ameliorated and neither political philosophy can ever truly "prevail." Just a thought.

I have long suspected that the primary reason for these "cycles" is a desire ( conscious or unconscious ) on the part of a majority of the US population to seek a middle road over the long term. By alternating between the two major parties, the long-term effects of the previous cycle ( whether conservative or liberal ) are ameliorated and neither political philosophy can ever truly "prevail." Just a thought.

Except at this point, one party controls every branch of government, and Bush has the opportunity to appoint anywhere between one and three (even four) Justices, which will affect the country for the next forty-plus years.

It looks like one party just prevailed. Something tells me this isn't the "checks and balances" thing the Founders were talking about.

Except at this point, one party controls every branch of government, and Bush has the opportunity to appoint anywhere between one and three (even four) Justices, which will affect the country for the next forty-plus years.

It looks like one party just prevailed. Something tells me this isn't the "checks and balances" thing the Founders were talking about.
The life-long terms for Supreme Court Justices is one of the best "checks and balances" the Founders designed into the Constitution. It insures that justices will be independent from political pressure ( even FDR had a problem doing that when he was trying to get anti-depression measures passed! ) and thus free to decide cases on their merits.

The relative independence of the justices acts as a brake on the majority's tendency to alter constitutional law based on current political fads or emotionally laden issues.

The life-long terms for Supreme Court Justices is one of the best "checks and balances" the Founders designed into the Constitution. It insures that justices will be independent from political pressure ( even FDR had a problem doing that when he was trying to get anti-depression measures passed! ) and thus free to decide cases on their merits.

The relative independence of the justices acts as a brake on the majority's tendency to alter constitutional law based on current political fads or emotionally laden issues.

Future issues are the only hope on such things. You can't predict how the judge might react over an issue in the future.

However with current issues, prospective judges have to go through a litmus test to see if they will support the parties issues(both do it). The shrub is tell a gigantic wopper when he says he woun't use one.....

The hispanic fellow that the shrub wants sounds like another Scalia.

So impartiality does come into question.