I can not say I am not disappointed with the election- and I am more embittered with my country than ever. I feel GW ran a very dirty campaign based on lies such as the Swift Boat liars etc- and ran on denigrating minorities. I can not say in my heart that I do not despise and hate him for what he has done to my country. The election was close, which I did not believe was going to happen- I thought it would break one way or the other- instead, the pollsters were right, we are very divided. It is pretty much divided right down the middle, with less than 1% difference in the popular vote.

I predict GW will continue to "dis" the 49% that did not vote for him and continue to only play to the 51% that did vote for him.

This is why I can never support this president- and, in fact, for the first time, I disrespect the office as much as the officeholder- to me, the office has become meaningless in the last 4 years.

His election proccess definately was a capitalization over wedge issues and divisivness, and I don't even think he gives a hoot whether the country is divided or not.

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?

Do you feel that this election was good for America, either

NO- too divsive

or YES- great voter turnout

Nope...I respect the decision, but I don't respect the office or the man. And I definitely won't support him. He's put himself ahead of this country and if you ask me, mislead American into voting for him because his record sure as hell didn't do it.

My prediction is things will get far, far worse because he's a lame duck and has never been held accountable for anything. He can push a more horrible agenda (heck with the Patriot Act, let's just tear up the Constitution!) and has pretty much free reign to do it.

I'm incredibly disappointed in my fellow Americans, but respect their choice no matter how misguided I think it is.

But Bush can go to you-know-where.

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?


No, I can not support him, and I won't. Unlike 2000 election, the problem with this one is not with the process, electoral college, voting irregularities, etc. - the problem is with people. Every nation deserves it's leader; sadly, Americans deserve nothing better than Bush.
The scary thing is that he will view these elections as some kind of a "mandate"; Tom DeLay already mentioned on morning talk-show that "there are so many excititing things they can do now". Why would he need to reach to blue states? He doesn't, and he won't.

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?

Are you sure he really even ran it, or was he just out there speaking and letting everyone else come up with ideas? It was a dirty campaign no matter what, and I've lost a lot of respect for the Republican Party. This is not to say that I will never support them, because if Bush does make some good choices that better this nation, then I will support him. I'm much more inclined to support smart choices than certain parties.

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?

I doubt it. He's always been faithful to his constituents, which is fine, one should be, but he has never seems like the uniter that he claims to be. But how can one unite with such divisive issues such as Gay Marriage and Iraq? One such issue was his proposal to ban gay marriage in the constitution instead of leaving it up to the states (which is happening now). If one takes a steadfast stand on one side, then there's not much hope for uniting anyone.

Do you feel that this election was good for America?

No. It has been too divisive, without the hope of a man in the office who will help people come together. Maybe he'll run a commercial that shows an eagle flying and a collage of american people (from different races of course), with a caption that says: We're all Americans. That would unite a few people, or maybe we'll allow another terrorist attack, the first one did a great job of uniting us (although it's eventual repercussions divided us further than before).

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?
Absolutely not. I never had respect for the man, but now I have really lost a lot of respect for the American people too. This was probably one of the most negative campaigns on record and it really just sickens me.

I cannot and will not support his jingoistic, xenophobic and divisive policies. I'm also quite certain that his efforts will intensify since the Republicans picked up seats in both the House and the Senate and Bush actually has a "mandate" now with a sizeable popular vote victory. Add in the fact that at least one and maybe several supreme court judges will retire during his tenure and you have the makings for a perfect storm.

If I disagree with him, I will fight him and his policies at every turn, but I highly doubt that my efforts will do any good. He will continue to make mistakes and lead our country down the wrong path, and people will continue to apologize for him and allow him to blame others for his actions.

Of course, he could all of a sudden decide to be reasonable and do the right thing for America, but I think I have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening.

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?
No, why would he? He has a long history of marginalizing those who criticize him, the NAACP example I think applies perfectly here. As another example, the press questioned him harshly in his first term and what did he do? He just didn't hold press conferences anymore.

I don't expect any healing with "blue" states to be done by this president, because I don't think he believes he needs them. The Republicans proved something in this election and I fear it is going to become a pattern in the future.

Do you feel that this election was good for America?
Absolutely not, we are more divided now than we have been in a long time. I would compare our division ideologically right now to the divisions that occurred during the Vietnam war and during the civil rights movement. The violence and chaos isn't there, but the vastly differing opinions on the way the world should be run sure are. The hatred for the "other side" is also present and people are just as passionate bout their beliefs on both sides.

I had thought better of America, I was wrong. But that was the verdict and the process, so be it. I leave America to its own devices and I'll be sitting here waiting to say "I told you so" when things go terribly wrong.

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?

Absolutely, unequivocally, decisively and without apology NOT.

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?
Why would he? Republican President, Republican House, Republican Senate, Republican Supreme Court. California votes in line with its Republican governor on the propositions. Texas redistricts to essentially eliminate the chance of anything but a Republican winning. He’s like a kid on Christmas morning; everything he could have ever asked for he got; why should he care about the other half of the country?

Do you feel that this election was good for America, either

NO- too divsive

I’m sure Republicans are in the throes of ecstasy about this, but what does this mean for our country? The larger picture is, to me, frightening. It seems to me that America has become the land of the religious, home of the warlike, and those of us who do not subscribe to that dogma are disenfranchised. Are we heading for a single-party state where dissent is discouraged (election 2004), then punished (Patriot Act), then banned (dictatorship)? What does it take to achieve some balance in our government?

Diversity is good and needed for a vital government. A homogenous, autocratic government is not good in the long run. I’m sure there’s a political theory about that, but I’m not a PoliSci expert.

It’s ironic; I was never among the “be afraid, be very afraid” crowd before this election, but I sure as hell am now. I shudder to think what is going to happen in the next 4 years of rule by the village idiot.

Well, duh.

I am always intrigued when I read posts from those who call Bush the divider and in the same breath express their hatred for and their unwillingness to support the office and/or the man.

Bush is not the divider. The division of this country started with the Democrats in Election 2000. Since then, many of them (Democrats) have taken every opportunity they can to tear this president down, many times for no legitimate reason.

The country spoke yesterday. By re-electing President Bush and adding Republicans seats to the Senate and House, to include removing Daschle, we very loudly and clearly told everyone that we are tired of the negatively damaging rhetoric. We will do whatever it takes to move this country forward through reforming programs and by protecting the homeland by fighting the terrorist on their land so our children and grandchildren don’t have to deal with this issue in their lifetimes.

Although I do not support every issue that this President supports, it will not stop me from supporting the office and the man on those issues of which I do agree.

No the problem is not with this President. It is with those who wish nothing but ill will toward his presidency.

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?

Absolutely. I think he ran a much cleaner campaign than the Democrats did.

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?

He has always tried to reach across to the Democrats. It is the Democrats who have fought against Bush - and may I say in the most ugly fashion I have ever seen in my lifetime.

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?
Definitely not. He didn't make any effort to reach the "blue" areas before the election, when it could gain him some votes. Why would he do it now, when it doesn't matter whether anyone agrees with him or not. As much as Bush touted that he was a uniter, not a divider, I think his stance on many issues and his attitude towards people who disagree with him clearly shows he doesn't give a rip if he unites or not.

Do you feel that this election was good for America
I think it is wonderful that so many people got out and voted. I don't like the way they voted, and I didn't like the way the Bush campaign was ran, but I do find hope in the fact that people did seem to take an interest in the election.

I do have my doubts as to how informed people were before they went to the polls (I doubt many people did much research into the stances of the candidates beyond political ads and maybe they watched the news the night before the election). I know one of my friends, who will remain nameless, told me she was going to vote for Bush because he liked Mexican food. I did at least get her to go online and check out, in a very superficial way the stances of the candidates after she told me that... but I have a feeling that she was not alone in her method of picking candidates and that many people didn't have a rapid political fiend like me make them do at least some research. Which is appalling.

Yes, the country spoke today. They spoke by banning homosexual marriage (and in a lot of cases civil unions too) in all 11 states which had the measure up for consideration. They spoke by re-electing DeLay, who has been involved in a scandal for quite some time and his associates have been indicted for charges such as fraud and money laundering. Nothing has been conclusively pinned on DeLay, but to think that he is innocent in all of this is very naive indeed. The country spoke today by saying that it is "ok" to lie as long as it is for the greater good.

I'm sorry, but that isn't the country I want to live in Bela, and we can do much better. We can't claim to be the moral superior to the world, bringing democracy to heathens on our white horse when at our core we aren't much better in a lot of ways. We can do better. John Kerry was not the best we could do, he had flaws like the rest of us and he most definitely wasn't the perfect candidate, but he was a step in the right direction. The country has spoken alright, but not for me, and not for a very vocal 48% of the population.

There is one positive that will come out of this whole thing in my opinion. The Bush administration will finally have to take responsibility for their actions. For the past four years they have blamed everyone conceivable but themselves. Many have claimed that Bush is winning the war on terror and that his policies are sound. That is fine, I know you (all) genuinely believe that. However, that means that you are also going to have to admit those policies have failed when they fail to protect us from the next terrorist attack (and that is when, not if). The Bush administration won't be able to blame Clinton, or the Democrats or anyone else but themselves next time.

Edited to add:
In ths spirit of trying to look on the bright side of things, I offer this which I read this morning:

Yeah me too..and apparently it is now extending to those who voted or do in fact support the president. People can only make you do what you are willing to do. No one forced Americans to divide..or to say such hateful things or to view others in such a divisive manner.

I did not vote for Bush but I think I can cope having him as a president. A lot of his policies bother be..some do not. I have faith in the American system
And I have no hate for someone just because they think, feel or live their life differently then I do.

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?

I disagree with most of the man's policies. I didn't vote for him, and I don't believe that he represents me in an effective manner. In that sense, I'm not supportive of him. I don't know what other kind of support I could give. I'm not going to shut-up and stop being critical of the policies that I disagree with, and I wouldn't expect that of the Republicans if Kerry had won.

If Bush does something that I think is right. Then, I won't hesistate to say so. That's all I can give.

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?

I think he's trying to reach across to the blue areas of the country in the sense that he wants everyone on board with him, but he's not willing to compromise on his vision, so in that sense, no, I don't believe he will make any attempt.

Do you feel that this election was good for America, either

NO- too divsive and part of a trend that I don't believe will be getting any better in the near future.

Today, I am proud to be from PA!! I am not, however, very proud to be an American today. Not so much because Bush was re-elected, but th reasons people gave for re-electing him that show a HUGE DIVIDE in this country. The fact that a HUGE majority in some parts of the country view "morals" as more important in a President than his ability to handle the country is very disturbing.

The divide in the US did NOT start with the Dems contesting the election in 2000. It started with a man named Ken Starr and his endless pursuit of ANYTHING that Clinton did wrong from a MORAL standpoint, not as the leader of the country, but as a man.

I will support this country because I still love it, but Bush has a lot of work to do to win back my trust.

Despite what he is going to say in 10 minutes, I don't believe he will make an effort to reach out to the Blue States. From a "strategery" (to use a Bushism) standpoint, there is no reason to.

I think this election made people care about politics again, whih is good. But the reasons (hatred of the other party) that people DO care more are not good. We are in for a bumpy ride for a long time in this country given the divide that exists. It is not just a "party" divide, it's a TREMENDOUS cultural and moral divide.

I would venture to say that many Blue States have much more in common with other nations than they do Red States, and vice versa. Finally, I sincerely hope that one day the people in this country will realize that when we start mandating morals, we are no better than the people we are fighting in the Middle East. I'll use gay marriage as an example. While I personally believe that a marriage is between a man and woman, I also recognize that one day I could have a son or daughter who is homosexual. If that were the case, I would want them to have every opportunity that I had because they are my child, no matter what! I know how happy my wife makes me and I wish that everyone, no matter what their sexual preference is, could experience that love. Marriage is, after all, about love!

You're kidding, right? The division in this country didn't start with the Democrats in 2000, it started with the Republicans in 1992. They did everything they could to hamstring Clinton, with one investigation after another. Hell, even after four, count them, four independent investigations into the suicide of Vince Foster, there are Republicans who claim that he was murdered by the Clintons. And you don't think this is divisive?


That's funny, Belladonna. "Negatively damaging rhetoric"? I don't recall the Democrats being the ones who who intimated that being against this President or his war in Iraq was downright un-American, bordering on treasonous.

I don't recall House and Senate Committees locking Republicans out of any discussions, much less decisions, as the Republicans did to Democrats this last term.

Tom Delay and Bill Frist have already said that they will pretty much do what ever it takes to jam their agenda down the throats of nearly half the country, who did not vote for your guy.

No, Belladonna, the divisiveness did not come from the Democrats to start with, and while it may not have come directly from this President, he certainly fostered the environment that allowed this kind of behavior from the Republicans.

A much cleaner campaign? Really? Care to back that up with some solid examples? Because I sure didn't see it.


Allowing Democrats to be locked out of committees on which they serve is "reaching across"? Taking a "my way, or the highway" approach to every issue is being "a uniter, not a divider"? Forcing division in this country along religious lines, and class warfare lines isn't in the most ugly fashion?

Please. As a former military guy, I will always respect the office. But there is no way I can respect this....man, unless and until he starts acting like the President of the United States, and not like the President of just those who agree with him.

For the sake of the Republican Party in 06, he'll have to. If he doesn't, the Dems'll play the divider card [rightfully so] and the Elephants will take a hit.

Yo, it was divisive, but there was great voter turnout. I think the latter outweighs the former. Getting people interested in government, and active in voting is ALWAYS a good thing.

CP

I'm with Bela on this one--although I do understand the sentiments expressed by NiteGuy. Therefore, I don't want to point any fingers....both parties have surely done their fair share of causing the problem. However we got here...here we are. So, the question now is 'What to do about it'? For those who have so clearly expressed their disgust with Bush, and doubt that he will reach out to you---what exactly are you giving him to reach out to? It takes two to have a handshake, and one will be unlikely to stick his own hand out if he knows it will only be spit upon. So, if you want to be reached out to, it is up to you to provide the opportunity. If not, you have only yourself to blame. The true problem this country faces is not who is in office--it is the diviseness that separates us. For that issue, as the saying goes, one can either be part of the problem, or part of the solution. A saying which applies both ways, in this case. I certainly see nothing to gloat about--Bush will face some difficult years ahead. As CJ says, there will at some point likely be another terrorist attack, regardless of who was elected. Ditto for the problems of jobs, health care, etc. I'm tired of the diviseness....I'd rather see solutions.

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?

Yes, I think he will. The question is whether the blue areas will accept it.

Do you feel that this election was good for America


Well, it was better than the last one. At least this one was decided without any legal action, for which we all win. As to the result itself, it is what it is. Half will think that is good, the other half won't. Who's to say currently whether one side or the other is right? I don't see signs of the political rancor dying down--that is what would be truly good for America.

Hobbes, I would love to be "reached out to." Here are some ways Bush could do it:

1. Work on health care reform. I am a speech therapist and there are TONS of patients who I could help, but their insurance doesn't cover treatment, even though they have insurance! That's wrong!

2. Have an honest open debate about moving stem cell research forward. He can explain to me by looking right in the camera why the life of an embryo is worth so much to him, but why the life of a patient with cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's is not.

3. Explain we we need assault weapons on the streets. Come up with a plan to let the hunters hunt, and let people have handguns for personal protection, but get the automatic weapons of the street. In that sense, he can explain why 3000 deaths on 9/11 have strated 2 wars, but the millions of deaths each year caused by guns have not!

4. He can take my extra tax cut that I get every year back so that my kids will not be paying for it for the next 50 years!

That would be a start for me.

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?
I can support him if I think he's doing the right thing, but if past history is any indication and Bush calls the election a "broad victory," Cheney proof of a "mandate," I doubt I will be chipping in for him at all. I think his foreign choices are severely limited at the moment and he'll turn his agenda to domestic matters. In this case I think he'll continue focusing too much on tax relief for the upper crust instead of a spread, and of course the courts. If I may make a prediction... Rehnquist will step down. Bush will nominate Scalia to lead and nominate an ultra conservative to the court, effectively pinning the Democrats with the divisive label, dodging the rippling effect of his choice himself, and using it as fodder for the remainder of the term when it comes to his appointments.

Nah, I'm not bitter.

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?
I haven't seen a genuine, steady outreach the past four years. Whenever contention arose it seemed like Bush would take his toys home. This isn't to suggest that he restricted this treatment to Democrats. NiteGuy's examples summarize Bush's noticeable absence when it came to leading towards a compromise between parties. I doubt he will take an active interest that doesn't further social conservative goals.

Well, that's a great list! No problems with anything there from me.

See! See! We CAN do this together!

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?

I have strong feelings against the policies of GWB. I don't despise him personally. I will support President Bush as part of his loyal opposition. I think his policies are not in the best long term interests of this country, but I believe that he thinks his policies are in the best long term interests of the country. He is my president and I accept the will of the people on this. I see it as a wake up call for those who oppose. It is time to generate some real ideas about the policies of the United States

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?


I do not think he will make any attempt to reach across the "blue" areas of our country other than pointing out that he is the elected president and that all politicians no matter their political party are welcome to vote in support of his policies.

This makes me think of a line from Remember the Titans "Attitude reflects leadership."

I can't recall any genuine attempts to placate or reward the Democratic party in the last four years. There certainly in no equivalent of placing respected democratic leaders like Senator Moynihan in a cabinet level position. Perhaps I have been blinded, but the calls for bipartisanship seem to be one way in terms of, these are our ideas, come jump on board if you want to get my policies enacted.

Do you feel that this election was good for America?

I think the election was good for America. It was by no means the worst type of election. The candidates actually engaged issues and had reasonably open debates with each other. There was ample time through organizations like factcheck.org to reveal false claims and get that information out.

Wasn't it one in seven people who voted for a president for the first time? My wife was one such person. The Republicans energized their base to show up in force at the polls. The Democrats got out the vote as well as ever before. We just have to realize that their is a real substance to the concern over moral issues. It's not fair to toss out terms like atheist democrats, because it is not the party of atheism. But the democratic party needs to see in this vote and the massive home school movement in this country a grave and growing concern among many salt of the earth Americans, that some space needs to be made for expressing religiosity in our country.

In conclusion, I disliked the results but I am proud of our country in its embrace of the democratic process yesterday. The ideas our out there to debate over and more Americans are inclined to act on them at the polls.

GW ran the same campaign as John Kerry. There was little to no dfference on how eachother attacked eachother. The only difference was that when the Bush campaign attacked Kerry...there was some truth. While when the Dems attacked Bush...they had no credible evidence. This is nothing new. I dont understand how we can all be so surprised.

The next question makes no sense because the president is not in office to appease certain states. He is supposed to help the enitre country through his policies. Reforming social security and other such policies could greatly benefit all of america.

This election was VERY good for america. It put things bakc in perspective. We have all these people protesting in the streets and we have these Hollywood big shots shouting anti-bush rhetoric and we finally see that everyday people do not care for these loonies. The American people think for themselves and it let half the country know that. Also, it showed the true great divide in this country. Rural vs. urban. The cities are not going to dominate the country like it is in Canada. States' rights are being upheld and the people came out in record numbers to vote for Bush.

Insurance is privatized. The question is not to push Bush into recognizing speech therapy is a medical need, but the medical doctors. In order of an insurance company to pay for treatment, the treatment must first not be experimental, and second the treatment must be deemed necessary by the medical community. Until that point, it does not matter if health care is private or government run, speech therapy will be deemed an unnecessary medical expense.

No one is valuing one life over the other. Both the embryo and the person with the life threatening illness have a right to life. We should not kill either one. Beside embryonic stem cells are flawed. During the last 30 years of research, not one scientist has been able to duplicate embryonic stem cells. However, the state of California will give 3 billion to stem cell research, thus making stem cell research state run and not federal. And really should the federal government be given control over the patent process of duplicating embryonic stem cells? If America finds away to duplicate stems cells, would they share it with another country?

Assault weapons are not on the street because of the government, or the honest gun owner, but due to the black market. Its not the gun that kills people, its the people that kill people. Even if you banned the gun, it will be located on the streets in black markets. And yes the police fight a battle on guns every day. Besides look at Australia. They have an anti-gun law, and have violent crimes increased by 25%.

You can take your tax cut and invest it for your childrens retirement in a tax free IRA. OR you can simply return your tax cut. You don't have to take it. The federal government does not force a single person to keep money.

Hope that helps.

Thanks for your "help," but I think I can figure these things out on my own, especially the speech therapy part. When insurance coverage gets denied, it gets approved by the child's doctor, but denied by the inusranec company. Doctors already see the "need" for treatment. Again, whil I appreciate your help, I serve on several national boards for insurance reimbursement, so I think I know a little more about this area. Believe it or not, there can be a topic where you are not the expert.

I'll give a similar response on stem cells. The federal govt. SHOULD get involved because then they can help regulate it! Most scientists and physicians will tell you that they simply don't know enough aout the possibilities of stem cells because they haven't been able to work with them properly under Bush.

On the gun issue, if only people kill people and weapons are not important, why did we care so much about WMD in Iraq? And...doctors don't carry out abortions, women carry out abortions, right? How can you want to legislate anti-abortion laws through the feds, but not gun laws? Do you not care about people who die from guns?

And...FYI, in the first year of the tax cuts, right after 9/11, I did give the money back to Bush and the govt. Don't assume if you don't know what you are talking about.

Just a sidenote as well, I love how you now portray Kerry as a "patriot" now that he has conceeded when you were posting reasons for treason pre-election. Everyone can see through your act here.

THANK YOU for pointing this out. I'm constantly amazed at how so many people are willing to have their taxes raised, but for some odd reason don't seem to send back or refuse to cash their refund check when they get one....or for that matter send in MORE taxes than they are required to. Ever hear of that happening? Kinda hypocritical don't you think?

Its a matter of literally putting your money where your mouth is. YOUR money not mine. Personally, I can't see sending in one more dime than required to the most wasteful, bureaucratically driven, do nothing organization in our country...our Federal Government. What have they done to earn your trust they will spend it wisely anyways?



No strong feelings against Bush....but then again, I didn't have strong feelings against Kerry either. I could have supported either although I think the better leader won. Just my opinion.

As far as reaching out to blue states, I think he already has with his victory speech. Remember though that he won presenting an agenda of tax reduction, strong defense, war on terrorism, etc and to expect him to change now is unrealistic. If you are a democrat, you might want to "pick your battles" a bit more carefully. He obviously has the support of the majority of the people to continue what hes done and continues to do.

The election was GREAT for america. The campaigns however were not in our best interests. As someone mentioned already however, thats how people seem to get elected these days. If you want to complain and point the finger about negative campaigning, look at yourself first. Did YOU (meaning you in general...nobody in particular) do any negative campaigning? I would imagine that its possible many of us here did. If you want to elevate the conversation, I would only say everyone should do their best to start with themselves first.

(edited for spelling)

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?

NO. Unless he does an about face from his first four years.
[Deep breath, avoids rant.]

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?

He didn’t in his first term so I see no reason why he would start now. Surely his re-election only solidifies in his own mind that he’s on the right course. He has yet another opportunity to unite the country, we’ll see.

Do you feel that this election was good for America, either NO- too divsive or YES- great voter turnout

Yes and no. No because of the obvious division.

Yes for many reasons. As I’ve posted in the past I was raised in a political family and for years on the day after the election I was often disappointed with my fellow citizens and their apathy. Voter turn out was incredible and for once made me proud regardless of the outcome. It was simply refreshing to see the long lines at the polls. On the news this morning was a report about a twenty one year old girl in Ohio that stood in line for nine hours.

But the most important reason is what I’ve witnessed today. Most of my co-workers and friends know my family and know that I’m politically active. I’ve been answering the phone all day and multiple emails asking how they can get politically involved today, not four years from now.

If this election does nothing else for this country than to bring citizens into the political process and rejuvenate the electorate than we’re all winners. Some times you have to take a step backwards before you can move ahead.

Fife and drum- I see this as a harmful- when so many younger folks got out the vote, I heard 17% increase, will they become apathetic now that they lost? Won't the results discourage many of them "I stood in line for nine hours and still my guy lost"- kind of feeling? I certainly felt that when I was younger!

Hobbes, thank you for giving me hope that the divide can be bridged. Yehoshua, thank your for reminding me why there is a divide. In the discussion of the debate, I was trying to show how Bush could reach out to ME, which was a question posed in the discussion. Your response represents why there is such a divide. People don't want to hear what you "think" about issues that concern them. They want action.

Leder, respectfully statements like this are exactly the reason that so many of us are furious with Bush. In your mind, somehow Bush is telling the truth about John Kerry, yet we are just lying when it comes to Bush. You absolutely refuse to admit that he has made any mistakes and to me that is completely unacceptable and the main reason why there won't be any "healing" in this country in the near future.

Not a whole lot has changed between November 1st and November 3rd, except for that fact that Bush supporters now feel he is "vindicated". He has not altered any of his behavior and I highly doubt he is going to sit down and think "man that was close, maybe I should re-evaluate my positions on a few things". He is going to take it completely the opposite way and further his agenda and continue to isolate and enrage those of us that didn't vote for him.

Seeing as how you are the expert and I am not, can you please inform as to how the privatized insurance company not recognizing the doctors approved need for the treatment has anything to do the job of the President of the United States? What do you hope to gain from a health care reform that is not already there?


Very well federal government needs to regulate stem cells. This does not mean that the federal government should fund stem cell research. In fact, Bush is regulating stem cells by not allowing research to be performed on any more then the samples being funded by the United States. Secondly, I find it odd that the scientists have been working with stem cells since the 1970s yet it is only over the last 3 years that their research had been halted. Over the last 3 years Bush has given funding to stem cells. Secondly, stem cell can be researched privately in the United States. With all the benefits scientist claim there are, I wonder why more private companies have yet to research stem cells on their own.

Ah we cared about WMDs getting into the wrong hands in Iraq. We believed that Saddam would give terrorist nuclear weapons that would inturn be used on America. We care about weapons in the hands of the wrong people. That is why after you commit a crime you can not own in a gun in the US. I said nothing about anti-abortion laws. The people who die from guns were shot by someone. Lets blame that person, not the weapon. In most murder cases, it isn't the weapon that was used, it was the intent to murder.

Only the first year? what about the other 2 or this year?

I never once called cited Kerry committing treason. QUOTE ME ON THAT.

I'm feeling decidedly unsympathetic for those youngsters who stood in line for nine hours. A person with a two year old (for instance, ME) wouldn't have bothered at all with that length of a line. A nineteen year old could simply get a six pack of beer and have a "vote party".

I campaigned extensively for my selection back when I was a teenager ...and my guy didn't win. I'm still politically active, so I'd say those who give up aren't very interested anyway.

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran? Well, I don't have strong feelings about GW either way. I didn't support him (I feel a bit saddened today) as a candidate, but I will support him as president.

Do you feel that this election was good for America? Time will tell. I think the large turnout is a good sign, overall.

CR – I certainly hope not. It’s been a while since I was a 21 year old idealist and not everyone has the benefit of the lessons learned while being raised in a politically active family.

It’s called resolve. I had a healthy dose instilled in me and can only hope this girl and any disenfranchised young voter will be motivated to participate in their party of choice.

To quote the paraphrase of one of our most distinguished Kentucky statesman: “hell hath no fury like a voter scorned.”

You two have certainly summed up how I feel. Both sides ran negative campaigns, both sides told half-truths and distortions and both sides claim the other side is lying and they are not.
I can't help but wonder why third parties aren't really making a run for national leadership with the hypocrisy, corruption and stagnation in both major parties.

I can support GW just as much as I did before, which admittedly comes easier since I'm conservative. But I definitely would like to see him reach national consensus on major issues and move the country forward.

I don't think this election will be the hallmark of divisiveness unfortunately. I may be in the minority, but I think Madam Hillary will be making a run in '08. Then we'll be treated to the ABH movement.

EXCUSE me, I'm part of that "other half" and I'm an American, too. Just because your perspective came out on top does not mean that the other one half of America shares that perspective.

I'm with NiteGuy; if this president can show he has an ounce of concern for the "little" people, I will grudgingly accept his handshake. Somehow I don't think I have to worry too much about that happening.

I mark today as a defeat in our war against old outdated thinking, bigotry, and many other problems and challenges facing the human race. I will never support this president however legitimate his presidency may be this time around. I will do everything in my power to rally my friends, family and everyone I meet against him. I might live another sixty years, hopefully if I labor all this time my efforts would not be for naught.

The nation is divided, maybe 51-49. Thats only 51% atleast it isn't 80.

They won this battle, the story is far, far from over.

(excuse my militaristic thinking, it is accurate, but I don't mean to infer violence or hatred. My only weapon and armor in this war is the truth, and I believe that the truth is on my side. Until I see differently I will fight with my wits, my mind and my tongue)

Didnt mean for people to take it personally. What i was trying to make the point about was the silent majority v the loud minority. I was saying that these people in Hollywood and anyone with some sort of talent can tell others how to live. I dont mean purely Dem either...repub celebs as well. I was trying to say that the American people are thinking for themselves and making their own decisions.



Not what i meant at all. Bush did plenty wrong. Reason he didnt admit is because the moment he did, he would get blasted from the left. It was a lose-lose situation if he admitted a mistake. Furthermore, i was talking about ploys such as "Memogate" and the recent October Suprise. However with the SBVT and the whole Vietnam thing...there was some truth.

I will say this once, and politely. Don't discuss what you know nothing about. If you think that Canadian politics are "dominated" by cities then you are misinformed; and should not pass that misinformation on to others.



Two things. First, neither one of the "ploys" you mentioned originated from the Kerry campaign. Secondly, they were not the centrepieces of the Kerry campaign. Kerry DID talk about bad intelligence (which there was), bad economic policy (which is arguably true, and much easier to prove than the SBVT allegations), and international affairs (which is again an area where Bush is open to legitimate criticism.)



Exactly.

My conscience in no way, shape or form will allow me to support him and his agenda.

If history is any indication, Bush will not attempt to reach across to the "blue" area of our country.

And the last question. NO - too divsive

First the BAD NEWS

51% of the people elected a person who gained the White House(in 2000) against the will of the majority and who then pretended he had a mandate and subsequently pushed tax cuts for the rich and launched a war predicated on untrue assertions.

So in his next 4 years he will keep his:

1. Reckless preemptive war

2. A war on environmental regulations

3. An economic policy based on tax breaks tilted toward the wealthy.

4. A constitutional amendment to gay marriage

5, Excessive secrecy in government

6. A ban on effective stem cell research

7. No-bid halliburton contracts

Next the GOOD NEWS

1. American is a divided nation - NEARLY HALFof the electorate rejected Bush's leadership, his agenda, his priorities,his falsehoods

2. Nearly half of the voting public concluded that Bush had caused the deaths of over 1100 American GIs and up to 100,000 Iraqis for no compelling reason.

3. Nearly half saw the emperor buck naked and butt ugly

4. Nearly half said no to rash actions and dishonest justifications.

5. Nearly half realized that Bush had misrepresented the war in Iraq as a crucial part of the effort against Al Qaeda.

6. Nearly half desired better and more honest leadership

7. Nearly half knew that Bush has led the country astray.

8. Nearly half realize that the next 4 years will gut any environment regulations.

9. Nearly half think if the last 4 years have been hell, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Nope. To paraphrase a friend, "I'd rather put a .357 in my mouth than support Bush."



No.



The interesting thing here is how many people turned out not to vote for president, but to ban gay marriage. There was some exit poll done - sorry I don't have a reference - that concluded that the number one issue that voters were concerned with was gay marriage. Over president. Over school budgets. Over judges. So I don't like the great voter turnout when most of them turned out just to write religion into law. And the election in terms of being too divisive - I personally can attest to that. Though I've always been interested in politics, I have never hated America. I have never thought that if we get attacked, we'd deserve it. I have never wanted to personally engage in a violent overthrow of the government.

... but I do now. Because something has to change, and obviously it's not going to happen democratically. Because of this election, I have changed, and while I don't like what I've become, I don't think I want to change - if I could change if I tried. I have no interest in being reached out to. I have no interest in trying to "bring America together." Because the majority of Americans are people I want no business with.

No. While I respect the office, I have no respect for the current President. He is the same warmonger he was before the election. There is nothing to indicate that we will experience anything other than "more of the same."

No, it's "come over to my side of the road," or nothing to this President.


I would say that it wasn't totally bad or totally good. It is good to get the people to register and vote. It is also good to have a better-informed populace.

I am not going to get into the divisiveness of this campaign; everyone is all too aware of it.

Popeye47's post pretty much covers my feelings on this subject.

Let me say that i am very happy that so many people voted this year, however i wish that the results would have been different. I do not think that i can trust a person who has brought us into two wars, one of which was justified while the other was not, and who's motives are not quite clear. He also brings his religious ideologies into his decision making process, which he should not do because not every American holds the same viewpoints as he does. This election disappointed me because now we must have four more years of Bush. I only hope that we do not go to war with another country and that we start to keep our nose in our own business. Not to mention finish what we start before we begin another "project".

There is a little bit more good news for us, Popeye.

When Bush and Delay and Frist shove through even more tax cuts for the wealthy, the deficit soars, and Social Security and Medicare are thoroughly trashed...

When Grandma and Grandpa are eating pet food, because it's the only way to afford to eat and pay for their medicines...

When we send our troops to yet another Middle East country to save them from themselves...

When the wives of those Reservists and National Guardsmen find out their husbands tour has been extended yet again....

When those Reservists and Guardsmen' businesses and homes back in the States go into receivership, because they aren't at home to run them, and their Guard pay doesn't cover the mortgage for two years....

We can take heart that the Bush apologists will have no one to blame but Bush. When things get so bad that even the most staunch supporter has to look away in embarassment, they won't be able to blame Clinton or Kerry, or the "tech bubble" or anything else. They will have to face up to the fact that their boy, and their boy alone, blew it big time.

But, I'm not gonna take any whining from them when it happens. They went in with their eyes wide open, and voted for the man. They'll have nobody to blame for the ensuing mess, except themselves. And we can say "we told you so".

I respect your opinion, but I guess that I look at the following facts and come to a different conclusion. For one, he dismissed the ABA and replaced the vetting process with the Federalist Society. The latter group is hardly a non-partisan group by any measure. How is that not divisive? The president has also nominated various candidates for judgeships that have a troubling record to many democrats. Nominating a Souter or a Ruth Bader-Ginsberg is a way to reach out across the aisle. Nominating those who who have horrid ratings from the ABA and are in the mold of Scalia and Thomas is hardly a way of reaching out to the other party. You may agree with their legal perspective, but how is that accomodating the other party? Not only that, but one judge received his position when congress was in recess. So, the minority party balks at a guy, and the administration's attitude is: "so what?" I've listed legal examples here, shall I continue with other examples? Do you sincerely believe that Bush has acted in good faith towards the democrats?

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?

I suppose I'm ambivalent. I can't really say I've ever "supported" a president. What does that mean anyway? I'm just a statistic, a number, a fraction of a fraction of fraction of a percent of the electorate. My feelings are that a president has too much power at the expense of states' power. I would like to see a decentralization, a weaker federalism. Neither Republican nor Democratic parties are interested in this though.

My objections to Dubya were his foreign policy and the fact that he is one of the most liberal spenders of federal dollars in history. The enormous amount of pork he signed into law and the money he borrowed to fund it... Even the most liberal Democrat in the US wouldn't spend so frivolously or borrow with such cupidity.

In this campaign, rational dialog and honest policy assessment were superceded by a profound negativity, fear, polarization and general meanness on both sides. Both campaigns are to blame. But, I will place most of the blame on us, the voters. I blame us because we (as a general population) are swayed by the slur, the sensational, the smear. We want the soundbite at the expense of nuance. We choose the "gut feeling" instead of trying to analyze the issue. Why should we be suprised that the president is any different?

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?

After another terrorist attack or two in the US and causalties exceed 20,000 in Iraq, then we'll see how much reaching across the aisle there is. Until then, I fully expect a sense of entitlement and hubris to dominate. On the plus side, the marginalized fiscal conservatives may actually have a voice in the Congress, but I don't have high hopes.

Do you feel that this election was good for America, either

No, but it was never going to be good for America no matter the result. However, I can't really say it was bad either. It just is. It demonstrates an effect rather than a cause, a symptom of a division rather than the divider itself.

There is a time-honored tradition in America that after a bitterly contested election is over that we turn the conversation to talk of reconcilement, "healing the wounds" and displaying a "bipartisan" spirit.

This tradition is sincere, heartfelt and wrong. Sadly wrong.

Simply put, if I was against Bush on November 1st, why should I now be for him on November 3rd? What changed? Did he change his position on stem cell resarch? Did he give up the idea of drilling for oil in Alaska? Was Osama captured? Did the troops come home from Iraq? Has the economy improved and gas prices dropped back to where they were four years ago?

No. I think not. How could I possibly support Bush now? Wouldn't that make me a...a flip-flopper???

If Bush wants my support in 2004 he should be that compassionate conservative that promised to bring a new spirit to Washington that he claimed to be in 2000. Now who thinks that's going to happen now? If Bush wants my support when he starts replacing his Cabinet next year he'll offer Tom Daschle a job in an attempt to reach out to disaffected Democrats. If Bush wants my support he'll display a degree of maturity, honesty and dignity absent over the last four years.

Two things I know for sure. Bush doesn't want (or need) my support and not one of those three things is going to happen. Bush has been a divider, not a uniter. I see nothing in his past behavior to believe the future is going to be any different.

I don't see the point in expecting graciousness or humilty from George W. Bush. Both his history and our reality tell me differently.

President Bush had the nation united after September 11th. He squandered this by attacking Iraq under false pretenses, changing the reasons we went there, and letting Osama bin Laden slip while he searched for reasons to attack Iraq. He squandered it by changing his stance on gay marriage from "states' right" to "federal amendment". He squandered it by cutting taxes in a wartime situation--the first President to ever do so.

I will not be supporting President Bush simply because he's entirely average. The campaign he ran, as reported by factcheck.org, was based almost entirely on lies and misrepresentations. During the three debates, the API had to tear apart many of Bush's claims but only a couple of Kerry's. It was frightening how misinformed Bush appeared--until I realized that he was not misinformed but simply misrepresenting the truth to make it appear Kerry was a flip-flopper. Senator Kerry lost the election by overestimating the intelligence of the average American. I've done it myself and I'm constantly reminded of my inability to correctly judge the intelligence of my fellow Americans.

He will not reach across to us Democrats because he no longer needs to. Once Bush is able to appoint Supreme Court justices, the Republicans will control all arms of the federal government. Once that occurs, you can be sure that we will see an administration hell-bent on pushing its moral agenda.

This election was not good for America. A woman called in to NPR and complained about the Ohio election process. She had her voter registration card sent to her by the state. But when she arrived at the specified polling center, her name was not on the polling list. How did this happen? How can she have a registration card but not be on the list? She says she is not alone and feels her vote will not count.

This election has proven one thing--the majority has rejected the concepts which our Founding Fathers held when they formed this nation. They sought a form of government which was free of religious persuasion, which prevented a tyrannical majority from subjecting a minority to its suppressive views, which was fiscally responsible. Isn't it rather depressing that Europe is now more like what our Founding Fathers sought than the country they founded? Weird.

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?

No if Kerry won he would not have reached out to the Red portions though I doubt as much belly aching would be going in in general.




I did a double take at this. Reaching across the ailse is one thing committing political hara-kiri to placate people who would never vote for him in any way shape or form is something completely different. By your logic Clinton should have installed a Thomas or Rehnquist to placate Republicans instead of Ginsberg.

Are you arguing that Souter is a conservative??

-source

Souter and Ginsberg are to the right when it comes to states vs. federal government opinions and other matters, but they show an independent streak in other matters-which is something that Rhenquist and Thomas have time and time again failed to demonstrate. The nominations of Ginsberg and Souter were very mild compared to that of Thomas. Why?-the other party will approve your pick if the person isn't too far "out there" for them to stomach. The president has yet to learn that in any serious way.

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?


Never. Or almost never. Maybe if a different George suddenly appeared and started acting like a decent human being. But I'm not holding my breath.



Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?

Maybe with a nightstick.



Do you feel that this election was good for America, either

NO- too divsive

or YES- great voter turnout


It would have been good for us if there now weren't so many questions about the voting machines (phantom Bush votes in Ohio, machine glitches in Florida, etc.)

I agree. There will be no compromising on his part.

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?

I cannot support what he stands for. I am not against the Republican platform,
but I am against the president's misuse of power, and heavy-handedness where
religion is concerned. Having a strong faith is great, but shoving it down a
country's throat is unacceptable. Furthermore, when he speaks of "family
values" it is implicitly understood that the only family values that count are
those of wealthy, white, hetero-sexual Christians. I cannot support such a
narrow-minded point-of-view.

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of
our country?

No. And, why should he. The next four years are his to do as he wishes.
He has no re-election issues holding him back now, so it is full-speed ahead
with the agenda of the Chritian Right.

Do you feel that this election was good for America, either NO- too divsive
or YES- great voter turnout

IT was great because it drew people out of their apathy.

[quote=CruisingRam,Nov 3 2004, 10:41 AM]

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?
No. After failing to fire him for a job badly done I cannot suddenly support him, regardless of how he ran his campaign. The things that were wrong in the country before November 2 are still wrong today AND a slim majority of voter's just gave this Administration a mandate to continue screwing it all up for four more years.

They also showed us and the rest of the world what little interest they have in holding Bush accountable for the dishonesty, the 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, and the 1273 dead Coalition soldiers who lost their lives looking for weapons that did not exist and were not a threat to anyone.

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?If he didn't have incentive to do so before he certainly doesn't have any reason to do so now. But perhaps unity is not what this nation needs right now. If unity means no one is held accountable than unity can wait until justice is done.

I will not support this president. It is not our job as Americans to support the president no matter what. If Kerry were president, I would have diagreed with some of his policies. It is up to the American people to question the leadership, not follow whatever the leader says. The people on this board should know that freedom of speech is one of our most precious rights, and we must preserve this right, and never give it up just because a leader wants us to. I am going to excersise my rights and let Bush know why I disagree with his policies. I will not keep my mouth shut and I will educate and inform, not change my point to view to fit the Republican agenda. Many Democrats have proposed moving farther to the right to win votes. This is a huge mistake. Democrats have always fought against the rising tide of conformity, and suggesting the we conform to fit the ideals of people they do nto agree with is going to send the party backwards. We must take risks to make this country better, and if we back down now, the future looks bleak. We must help the president fix America's mess, not by agreeing with him, but by educating people about our thoughts and opinions, and not keeping quiet about things that matter.