What a pile of tosh.

'We need to come together and unite behind this President.'

George "You're either with us or against us!" Bush?

He's truly a uniter folks.....not a divider!

The division in America comes from having a president not wanting to represent all of his country.

Just those on his 'side'.

The divide, as the Maryland study shows, is between those that are intersted in truth + facts and those that believe myths + fantasies.

'We need to work together because we do have a common enemy.'

Fear and ignorance?

'We need to work together on the war on terror'

The majority of Americans know less than nothing about the war on terror, a slur against the memory of the victims of 9/11 in itself, and still labor under the mistaken belief that Al Qaeda is the "international terrorist network with thousands of members across more than 60 countries with sleeper cells in every one" that the likes of Rumsfeld and Bush tried to depict it as and refuse to admit to the huge gulf between 'terrorist' ambition and what they can actually ever hope to achieve.

Beware wolves bearing nukes!

'Democrats, as I have documented in the quotes, have just gotten more vitriolic and more livid'

Yeah! Anyone would think that this president ran on the fear + ignorance ticket, riding a campaign of nasty smear tactics and character assassination thereby leaving a bitter taste in democrat mouths that won't be washed away with yet more hollow promises of unity.

ps. A document is a few selected quotes?

'The ball is in their court.'

No it's in Bush's and he refuses to give it back.

'They have a chance to stop the hate'

Who wants to amnend the constitution based on discrimination again?

Oh I forgot, it's needed to protect something that isn't even under threat.

Beware gays with nukes and marriage proposals!

'Democrats, I'm asking you a simple favor. Stop partisan bickering and political posturing and make this a safer and more prosperous nation.'

They tried.

Bush won.

'intersted'

Interested.

'Who wants to amnend'

Amend!

There should really be an option to prev.........oh.........there is.

You're either with us or with the terrorist should not be a divisive statement.

Well, he is a Republican, you would expect him to lean more towards a Republican agenda. Do you expect him to run on a Republican ticket and push the liberal agenda?

"The divide, as the Maryland study shows, is between those that are intersted in truth + facts and those that believe myths + fantasies."

Heh.

Well, you I don't think I needed to post a book. "Lie, after lie, after lie" - Ted Kennedy. Kucinch saying that the President targeted civilians for assassination attempts. That the President "concocted a war in Texas for political gain." That Bush and Cheney are "cowards" and that God wanted Kerry. (Thanks Tom Harkin)

These are just some examples.

Are you referring to a typo or something?

'You're either with us or with the terrorist should not be a divisive statement.'

No it shouldn't, but he really is quite gifted in that regard.

Although I have to confess I can't remember if he made that comment, which actually seemed to be aimed more at America than any country or person outside of it, before or after he'd disbanded the global coalition against terror to turn Iraq into his own little proving ground.

Unfortunately he only managed to prove that Iraq had no WMDs and Saddam was hiding where we'd long suspected......in Iraq.

Oh, as well as proving that photos of elderly women forced to crawl around on their hands and knees at the end of a leash held by an American is a great way to completely destroy any grassroots support or goodwill among the international muslim community which is essential in fighting a 'war on terror' that includes muslim terrorists.

I apologise that I can't reply to any more of your post but it doesn't appear to make much sense.

There will be no unity until the Republicans realize that the "common ground" is not over there, behind Bush.

hey Hal...The winner is not supposed to have to realize anything...it's the loser that is supposed to come to the table!!!

Understand...YOU LOST!!! You want an easy solution? Then come sit down and talk...the winner doesn't have to come to your table...you have to go to theirs!!!

Out of curiosity, Art, how much do you know about the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, PNAC and the other heavily-funded right wing "think tanks" and their objectives?

Andy, please put your head where the sun DO shine before commenting on anything I say, okay?

what ever Hal...the dems still lost...please explain to me why the republicans HAVE to move first to heal this 'rift'?

Would the democrats have been as sporting?

No, andy, not "whatever." Your comment 7 was asinine.

People voted, and by a small margin of 2%, the Bush backers carried the day.

And it was Bush who said he wanted to find "common ground." It appears that you may need to look up the meaning of the term.

It was an election, not an invasion. The 49% are your neighbors, not a conquered populace.

Remember, this is America, not Iraq.

so in your world...losers kiss up to winners...it doesn't matter what you call it...politics...sports...life...it all comes down to the same thing...you lost...

Like I said before when you called my comments asinine...YOU need to come to the center...the repubicans do not need to move left first...it's not an invasion...it's a republic...and the majority has spoken...and you F'ING lost...realize it...and move back towards the rest of the country...that way there may be a chance that some neutral ground can be found.

You still don't get democracy, do you, Andy? It's not tribal warfare.

Ah, well, it's bedtime, anyhow.

Good night.

no...it's majority wins!

It's actually not a democracy.

That said, this is still true:

"In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger!" -- James Madison

"People voted, and by a small margin of 2%, the Bush backers carried the day."

3%...

3.5 million votes...

An outright majority of voters, the first time in 16 years...

You're still in denial. Sad...

Oh, and:

4 additional Senate seats...

4-6 additional House seats...

Possibly one additional governorship...

I was gonna join the President and work towards healing America's divisive wounds... but then I remember I am just a stupid ostrich sticking my head in the sand... and could never ever be an Eagle. Oh yeah, and the wolves are coming for me... so I kinda have that to deal with.

what ever Hal...the dems still lost...please explain to me why the republicans HAVE to move first to heal this 'rift'?

It's called "leadership", Andy. If the President truly wants to be a uniter and not a divider (although he's already shown us how much of a uniter he really is), then it's incumbent upon him, as the President of everyone, even the ones who voted against him, to extend a hand to the other side. That's what leaders do.

I understand extending a hand...but only to pull you back towards me...not so you can pull me towards you!

BHW: At first I was annoyed at your "It's actually not a democracy" because I know that and didn't feel it was necessary to draw the distinction between 'democracy' and a 'republic.'

But thankfully I didn't send you a snide missile missive because this thread is probably the right place and time to make the distinction.

The framers were worried about "the excesses of the democracy." They knew that the power of a democracy was "unlimited and absolute," so they set up a representative government, with a constitution to protect The Minority from The Majority.

Madison, for instance, wrote:

When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.

... it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. [Federalist 10]

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (emphasis his).

``All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands, is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation, that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one."

so then tell me how this is supposed to work...2 people run...one wins and the winner is supposed to enact the losers platform? That doesn't make any sense to me!

Andy, it's called compromise, as I'm sure you know. Extending your hand in order to pull me over to your side isn't what's it all about. It's about finding some common ground towards which we can both work without feeling as though we've entirely given up our principles.

Hal, thanks for not sending the missive. 8-)

You and I are on the same page with this. We have a majority who believe in withholding rights from a minority. Worse, they base their position on a religious book.

Not good.

Is that the same majority that was in states that went blue for the presidential race and still voted down gay marriage?
What's up with that?

I used to think I was a reasonably conservative kind of guy.

I wear a motorcycle helmet, but don't believe that government has the right to make me do so. I own guns, but dropped my NRA membership decades ago because they're irrationally fixated on a constitutional misinterpretation. With Alexander Hamilton, I believe that government should be pay-as-you-go, and do believe that the purpose of government is to operate for the best interests of its citizenry rather than itself. I had no objection to the Ten Commandments in the court house lobby because they're a good way to live as general, non-religious rules that help make a civilized society civilized and they certainly weren't going to cause as much societal harm as is caused by just about any prime time sit-com.

But Jesus H. Christ, today's right-wing-nut monkeys are driving me nuts.

Things like the idea that the election was a war and that they conquered the rest of the inhabitants is so berserk I'm still trying to get my head around it.

Do they really believe that the election was a Banana Republic coup rather than a marginal indication of national preference? That's not just un-American, it's anti-American, and maybe they should all be tried under the PATRIOT Act.

What a country this is becoming.

In Texas, they call that "Makin' progress," Hal.

So, after basically stealing the 2000 election, lying us into a poorly-planned war that's becoming a disaster, pushing an extreme right-wing agenda, and running one of the lowest, dirtiest campaigns in my lifetime, now Bush wants us to "come together"?

If he meant 'compromise' I might listen to him (for a second, before remembering that he's a liar and a cheater). But what he means is "hey, how about getting out of my way and letting me drive the country all the way into the ditch?"

No thanks. Even after the 2000 election swindle, I actually DID get behind that SoB after 9/11, and he shafted us again. Shaft me once, shame on you. Shaft me twice, shame on me. Ask to shaft me a third time...go to Hell.

There's no point in arguing with the likes of Art and Andy. They just function at a "Deliverance" level of civic discourse. Rape, or be raped. Democracy as a hazing ritual.

Yet another reason to avoid going anywhere near 'murricans because that's the best impression they can give the world.

I sure hope they start that wall I heard is going to be built along our northern border! and fast!

Hey, Art, Andy, RJ, perhaps you can all band together, form a college and get a degree in pederasty.

Y'know, that way you'll have something to show your pride to the public.

I was eager to see what the author of this book had to say about bridging the rift between the two emerging and increasingly polarised social mindsets in the US. After reading that this involved trusting the president even more, the urge has evaporated.

So long as Bush remains unaccountable, so long as he rules by faith in his gut instinct (and has this 'instinct' massaged by the neo-cons and the empire building thinktank agendas and the corporations that fund them), so long as he rules by a (never explicitly proclaimed) mandate from Christian God, it seems to me that there will be a fundamental split in America. It comes down to really essential notions of self and faith and reality, and I can't see how the political system itself can bridge the rift without compromising too far for both sides to be satisfied.

We are having similar social rifting in Australia at the moment. This is largely thanks to the push towards privatisation of health and education and deunionisation of labour and tieing ourselves, economically and culturally, to the US motherland. But while we have both strong Christian opinions and strong conservative/ fear riddled/ doublethinking opinions here too, it is nowhere near as divisive as in the US. Perhaps this is because many of us realise that what is almost more significant than our own leader, are the policies of the leader of the prevailing empire of the world we live in, yours, and the alliance we are part of.

Bush won. Howard won.

DEAL WITH IT!

likewise RJ, I could dodge your articulate little stab and tell you to get over me not getting over it. being an active citizen in a democratic state means that it is not only my right to dissent whenever and wherever I wish to. It is in fact my /responsibility/.

This is what I mean when I say that the split is not going to be bridged by some trivial attempt to 'reconciliate'. As i see it, the effective bridging of the gap will take nothing less than either a complete Orwellian cultural degeneration, or a miraculous and widespread destabilising of western social norms. I initially believed that terrorism would have provided a catalyst for this, but it has been turned into a potent political tool for doublethink, empire building and unchecked militarism.

Now, I don't know what could knock this violent notion of 'ultimate justice' from the pedastal and replace it with 'relative fairness' and a bit of humanity. But comments like yours only indicate to me how important it is that some strategy be found. I don't want to disagree with neo-conservatives, blind nationalists and bible bashers either.

I think we're missing the point.

The Democrats have legitimate views and valid reasons to back them up. Even the Republicans have legitimate views and valid reasons to back them up.

If someone believes that life begins at conception, then that means abortion = taking a life = murder. If someone believes that life begins at birth then abortion = destroying a bunch of cells = not murder. The difference is based on the assumptions.

If you assume different things to base all of your views on, how can you compromise? If one man believes the Bible is undeniably true and the other believes the Bible is a waste of paper, how can there be unity? The "common ground" that someone is being looked for does not exist.

We should not unite under false pretenses unless we truly agree. As things stand right now, if you support Bush, support him; if you don't, still respect his office, but take action against him.

Does Bush have the right to stop homosexual marriage? Does he have the right to stop abortion? Does he have the right to throw a nation into a war that was, quite frankly, unnecessary (If you have different assumptions you may disagree with me)? That's really the question; whether these things are morally wrong is not the issue. Lying is morally wrong; we don't have any laws against casual lies in our society. Abortion and homosexual marriage are morally wrong. Are morals reason enough to ban them?

I have personal views on these issues; I am personally opposed to abortion - I'm not sure if it's murder, but on some level I'm against it. I am personally opposed to gay marriage - not only on moral grounds but also because it's not God's best. Though I personally am against (I would even go so far as to say I hate) these things, I reluctantly allow people to make the choices they want in these cases.

I don't think Bush is a disaster for our country; he just doesn't think like I do. I don't think Kerry would've been a disaster; personally I think he would have done a better job, but I really don't know.

I trust God's sovereignty as far as the course of our nation goes. Is the whole Bible literally true? I can't say that it is. I can say that Jesus Christ is real and because of his sacrifice we have life, but as far as politics goes Christ respects those who disagree with him. He is saddened by immorality, but he respects choices.

Thanks for hearing me; I'm happy to talk, listen, and learn. We need to challenge and question our own assumptions even as we question others'.

This is all very healthy discourse, in my opinion. For the past ten years, I have believed many of the things that Hal has concluded. There is a key distinction being sent out for all to see about the way we go about bringing political solutions to our society's problems. The Democracy/Republic distinction is key.

The method of American democracy has increasingly meant a majority has voted to violate the rights of some, or even all Americans, for the benefit of some, or even all Americans.

Problem: some citizens feel that they will not be solvent when they are elderly. Solution: take money from everybody with an income, put it the general fund and mete to retirees. Violation: What if you are impoverished now and need every nickel to survive? Sorry, that Social Security tax is a matter of law. Deal with it.

Problem: Some people go hungry. Solution: take money from everybody with an income, put it the general fund and mete it out to those with extremely low incomes. Violation: What if doing so violates the conscience and moral judgment of those it is taken from? Sorry, that policy is a matter of law. Deal with it.

Problem: Some people engage in same-sex relationships. They wish the ability to confer financial and other benefits on their partners. Solution: Create a law that bans the establishment of recognized same-sex unions. Violation: Whatever happened to the Constitutional pursuit of happiness? The majority has decided. Deal with it.

It doesn't matter whether left or right. Political solutions involve running roughshod over minorities. Clever pundits and social scientists have successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of those looking merely to defend some various minorities. For instance, the hungry in America is a minority group. Those not willing to see the true mechanism would buy that argument on its face and stop. The true mechanism is that a majority is willing to run roughshod in favor of the hungry over a minority who is opposed to such welfare.

The only difference between some Bush supporters and the other social democrats (lower case) is that they are willing to let you see the mechanism plainly. They are revelling in showing you their new power.

Now, the question is: when will you begin to vote for candidates of political parties who are opposed to the use of this mechanism? If you are voting Republican or Democrat, you are affirming this mechanism, but are simply selecting a different list of people you would oppress and another list of benefactors.

I am surprised that commenters are remaining both civil and on-topic, a first in recent history.

Something that should be looked at is that a majority of Americans are at neither extreme, but searching for a candidate that can meet enough of their personally valuable issues, Generally,if one that security was more important, their vote went for Pres. Bush, if domestic issues were more important, then Sen. Kerry, but they signed on for the rest of the platform in doing so. The Extremists stand out because moderates on both sides don't make grandstand plays or news. People don't want reasoned argument, they want emotional response. THis is all reflected in the run-up to the election, gut level ads, hearsay designed to sway voters in a momentary lapse of reason.
IIRC, only 20% of the voters polled chose Pres. Bush for "moral reasons" a pretty vague term in any case, I think many saw him as the right man at this time and did not consider the domestic agenda, or gay marriage, but security.
I don't like either party's platforms as a whole all that much, but decisions have to be made.

THe Dems made a classic error in playing defense, in the sense of responding to the status quo instead of offering a real plan to change it. THere was a lot of "I wouldn't have done it that way" but very little "This is how I will do it" and that made fewer people willing to side with a challenger who is ,relative to the incumbent, unproven.

Moderates on both sides will have to distance themselves from their fringe elements as representatives of their parties and do so vocally. Like it or not, they are the ones that come to mind when the ills of one party or the other are discussed.

22% of the voters chose "moral issues" as the most important issue they voted on. 80% of those people voted for Bush.

Nobody asked them which specific moral issues were of concern, but people seem to be agreeing that gay marriage was one of them. I think it's more vague than that, as you mention, SKI. I think it's idea that Bush is a true Christian, while Kerry just plays one on TV, which is not the case, but Catholics are often thought to not be true Christians by the evangelicals.

19% picked terrorism, and 15% picked Iraq as their most important issue. So, SKI, you're right again in that general security was the most important issue to most people. Had Iraq and terrorism been lumped into the choice of "security," then it would have been selected by 14% more people than moral values. But only as the most important issue, not the only issue.

I think that Red (comment #35) is apparently a rare Christian, in that s/he holds one set of moral values but doesn't believe that those values should not be codified into our laws. Eric Olsen feels the same way, and it's always refreshing to hear that some people with a strong faith can separate their church from everyone else's state.

The issue now, however, is that the more extreme Right believes that it has a mandate to go forward with a very conservative social agenda, even though 48% of the country voted against it outright and another 78% who voted for Bush cited something else as their most important reason to vote for him.

The new mainstream American has now been identified as belonging to the extreme Right. So, Art, I wouldn't expect the partisan bickering to stop anytime soon.

Sorry, it was "moral values" and not "moral issues" that 22% of the voters chose as the most important issue. I'm not sure if the difference matters, but better safe than sorry.

Another gaffe:

"in that s/he holds one set of moral values but doesn't believe that those values should not be codified into our laws."

Get rid of the "not."

CONSUMER ADVISORY: While Mike Cole and I see some of the facts on issues perhaps from the same perspective, we do not draw the same conclusions. (I.e., I'm not a libertarian, either.)

I don't care for the loose mandate talk, either. Reagan winning 49 states and by more than 10% was a mandate. Bush winning by 3% was not a mandate.

bhw- there are more who did not vote for Bush than you cited. Sure, 47% voted for Kerry, but another 1-2% voted for Nader, Badnarik, Petrouka, and others. But this only talks about those who voted. Some 35% didn't even vote.

Get 80% of Americans to vote and then win 49 states, and I'll agree that you have a mandate.

Another factoid: 44% of voters in all the states, Red and Blue, voted for the losing candidate.

It's not a mandate.

But certainly the Republican majority in Congress is going to try to make this "A time to heel."

If you don't like that, you need to contact your Democratic representatives and tell them to get some backbone this time around. (Senator Max Baucus, D-Montana, particularly needs some extra spine.)

Good point, Mike, and a good reminder that there were more than two candidates in the race.

Come on, Hal. Give me the 'K' in my name in your consumer advisory. My Polack grandfather changed much in the Anglicized contraction of the name, but he did keep the 'K'.

Sorry, Mice Mike - totally inadvertent.

"Sorry, Mice Mike - totally inadvertent."

Heh... :)

Not sure the Voting was even legal. Some used voting machines with no paper trails could have been rigged.

they say that billie likes boys to so if he does he is still damn sseexxyy!!