A vote for Bush means exactly what Bush says it means.

No amount of whining is going to change that.

Because his god tells him that's what a leader does.

actually, a vote means what the voter says it means - that's why we have such things as polling. Voting is basically binary - the decisions that lead to it rarely are

Eric, I understand that a vote for Bush this election doesn't necessarily mean that the voter wants a return to medieval times, my fear though is that those who speak loudest on tv as well as paleo-cons here like Reporterette BELIEVE that it does. And Bush is spooning them late at night when Laura is asleep.

When I talk about all the discrimination and oppression I face, it's there, it's real and I do face it, but the majority of people are tolerant, even most Republicans out here. Of course all the Republicans we happen to know personally are lawyers so they know tolerance while at the same time being able to offend EVERYBODY.

It's the power this administration thinks it has, and the power the right wing thinks it's been given the go-ahead with, that scares me. I hope and I pray you are right, and I want nothing more than you to be able to say 'I told you so'.

on another note, this election has caused most people to quit talking about Iraq. Here's a bunch of pictures that you won't find in the mainstream media.
http://fallujapictures.blogspot.com/

boom -

just visited the fallujahpictures.blogspot...sort of a sobering view on the reality of the invasion and occupation, isn't it?

real citizens - men, women and children (sights you won't see on a florida college campus); and real american soldiers - those brave enough to actually enlist (and able to take orders)...

...killed or maimed.

I wonder, next year, how willing Eric will want to wear a "I voted for Bush" badge in public on the streets (hint, make sure to wear a cup). Not so much, I suspect when everything goes down the sewer.

Yeah. Disappointed. Eric and Frank Rich's good points notwithstanding, there is a war brewing. Dubya insists he's going to spend his political capital and that means ugliness is on the way, whatever well-meaning people who voted for the terrorist-and-thief think.

Boom, I hope I am right too, but that doesn't mean the election was not at least partially a (temporary I assume) rearguard action against tolerance and equality - I don't blame you for being concerned.

Re the pics: war sucks, does anyone not believe that war sucks, is in fact, hell? But if you're going to do it, you do it and you do it to win. This is reality.

Nat, I appreciate being credited as well-meaning. I believe there are those who are trying to foment cultural conflict, but they will not succeed in anything but the shortest term. Just look at the demographics, the real political realities of red, blue and purple: the larger arrow will continue to move in a positive direction.

In my case, I just thought it best to return Bush to office to (attempt to) finish what he began regarding the war on terror.

The question I'm struggling with right now is just what it is he started. Is what's going on in Iraq a feature or a bug?

I see Iraq as part of the war on terror, that mission must be completed while we continue to work with Afghanistan and continue to vigorously pursue al Qaeda throughout the globe. We have to deal with nukes in North Korea and prevent them in Iran - it's a perilous and difficult time.

I hope you are correct about the larger arrow, Eric, but I am not as positive as you. In fact, I have lost whatever faith I had in 51 percent of those who voted. Bad stuff is coming -- or worse stuff, rather, considering things were intolerably bad as they were. Your guy, bought and paid for by the Religious Wrong, has political capital to spend, and he means to spend it. Good people with means ought to flee and flee fast.

Oh -- and think about those who can't flee, those who are beaten down by the policies Bush votes, intentionally or not, supported, those who live every day without legal equality or economic justice, those who suffer because of the Bush gang. If you think a war isn't brewing, please think again. Some of us have had it. Things are going to get ugly.

shhhh.

There is hardly any need to pursue terrorists in Iraq - virtually all of them are home-grown and there for the taking.

The problem is all the other terrorists around the world, who rather than going to Iraq have spread far and wide, gaining new converts as they went because of hte carnage created in Iraq.

The problem has gone far beyond Al Qaeda (and the very few leaders captured).

Eric... I like what you're trying to say here... We all know that the Republicans AND the Democrats are both bedding big business. Historical records show that Big Business doesn't really care if there is a Dem or Rep in the White House. Oh certain people scream about TAXES but Federal taxes are amazingly low and HAVE BEEN for nearly 30 years.

But the problem is that Bush and his ilk are riding a TIGER that they may very well not be able to dismount... Insanity once unleashed is damn hard to lure back. We have plenty of examples of this in the last 100 years...

"Good people with means ought to flee and flee fast."

Go!

"If you think a war isn't brewing, please think again. Some of us have had it. Things are going to get ugly."

Are you threatening violence?

I thought that was against your "religion"...

RJ - don't worry, the left doesn't have any guns anyway!

geezuz! don't you guys ever get tired of playing with these lame stereotypes?

i can play too:

no, the left doesn't have guns, we've got books.

duh.

gonna throw 'em?

Anyway, my main point is the "sides" don't exist nearly to the extent perceived, that there are a very large number of people - probably the plurality - who don't identify with the hardline agenda of either the right or the left, who pick and choose, who weigh priorities from election to election, and who may well go the other way next time around if they feel the pendulum is too far from the center.

. . .and that's why the most Right Wing regime since the Reagan years was just elected. Not. The people who voted for Bush voted for all the bad things that are going to happen under his very hard line regime. They can wiggle as much they want, but we should not let them off the hook.

whatever you say Boss

If you had ever seen one, you'd know it would hurt to get hit by a book.

HA HA!!! That was humor...I get it!!! I've seen 'em...we burn them all the time!!!

andy,

ok, it's safe to burn your copy of "unfit for command" now...

"mission accomplished" (as your guy would say)

hehehehehh

I gave it to my pop...he loved it!

alethinos59, thanks a very good point, once unleashed memes often take on lives of their own and won't be controlled by those who unleashed them. In this case, though, there just isn't wide enough support for the more radical aspects of the agenda

I appreciate all the research, Olsen. Excellent job finding the maps and everything else -- I only wish your view of foreign policy and Iraq were as nuanced, careful, and evidenced.

None of what you cite disproves the culture thesis, really. Rich's arguments are mostly anecdotal and don't address the fundamental differences over gays and Rove's stated strategy to turn out the evangelical base in 2004. The maps don't disprove the culture thesis either -- urban dwellers lean Democratic (not only because of higher minority population) and suburban and collar counties are Republican targets. This is old news to anyone who's spent any time analyzing politics. The vast sea of red states in the South and rural West point to historical differences that go back to culture. Clinton and Carter won the more moderate of those red states because they were, for all intents and purposes, cultural conservatives when it came to religious values and race in the eyes of white voters.

I can write a lot more about this. The main reason the election went the way it did is because Bush was the far better candidate with the far better team. Kerry couldn't communicate domestic policy in a way that connected with women, minorities, or the elderly, sine qua non of Democratic candidates. But the fact of the matter is that Kerry lost because he couldn't overcome cultural obstacles due to his weakness as a candidate. Kerry could have and should have won despite the cultural obstacles due to Bush's many failures in policy.

I don't think the cultural thesis is sufficient and leaves out a lot of the story in this election. However, it does point to enduring social cleavages that have been overlooked in many discussions of modern elections and reminds us of how fundamentally conservative a nation America is. Good strategists like Karl Rove and Dick Morris know all about this. Bad ones like Mary Beth Cahill and Bob Shrum don't. I think it's a mistake -- and clearly resented by much of the Heartland in America -- for liberals who backed Kerry to dismissively point to "red stater mentalities" since that's too facile an explanation and the very thinking that lost Democrats the election.

I can get way deeper into this.

A good reading suggestion for you all: Thomas Frank's new book. I think it's called "What's the Matter with Kansas?" or "What's Wrong with Kansas?" that's specifically about this issue: why populism died in America and why blue-collar or working Americans in the Midwest and South have now become reliably Republican voters.

That is all.

I disagree that Clinton was perceived as cultural conservatives, especially regarding race. He was able to enact welfare refrom specifically because he was perceived as a social liberal - triangulation, Nixon in China-type stuff