Time to step back

My wife looked very serious this morning as I entered our lounge. She was watching the unfolding drama of the US election. We sat together for an hour and listened to projections, theories and commentary from experts until it became obvious that John Kerry has lost by what turned out to be quite a substantial margin.

George Bush has to be given credit for running the better campaign and for employing the right people to get enough voters mobilised to pull of this victory. Many of us pobably went to bed last night expecting a Kerry win but maybe that was hope rather than sensibility. If we truly understood the way American politics worked and the views of the majority we should have expected nothing except a Bush win.

None of us know what to expect from this President now that he has the belief that what he has done over the past four years has been endorsed by his nation. Maybe we will see a man who wants to cement his place in history and try to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, maybe we will see a man who has realised that one country cannot act alone and sometimes needs the support of the rest of the world to really acheive security and prosperity for all or perhaps we will see a President who is concerned about the closeness of this election and who recognises that America is truly divided down the middle.

On the other hand we could see George Bush take this confidence boosting vistory inwards and really start to stamp his authority. Technically he is a moderate in his party who just happens to employ right wing politicians into very senior positions to do the work for him. There is a lot of talent in his administration but not enough compassion.

To give him his due he does stick to his policies and is very unwavering in his beliefs as to where he thinks America should be going. This is possibly the main reason he won alongside his ability to tap into the feelings of the majority of Americans. He has done this in a variety of ways- topics such as Gay Marriage and Abortion were strong ones for Bush as they appealed to the conservative vote. Kerry wavered somewhat on both issues- Gay Marriage is seen differently in Europe and the condemnation it has received in America is just terrible. The argument that marriage is a religious ceremony is valid but how many hetrosexual people get married who are not religious and this to me is worse? The idea that people who love each other cannot express it is plainly ignorant and bigoted as is the view that Abortion is wrong under any circumstance. I personally do not agree with Abortion and think that it is used too easily but there are circumstances in which it should be allowed. We know where the views come from and the fact that the Bible is used for political gain is quite horrid, the fact that Religion appears to be used to spread predudice and hate is even worse but they sure are vote winners.

Would John Kerry have been any better? As one voter put it "I'm voting for Kerry because he's the lesser of two evils." She is probably correct in a political system in which only the richest and most well connected can win. In America you cannot get anywhere in politics without the backing of major corporations and thus you are endebted to them for your term, no matter what position you are in. It's a political system which allows open warfare to occur and slander to be thrown in advertisments between the game shows and soap operas. A political system that is probably one of the least democratic in the world and Abraham Lincoln is no doubt spinning in his grave tonight. Because of this system many of the issues that concern the rest of the world would probably not have been solved by Kerry but there were promising signs:-

Kerry- we will fight a smarter war on terror.

Bush- vote for me or you will die! Obviously he never said that but he has used 9/11 since the day it happened and the fear of Al Qaeda has been tapped into to the point of deception. I have seen so many interviews with American people recently who say that the single most important issue for them is security for their country and their families. Here's some text from a show that will be shown on BBC tonight-

"There are dangerous and fanatical individuals and groups around the world who have been inspired by extreme Islamist ideas, and who will use the techniques of mass terror - the attacks on America and Madrid make this only too clear. But the nightmare vision of a uniquely powerful hidden organisation waiting to strike our societies is an illusion.

Wherever one looks for this Al Qaeda organisation, from the mountains of Afghanistan to the 'sleeper cells' in America, the British and Americans are chasing a phantom enemy.

But the reason that no-one questions the illusion is because this nightmare enemy gives so many groups new power and influence in a cynical age - and not just politicians. Those with the darkest imaginations become the most powerful."

I'm sure no one disagrees with the attack on Afganistan following 9/11 but Iraq has proved to be a white elephant, as most of the world (and the UN) expected. The agressive American foreign policy historically undertaken by Republican Presidants is what causes these attacks in the first place and until a shift in policy occurs they will continue to happen. You simply cannot go around destroying other countries and expect that to keep you safe- American airports are still unsafe. Some are well protected but others leave a lot to be desired and are still less stringent on security than the British ones were pre 9/11. Fighting the war on terrorism thousands of miles is one way but not sorting your homeland security is asking for trouble. It's the worst of both worlds- creating hatred from your enemies and not protecting yourselves when they want revenge.

Many of you will continue to argue that the rest of the world (and people like me) have no say in this matter anyway and you are correct- we have no choice regarding who you elect. We only see your economy affecting ours, we only see our soldiers dying next to yours in a war that stopped Bin Laden (apart from his party political broadcast a week ago) and the populations of our countries drifting further and further apart. There is no special relationship between the UK and the US (except for the leaders) and there never will be whilst a President like George Bush is in charge. Obviously American and British people have no real animosity against each other but our leaders are pulling us in opposite directions.

As I said before Kerry could have been worse than Bush if he got into power but I will go to sleep tonight genuinely pissed off that we have another 4 years of this man in charge. I have 4 cans of lager, a packet of cigarettes and even though I still have flu I'm going to enjoy them until I either throw up or fall asleep.

Anyway, it's time for me to step back. I won't be writing any more Outspoken articles as I really do need to concentrate on the PDA sites and writing about politics just gets depressing after a while. I will leave the last Outspoken words to John Kerry-

"Our fight goes on to put America back to work and to make our economy a great engine of job growth. Our fight goes on to make affordable health care a accessible right for all Americans, not a privilege.

Our fight goes on to protect the environment, to achieve equality, to push the frontiers of science and discovery, and to restore America's reputation in the world.

I believe that all of this will happen, and sooner than we may think because we're America and America always moves forward.

I've been honoured to represent the citizens of this commonwealth in the United States Senate now for 20 years, and I pledge to them that in the years ahead I'm going to fight on for the people and for the principles that I've learned and lived with here in Massachusetts.

I'm proud of what we stood for in this campaign and of what we accomplished.

When we began, no one thought it was possible to even make this a close race.

But we stood for real change, change that would make a real difference in the life of our nation and the lives of our families, and we defined that choice to America.

I'll never forget the wonderful people who came to our rallies, who stood in our rope lines, who put their hopes in our hands, who invested in each and every one of us.

I saw in them the truth that America is not only great, but it is good.

So with a grateful heart, I leave this campaign with a prayer that has even greater meaning to me now that I have come to know our vast country so much better, thanks to all of you, and what a privilege it has been to do so, and that prayer is very simple: God bless America. Thank you."

Comments

[Attilafiets]

hallo everybody visitors of web page of site outspoken.typepad.com I not so a long ago am in Fort Lewis
and so, that I divided with to sweet one a man, Johnson- Victoriason, and now try to find him, last that I know so it that he lives in citi, and often vi
sits the resources of type your outspoken.typepad.com, in a network likes to utillize the nameDavid/Joanneon
, if suddenly will see this nik write that this man contacted with me . I very much I am sad without socializing with this man.To reason wanted to say thank you and to wish successes to the command your resource. So to hold boys. Only little request of,sdelayte so that outspoken.typepad.com better embarked on dial-up connection

[Jim]

"So we don't have freedom of choice in this country and only those with a Christian moral foundation are right about any of these issues?"

We all have freedom of choice, but what many non-Christians don't understand about many Christians is that Christians tend to be very comfortable making choices within the boundries of a God-centered world view--a world view that, by its very nature, limits our choices. From a Christian perspective, everyone has the freedom of choice, but those decisions always have consequences--either consequences resulting from being following God's plan or consequenses that are go against God's plan.

One fact that many fail to understand is that the United States was founded on the principles of religious freedom, not religious suppression. The problem, as I see it, is that the Constitution is now being interpreted to mean "erradicate all religion, especially, Christianity." That may sound harsh, but that's exactly how the notion of "separation of Church and State" is typically interpreted. Consider the overwhelming push to eliminate all signs or form of religion from our schools and government buildings--historical features that were approved, embraced, and never challenged from the beginning of the founding of the United States. And also don't forget that the overwhelming majority of the founders and citizens of the United States were Christian--not exclusively, but the vast majority. Current interpretation of the Constitution discounts that and provides only measures to eliminate religion altogether.

"While you are dealing with issues like abortion and gay marriage, why don't you deal with the fact that kids are having kids, families are disintegrating, mass media is pouring what amounts to anti-Christian values down our throats, games are teaching our kids how to kill, mediocrity is king, people feel entitled without having responsibility, work ethic is disappearing and the moral reality of this country is that we are going to hell in a handbasket. Kids are doing worse in schools as mandates demand they do better without taking their home life into account and as a result there is an underclass forming that will further perpetuate the problem. While it is really neat to be able to mobilize around the abortion and gay marriage issues, there are issues that are hugely more important that need to be addressed, but it isn't "politically correct" to address them. I suspect that abortion and gay marriage are a rallying cry because no one really wants to do that hard work that is really needed to get this country back on track from the ground up. It is easier to deal with hot-button issues than core issues. If we were better educated and family dynamics were healthier in this country, then abortion would become a much smaller issue and people would not object to gay people having their partners at least be able to visit them in the hospital!"

You bring up a good point, and I would say that strictly from a political campaign perspective, only a couple issues can really be focused on, and the obvious choices are going to be the "hot button" issues. Focusing on ALL the issues would overwhelm not only the campaign, but the public. The more issues a campaign presents, the more opportunity for splintering. I would say that the Republican campaign very smartly and strategically chose two specific topics that most conservatives can agree on and rally around. That said, you are absolutely correct that there are many other issues that despiratly need to be addressed. The problem is that the solution typically becomes just as controvercial. For example, you state kids having kids. The conservative (read Christian) perspective would be "start with solid family values, teach children to respect others, and understand that one's virginity is something that should be treasured and saved until marriage. Further, there are consequences for your actions and choices, and having sex is a choice." The stereotypical liberal perspective (at least what I interperet from people I talk to and the media) is that it's up to each individual to do what he or she wants if it feels good. Consequences? Don't worry, you can always abort the kid or the guy can just leave because he has no responsibility" Sorry if that's a perspective with blinders, but distill it all down, and that's what we see.

"You still haven't addressed the issue of rape or incest. Should a woman be forced to bear and be responsible for a baby imposed on her by a rapist or an incestuous relative? What do we do with these children? Do we place them into foster care, which is often a nightmare? Our culture is like that of a family that doesn't have their cat neutered so that their kids can witness the miracle of birth...and then the kittens go unwanted and perhaps drowned, abused, shot or placed in shelters due to the thoughtlessness the family had about the lives they were responsible for. We are so short-sighted it is frightening. Let the babies be born, we don't care what happens to them afterward. I am firmly against abortion as a form of retroactive abortion, but in the case of rape, incest and the pregnant mother being in mortal danger from the pregnancy, abortion should never be removed as an option. Like I said before...we place more value on potential life than the life that is already here."

I have to concede that this issue is a tough one that I and many conservatives and Christians wrestle with. Call it hypocracy because we ARE delving into the grey zone. Black and white issues are often hard to stomach, but we are also human. ;-) There are typically two views: one perspective I have heard is that life should be held up over all. Even rape and incest victems should have the child because the child is a life. The thinking is that God has a plan for us all, and it is our duty ti follow God's plan (of course, the challenge is to understand what is God's plan, but that's for another discussion.) Anyway, this is obviously a very unpopular perspective because, to your point, our country does not have the proper facilities to deal with these "unwanted" children. (What really saddens me, is the large number of couples who cannot conceive but don't view adoption as a viable alternative.)

The other perspective is that a line needs to be drawn that says if the woman is a victem or in mortal danger from the pregnancy, then it is justifiable to abort. But that brings us back to the absolute versus relativistic debate. I am currently undecided on this point.

">>>While everyone has opinions and I respect yours, you don't seem to have caught on that we, the US majority (the Red zone on the political maps), don't care what outsiders think. The US is a sovereign nation, having whooped the UK in 1781 (treaty in 1783), and has every right to govern and defend ourselves as we see fit. Not only did President Bush prevail over the well-documented traitor John Kerry with the most votes that any president ever received, but the President's party increased their majority in both houses of Congress. That combination hasn't happened since the 1930s, and indicates a strong mandate from the people--the majority of the republic.<<<

You are forgetting that more people voted AGAINST George Bush than any other president in history. The majority is slim...just a couple of percent."

It's really just a numbers game that is easily spun by both "sides". The margin was a slim percentage, yes, but the actual difference of several million voters is hardly a slim number. Until there is real election reform, colse election results like this are inevitable.

"Your attitude that we don't care what the rest of the world thinks is pretty much our government's stand too...that we don't accept anyone else's judgement but we are more than willing to impose our judgement with force anywhere and anywhere."

It's not that we don't care, it's that we are willing to stand firmly and unwavering for our beliefs. If we lose our foundation, then where will we be? Could we be "wrong"? Yes, we could, but standing up for integrity, moral values, and an ethical core is something that many are willing to live and die for despite the condition of the economy or some social issues. All of those issues, in the grand scheme of things, are really secondary. Faith really can sustain people.

"There were many nations over the course of history that attempted the same thing...you don't see THEM around anymore."

I read a historical blurb somewhere that postulates that Democracy doesn't last more 200 years. The United States is at the 228 year mark, wo time will tell. The general degeneration that you describe is evident, so maybe this is the beginning of the end. I certainly hope not. I guess time will tell.

"Calling John Kerry, who actually served overseas in Vietnam a traitor is laughable. He saw what was going on and decided to report it when he got back. Why is it that anyone who disagrees with a state-imposed police action against another nation is a traitor and unpatriotic?"

Senator Kerry is in my mind certainly no traitor, and I think if you relaly ask any conservative he will agree. The reactions that you typically hear are just that: reactions. He served his country, and I commend him for that. He deserves all recognition and decoration due him. THat said, it's how he and the media presented his serving during his campaign, and how they portrayed President Bush's serving that puts off so many. Yes, he served, but so did President Bush. No, it was not the "same" serving, but he did serve, and to deny that is to denegrate everyone else who served in a similar capacity. That is something I will not do because I value the commitment of our soldiers, regardless of branch or term. We all differ in our opinion about the validity of going to war with Iraq, but I really don't think it can be denied that President Bush has proven himself to be a leader. He is consistent, and he stands firm by his convictions, not wavering on whim. You may disagree with his motives. You may disagree with his actions, but you cannot deny that he has exemplified leadership. Senator Kerry might be a good leader, but he as not demonstrated that short of his serving in the military, and I, as a citizen, do not see that as the exclusive test.

"I love this country and I want to see it get better...but it gets worse year by year."

I'm glad you want to see improvement. The difficulty is in agreeing on a solution. Liberals would typically have us believe that things are worse and worse because right-wing conservatism is being pushed more and more, reducing our freedom of choice. I contend that things have gotten much worse year by year, because we have lost our core values and morals for sake of choice. There needs to be a balance.

"Am I a traitor?"

Absolutely not! You are a great citizen who enjoys the freedom of expressing his opinion about this great country. I only hope that you can see that "right-wing conservative Christians" aren't a cult, but are striving to bring us back to a time when values, morals, and ethics meant something, and our proven solution is to follow a God-centered lifestyle.

[Tonyk]

Let's not compare track records between Europe and America. All western nations need to work together - despite differences, otherwise we are playing into the hands of extremists.

Those that have died at the hands of terrorists in recent years is an awful thing. But perhaps we should consider a 'war on poverty' as well as a 'war on terror'. It's worth bearing in mind the numbers that die in poverty so far have far outstripped terrorist activities. While poverty isn't the cause of terror, it would seem to be a logical breeding ground.

[Mark]

>>>The problem with embracing moral relativism is in detemining who or where the "lines" are drawn. For example, if you permit pre-born children to be killed, then could you then permit partially born children to be killed? But then, why not let newborn infants be killed? Don't like your toddler in his "terrible twos"? Why not push for legislation to "abort" toddlers? Sound absurd? Yes, but where do you draw the line? Without a fundamental moral reference, where the line is drawn is purely subjective pandering to the whims of what is "convenient" and "popular" at the time.<<<

So we don't have freedom of choice in this country and only those with a Christian moral foundation are right about any of these issues? While you are dealing with issues like abortion and gay marriage, why don't you deal with the fact that kids are having kids, families are disintegrating, mass media is pouring what amounts to anti-Christian values down our throats, games are teaching our kids how to kill, mediocrity is king, people feel entitled without having responsibility, work ethic is disappearing and the moral reality of this country is that we are going to hell in a handbasket. Kids are doing worse in schools as mandates demand they do better without taking their home life into account and as a result there is an underclass forming that will further perpetuate the problem. While it is really neat to be able to mobilize around the abortion and gay marriage issues, there are issues that are hugely more important that need to be addressed, but it isn't "politically correct" to address them. I suspect that abortion and gay marriage are a rallying cry because no one really wants to do that hard work that is really needed to get this country back on track from the ground up. It is easier to deal with hot-button issues than core issues. If we were better educated and family dynamics were healthier in this country, then abortion would become a much smaller issue and people would not object to gay people having their partners at least be able to visit them in the hospital!

You still haven't addressed the issue of rape or incest. Should a woman be forced to bear and be responsible for a baby imposed on her by a rapist or an incestuous relative? What do we do with these children? Do we place them into foster care, which is often a nightmare? Our culture is like that of a family that doesn't have their cat neutered so that their kids can witness the miracle of birth...and then the kittens go unwanted and perhaps drowned, abused, shot or placed in shelters due to the thoughtlessness the family had about the lives they were responsible for. We are so short-sighted it is frightening. Let the babies be born, we don't care what happens to them afterward. I am firmly against abortion as a form of retroactive abortion, but in the case of rape, incest and the pregnant mother being in mortal danger from the pregnancy, abortion should never be removed as an option. Like I said before...we place more value on potential life than the life that is already here.

>>>While everyone has opinions and I respect yours, you don't seem to have caught on that we, the US majority (the Red zone on the political maps), don't care what outsiders think. The US is a sovereign nation, having whooped the UK in 1781 (treaty in 1783), and has every right to govern and defend ourselves as we see fit. Not only did President Bush prevail over the well-documented traitor John Kerry with the most votes that any president ever received, but the President's party increased their majority in both houses of Congress. That combination hasn't happened since the 1930s, and indicates a strong mandate from the people--the majority of the republic.<<<

You are forgetting that more people voted AGAINST George Bush than any other president in history. The majority is slim...just a couple of percent. Your attitude that we don't care what the rest of the world thinks is pretty much our government's stand too...that we don't accept anyone else's judgement but we are more than willing to impose our judgement with force anywhere and anywhere. There were many nations over the course of history that attempted the same thing...you don't see THEM around anymore. Calling John Kerry, who actually served overseas in Vietnam a traitor is laughable. He saw what was going on and decided to report it when he got back. Why is it that anyone who disagrees with a state-imposed police action against another nation is a traitor and unpatriotic? I love this country and I want to see it get better...but it gets worse year by year. Am I a traitor?

Don't answer that. :)

[Jim]

"Bob- I respect your opinions but you have just summed up why most of the world has issues with the US in a few paragraphs..."

Just don't forget the founding roots of the United States: We broke away from England because of our fundamental differences in beliefs. We severed our ties because of our deeply differing values. But at the same time, we have stood along side other nations when they are in trouble, supporting them, giving up our lives, and promoting freedom--something that many nations have consistently failed to do. That is what makes the united States so unique, and why I am so proud to be a citizen....

[Jim]

"and it's his stand on ABORTION that makes the difference? How can anyone justify imposing their religious beliefs on someone else's body?"

Absolutely. Because issues like the economy, wars, health care issues, etc. while obviously very important, are temporary and evolving issues that will always be eventually addressed. Issues like abortion and gay marriage, however, strike at the very core value system that defines a people and a nation. Promoting and legalizing these issues is going against the religious beliefs of its people, and religious beliefs are one of the main reasons why the United States country was founded in the first palce. It was not founded to surpress religion, but to break away from the English monarchy and its ties to the Church of England to let people freely beleive and practive their religious beliefs. It was not meant to impose anti-religious procedures and values on its people.

Your statement really exemplifies a fundamental difference between most conservatives and most liberals. Liberals tend to follow moral relativism while conservatives tend to follow moral absolutes. Yes moral absolutes tend to be tied to religious beliefs, but then again that moral absolutes are typically the foundation of religions.

The problem with embracing moral relativism is in detemining who or where the "lines" are drawn. For example, if you permit pre-born children to be killed, then could you then permit partially born children to be killed? But then, why not let newborn infants be killed? Don't like your toddler in his "terrible twos"? Why not push for legislation to "abort" toddlers? Sound absurd? Yes, but where do you draw the line? Without a fundamental moral reference, where the line is drawn is purely subjective pandering to the whims of what is "convenient" and "popular" at the time.

Next, consider gay marriage. Let's say it is constitutionally legalized. Now what if a pedophile wanted to push for legislation permitting him to marry a child? Will never happen, right? Sounds sick or unlikely? Look it up...it's on the horizon. What if someone into bestiality wanted to marry their horse? What if a father wanted to marry his daughter? Again, where do you draw the line? Establishing a "man and woman" definition of marriage is not infringing on the rights of gays, but is reinforcing long-accepted traditions and practices. And these are practices that are not exclusively religious. "Secular" and "common law" marriages have always been between a man and a woman. To alter this is to alter fundamental, core values. Yes, many marriages end in divorce, but I believe that it's because divorce, like abortion, has become a process of convenience removing the consequences of the original decision.

Let's also not forget that the "founding documents" never promised fairness or liberty or happiness, just the right of their persuit. And while it states "all men are created equal", it does not state that all men remain equal.

[Shaun]

"While everyone has opinions and I respect yours, you don't seem to have caught on that we, the US majority (the Red zone on the political maps), don't care what outsiders think. The US..."

Bob- I respect your opinions but you have just summed up why most of the world has issues with the US in a few paragraphs...

[Pete]

George Junior and Kerry were frat brothers in college. Does everyone know that? There is an aristocracy in America and these two guys are part of it. You've seen the pictures of Kerry with JFK back in the early sixties right? You've also seen the pictures of George Bush Sr. sitting with Noriega and Saddam back when he was the head of the CIA right?

The bottom line is this: there has been NO "democracy" on a national level since the late 1800's and this will not change. Politics is shaped by money, and the money currently is in Oil. This will not change for a while.

Even though Kerry and Bush are both scumbag rich-kids, at least Kerry understands the need to bring America back into the world. Most Americans do not understand this because Bush's Fear Campaign (someone's going to blow you up!) has been highly effective. The last time I http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html>looked, the U.S. was around 3.7 MILLION SQUARE MILES. That'd take a lot of dynamite! Maybe its time to legalize marijuana in this country. Americans need to chill out and also realize what our corrupt government is doing to other cultures/countries.

If you ask a returning soldier from Iraq, I think he would agree. Don't ask us insulated, ignorant Fox-news watching civilians.

[Tanker Bob]

Shaun,

While everyone has opinions and I respect yours, you don't seem to have caught on that we, the US majority (the Red zone on the political maps), don't care what outsiders think. The US is a sovereign nation, having whooped the UK in 1781 (treaty in 1783), and has every right to govern and defend ourselves as we see fit. Not only did President Bush prevail over the well-documented traitor John Kerry with the most votes that any president ever received, but the President's party increased their majority in both houses of Congress. That combination hasn't happened since the 1930s, and indicates a strong mandate from the people--the majority of the republic.

That said, it is interesting that of all the nations polled on who they wanted to see win our election, the Iraqi people wanted President Bush. I guess they don't share you illusions.

You are welcome to post whatever you wish on the Internet, mostly because the US has rescued your country twice in the last century so that you wouldn't have to learn German. The same goes for France. If anything, your posts help to cement the majority over here against foreign interference in our sovereign policies and practices. The UN is a worthless collection of corrupt bureaucrats who give a voice to third-world dictators who should be deposed, not pontificating. It's clear that you don't understand the US majority any better than Kerry or Michael Moore. If you really believe the trash and lies in Moore's propaganda piece, then no facts will sway you anyway. Even prominent, honest liberals over here have rejected him and his lies. If you want him, by all means please send him a permanent visa.

We greatly appreciate PM Blair's and your military's continued support as we fight and destroy terrorism together, in Afghanistan, Iraq, or wherever they slither. The sooner we kill all the terrorists, the better. President Bush, PM Blair, and their respective militaries continue to fight the fight that will ensure that you can continue to post without learning Arabic. It would be nice if you appreciated their leadership and sacrifice, but we'll succeed just fine without your appreciation. You can thank us later when all the terrorists are in hades where they belong.

How's that for outspoken?

[Kyle]

I disagree with you, Shaun. Kerry was defeated, but the margin of victory was 3 percent, not a 'substantial margin'. This margin is likely to shrink as the provisional ballots are counted in California, Michigan, Ohio, New York, and Florida. Think of it this way, Kerry won half the country, Bush won half the country, plus a group of people about the size of Chicago.

The fact of the matter is though, Republicans drove out their base in numbers that none of us expected, driven by gay marriage bans in the states of Ohio, Michigan, etc. I expected Kerry to win Michigan by a very comfortable 5-10 points, but it was only 3, partially because religious conservatives stood in long lines, to cast their ballot against gay marriage. Had none of these propositions been on state ballots, I think the result would have been much different, and Kerry
would have easily prevailed in Ohio.

In fact, he did everything he needed to in order to win the state. He had a 200,000 vote surplus in the county where Cleveland is located, but that advantage was erased by high turnout in the southwestern part of the state that borders my homestate of Indiana, where religious conservatives stood in lines for hours.

Let me just say this. Today was a dark day for America and the world. I, along with some of the people I know, have been stunned and disappointed. The signs, as of Tuesday night, was a big Kerry win, due to turnout. People waiting 10 hours in line to vote for George Bush?
I don't think so. Well, I was right about the long lines, but they weren't waiting for Kerry either. They waited to ban gay marriage, which benefited Bush enormously.

[markfromhouston]

Good words, and put in a well-ordered sequence.
To the more enlightened, it is clear that you are not consumed by a hatred of George W. Bush, but rather wholly frustrated by yet another world leader who (your choice here:) cannot/will not make fairer, and more globally-minded decisions.
You are correct that the election results indicate that the United States is a country divided in their sentiment, but I believe that this is necessary for a democratic society to evolve and progress. It is my hope (as has been following previous elections) that the narrow margin will act as impetus for the governing body to reach a more balanced policy.
Your use of hyperbole and imagery describing Abraham Lincoln's eternal rest is appropriate. While the nature of events is of course different, the effects of the past twenty years' time on the United States has left the country close in comparison to the divided population of Lincoln's Presidency.

"I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me."
-- April 4, 1864 - Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Albert Hodges

"It's hard work."
-- September 30, 2004 - George W. Bush during a Presidential Debate

As for Outspoken, Shaun, please remain so.

[Shaun]

"A "divided" country? Bush won more of the popular vote with record numbers of voters than any previous president in history. Explain to me how that is a "divided" country? Oh, yeah--that's because that's what Kerry and the Democrats keep saying, therefore it must be true."

DEFINATELY DIVIDED- KERRY WON MORE VOTES THAN ANY CHALLENGER IN HISTORY. THE DIVISION COMES FROM VIEWS AND HOW STRONG PEOPLE FELT ABOUT THE TWO CANDIDATES THIS TIME.

"It's your right to express whatever opinion you want. But why mix it up on your PDA website?"

THAT IS WHY OUTSPOKEN WAS STARTED UP, TO AVOID MAKING COMMENTS ON PDA247. ALL I DO IS POINT TO A NEW OUTSPOKEN ARTICLE ON PDA247 AND YOU CHOOSE IF YOU WANT TO READ IT OR NOT.

"I am so sick of celebs, musicians and hollywood types, that wear their politics on their sleaves."

THANKS FOR THAT- MY EGO HAS JUST EXPLODED:)

"I come to PDA24/7 for great PDA news, not for the latest plug for "Fahrenheit 9/11.""

IF YOU READ ONE OF THE PREVIOUS OUTSPOKEN ARTICLES I MADE IT CLEAR THAT I THOUGHT FARENHEIT 9/11 WAS A TERRIBLE FILM AND DETRACTED FROM THE TRUE MORAL PROBLEMS OF MR BUSH.

THERE'S MUCH MORE I COULD SAY BUT COMMENTS LIKE " I really do hope that you will heed your own words." ACTUALLY MAKE ME THINK TWICE ABOUT MY DECISION. EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO A VIEW AND I AM THANKFUL FOR YOUR COMMENTS- THAT IS WHAT THE SITE IS MEANT TO BE ABOUT.

[Neil]

I am so sick of celebs, musicians and hollywood types, that wear their politics on their sleaves

Brad- you've just boosted Shaun's ego no end! :)

[Brad]

Shaun,

I love your *PDA* site. Your political commentary and analysis, however, leaves much to be desired.

"A political system that is probably one of the least democratic in the world..." Are you really serious?

"Abraham Lincoln is no doubt spinning in his grave tonight" (Why are you using Lincoln and not the framers of the US Constitution, the 'Fathers' of our country? Why Lincoln? With what relevance does he have to do with the election process that you use his name? Unless you are trying to make a connection with him and the GOP, but the context of your remarks was about the elections.) No, he wasn't spinning in his grave because of the election results. He was celebrating. Why? Because Pres. Bush won in spite of a spiteful, irresponsible, traitorous, blatantly lying, and hateful mainstream media over the last three years. He won in spite of whatever "scandal" that existed or that could be dreamed up and thrown at him.

Amazingly, Bush won in spite of the media's lies or supressing stories of a growing economy with historical low unemployment and inflation rates and record home ownership.

Bush won in spite of ignorant people believing in M. Moore's hyped lies in a movie that he was able to freely show, raking in millions of capitalist dollars, which Moore supposedly denounces.

A "divided" country? Bush won more of the popular vote with record numbers of voters than any previous president in history. Explain to me how that is a "divided" country? Oh, yeah--that's because that's what Kerry and the Democrats keep saying, therefore it must be true.

It's your right to express whatever opinion you want. But why mix it up on your PDA website? I am so sick of celebs, musicians and hollywood types, that wear their politics on their sleaves. I would rather just enjoy what they do well at and not care about their politics. But when they mix it with their performances and appearances--that's offensive. I like to attend their concerts or their movies without feeling disgust at them. Same for your website. Stick with PDA's--you do well at it. I come to PDA24/7 for great PDA news, not for the latest plug for "Fahrenheit 9/11."

You said it best, Shaun: "Anyway, it's time for me to step back. I won't be writing any more Outspoken articles as I really do need to concentrate on the PDA sites..." I really do hope that you will heed your own words.

[Mark]

Interesting that the election came down to so called "moral" issues. When our troops are dying, our president's lying and our wallets are crying, what seems to get people to overlook the debacles of the last four years are the words "abortion" and "gay marriage". This is insane, but the pandering to the religious right has worked. Let's see...Bush has devastated the economy, alienated those who were once our allies, stirred up the hornet nest of the Middle East and helped make Iran twice as dangerous as it was four years ago, stubbornly stuck to failed economic theories and ran us into record debt, declared victory in a police action that seems to be endless, signed legislation that restricts civil liberties, lost jobs, lied through his teeth at every turn...and it's his stand on ABORTION that makes the difference? How can anyone justify imposing their religious beliefs on someone else's body? We treat the unborn as sacred and holy beings, yet we treat the elderly and infirm as disposable and not worth lowering medical and pharmaceutical costs for or funding stem cell research for. We spout about the sanctity of marriage as between a man and a woman, yet more than half of all these blissful, holy and supposedly God-endorsed unions end in divorce. We spout right-to-life gospel while bloodthirsty for the death penalty. We are a nation of hypocrites, ready to follow the slogan that resonates with our righteous indignation while we continue to live our lives to excess at the expense of the rest of the world, arrogant in our assertion that we are ENTITLED to the majority of the world's resources while refusing to take the responsibility for minimizing the effect of our industry and excess on the environment and global politics. We pay lip service to alternative fuels while rubbing our hands together with the prospect of destroying the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge to get at cheap oil. Who cares about animals? We need cheap gas! We have seen a global die-off of species not seen since the end of the Cretaceous 65 million years ago, and the United States shares a large part of the blame for that. Yes, I live in the United States, born and raised here, and I love this country. I have travelled to all but three states (Arkansas, Alaska and Hawaii) and have loved every state I have visited. The scenery, culture and life in each was wonderful. It has been hinted that if you are against the war, then you hate your country. Interesting that these people seem to place more value on the lives of the unborn than those of the people who are actually alive right now. How does a reasonable person wake up and say "Ya know...my job was outsourced, I have no health insurance, my kids are hungry, their school is underfunded and cutting programs, my county, school and sales tax has gone through the roof, my nephew was just killed in Iraq, I can't afford to heat my house this winter, Kerry did a great job in the debates...but I don't want to see guys living together, my assault rifle banned or partial birth abortions allowed, so BUSH!" The Republican leadership has exhorted us to put aside our differences, the election is over and it's time to get to work...what they are really saying to the over 55 million people who voted for Kerry is..."We control the House and Senate, we control the presidency and within weeks we will control the Supreme Court. You damned liberals had better toe the line, shut up, get in line, abandon your values and principles. We can do whatever we want and still get elected! Next election we will campaign by showing ads where a grinning donkey wields a coat hanger and tell the American people that Democrats want to kill their unborn babies if they are voted in." Stem cell research? Where thousands of embryos that go unused and then dumped could be used to help those in dire need of what stem cells could provide? Again, we seem to be more worried about potential life than the life that is already here. Privatize social security? What good will that do? With the markets the way they are, we would be lucky to see a penny when we retire. The only purpose is to make businesses more money. Faith-based initiatives? What happened to separation of church and state? When did we become a theocracy? Vouchers for private (read religious) school? Why does Bush have to reach across the aisle when he holds control over all three branches of government? There will be no "healing".

I may have voted in this election, but the new government most definitely does not represent me or my interests. I do not support abortion under normal circumstances...I don't think that it is an acceptable form of retroactive birth control. People who make rash decisions deserve to live with the consequences. Women who are raped, however, should not have to bear the children of those who raped them. Banning abortion, overturning Roe v. Wade, would be right up Bush's alley. He likes to portray the world in stark black and white, in pure absolutes. His world has no shades of gray, at least not the world he shares with the electorate. I do not recognize the newly elected government as mine, and I repudiate the mandates that they will shove, unopposed, down our throats. Record deficit? Who cares! Have another federal tax cut? What's that? You have to pay more state and local taxes? Not our fault! We are the good guys! We put money in your pocket! Hey...want to donate your motor vehicle to charity for a deduction next year? You won't be able to get Kelley Blue Book value for it...you will get to deduct whatever the charity gets at auction. This will result in a tax revenue windfall for the government. What do they plan to do with this? Give corporate tax breaks! Men had better not marry men, dammit!

I guess it would be fair to say that the first words that come to my mind on this dark day to describe my emotional state are: disgusted, dismayed, horrified, terrified, hopeless, impotent, angry, furious, resentful, hateful, mortified, frustrated, powerless and betrayed. Nothing I can do about it, though. I will have to sit through another four years of seeing that smarmy self-satisfied smirk on Bush's face that says "I lied to the American people and they fell for it...hook, line and sinker...again!"

Mark
Wallkill, NY

[Joel]

"Simple: lose 3,000 of your citizens in a cowardly attack and then tell me this is a made up nightmare enemy."

What has this got to do with Iraq??? It was done by mainly Saudi's and Osama who was trained to be a terrorist by America...

[BobR]

Shaun,

I appreciate your article. At the beginning of your article you showed great grace towards our president despite your disappointment at his victory.

I have to admit, though, that I was disappointed that you have the impression that our nation is one of the least democratic nations. I believe that the US is actually a very strong represetative government. And while there were a lot of issues dividing our views, there are a lot of issues that Americans are well-agreed on also. And, technically, I don't think we are actually a Democracy but a Federal Republic of states. I'll let those who are smarter than me argue about the differences, but I think when all the world elections inspectors made all their comments against our election, they forgot that we are a federation of states and so they kept emphasizing things like a lack of uniformity of voting systems. And, while it's agreed that politics involves some gamesmanship and alliances and compromises that we wish didn't exist, I think that the transparency of the US elections and government do much to keep things as fair as can be expected. When Americans look at the discussions that Tony Blair has in the Commons or one of those town meetings (sorry if I mangled the terminology, I'm afraid I'm a typical American who doesn't understand British government very well and just confirms the stereotype). But in those discussions I've seen on TV, it looks like those people are crazy and unrespectful and not really even saying what they mean. They look like they are just yelling and screaming at each other with no interest in a discussion. But I'm sure it serves a purpose that those in England understand. But to me it looks so distanced from reality. I'm sure some of the American politics can look that way from a distance also, especially with the way the press has gone so wild, looking for sensationalism rather than truth and perspective.

I am, myself, a big Bush supporter. I realize that there are different views and philosophies, and not everyone looks at him the way I do. I see the war in Iraq as a very costly, but very important step towards eliminating the grave threat of terror against Western civilization. I see how some countries have made concessions due to the war. Libya for example, I think, has given up their nuclear program. Again, I'm speaking out of my expertise here, but I'm pretty confident that our presence there became a threat to other nations harboring terrorists or looking to develop mass weapons of destruction meant to be used on "enemy" nations. I think, like Bush, that a free Iraq is their hope for a peaceful future and the beginning of a hope for a peaceful world. I know the cost is great, and I know some that are sacrificing greatly. Some have even lost loved ones. It is a high price. But the price of waiting on the UN will be even greater in the future. I believe that government is not supposed to be the answer for all our problems, and that when it tries to be it causes taxation that kills prosperity. Not just for the rich, but for all. I believe that traditional values are important in this world.
I have discussions with friends on these topics and some agree, some disagree. That's okay. As long as the discussion doesn't become hateful. I'm proud of the US, despite some warts here and there, just like all nations have.
Thank you for letting me share my opinions here. You do a great job with your PDA247 site and I really enjoy hearing your opinions, even when they are so different than my own!
Best wishes,
BobR

[Damon]

"But the reason that no-one questions the illusion is because this nightmare enemy gives so many groups new power and influence in a cynical age - and not just politicians. Those with the darkest imaginations become the most powerful."

Simple: lose 3,000 of your citizens in a cowardly attack and then tell me this is a made up nightmare enemy.

Talk about being fed a line. Europeans think they have the answers to this issue. Well, you've certainly solved it in the Sudan, Algeria, Lebanon, Rwanda, Congo...do I need to go on? You've been fed lines about the right way to solve things for years especially in Iraq, by people in governement who were being actively bribed by Iraq.

Dealing uniliaterally didn't seem to bother France in Cote de Ivorie, or towards greenpeace in New Zealand, or for anywhere else in Africa. Or for continental europe when you finallya got around to dealing with Bosnia (add to the list above as well).

[Jim]

I tried to like Senator Kerry, but it kept coming abck to one main issue for me: his past and continuing support of Partial Birth Abortions. Frankly, I find this "procedure" completely disgusting and unnecessary. Anyone who would support the partial removal of an infant from its mother, leaving the head still in the Birth Canal and then killing the baby is nothing short of barbaric. You can argue the merits of different kinds of abortions, but the fact remains that Senator Kerry's record stands, and thus, in my mind, requires his defeat.