Geez 1460 days till Bush will be out of office

[Roland]

Roughneck said:

No, I get this. What she meant was that she voted for Bush in order to clear the way for Hillary to run in 2008. The sentence is poorly worded however. And while now we have to deal with him like it or not, I'm sorry, but I feel Bush is too dangerous to give another four years to simply so that Hillary can run in 2008.

Yes Roughneck, that's what I meant by that. I guess it was just a bad day all around.

[snizz]

Roland said:

It's ok, I understand perfectly Snizz. She was so full of passion about all this, I thought it was strange that she hadn't piped up. I hope whatever it may be is temporary and she'll be back here. If you're in touch with her, please give her my best.

Will do Roland. Been a while, but she was over at the other board when I left. I'll see if I can catch her and give her a nudge to come on over. Although this is a laugh, I'm only here after tagging along after her and Southbound.

Eh, move over man, I think some of that was directed over this way too so don't feel too bad. I wasn't looking for no fight either, I was just curious meself that's all.

[Mr._Shooter]

Roland and snizz....

First and foremost, there are no hard feelings on my part. As I realist, I knew that engaging you in a political joust could potentially get ugly; I was somewhat prepared for a train wreck, and I vowed not to take things personally. Alas, the wheels came off - I took a few of your comments personally and blindly stabbed back. This was foolish, perhaps, but I spoke from the heart (I won't lie - I was pissed). Below, with a cooler head, I'd like to respond to and embellish upon a few of the points raised on both sides of the aisle, as it were.

I took offense because I'm highly sensitive to what goes on behind that curtain on election day. It's an independent act, a sacred act, and, for me, it has always been a personal expression of opinion. There can be no "dumb" vote, although I would agree that there can be (and are ) "dumb" people (who after the fact just might give "dumb" reasons for voting the way they did). We may wonder what they were thinking when they voted for so-and-so, we may disagree with their choice, we may be enraged, disappointed or frustrated when the individual they voted for wins (and our guy loses). But the notion that their votes were somehow "dumb"...that's just not a concept I can wrap myself around in good faith. On the flip side of the coin, however, if either of you would choose to label Bush voters as "dumb", that's your own expression of opinion, and I guess, given what I said above, that's just as sacred as any other expression of opinion. Doesn't sit right with me, but who am I to judge?

Second, my wife and I are successful (the Lord knows we spent enough money on our education to get there ). Now, I do know that no one here would begrudge us our success (Roland, I appreciate your precise word choice ;D ), but I do believe that the assumption is that our success has blinded us to the daily struggle that others face, a struggle that admittedly became only more acute during the first Dubyah administration. I'm not going to lie to you, I don't particularly dwell on the struggles of others all that much (well, that's not entirely true...I get paid to ponder long and hard the struggles of my clients ). As I've said many times before, I am not equipped to walk in Jesus' footsteps every step of the way, notwithstanding my Catholic upbringing and my own attempts to remain pious and "catholic" (small "c," as I'm using the word for its dictionary meaning). Not dwelling on the struggles of others, however, should not be confused with failing to appreciate those struggles. Not being able to afford prescription drugs, for example, is a condition that has hit too close to home far too many times - my parents, my wife's parents, aunts, uncles, etc. Being out of work...well, my wife almost lost her job a while back when her company downsized by almost half...it was touch and go, and there were sleepless nights (given where we live, the loss of my wife's income would have meant tight mortgage payments and an unsettling amount of belt-tightening). Perhaps what got lost in my defense of those who voted for Bush (and in my expression of optimism regarding the second Dubyah administration) was the fact that I VOTED FOR KERRY PRECISELY BECAUSE OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DURING THE LAST FOUR YEARS. My wife voted for Kerry as well, for the same reason. We feel we are intelligent people. We read. We watch the news. We discuss politics with friends and family. Hell, I was a history teacher, so I had to TEACH politics and government. We voted the issues this election. But we didn't have to go the Bill Clinton "I feel your pain route" to do so, didn't have to walk a mile in the shoes of our struggling neighbors to appreciate what was at stake.

Roland, you pegged my age correctly. I was not old enough to vote during the elder Bush's tenure in office, and Reagan certainly was before my voting time. I have neither the historical perspective nor the life experience of someone much older. But I am a student of social history. I have studied economic trends. I have taught students to understand and appreciate the ebb and flow of American politics. I have witnessed a change in the way the rest of the world views America. I have represented clients in bankruptcy proceedings and foreclosure proceedings, and I have helped clients obtain emergency funding to repair flood-damaged businesses. Wise beyond my years? No way. Seen it all, done it all? Not a chance. Battle-tested and road weary? Not yet (and thank God, too!). But I nevertheless have come to appreciate the travails of my fellow Americans, and I certainly understand most if not all of the issues. Walking in "their" shoes is something I can't do. But educating others about the causes of their plight and supporting politicians who will do something about it - that I can do (and have done).

More later.

[Mr._Shooter]

Picking up where I left off....

Snizz, I've been giving off mixed signals precisely because this election cycle was so discombobulating for me. As a conservative, I voted for Bush the first time around and felt certain that he would advance the conservative cause while also uniting Americans -- all Americans -- behind him. I didn't expect Bush to launch a needless war, show a domestic tin ear and fail to grasp the nuances of domestic and international politics. I didn't expect him to divide the nation to the point where someone would contemplate suicide to escape his wrath, or where people would fill message boards with articulate yet blindingly passionate indictments of Bush and his evil henchmen. I didn't expect Bush to turn Europe against us (as if World War II never happened). I didn't expect any of this, and so when it all came to pass, I had to deal with an internal conflict: on the one hand, I had to acknowledge that the man clearly wasn't competent for the job at hand, that he was an out-and-out liar, and that, in light of his great promises and his "compassionate" vision, he was a complete and utter failure, and on the other hand, I had to mentally prepare myself for the prospect of voting for someone who didn't share my ideological perspective (not even close, mind you ), who didn't come off well in public, who had a somewhat checkered voting record, and who said nothing, really, that inspired confidence in me that he'd do a better job than Bush. Indeed, this election was a tough one for me, as it marked the first time I ever voted for a Democrat, for someone who doesn't necessarily share my vision but who has got to be better than the other guy. Then, having done my part to stop Bush's wayward stewardship, I get hit with the reality that he has another four years...it was tough to swallow, no doubt about it. I had cast my lot with the other guy, deciding that the issues dictated a change in my way of voting, but ended up getting burned. But unlike the rest of you, my disdain for Bush was really disillusionment - that is, I previously held the guy in high regard, thought he'd do a good job, was a cheerleader for him, for goodness sakes, and only later came to see that he was in fact a regular bill of goods. There was no hatred built on top of hatred in my camp, no slippery slope, as it were. I suspect that many here held little if any optimism back in 2000, when Bush squeaked into office on a wing, a prayer, and a justice's robe (actually, I know that most of you were entirely pessimistic back then). Bush's first term was a coronation of your pessimism - every flub, every lie, every bad decision only served to entrench your disdain for the man. Thus, for all of you, Bush's re-election last week had absolutely no chance of projecting any light into the darkness - after all, there's no way to reconstruct Jericho if it hadn't been standing in the first place. For me to suggest that life goes on, even with Bush in office for another 4 years, for me to allude to optimism even though Bush inspires none in your hearts and minds, for me to excuse those who voted for Bush even though some would regard them as "dumb" - all of this could not possibly sit well with you because it flies directly in the face of how you've felt for the last 4 years. You're saying, who is this guy fooling? You're saying, excuse me, Mr. Shooter, but have you been living under a rock for the last 4 years? Well, I'm not fooling YOU . And I have not been living under a rock. What I am is prepared to take a wait-and-see approach - hopeful that Bush can find it in himself (and in others) to turn it around, cautiously optimistic, if you will. Why? Well, because, personally speaking, I'd rather be cautiously optimistic than pessimistically resigned - I'd rather give the guy the rope to snag a prize steer than the rope to hang himself with. Is this attitude consistent with my change of heart during the first Dubyah administration? Can I reconcile this with my vote for Kerry? Yes, I think so. When I voted, I voted for change. Bush didn't live up to my expectations, so the bum had to go. I went to the polls. I cast my lot. My guy lost, fairly and squarely. Now, I can either bemoan the loss, remain caught up in that moment, and give up on the future, or I can say, my guy lost, but maybe Bush got the message during this campaign that America is divided, bleeding, hurting and in need of fixing, and maybe he can fix it this time around. That's my cautious optimism. In my mind, it's not inconsistent with what I've previously articulated - it's just my way of playing the cards that have now been dealt me. What it boils down to is this: I simply can't be angry about the outcome of this election. Disappointed, yes. Angry, no. You may want me to be fired up, but I'm not. You may want me to look askance at my fellow Americans who voted for Bush, but I cannot do so (whether independent thinkers or brainwashed Bush toadies, they exercised their rights just like you). I don't begrudge you your vehement reactions, but, for better or for worse, I don't identify with them.

As for my reaction in the wake of the Yankees loss to the Red Sox vs. my reaction to Kerry's defeat, I must say that I did take the Yankees loss harder. What can I say? I love my team, it hurt to lose in such a fashion. Baseball is one of my greatest loves (shhhh...don't tell my wife ;D ), and I, like many fans the world over, sometimes take it much too seriously. My bad. But it would be wrong to infer from this that I somehow take politics and governmental issues less seriously, or that I care more about some ignoble sports team than the fate of our country (my priorities, although admittedly not always neat and orderly, are a lot less than crooked ). I won't rehash what I said above about my reaction to Kerry's loss, but I will stress that my failure to foam at the mouth like others here is not indicative of comparative lack of concern. Rather, it reflects a different philosophical take - a different perspective - on the impact Bush's re-election will have on the nation. Different strokes for different folks.

At the end of the day, I regret that I took personally comments that probably weren't directed at me. I apologize for misconstruing some of what had been written in the past few days - my radar apparently has gotten overly sensitive over the years. I just encourage those who have questioned the voting choices of their fellow Americans to remember that, whether or not you agreed with their vote, whether or not you agreed with their rationale, they exercised the same rights as you. The outcome may have been bad, but the people who voted, by the very fact that they voted, are okay in my book.

[Mr._Shooter]

Travelinman said:

Well hello Mr. Shooter I hope you and your wife are doing well. I see your making friends.

And taking names.... ;D

I'm taking on water here, TM, but I think I can sail her back to shore. The wife is fine - she's smart because she stays out of the crossfire.

Oh and by the way about your Yankees......I'm so......sorry......NOT. ;D;D;DOh I needed that.

Kick a man while's he down, why don't you! ;D Hope you feel better now, you Bronx traitor, you. ;D

As for Rudy.......the conservative republican base I don't think will even give him a second look. Did you forget him parading his little BIMBO around while he was still married. I mean if they gave Bill all that trouble, then Rudy would probably get the same.

Funny thing about Rudy is, if he ran, he'd probably win Iowa (or even California) before New York. He plays better outside of New York. But I agree that, eventually, the skeletons (which we know all too well) might kill his chances nationally.

John McCain.........in 2000 he was my choice........I'm still trying to figure Bush over McCain, no matter. I was very flip floppy this past year with McCain, first he would step forward and defend Kerry, and then in the next moment be right there with Bush. Now I know he has thoughts of 2008 dancing in his head and he would like the support of the party, but I think he gave away a bit of his soul this time out. I watched him in a interview on Today. He was asked very direct questions about Social Security and the dipping into it that has been going on. He was asked why the politicians did not stop it and guess what, he did not have an answer.

At the end of the day, I think McCain handled the Kerry-Bush thing very well. He was gentlemanly - I don't recall him ever hammering Kerry the way the rest of the Republican henchmen did. As for his inability to answer a direct question on the Today Show, I'm still waiting for any politician to effectively answer a direct question, whether it be on the Today Show or Face the Nation.

[Roland]

There's no hard feelings on my part either Mr. Shooter and I appreciate your candor. It's what makes us all individuals and by law of nature, we'll all defend our beliefs and opinions. In this case, we simply come from different sides of the ideological spectrum and see things differently. However, although we disagree ideologically, by no means do I, or would I ever, consider that a judgement of your character or integrity.

Mr. Shooter, my intent in saying this is not to beleaguer the debate, but as someone said earlier, to solidify positions. I don't think anyone here is foaming at the mouth simply because "our guy lost" or because we "hate Bush." I believe with all the misinformation that has been accepted as "fact," we have legitimate questions concerning the judgement of others and I believe that too is a part of our system of checks and balances.

My religious faith aside, I'm a man of logic and science. 2x2=4. It's a proven fact that cannot be disputed. "9-11"=Bin Ladin has been proven a fact. "9-11"=Hussein has been proven to be incorrect. So then, why does well more than 1/2 of the American population believe the latter to be factually correct? As a teacher, how can I ask my students to challenge their minds if I cannot or refuse to challenge mine? I am not disputing that every person is entitled to their opinions, beliefs and privacy, I agree with that 100%. But what if an opinion is based on incorrect facts? If I ask a student what 2x2 is, and they give me an answer of 5, simply telling them they are incorrect and that the correct answer is 4 is fruitless. I want to know how they arrived at their incorrect answer and I need to explain to them why it's wrong and show them where they made their mistake.

That's where the difference is Mr. Shooter. I, and I don't believe anyone else here, is referring to people's personal beliefs and convictions in forming their opinions when questioning them. Issues such as abortion and gay rights are a matter of personal beliefs and convictions. The question of whether those beliefs, regardless of whether they're held by a majority of Americans, should be imposed on all Americans by the government is an entirely different question and debate. Rather, those of us who oppose Bush are questioning the judgement of our fellow Americans, not based on those things, but ones like the question I posed earlier. Why do so many people believe that Saddam and Iraq did attack this country on 9-11? A very substantial number of people also believe that the WMD were found there. A substantial number of people believe that Saddam and Bin Ladin worked in concert with each other. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Despite 3 major investigations and well published reports proving all of that to be infactual, why do so many believe it to be fact? Mr. Shooter, I've lost count of the number of times I've asked these people who believe it was Iraq who attacked us, if that were so, then why were 15 of the hi-jackers Saudis and there was not a single Iraqi among them? They look at me dumbfounded as if I had 3 heads and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about before walking off in a huff. I find that frightening. It defies logic and we're trying to understand something we can't make sense of. I don't think it's being offbase to question judgement or opinions based on ignorance of fact. As I stated earlier, I believe that's also a part of our system of checks and balances.

Differences of opinion aside, I was afraid I'd inadvertently made a mess of things and in the process, made myself persona non gratis. However, I was recently given a gentle reminder that everyone doesn't visit internet forums for the same reasons and my reasons may not be the same as yours or someone else's. Being as welcomed as I was to join the forum, I'd gotten perhaps a bit too comfortable here without really having had the time to get to know everyone all that well. In my fervor to defend my opinions, I'd lost sight of that. I realize now, rather belatedly everyone's "bowl of soup" may be a different flavor. If I overstepped any boundaries in my zeal to defend my viewpoints, again I apologize, it wasn't my intention to offend anyone. And again, no hard feelings and I'll keep that perspective in mind in the future.

[LS]

Roland said:

Differences of opinion aside, I was afraid I'd inadvertently made a mess of things and in the process, made myself persona non gratis.
Being as welcomed as I was to join the forum, I'd gotten perhaps a bit too comfortable here without really having had the time to get to know everyone all that well.
I'll keep that perspective in mind in the future.

Roland darlin'...you are most definitely NOT persona non gratis around here!! Dontcha dare even think that...you're A-OK around here. ...and dontcha dare feel like you ever have to hesitate to say what's on your mind around here...OK??
OK.

[Mr._Shooter]

Roland said:

Differences of opinion aside, I was afraid I'd inadvertently made a mess of things and in the process, made myself persona non gratis. However, I was recently given a gentle reminder that everyone doesn't visit internet forums for the same reasons and my reasons may not be the same as yours or someone else's. Being as welcomed as I was to join the forum, I'd gotten perhaps a bit too comfortable here without really having had the time to get to know everyone all that well. In my fervor to defend my opinions, I'd lost sight of that. I realize now, rather belatedly everyone's "bowl of soup" may be a different flavor. If I overstepped any boundaries in my zeal to defend my viewpoints, again I apologize, it wasn't my intention to offend anyone. And again, no hard feelings and I'll keep that perspective in mind in the future.

Roland, you're certainly not persona non gratis around here. And you haven't overstepped any boundaries. You should feel as comfortable taking me or anyone else on today as you were last week - this is an open forum, home to any and all opinions. If I disagree with your opinion, that's my problem, not yours.

[SanAntonioMike]

Roughneck said:

No, I get this. What she meant was that she voted for Bush in order to clear the way for Hillary to run in 2008. The sentence is poorly worded however. And while now we have to deal with him like it or not, I'm sorry, but I feel Bush is too dangerous to give another four years to simply so that Hillary can run in 2008.

Ah, okay, I get it. <heavy sigh>

See, in my little dream world vision, Kerry won this term and next, then Edwards came in in 2012 with Hillary as VP, and she finally takes the White House herself in 2020, and Bubba becomes the first First Gentleman.

That's in SAM's personal, rose-colored Democratic view of the world.

[SanAntonioMike]

Roughneck said:

Although I do think the whole blue state red state thing has gotten way out of hand. The maps (and the Electoral College) should be scrapped. One pundit even said burn all the red and blue maps. They tend to turn things into us and them. We see it as ALL Georgians voted for Bush, but when the post election call ins came to CNN, several Georgians were enraged. Hell, it was a Georgian who killed himself at Ground Zero. Not all Texans voted for Bush-SAM can atest to that-and not all Massacheusettans voted for Kerry.

Well, if you look at the red-and-blue by COUNTY maps, you'll see that I come from a pretty solidly blue section of Texas, and I appear to have moved to a solidly red section of an oddly largely blue Arizona (this county is the largest population-wise, so I guess that's why it's the reddist). From Austin south Texas is as blue as the Bonnie Blue Flag.

I didn't feel my vote was "wasted" in a red state, because so many people were bending so much time, money, and effort to "turn Arizona blue." Friends here tell me Arizona was blue for Bubba in 1996, so it can happen.

[SanAntonioMike]

Mr._Shooter said:

I was not old enough to vote during the elder Bush's tenure in office, and Reagan certainly was before my voting time.

Wow, Shooter, you're just a tot! I was two months shy of being old enough to vote for Carter (and against Reagan) in 1980, so my first Presidential vote was cast for poor ol' Mondale.

Many of the good folk of Arizona think John McCain has been toadying with DUHb pretty much against his own better judgement. Lots of articles in the local papers discussed how the ol' senator looked like he was chewing lemons the last time DUHb had his arm around McCain's shoulders. To keep in good with the GOP to secure his nomination in 2008? Whatever. I voted straight Democrat.

[LS]

SanAntonioMike said:

See, in my little dream world vision, Kerry won this term and next, then Edwards came in in 2012 with Hillary as VP, and she finally takes the White House herself in 2020, and Bubba becomes the first First Gentleman.

That's in SAM's personal, rose-colored Democratic view of the world.

Well my dream was the same as the first part of yours <heavy sigh > ...but as far as Hil in 2020- I think that'd be pushing things a little...Bill's presently 57 and I believe Hil's a year, maybe two younger- so by that time it'd put 'em in their 70s and that's probably a little too 'over the hill'.

Personally- I think the people who've been betting on that pony are gonna be in for a rude awakening...and it ain't gonna happen in '08 either...or probably '12. This country likes to think it's come a lot further in equal rights and tolerance than it really has...but it's all just an illusion. There's been progress- but there's still a very, very long way to go. I'm just not seeing the slightest chance that anytime in the near future that 'the good ol' boys' mindset that still prevails in this country is gonna allow for Hil- (or any other female) or a person belonging to a 'minority' group- to hold the highest office in this government. I think one of the most disturbing things for me that came out of this election was what I'd seen, heard and read in the few days that followed...reporters across the country were interviewing ordinary people in the streets for their reactions. The number of women who asked that their names be withheld 'because if my husband found out I'd voted for Kerry- he'd kill me' made my blood run cold!!

And the irony (or the better word- hypocrisy ) hasn't been lost on me that in these countries where our goverment's stuck it's nose into 'planting the seeds of democracy' - this government has put demands on countries like Afghanistan and Iraq that women must represent 40+% of their government's make-up...yet in this country women make up only approximately 15% of our government...

As smart and ambitious as Hil is- I think she's fully aware of that...and if she does decide to run- which I'm far from convinced she will (she's doing a great job in the Senate and why give up a job with unlimited tenure that gains in status and power the longer you're there- for one with a limited tenure and ends with no political/legislative future??). At best- it'll probably be more of a 'statement'- an attempt to start tearing down that wall and encourage other women to stand up and finish tearing it down so that one day it will be possible.

SanAntonioMike said:

I didn't feel my vote was "wasted" in a red state, because so many people were bending so much time, money, and effort to "turn Arizona blue." Friends here tell me Arizona was blue for Bubba in 1996, so it can happen.

It wasn't SAM...it probably counted more than ours who voted in the blue states. Like I've been saying for a while...Kerry was solidly blue here in the NE- especially in NY- but sadly- though voter turnout was higher than in past elections- we still ranked towards the bottom in overall turnout this election. Truth is- our votes count less 'cause in the end it doesn't matter if Kerry'd won by 5,000 votes or 500,000- he still won the electoral votes either way. If the race was tighter here- naturally more people would've voted- but as it stood with Kerry so far ahead- they knew their vote for him didn't really matter in the end so they didn't bother.

Time's long overdue for the electoral college to go...that way people have a true incentive to get out and vote- because only then would EVERY vote REALLY count (um...like the way it's done in free elections in the rest of the world ). It probably had a similar effect on a lot of blue voters in red states...they knew the 'state' (thus the electoral vote) was inevitably going to the DuHbya - so they stayed home resigned to the fact their vote wasn't going to matter...
I mean- if a few thousand more blue voters showed up in forgone DuHbya states, Kerry still may have lost the electoral- but he would've added to his overall national popular vote. And if more blue voters showed up in the already forgone Kerry states- that too would've added to his overall popular numbers- and in the end- 3 million votes ain't no landslide and chances are good Kerry could've accumulated enough popular votes nationally to have won the popular vote despite losing the electoral vote. Kinda like Gore did. Thing is- the 2000 election (contrary to Mahr's shortsighted 'just get over it already' attitude) did more damage than anyone wants to admit to- it proved winning the popular vote in this country don't mean squat if it's ultimately erased by electoral votes (even regardless of the involvement of the courts in that instance) and renders the popular vote utterly meaningless in the end. And this country's supposedly the shining model of democracy??

[SanAntonioMike]

LS said:

Well my dream was the same as the first part of yours <heavy sigh > ...but as far as Hil in 2020- I think that'd be pushing things a little...Bill's presently 57 and I believe Hil's a year, maybe two younger- so by that time it'd put 'em in their 70s and that's probably a little too 'over the hill'.

Well, yeah, but Reagan was 110 when he was elected...

And shoot, they're still talking about McCain in 2008, and he's in his late 70's now.

But anyway... you're right about it being a cold day in heck when a woman is elected president of this country. Sadly, I don't think I'm going to live to see it, although I believe Hillary would be a tremendous president. I think she's sharp as a tack and mean as a snake and would do the job right. (Has anyone else read Bubba's book yet? I came away with a better view of HILLARY from it than I did Bill--he talks about the people he loves in amazing depth and with tremendous warmth.)

I think, though, the Democrats need to get back up on our platform -- that is, real morals (civil rights, tolerance, aiding the poor, etc.), diplomacy, and honesty -- and STAND there. Don't throw the minorities (including gays) to the wolves just to woo frightened middle America. Middle America was afraid of blacks, too, and used the bible to fight against interracial marriage and to justify slavery. Democrats can't let that happen. Johnson was likewise a piss-poor president from Texas, but one thing he did give us was a firm stance on civil rights, and he said when he signed that "it would lose the South for Democrats for generations." He was right. Only Bubba was able to deliver parts of the South to the Democrats, and there is a reason we call him "Slick Willy."

I found that site/article I was thinking about when I mentioned it previously -- check this out: www.thestranger.com/2004-11-11/feature.html

It's astounding, looking here, that New Mexico and Colorado came out red...

[Mr._Shooter]

SanAntonioMike said:

Wow, Shooter, you're just a tot! I was two months shy of being old enough to vote for Carter (and against Reagan) in 1980, so my first Presidential vote was cast for poor ol' Mondale.

Many of the good folk of Arizona think John McCain has been toadying with DUHb pretty much against his own better judgement. Lots of articles in the local papers discussed how the ol' senator looked like he was chewing lemons the last time DUHb had his arm around McCain's shoulders. To keep in good with the GOP to secure his nomination in 2008? Whatever. I voted straight Democrat.

SAM, there are days I feel older than my years would suggest, if NOT wiser. ;D But at any rate, it always makes me feel better when people say that I was "just a tot when such and such happened." Let's me know that I at least managed to avoid all of the crap that happened before my birth.

As for McCain, I understand your point, SAM. He missed an opportunity to really define himself as a man of principle and courage, his party be damned. That was disappointing to someone who has long championed McCain's independent, free-thinking mindset. But your "I voted straight Democrat" line doesn't do justice to the fact that there are many otherwise commendably free-thinking Democrats who, when push comes to shove, likewise crumble in the face of the party's will. My old moderate pal Joe Lieberman, who appealed to both Dems and Republicans prior to the 2000 campaign, suddenly found himself without scruples when he became Al Gore's cheerleader on a number of sensitive social issues. At the end of the day, compromising one's values for the so-called "good of the team" is a common exercise on BOTH sides of the aisle.

[Mr._Shooter]

LS said:

I think one of the most disturbing things for me that came out of this election was what I'd seen, heard and read in the few days that followed...reporters across the country were interviewing ordinary people in the streets for their reactions. The number of women who asked that their names be withheld 'because if my husband found out I'd voted for Kerry- he'd kill me' made my blood run cold!!

That's a disturbing mindset, LS, but I suppose it's in line with the thinking of many of the Stepford Wifes who populate my neighborhood.

That being said, I think my wife would have killed me if I had voted for Bush. Her hatred for Bush and all he stands for would make Roland and snizz envious. Add to this the fact that she's decidedly NOT a Yankee fan, and you'll pretty much realize that I re-live my experience on these boards every night at the dinner table. ;D