1 Great! Four more years of the condescending Republican "We have all the answers" attitude. "Also, ixnay on the hate rhetoric." Really?!? Such as Cheney and his "A vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism" implications, the nasty Swifties, and the hate films that just didn't do so well as Moores... The Republicans are masters of underhanded politics - plain and simple - which is likely why you-all won. Most Americans are plain and simple, and they like the violent bad guy image. "And grab yourselves an electable candidate next time." meaning what? We should have someone comparable to Bush. Sorry, Goofy is a trademarked cartoon character...

2 ^^^^If they can't figure out what an "electable candidate" is, it does not bode well for them. Count me in as one who is would begrudgingly grant equal rights to same sex civil unions, but who refused to call such unions "marriages." To me that is a well defined term that's been around for ages and doesn't cover same sex anything. "Husband"...that one's tough. I'm still working on moving up to using "partner," as "roommate" is all I can muster right now.

3 I don't think the Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth were fighting dirty; I think they really felt betrayed by this man who called Vietnam Vets war criminials. I think the Bush Administration is really sincere in its belief that their proactive approach to fighting terror is the way to go, and that going back to the "law enforcement model" of the Clinton Administration would take us back to where we were before, and cost thousands of American lives. And I've seen three out of the four "responses" to Michael Moore's films--all of which were respectful and balanced in a way that F9/11 is not.

4 "Bush Administration is really sincere in its belief that their proactive approach to fighting terror is the way to go" Sincerity doesn't mean it's the right action as witnessed by the incredible mess in Iraq, which is costing billions of American dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives... What I can't stand about the Bush Admin and the Bushies is for all the talk of personal responsibility they refuse to admit mistakes. It's always someone elses fault. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And worse if you disgree with Bush then - black and white - you must be one of THEM - the enemy. Well, half of America must be the enemy. What now? How can we reach out to Bush who has repeatedly implied that we - half of America - is the enemy because of our disagreement with his Administration? We will not blindly follow him like little red sheep nor will we kowtow to his self-serving policies. Why should we trust Bush when his actions have repeatedly shown he's not trustworthy? Sincerity just isn't enough. You can be sincere and WRONG but Bush has shown he doesn't have the brains or the maturity to admit mistakes!!! Try taking a critical look at the Bush Administration instead of baa-baa keeping in line.

5 "Bush Administration is really sincere in its belief that their proactive approach to fighting terror is the way to go" Sincerity doesn't mean it's the right action as witnessed by the incredible mess in Iraq, which is costing billions of American dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives... The situation in Iraq is certainly mixed right now, though I think it's a good deal better there than the media would like us to believe. In Europe, after WWII, the infrastructure was destroyed and people continued to die from hunger and disease for years afterward. Should we therefore have refused to fight the Nazis? After all, there were terrible civilian casulties in that war, and we had to occupy Germany for half a century afterward. The Germans didn't have a working government for five years. Remember the Marshall Plan? We had to carry the entire continent of Europe (as well as Japan) for years. And I don't believe there were 100,000 Iraqi deaths in our invasion: the methodology of that study struck me as flawed. Also, remember that Bin Laden was hoping that the WTC towers would fall *over*, rather than imploding. That would have meant tens of thousands of deaths. We were essentially lucky that 9/11 was as "mild" as it was. And: if flight 93 hadn't left the airport so late (enabling the passengers to find out what was going on, via their cell phones) it would have been flown into the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. and there would be a lot of dead senators, congressmen, and aides. Better we fight this war elsewhere, rather than here. And the Iraqi people are ultimately going to have much better lives because of it. What I can't stand about the Bush Admin and the Bushies is for all the talk of personal responsibility they refuse to admit mistakes. It's always someone elses fault. Excuse after excuse after excuse. It could be that from the point of view of someone like Condoleeza Rice, less is going wrong than it is from your viewpoint. And I've been hearing this for months, from people who never thought to ask Senator Kerry for an apology for accusing soldiers and sailors in Vietnam of horrible atrocities--in front of Congress, no less. So there seems to be a bit of a double standard at work. And worse if you disgree with Bush then - black and white - you must be one of THEM - the enemy. You say that. But when I see that attitude, it's mostly on the left side of the spectrum. And I think it's worth noting that the President speficically spoke out to Kerry voters in his speech yesterday: he said he would work to earn yout trust. He did try to reach out. Well, half of America must be the enemy. What now? How can we reach out to Bush who has repeatedly implied that we - half of America - is the enemy because of our disagreement with his Administration? When did he say this, Mahatma? When? We will not blindly follow him like little red sheep nor will we kowtow to his self-serving policies. Fine. But you can be the loyal opposition, and behave the way I would have if Kerry had won: support the President, and loudly do everything possible to keep him on the straight and narrow, as you see it. Keep your dissent as coherent and specific as possible. Why should we trust Bush when his actions have repeatedly shown he's not trustworthy? Sincerity just isn't enough. You can be sincere and WRONG but Bush has shown he doesn't have the brains or the maturity to admit mistakes!!! He--he's smarter than Kerry. By five points, if you believe in I.Q. tests. And, again--the mistakes he's made will be debated by historians. You and I are going to have very different lists of Bush's "mistakes." Careful you don't sound like you're saying, "above all, I don't respect him because he doesn't agree with me about how incompetent he is." Try taking a critical look at the Bush Administration instead of baa-baa keeping in line. Oh, for crying out loud. Bye.

6 Such as Cheney and his "A vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism" implications Simply not true. Even the deceptively edited version of what he said, as spread by the MSM, didn't say that Cheney's warning was very simply of the risk that if Kerry were elected, and there were to be another major attack, that Kerry would fail to respond effectively to it. Nothing hateful in that.

7 I appreciated your insight that the Republican party is in fact a coalition of people with widely varied agendas (agendae?). It seems to me that some of the weakness that the Democratic party has shown in recent years owes itself to a similar but more advanced case of the same symptoms. The politics of polarization that has become so prevalent hits the Democrats harder than the Republicans just now. Since the 70's they have become a coalition of splintered interest groups that really only make common cause at election time. A Democratic candidate has a real job trying not to offend any of that motley constituency. In this election, some of them even jumped ship. The Bush mandate is real, but slim, and it is oddly mixed. There were frustrated Conservatives voting for Kerry, and disaffected Liberals voting for Bush. I know that I'm blathering here, because I don't know what this is going to mean in the long term. I do get a strong sense that a lot of people did not feel completely represented by either party, but felt that it was terribly important to choose in spite of that. Is there a platform that can be distilled from the common concerns of both? Beats me.