quote:

---

Here, where my fresh-turned furrows run,
And the deep soil glistens red,
I will repair the wrong that was done
To the living and the dead.
Here, where the senseless bullet fell,
And the barren shrapnel burst,
I will plant a tree, I will dig a well,
Against the heat and the thirst.

Here, in a large and a sunlit land,
Where no wrong bites to the bone,
I will lay my hand in my neighbour's hand,
And together we will atone
For the set folly and the red breach
And the black waste of it all;
Giving and taking counsel each
Over the cattle-kraal.

Here will we join against our foes--
The hailstroke and the storm,
And the red and rustling cloud that blows
The locust's mile-deep swarm.
Frost and murrain and floods let loose
Shall launch us side by side
In the holy wars that have no truce
'Twixt seed and harvest-tide.

Earth, where we rode to slay or be slain,
Our love shall redeem unto life.
We will gather and lead to her lips again
The waters of ancient strife,
From the far and fiercely guarded streams
And the pools where we lay in wait,
Till the corn cover our evil dreams
And the young corn our hate.

And when we bring old fights to mind,
We will not remember the sin--
If there be blood on his head of my kind,
Or blood on my head of his kin--
For the ungrazed upland, the untilled lea
Cry, and the fields forlorn:
" The dead must bury their dead, but ye-
Ye serve an host unborn."

Bless then, Our God, the new-yoked plough
And the good beasts that draw,
And the bread we eat in the sweat of our brow
According to Thy Law.
After us cometh a multitude--
Prosper the work of our hands,
That we may feed with our land's food
The folk of all our lands!

Here, in the waves and the troughs of the plains,
Where the healing stillness lies,
And the vast, benignant sky restrains
And the long days make wise--
Bless to our use the rain and the sun
And the blind seed in its bed,
That we may repair the wrong that was done
To the living and the dead!

---

quote:

---

Certainly, I am not vastly fond of Bush. But still, let's try to keep some perspective : Just how much damage can one man do in four years, in a nation founded on 'checks and balances?' A nation, moreover, whose military is becoming seriously overstretched?

---

It is not what he can do directly as president so much as what his appointments to the US Supreme Court can do during their upcoming lifetimes.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Yes. Hopefully he'll do better at his appointments than his father.

Souter. *shudder*

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
Sara, you just hit the nail on the head about what's been bothering me all morning. I am now seriously afraid of what will happen to civil liberties in this country.

I wish there was some way I could persuade the hubby to move to Canada.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Canada is not going to be immune. Far from it.

If you want to move somewhere to get away, move to Australia. Highest quality of life (by the UN Human Development Index) anywhere in the English-speaking world.

That's my plan. Australia or New Zealand before Bush's term is up. The citizenship registration is already on its way to Wellington.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, Supreme Court justices tend to be old. So a lifetime means, say, twenty years? (Much like a prison sentence, actually. Interesting.) How many really important civil liberties cases come up in twenty years?
 

---

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
It's a thought, twinky, but while I might (with a lot of hard work) persuade him to move somewhere else on the continent, no way he's moving somewhere that involves crossing an ocean.

Add to that the fact that we don't really agree politically, and well, I'm stuck.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Just how much damage can one man do in four years, in a nation founded on 'checks and balances?'"

Out of interest, which check and/or balance do you believe we have left?
 

---

Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
 
I will not put this behind me..nor advise others to. That has been the problem with the democrats. They keep putting things behind them and not speaking up enough. This time they need need to be extra vigilant and more vocal. They need to stand their ground and make it clear to people that there IS a difference between themselves and the republicans. We cannot just sit back and relax.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
No. It's not time to put this behind us.
Just the opposite really.
Now is the time to raise more hell than ever.
There HAS to be a system of checks and balances. That's just all there is to that. It would be disasterous even if my so-called side ran things completely...
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
*ponders what to do...leave it behind or rant some more*

*sigh*
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
KoM, precedents set in the Supreme Court last a lot longer than the terms of individual judges.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

No. It's not time to put this behind us.
Just the opposite really.
Now is the time to raise more hell than ever.

---

quote:

---

Just how much damage can one man do in four years, in a nation founded on 'checks and balances?

---

<points to last four years>
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Hmm... we havne't talked about how this result is going to impact Canada, twink. Clearly we should get on that.
 

---

Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
 
No. I will not STFU. Not for you...not for anyone. This election is not a mandate for this president and I hope my party does not allow that 'spin' to occur.

I'd hope that the democratic base would stay energized..not slink away in defeat and have their voice buried in an avalanche of right-wing radio gloating.

We need to stay vocal and keep hope alive.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Oh well, I tried. Time to go to work now.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

Hmm... we havne't talked about how this result is going to impact Canada, twink. Clearly we should get on that.

---

• The Patriot act will begin to affect the rights of Canadians and our government will do nothing other than renew and strengthen its own version of the Patriot act, which is already in place.
• More Canadians like Maher Arar will be deported to places like Syria by the US, and, as usual, our government will do nothing for fear of offending the US.
• Bush will continue to talk free trade while practicing protectionism and screwing us on steel, softwood lumber, beef, and anything else he can think of.
• Canadian oil companies will make a f*@$ing mint. The Canadian government will regret, intensely, its ill-advised decision to sell its Petro-Canada stock.
• Canada will get on its knees and... well, anyway. We'll sign on to the Star Wars thing.
• The government will allow foreign ownership of water rights, at which time the United States will promptly buy up all of our water.

 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Recommendations for those of us on the losing side of this election:

1) Get the venting out of your system as quickly as you can. This is not something to "Move away" from.

2) Find a better party to be part of. If you can't find one, start one. The Democrats are on the losing end of a failing political system/machine in this country. There were plenty of disaffected voters on both sides of this issue.

3) Rise above this and start something positive.

Carping from the sidelines hasn't helped us. We should take a page from the start of the GOP back in Lincoln's time. When a party becomes untenable, get rid of it.

Let's start fresh with some basic principles that aren't undermined by the two party system.

And, frankly, the majority of the voters in the country chose Bush and gave the GOP stronger control of both houses.

They have 2 years before that is even challenged again, an 4 years before any opposition party/parties could make a difference in those numbers.

So, what we have to do is decide what we want next time and build toward it.

And, in the meantime, convince a majority of voters that our ideas really will work.

Complaining isn't going to get anyone's vote.

So take a deep breath, honor the election results, and work harder to convince others that you have a better idea...

That's the only American response to losing an election.

[ November 03, 2004, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
Not a mandate? 3.5 million popular vote margin. Pick ups in the house. Major pick ups in the senate including a victory over the Dem's leader?

Total Mandate.

The fact that Kerry hasn't surrendered yet just shows what a small man he is.

[ November 03, 2004, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The other thing to do is to start becoming active on issues that particularly concern you. Right your Senators and Representative about the gay marriage amendment, or tax policy, or the war in Iraq.

It's not that the one letter will necessarily change anything. But it will help make it clear that neither party's policy package is 100% correct.

When every issue is portrayed as a bright dichotomy, it's easier for one party to deflect any attack by moving discussion to an issue on which that party is stronger.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
That comes down to only about 51-48%. There's not much more mandate in that than there was a mandate for Gore in 2000.

Basically, what it comes down to is that part of the country (the same part as before apparently) is Bush territory and part is Kerry territory. The trouble is, as a newcomer Kerry probably had a shot at uniting the two. There really is no reason to unite behind Bush, though - unless he goes back, apologizes for his mistakes, and completely changes course (which ain't gonna happen.)
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Pixiest, doesn't that much spinning in placemake you want to vomit?

I know it makes me want to...

Percentage wise is what matters...more people voted in this election than ever before, so more people voted AGAINST bush than ever before too.

Don't forget that.

Kwea
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
* The Patriot act will begin to affect the rights of Canadians and our government will do nothing other than renew and strengthen its own version of the Patriot act, which is already in place.

This point is even more depressing for the fact that it would have happened regardless of who won South of the border. It isn't so much American values impacting us as it is not enough Canadians are paying attention to what's going on up on the Hill.

* More Canadians like Maher Arar will be deported to places like Syria by the US, and, as usual, our government will do nothing for fear of offending the US.

Yeah. This I do agree with. You know how much I loathe G. Bay and the laws that allow the US to apprehend whoever they want and hold them without due process (while we have the same ones here you can only be held for three days, at which point you're released or charged).

* Bush will continue to talk free trade while practicing protectionism and screwing us on steel, softwood lumber, beef, and anything else he can think of.

Yes, he will continue to do this. And I'll hate him for it. But you do have to realize that his platform was much less protectionist than Kerry's and his rule has been less protectionist than Clinton's. The issue of trade is, I think, the biggest reason to prefer Bush to Kerry from a Canadian perspective.

* Canadian oil companies will make a f*@$ing mint. The Canadian government will regret, intensely, its ill-advised decision to sell its Petro-Canada stock.

Again, this would have happened regardless. And who the hell advised that? I mean, really? What were they thinking? It absolutely boggles my mind.

* Canada will get on its knees and... well, anyway. We'll sign on to the Star Wars thing.

I'm still holding out for some sense. We haven't signed on yet and maybe Martin will have the balls to tell the US to shove those missiles up their... well, anyway, that we won't sign on. My biggest hope here is that as the gulf between Canada and the US widens in both domestic and foreign policies we'll be less and less likely to just do whatever the US tells us to. While I think it's sad that our national identity wavers between "We're the polite and morally superior US" to "We're not the US" I think more distance between our two countries is paramount. And something like this, which in no way, shape or form lines up with Canadian values, should be laughed at given the scorn it deserves. We don't want nukes, but space rockets are Ok?

* The government will allow foreign ownership of water rights, at which time the United States will promptly buy up all of our water.

Again, this would likely have happened regardless of who the president was. It'll be an interesting one, because I suspect that Canadians will fight it tooth and nail.

***

Anyway, like most people I've talked to, it's not the man behind the country that's scary, it's the country itself that frightens us.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Bush has no mandate. But, he is President with 55 Senators and a decent House lead. His policy preferences will be dominant.

And Bush clearly has far more electoral (not Electoral) credibility than Gore did in 2000 - only 0.51% separated Bush and Gore. Counting just Bush, Kerry, and Nadar in the totals this year, Bush is 3.1% ahead. A significant difference, although nowhere near mandate level.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
Bush got more votes than anyone in history. He got better than 51% of the vote, which Clinton never did. He got 7 times the popular vote margin than Gore had in 2000 that I've heard endless harping on for the last 4 years.

Face it. It's a Mandate.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
There's no such thing as a mandate when you're a sitting president who can barely get half the country to do a better job than a guy most of them hadn't heard of two years ago.

I wouldn't even start considering an election a mandate until the winner was getting around 55%.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Nah, ThePixiest, it's proof that if ya select voting machines on which the votes can't be counted, anyone can be elected.

[ November 03, 2004, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I suppose if you define "mandate" to mean "simple majority" instead of "overwhelming agreement," just so you can insist that almost every president in American history had a "mandate" when elected, then Bush indeed now has a "mandate." But personally I would prefer that the word retain some meaning.
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
Is that the only point you have a contintion with Tom? Cuz if it is, it's still a mandate.
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
aspectre: So you lose and cry cheater. Grow up.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Is that the only point you have a contintion with Tom? Cuz if it is, it's still a mandate."

Um? Which point? That I contend that a "mandate" should in fact be something other than a slim majority, and that the term is absolutely meaningless if we use it as a replacement for "slim majority?"

I'm not sure how it CAN still be a mandate in that situation, Pix, since I'm challenging your definition of the term.
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
Because it's not just a 3% victory at the polls. It's the gains in the house and senate and the victory over Tom Daschle. Not JUST the president won last night but the people he supported.

This also showed that when ALL America votes the choice is clear. That "Get Out The Vote" efforts are really nothing more than attempting to stack the deck.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
I think that some of the big money democrats in California should start funding movie production or whatever, in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Iowa. Then quietly start hiring Democrats from states like Kansas, Texas, and Utah to start moving to those states to work those new jobs and vote in the next election.

Or Democrats from those states should start moving there on their own if they can find work. Staying in states with overwhelmingly Republican populations isn't helping anyone. Especially when you consider how many Democrats don't even bother to vote in those states because they know it won't make a difference. They need to move to a state where it will make a difference.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Except that those people also won by fairly slim margins, Pixiest. What this shows is that a very slim majority of the country prefers a Republican view of the world -- and specifically, the evangelical Christian view of the world.

I'm not sure how you get "mandate" from that.
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
Yes, the evengelical christian vote came out in force, but really now, it's not fair that the dems get ALL the ignorant vote.

And a lot of slim margins going the same direction make a lot of votes Tom. You can't spin your way out of this and continue to split the country.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Continue to split the country? What this shows, Pix, is that the country IS firmly split, almost across the board, at around 52/48. You are attempting to say that the four percent difference there represents a clear "mandate;" I am pointing out that it does not in fact do so.

In fact, I would suggest that saying it DOES -- that marginalizing the 48% which disagrees -- splits the country more effectively than acknowledging that significant dissent exists.

[ November 03, 2004, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
 
The 'ignorant' vote?!? Oh please!

Now if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
You should have seen it here (in Canada, Toronto) people rooting for Kerry, calling the democrats "us" and "we" groaning as the numbers came in, asking why, why why.

It was quite a phenomenon.

Now we're just waiting for the female black lesbian atheist to stand in Bush's place.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
She was pretty much calling the pot and the kettle black.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
You mistake my meaning, ThePixiest, "It's like I told DougJ a long time ago, an election is war by other means: ballots instead of bullets. And deceit, deception, and dirty tricks have always been a legitimate part of war."
I also told DougJ that not being able to outfox the loyal opposition is sufficient proof that one could not deter a true enemy. That being a given, it's also very self-deceptive&self-destructive to insist that politics is a clean sport just because the current election is over.

[ November 03, 2004, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 

---