Uh, yeah, that's what I was trying to say, just with less words.

CG is Cerveloguy.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I really wished I lived in your world where everything was just white sandy beaches. :)

It's too expensive out here. We disagree on Iraq. Having had the experience of living and serving over in that part of the world, I'm sure you can at least see where I'm coming from. Some days I'm really of the mind that we should have invaded the whole Middle East, killed all their leaders, and forced the population to covert to Christianity.

Then the nurse brings me thorazine, and all is right again.

You're going to believe what you want to believe, and I'm going to believe what I believe. Until the cogency of your argument is sufficient enough to sway me, we'll keep on disagreeing about this matter. Apparently I landed in with almost 58 million other voters who saw something in Bush, or something in Kerry, for that matter, that made them stay with the Prez.

They didn't vote for the guy out of some lack of courage, though. That's yet another fantasy that libs seem to be conjuring up to explain away an election in which a President got a majority, not a plurality, of the popular and electoral votes AND increased his party's numbers in the Senate and House of Representatives, which is something no Democrat since Roosevelt has done, and certainly not Bill Clinton.

In fact, most political experts tie the congressional Republican resurgence to the '94 mid-terms, when the Dems lost control of the House for the first time in decades. If the Tip O'Neill saying about all politics being local is true, then even at the grassroots level the Dems got it stuck to them. No easy way for them to explain it, I imagine.

K

Read this guy's article. It's from yesterday's CNN.com Maybe he knows what he's talking about. I don't know, myself, if I do anymore.

Carlos Watson:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Whether you are a Democrat, a Republican or an independent, it is hard not to look at President Bush's re-election victory last week and conclude that he is probably one of the three or four most talented politicians of the last half of a century.

Why do I write that? Think about it. In 10 short years, George Walker Bush has won not just one but three high-profile political races that most able politicians would have lost.

In 1994, with no real previous political experience, he beat a popular incumbent governor in the nation's second most populous state. Six years later, he beat a sitting vice president during a time of peace and prosperity. And last week, with a mediocre economy, an unpopular war and a well-funded and unified opposition, he not only won his race but also helped increase Republican majorities in the House and Senate.[/url][/url] Rove not the only reason

Many people will point out that Bush has enjoyed advantages that most people never dream of -- inherited wealth, a famous family name, unbelievable connections and multiple second chances. But while those are legitimate critiques, the reality is that FDR's sons never won the presidency; there never was a David Eisenhower administration; and Ronald Reagan's kids have never inspired much political fear.

Others will write that Karl Rove deserves much or all of the credit. But do you really believe that you can beat former Texas Gov. Ann Richards, Vice President Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry just by being a "puppet"? Sure, Rove helps -- as all savvy advisers do. Remember Dick Morris, Lee Atwater and Michael Deaver?

Politics is as much about the person as it is about the process. It is a tough, intense game, and the candidate has to be up to the fight. If not, he will eventually fail -- if not against Richards, then against Gore; if not against Gore, then against Kerry.[/url][/url] Five Bush qualities

Instead of just crediting his family name or Rove, Bush's extraordinary political success is probably owed to at least five key things: (1) great political fundamentals, including an ability and willingness to raise large sums of money; (2) an ability to propose a clear, coherent and easily understandable policy agenda (e.g., "compassionate conservatism"); (3) an ability to attract, manage and retain a strong team of advisers (e.g., Rove, Ken Mehlman, Ed Gillespie, Karen Hughes, Matthew Dowd and others); (4) a willingness to go for the jugular -- repeatedly and without remorse (e.g., the "flip-flopper" label, gay marriage issue, South Carolina primary in 2000); and perhaps most important (5) a willingness to take a risk repeatedly (e.g., targeting Democratic Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle for defeat, offering a Social Security overhaul plan proposal, relying and counting on an evangelical turnout plan).

I write all of this not to rubber-stamp the president's political tactics or policies, but to say that if you are a serious observer of politics, it is worth your time recognizing a rare political talent when it is in your midst. Indeed, such talents do not come along very often -- Bill Clinton in 1992, 1996 and again in 1998-99; Reagan -- not just from 1980-88 but also from 1976-80 (his years in the wilderness between presidential campaigns); JFK as a candidate during his 1960 campaign; and LBJ for his legislative successes from 1963-66.[/url][/url] The bigger picture

While Bush's re-election victory was a significant one, perhaps just as noteworthy is the reality that his second-term presidency may ultimately emerge as the most consequential four years since LBJ's only full term 40 years ago.

Given the big issues in front of him, his significant "political capital" (as he puts it), his proven ability to get legislation through Congress and now his increased Republican strength in the House and Senate, the president has an opportunity to make some of the most significant -- some would say radical and unjust -- policy changes in the last four decades.

From Social Security, the Supreme Court and taxes to education, the environment and the United Nations, Bush may make significant departures from established U.S. policy during the next four years -- and thus, absent illness, scandal or major surprise, his second term may one day be regarded as the most consequential presidency in two generations.[/url][/url] Democrats and policy

Before criticizing the Democrats or Kerry too strongly, it is worth remembering that if out of the 115 million-plus voters nationwide, some 70,000 had switched sides in Ohio last week, we would be trumpeting President Kerry instead of President Bush. We would be discussing the groundbreaking miracle of a Catholic, a senator and a Northeastern liberal winning the presidency against a talented and well-funded wartime commander. But as my father taught me long ago, life is a game of inches, and so once again Bush won a difficult presidential election.

In analyzing the 2004 Democratic effort, many political observers will focus on "MMC": the messenger, the message and the campaign. Many of those critiques are likely to be right on. Kerry could have been a more charismatic and enjoyable candidate; Democrats should have had a clearer policy message -- a brand so to speak; and the campaign's television ads and get-out-the-vote effort could have been better.

But one critique that you may not hear is that the next Democratic candidate needs to love policy more. What do I mean? I mean that one of Kerry's real weaknesses may ultimately have been that he did not seem to love policy broadly and know what he wanted to do -- separate and apart from the political strains of the moment or the polls. And so when he discussed creating jobs, fixing the situation in Iraq or helping kids improve their education, the talk sounded to undecided or uninspired voters like just that -- talk. It did not sound concrete and real to many voters (including more than 80 million people who were eligible to vote but did not cast a ballot for Bush, Kerry or anyone else last week).

Part of that may be because while senators create new programs and guidelines, they do not implement them. They often do not see firsthand the jobs being created or destroyed, the list of parks to be cleaned up across a state or the number of new courses the state universities will offer this year. But governors do see such things.

Now that does not mean that any governor is automatically better than any senator as a presidential candidate. But it does mean that the most effective presidential candidates love policy, think deeply and broadly about it, and can personalize it as well. So as the Democrats head into 2008, they would do well to find not only a politically talented candidate or a candidate who just happens to go to church, but a policy-talented candidate whose ideas as well as her or his image and manner will connect with voters.

George W. Bush, Clinton and Reagan all did that.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

big i second your stand. Just a tidbit from a good friend in the military (nat guard) . He is headed out for his second tour overseas. First in AFG. this one will be in the shit in iraq. He told me the reason bush sent troops to iraq was to draw out the terroist freelancers and get them fighting in someone elses country instead of planning attacks on us here in the us. he believes their time will be used fighting our finest. Im not sure this is the best way but so far we have had no attacks on home soil. I think i see the logic behind this and so far it seems to have worked. What is our military really for , fighting right? i personally think so. I just get scared that all of our attention is focused on the wrong site.

It may be focused on the wrong site, I'm not enough of a strategist to figure that one out. Some very smart people here think it is, but we'll have to wait and see what bears out, I guess.

For what it's worth, I don't think we'll be able to prevent another attack on our soil forever. After all, we have be right 100% of the time, and they've only got to be right 1% of the time. I can live with that, but I get worried that some of my fellow citizens won't, and that we'll go all squishy and give up. This is the biggest reason I voted for Dubya, because I just didn't believe that Kerry or the Dems have it in them, as yet, to carry on a serious national defense.

Serving the last 8 of my 21 years in the military under President Clinton, I mainly observed a ping-ponging and lack of focus in the use of military force. We did a good enough job in Serbia, but we've still got troops sitting over in Bosnia (we haven't completely disengaged and handed over 100% of the task to the Europeans), and I think Bush has rightfully stayed the course. In this instance, I think a President Gore would also have cut and ran. Sorry, but that's what I think.

To be fair, Bush 41 handed Clinton the Somalia situation, but he and Les Aspin didn't do a sterling job in managing our exit strategy from that situation and it certainly looked as if we tucked tail and ran from there, too, eventually. Here's what I've seen since I first went in (turn on the waaaaaay back machine to '78 ;-)

President Carter (Democrat)

1979: Carter allows Shah of Iran to be deposed. Later, Muslim "students" storm our embassy in Iran and take the staff hostage. Carter retaliates by canceling Iranian visas. We then have a hugely disasterous military operation crash and burn around our ears in the Iranian desert.

President Reagan (Republican)

1981 (Inauguration Day) All American hostages at the Embassy released.

1982: U.S. Embassy in Beirut is bombed by Islamic fundamentalists, Reagan sends in Marines to try and separate warring factions (Christian Phalangists, Druze, Shia, Sunni militias, Syrian troublemakers, PLO types etc. You name 'em, they were there)

1983: Marine Barracks blown up by Islamic fundamentalists. Dems in Congress go all squishy and come up with a resolution demanding our troops' withdrawal. Reagan caves in an election year and withdraws troops. But not before bombing some Syrian-controlled areas in the Bekka Valley. The Dems wail about that one, too. I was with a MAG unit on the other side of town when the Barracks got hit. Tough days over there, for sure.

1985: The Achille Lauro cruise ship is taken over by yet another militant Muslim fundamentalist group. They kill one American Jew (Leon Klinghoffer) and throw his body overboard. Later, the ringleader is heard to remark "maybe he tried to swim for it". Klinghoffer was elderly and wheelchair-bound. After the terrorists are given safe passage, and were being flown to safety on an Egyptian Air 737, fighter jets from Navy carriers stationed in the Med force the plane down at the joint US/Italian NATO base at Sigonella, Sicily. The terrorists were taken off the plane and turned over to the Italians, who then released them to Iraq. Duh.

1986: A disco in W. Berlin is bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan embassy. This attack kills an American serviceman (the disco was heavily frequented by Army troops). About 10 or so days later, Reagan orders an attack against Libya. France, naturally, refuses us the use of their airspace, so most of the F-111s and some other long-range bombers have to leave from bases in Great Britain and fly around and through the Straits of Gibraltar. The Americans bomb Khaddafi's residence, killing an adopted daughter, and also dropped a bomb on the French embassy. By "mistake" ;-) On the return leg, one F-111 crashes into the Med, taking both crewmen down with it.

Regan also played Iran and Iraq against each other, and won the final victory over the Soviet Union.

President Bush the First ("Moderate" Republican)

1988: Pan Am flight 103 was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim fundamentalists. Darn, there go those pesky Islamic types again ;-) President-elect Bush vows to continue Reagan's policy of retaliation against terrorism, but immediately goes soft. Without Reagan to back her play, Margaret Thatcher also goes wobbly, stating that there'd be no revenge for the bombing.

1990: Saddam invades Kuwait.

Early-1991: Bush and the coalition goes to war against Iraq the way John Kerry would have liked: with UN approval, and all of our "allies". Still, even though the "Global Test" was met, a majority of Democrats, including John Forbes Kerry, oppose the war. They demand that we stop before rolling up Baghdad. But then, after 9/11, they all complain that Bush didn't "finish the job" with Saddam. Duh.

President Clinton (Democrat)

1993: The World Trade Center is bombed by Mohammad and the rest of the boys. They kill 5 people and injure hundreds. Clinton treats the matter as a criminal justice issue, rounds up as many of the guys as possible and throws them in jail after lengthy trials. Still, no attempt is made at retaliating against their backers, or even finding out who their backers were.

1993: In Somalia, in October, 18 American troops are killed in a night and day-long firefight in Mogadishu. The corpse of one of the troops is dragged through the streets as all the Somalians cheered. Clinton retaliates by......ordering all of our troops home. Osama bin Laden later relates to an ABC news crew that "our men knew, more than before, that the Americans were nothing more than paper tigers, and after a few strikes, ran in defeat". Not exactly true (we did kill something like 1,000 or more of the bad guys), but you see where this is going, right?

1995: Five Americans are killed by a car bomb in Saudi. Again, those little stinkers, the Muslim fundamentalists, are pegged as the culprits. Clinton does nothing. Preferring once again to send in the FBI and treating it as a criminal justice issue. The Saudis, naturally, refuse to allow FBI interrogation of suspects etc.

1996: The Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi is bombed by Muslim extremists (I was wearing out the term "fundamentalists", so I figured I'd changed the wording a little). Clinton does nothing.

1996: Saddam attacks Erbil, which is a Kurdish-controlled city. Much death, and Clinton retaliates this time. Yeah, he lobs in some cruise missles and bombs from a B-52 strike. But they land hundreds of miles away from Saddam, it appears.

1997: Iraq refuses to allow UN weapons inspectors to do their jobs and threatens to shoot down one of our U2 spy planes. Bupkiss from the Clintonistas.

1998: Clinton threatens Iraq with a bombing campaign. UN says no, so Clinton calls it off.

1998: August. In a brilliant tactical blow, OBLs boys manage to blow up TWO U.S. Embassies, in Kenya and Tanzania. Again, this being a Clinton operation, the FBI is rushed in to handle it as a criminal investigation and nothing really becomes of it. It's only since 9/11 that we've begun getting at the goons who did this, and in fact, have the ringleader in our custody.

1998: August 20th. Clinton uses cruise missles against Afghanistan (in an effort to hit OBLs terrorist training camps) and the Sudan, which manages to hit a camel and an aspirin factory, apparently. Coincidentally, this is the same day Monica Lewinsky goes before the grand jury to testify.

1998: December 16th. Clinton orders major airstrikes against Iraq. About time. Again, it's just coincidence that the House of Representatives prepares to impeach him the next day.

1999: Clinton bombs the hell out of Serbia, a country which was fighting Muslim radicals in Kosovo. Good intentions, but you have to admire the surrealism of the fact that we end up going to war against a country in support of Muslims being oppressed by Serbians.

2000: The USS Cole is bombed in port in Aden, Yemen. Muslim troublemakers again, it seems. Clinton didn't seem to be able to do anything in retaliation, though, and again, it's only been since 9/11 that these gomers have been rounded up and tried. A couple of them are now awaiting fulfillment of their death sentences in Yemen.

President George Bush, II (Republican)

After 7 month of being in office and on 9/11, 3,000 people are killed in the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. Those naughty Muslim fanatics again :-(

Since 9/11, Bush has won wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, captured Saddam Hussein, put OBL on the run and immobilized his al-Qaeda organization so that it hasn't been able to hit American targets since, and begun the process of creating the only functional democracy in the Middle East, outside of Israel. And in almost every step of the process, Democrats opposed it. Wait, I take that back...they did support Afghanistan. And then immediately complained about it and said it would be a Vietnam-style quagmire. And of course, John Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it. And the Democrats have pretended to be outraged that Bush didn't do, in the months before 9/11, everything that they've been opposed to doing since 9/11.

Now you know why I don't trust Dems with national security.

(props to Ann Coulter for the majority of the timeline work I used)

K

"Uh, yeah, that's what I was trying to say, just with less words."

Did I call anybody an idiot? I'm much more diplomatic than that.

Thanks. That sort of answer I was looking for. Now I go to bed (here its about 2:30am) and hope to find more like this tomorrow.


Cheers Torsten

Wouldn't you say "hoser' anyway, eh?

;)

---

_______________________________________________

I thought Bush II also handled the sensitive issue of the downing of a US spy plane by a Chinese Mig very well. Using diplomacy I might add. However its easier to reason with a place or person that has some sort of survival instinct.

Americans, by nature, are very independent. We value our freedom and where I live in the Western US the attitude here is even more so that way. We are American first and vigorously defend our way of life. Many people in the West see Europe and its culture a threat in the same way you see American culture a threat. Many of us are not internationalist, we believe that we should make our decisions based on what is happening here, not what Europe wants.

That said, that isn't to say that some sentiments from Europe are not reasonable or that Europeans are right and Americans are wrong. For 59 million people we believe that despite mistakes made by GB that John Kerrry's internationlist tilt is just too much. In addition, Americans, unlike much of Europe, still hold Christian values at our core. I am not one of the religous "fanatics" or even very religous but I do happen to agree with much of what religous America thinks. Right now there is a culture war with in the US between those who hold those values dear and those who want to be more like Europe where all things are legal and accepted.

In short the reason Europeans like Kerry is he thinks like you. The reason 59 million Americans like Bush isn't because he has been right or hasn't made mistakes, it is because he holds the same values and beliefs.

Yup. Survival instinct does wonders. Turns out that hotrod MIG pilot was actually quite fond of American and Western culture. They think he was playing a game of chicken and just got too carried away, sadly for him.

No harm, no foul. The P3 got picked over by the Chinese, but the comm gear and crypto equipment is changed out easily enough, and that particular one wasn't state-of-the-art, anyway.

K

I wouldn't blame the Chinese for trying to copy a P3!

Yeah. Chances are, the Cervelo P3 is probably better made than the Lockheed P3 (just kidding) ;-)

K

"The best advice I can give you is don't even try to understand the others. They defy all rational thinking. "

Very diplomatic.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Europeans look at the world through their filter and we Americans look at the world through our filter. I sometimes wonder why blacks and whites in America don't often look at things the same way. The reason is that one groups experiences and history cause them to look at issues from an aspect that is different from the other group's point of view. That is why I think that trying to understand America from a European point of view probably won't work.

You need to understand that the majority of people living in America today or their ancestors came from somewhere else, and to a large extent from Europe. Why did they leave Europe? Because they didn't like it there, for some reason, and thought their lives would be better here. If they had liked it there, and wanted to continue living and thinking as Europeans, they would have stayed there.

My grandparents came over from Ireland because, as native Irish, they were tired of living under 600 years of English slavery. I think they probably enjoyed living in a country that was strong enough to never have to worry about being enslaved by another country. I do too. Living in fear from terrorists is actually a form of slavery, if you think about it. That is why we reacted as we did to 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.

Thanks for your explanation. Even though I disagree with most points it helps me understand your position. I promised not to argue but only to listen. Sorry if I`d like two make two remarks though.
You seem to have a quite optimistic opinion about the situation if Afghanistan and Iraq. From what we here in European media it looks much worse. Hope you´re right.
Sorry if I didnt make my point straight. I didnt say he should not pray. What scared me in this very situation was to pray instead of taking advises from experts. In generally I dislike the attitude of a leader guided by God. Half of the reason why may be a very european aspect. We`ve had many wars within the last centuries and usually God was (claimed to be) on either side. Guess that`s what makes this attitude suspicious. The second half of the reason is rather strategic though. If we want the war against terror to be won (and we should agree that we do) we should avoid everything that makes it look (through the eyes of the arabian people) like a crusade, like a war not against terror but against Islam. I dont care whether GWB believes in God but due to that aspect I consider it as non helping if he reasons (or even if it looks as if) his decisions by his believes.

Cheers Torsten

"What scared me in this very situation was to pray instead of taking advises from experts. In generally I dislike the attitude of a leader guided by God."

The President is a leader. He must make decisions. Constitutionally, he cannot "delegate" decision-making of this level to anyone. It rests on his shoulders alone. He did--and does--listen to the experts. But, "experts" are, more often than not, not in consensus. Therefore the president has to decide which "experts" are right and which "experts" are wrong and make the decision. He then asks God to give him the strength, courage, and wisdom to make the right decison.

My view on the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we need to judge their current situation on the right standard. I think that there are two.

One, are they better off than they were under Suddam Hussein and the Taliban. I think that the answer is yes. I think there is more room for disagreement on this standard in the case of Iraq than Afghanistan.

Two, how are these two countries doing when compared with other countries in similar positions. For example, we don't want to compare how they are doing with how western democracries do things now. Instead, we want to compare them both with how western democracies did when they were founded. France, for example, was executing people with great vigor during the terror that happened soon after it overthrew its monarchy and then became a dictatorship under Napoleon. Germany took a long time to go from being a collection of principalities to today, including a long detour into fascism. The United States had 150 years of experience with a variety of forms of somewhat democractic rule and the experience of Great Britain before it won its independence. Despite this, it still had a great deal to learn as it grew up. I don't know how things will ultimately work out in either country. We won't know if we were succesful for 50 years or more. We could learn that we failed much sooner than that.

As far as President Bush and praying goes, he was clearly receiving a great deal of advice from a number of "experts" regarding what to do. I think that praying for guidance in addition to considering that advice was a good thing as well.

Maybe this will help....

---

Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue

To win, you have to fight.

By Laura Kipnis

Posted Monday, Nov. 8, 2004, at 11:41 AM PT



The day after the election, Slate's political writers tackled the question of why the Democratic Party—which has now lost five of the past seven presidential elections and solidified its minority status in Congress—keeps losing elections. Chris Suellentrop says that John Kerry was too nuanced and technocratic, while George W. Bush offered a vision of expanding freedom around the world. William Saletan argues that Democratic candidates won't win until they again cast their policies the way Bill Clinton did, in terms of values and moral responsibility. Timothy Noah contends that none of the familiar advice to the party—move right, move left, or sit tight—seems likely to help. Slate asked a number of wise liberals to take up the question of why Americans won't vote for the Democrats. Click here to read previous entries.



What still seems most startling to me about the Republican victory is the strange fact that a majority of the American electorate was somehow induced to vote against its own economic interests. This is quite a feat. Bruce Reed points out that of 28 states with lowest per capita income levels, Bush carried 26. The percentage of the population that Bush's economic policies favor is minuscule. Why, despite an economic climate of stagnant wages, job loss, and an increasing income gap between rich and poor, does the middle class not vote its pocketbook?

The old left had a term for this kind of thing: "false consciousness," which meant the tendency to identify with the boss instead of your own class interests, or the way in which capitalism turns reality upside down to make it seem like the rich got that way through luck or skill instead of by sheer exploitation. These days, with millionaire faux populism as the political lingua franca, you'd get laughed out of town as an elitist for using such a hoary phrase. Instead we're treated to a lot of pseudo-explanatory language about "character" or "values," which supposedly accounts for the phenomenon of voters ignoring their own interests. Worse, liberal pundits are jumping on the bandwagon, too, hammering Kerry for not denouncing Janet Jackson's exposed breast or for having plans instead of "vision."

OK, so what exactly is this elusive all-important quality that Kerry supposedly failed to display? In a "Mood of the Electorate" piece last Thursday, the New York Times queried voters on this question, since so many said that character mattered more to them than the war or the economy. The story's closing paragraph featured a quote from Gene Hadley, a 79-year old Bush supporter from Ohio:

People say George Bush is a cowboy. Well, what's a cowboy but a guy in a white hat, getting things done for the downtrodden? People say he shoots quick. Well, listen, sometimes you have to do that, you have to be decisive. Kerry never projected that.

At the risk of sounding like one of those elitist urban Democrats who fails to understand the heartland: Wait a second, Mr. Hadley—what on earth has George Bush done for the downtrodden? What did cowboys do for the downtrodden? Perhaps Hadley was thinking of Robin Hood, whom our president also hardly resembles. At least by "shooting quick," we can assume what's meant is the war in Iraq, although that turned out to be a disaster of unprecedented proportion.

So how exactly are Democrats supposed to capture Mr. Hadley's vote, if what counts as "character" is an incoherent stew of old movies, frontier mythology, and political misinformation? They can't, which is why the Democrats lost this election a long time before the 2004 campaign even began.

Here's an interesting little factoid that I share at the risk of sounding, once more, elitist. (Sorry.) The United States ranks 14th out of 15 industrialized countries in per capita education spending. If we have an electorate incapable of thinking rationally about its own interests, who confuse politicians with old movie heroes, don't know much about history, and lap up the administration's lies about Iraq even after they've been repeatedly exposed as lies by the media, this might have something to do with never having been educated in the fundamental skills of critical thinking. (Note that Bush's much touted No Child Left Behind initiative, favoring rote learning and standardized testing, is the formula for an even more intellectually pacified and credulous electorate.)

But corporate America doesn't require an educated or critical citizenry. Quite the contrary. What it requires is a passive work force narrowly trained to perform specific occupations for decreasing wages, who will then overconsume lavishly in their leisure hours. It all works out rather well: Job dissatisfaction is placated by an endless succession of consumer crap (creating new jobs—though probably overseas—making more crap); intellectual boredom is assuaged by a steady diet of media crap (thanks to media deregulation); and any remaining critical stirrings are mollified by supersize portions of tasteless crappy food (thanks to an unregulated food industry). The result: a stupefied, overstuffed citizenry glued to pricey entertainment centers, whose national hobby is ridiculing Europeans for wanting shorter work weeks, resisting American imports, and denouncing the disastrous American policy in Iraq.

The political culture of a country doesn't only take place in voting booths. It's lodged in this network of intersecting social institutions and practices—education, media, religion, workplace dignity (or lack of it), even the kind of food we eat. And at every instance, Democrats have ceded the territory or never fought for it in the first place. Into this mix add the brand of superstitious and authoritarian religiosity now dominating American life. When it comes to religion, once again, the old left had a few interesting things to say. Someone, I'm a little hesitant to say who at the moment, once called religion the "opiate of the masses." In other words, a painkiller, and an indispensable one, given the degree to which social conditions force a population to live the impoverished lives that make these kinds of substitutes for meaning and fulfillment necessary.

Then let's add high unemployment and rampant job insecurity—useful techniques for stifling social demands and crippling whatever opposition a viable labor movement would provide. Stir in a climate of terror, which this administration has been particularly adept at milking. It's not just that voting for social progress becomes less likely under such circumstances, it's that even basic social demands start to seem threatening. The fact that a majority of the country has come to accept the persistence of vast social inequities in the face of unprecedented wealth doesn't make these conditions any less reprehensible.

It's not that Kerry didn't have a clear message—his message was clear enough. The Democratic defeat was a direct result of the party's ongoing unwillingness to contest the direction that national political culture has taken in an era of unregulated corporate triumphalism—and too bad for them, it's a direction that obviously resonates far more with a Republican than a Democratic agenda.

But what seems most tragic about the 2004 election is that apparently the more you take away from people—economic security, civil liberties, a semblance of political honesty from their politicians—the less they think they deserve. Which is exactly what the Republican Party offers. If Democrats lost the election by trying to offer more, the problem they're faced with now is understanding their own contributing role in fostering an electoral psychology that would reject the offer.

Laura Kipnis is a professor of media studies at Northwestern

I've been intrigued by the level of attention the Europeans put in our elections. From the knuckle heads in London thinking that a suggestion from them on who to vote for in Ohio would produce anything but an extended middle finger followed by a few choice words, or a vote for GWB. To the headlines of how 51+ million people could be so stupid.

To level the playing field, I live in the Midwest, and am one of the 'stupid' ones that voted for GWB. I have a masters degree in computer science, own a home, and am fairly successful. I don't attend church on a regular basis, and don't consider myself very religious, but grew up catholic. I don't agree with GWB on a lot of issues.

Why I voted for him;
1. I know what I'm getting when it comes to Bush. I had no clue what John Kerry was bringing to the table and had an out right cold chill to think that John Edwards would be one heart beat away from being the President.

2. I believe that John Kerry would have done or said anything to get into the Whitehouse. I don't believe Bush at el are angels either but Kerry has a 20 year track record of doing and saying things to appease the political powers of the moment.

3. Kerry is/was a very liberal dem. They have a tendency to add more social programs at the expense of the military. I don't think this is the time to be adding another welfare program, at the expense of national defense.

Its obvious that our choices in leadership have an effect on the rest of the world, but most Americans don't realize that or frankly don't care. I would say that the majority of the audience of the lavender room does know and to a degree cares. But that is a small subset of our 290 million. And even a small subset of triathletes. I have found in my reading in the last few weeks that Europeans are looking at it only from their one sided point of view. Why would we vote for a President that has compromised the security of Europe. For you to understand our decision you must look at all the factors of that decision and not the one that is only a factor to Europe.

We should do more to understand Europeans but conversely Europeans should do more to understand us.

I try to - thats why Im here. Still there are many things that seem strange to me. For example why is liberal always used as ...whats engl. for `Schimpfwort´? I thought the american dream was about freedom. And isnt it that, what liberalism is about, freedom to do whatever doesnt harm anybody else?

Cheers Torsten

"To Win You Have To Fight"? Excuse me while I stick my finger down my throat and induce an episode of vomitus.

I WISH the libs would show the same proclivity for fighting to defend the U.S., rather than always running it down as they do, as they show for trying to recapture that which they GAVE AWAY in the first place.

I know this may come as a big surprise to all those supposedly worldly and sophisticated citizens in the blue states, sitting in their sidewalk cafes, sipping an espresso and reading the New York TImes, but people, for the most part, aren't fools.

And most people are tired of liberal trafficking in shouting and demogogy. Instead of conviction from them, you get loud slogans like "Bush lied, kids died!", "racist!", "fascist!" and "Halliburton!" instead of any real feeling that there's something, SOMETHING, that they're willing to stand and fight, or even die, for.

And most people in the red states see that what liberals have mainly done for the past 40 years is become apologists for everything that seems to be turning our society into something not even resembling that which was idealized by the founders.

-They apoligize for late-term abortion, adultery and everything coarse and beastly in society (especially those "Survivor" episodes ;-) They're all for killing fetuses wholesale and also all for forcing the elderly to take the "Soylent Green" pill at the other end of life. Good lord.

- They give aid and comfort,through their constant back-biting and loud caterwauling, to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. And they once fawned over Stalin and Mao (you may be too young to remember, but a lot of us READ actual history texts), against their own country's leadership, just to win back the White House.

- It seems to many Americans, especially among the 59 million who voted for Bush, that liberals are constantly searching for the approval of people who want to harm America. They jump into bed with the PLO, cozy up to Islamofascists and generally scream their self-hating anti-Americanism from the highest moutaintops.

I mean, really.....what use have liberals in the Congress been over the last 10 years? It seems to me that libs have lately channeled their frustration over American military power and the ease with which Afghanistan and Iraq were toppled, into hysterical opposition against even the most reasonable security precautions here at home. Is it any wonder that people don't trust libs, and Democrats in general, to protect them from terrorists?

Here's how revisionist liberals and their Democrat brethren have become:

After Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt (a Democrat) rounded up thousands of Japanese-American citizens and threw them into internment camps. Wow. FDR and Earl Warren (former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) supported this internment with nary a peep. Hell, a Democrat-appointed Attorney General arrested about 6,000 people in response to the bombing of 8 government officials' homes back in the 20's. Now Roosevelt and Warren are revered and worshipped as literal Gods in the pantheon of Democratic theocracy.

In response to the worst terrorist attack in the history of the world, right here in the good old U.S. of A., John Aschroft detained fewer than 1,000 Middle Eastern immigrants, and Ashcroft had to face a far worse and more difficult task than Roosevelt ever did, as Roosevelt actually had a real, live country to fight against. Bush and Ashcroft, on the other hand, have had to somehow find a way to distinguish the bad guys hiding in a nation of 300 million people from the regular Joes. And get this; without Democrat-style internment camps and mass arrests, Ashcroft, and Bush's, carefully-tailored policies have prevented another terrorist attack for over three years since the 9/11 attacks.

And somehow Bush and Ashcroft have become the bad guys. Good god.

I can't write anymore just this moment. I have to go outside, stare at the mountains, take a deep breath of the flower-scented air and chant a mantra. Something like "ommmmmmm", "ommmmmmm".

Later!

Tony

The American dream is about freedom, and if you mean freedom to express yourself, self determination, religion.... I would say that most normal conservatives or liberals would agree that is part of what the american dream is.

Liberals, and more specifically the democratic party favor a larger strong central government that has most of the power and and say on what happens within policy on a day in day out basis. If you take that to the very extreme you get socializm or communism. In other words in the context of John Kerry, he believe the government is better suited to tax you and spend your money for the 'greater good' of the country.

Conservatives, specifically Republicans are in favor of a smaller central government and leaving more of the policy decision to the States. If you take that to the extreme, you can get forms of facism, and libertarianism. George Bush believes that you're a better judge of what to do with your money then the Government is. (although I agree with the tax cuts, most poeple are too small minded to invest their own money wisely or even just save it, that has been proven by our ability to run up personal dept to historic levels)

Hopefully I'm not sounding too condescending, if so I applogize, it wasn't my meaning.

Thanx for information. Its strange, since being liberal seems to have opposite meanings in Europ and America.

Cheers Torsten