Let me clarify the previous post where I tell people to "grow up" and "get some class." I was not criticizing those who are pissed about the loss; I understand this and I certainly am not too happy with the political situation here. Griping is great. But...

It hurts me to see people who claim they want to "leave the nation" because of a president. I realize that it's said half in jest, but there is some underlying truth that people believe that would be better off in another country.

Are you really even debating disavowing your allegiance because of a legitimately won election? Are you just going to tuck tail and run because Kerry didn't win? The problem today is that there are far too many "bandwagon" voters (me included). I can guarantee you that all those who are most vocal about Bush winning will do absolutely nothing about it until the next election where they will vote for "the other candidate" (assuming Bush manages to get a successor as the GOP's candidate). They will continue to let the GOP control the House and Senate. People expect one round of voting in a critical election year to fix everything when our system requires more gradual change. The point of the matter is that GOP voters have been coming out year in and year out to give more and more control the GOP year in and year out. As I have said before, the real worry right now should NOT be Bush as President, it should be the increasingly conservative legislative branch (Congress) that should be the worry. The GOP has positioned itself in a way to not only dominate executive and legislative politics, but ALSO the judiciary branch (with up to 3 Justices retiring!), and for those of you who don't like it... you only have yourself to blame.

The GOP has been slowly gaining control in the Congress and Senate for almost a decade and a half now. Vitalizing the support base for one election is not going to do much. If you hate the political climate here, you're going to have to go out and vote in every election and make sure you remain an informed citizen even when it's not an election year.

What a lot of people forget is that the American political system is geared to hear the voices of American voters. And the majority of voters in America felt Bush was the better candidate. I realize that most of America probably made an uninformed decision when voting (this goes for both camps, I've seen idiocy on both sides), but I can guarantee you that every single person who voted in the election thought they were doing the right thing. Nobody wants Iraqis to suffer. Nobody wants the world to go to sh'it. I think it is the general optimism of the American people who got Bush elected.

A study of pollers showed that the economy was not a huge issue when voting. Americans, although we want a better life, are not entirely self-absorbed. We have an optimism that we can make a better world; this sometimes translates into arrogance for the rest of the world, but it's just who we are. Sure, we're a flawed people in believing this, but it's just who we are.

So don't hate people cause they voted Bush. To say they were mindless lackeys who were unduly influenced by TV commercials is an insult to those who voted for him with their heart.

. . .

So some random thoughts regarding the Democrats: Boy they really screwed things up. This election was practically waiting on a silver platter to be picked up ... and guess who is to blame? That's right ... the "youth vote!" I was watching some news channel (I kept flipping between NBC, CNN, and MSBNC) where the report summed it up quite well (I'm paraphrasing): "There was a lot of high expectations within the Kerry camp that the high youth turnout would swing the election... but when election day came, the youth vote didn't show up." (Typical slackers that we are!) Statistically, the same pct of voters showed up in the 2000 elections as the 2004 elections in the 18-26 demographic.

Of course, I also think that Kerry was a horrible choice for President. The Democrats, in general, have been lacking a party message for quite some time. Under Clinton they did have a vision and a goal that they were driving to (a balanced budget, health care for all). What did the Democratic Party stand for in this election? Anybody can tell you what the Republican Party stood for in this election ... but the Democrats simply didn't have a message.

Most of America is not educated. To them, what they want to hear is a consistent message. Bush telling them over and over again that the War on Terror was being won (whether or not it is true) and that Iraq was the right decision ... it gave a consistency to his message. Even if they are wrong, most of America will not recognize this because they don't listen to the liberals.

This is sometimes called the "Echo Chamber" effect. It's basically a limitation of social networks that you're often going to socialize with people of similar thinking: The liberals online were all circle-jerking their views thinking that there was no way anyone would vote for Bush. Come election day they got a nasty surprise, and because of the Echo Chamber effect, the liberals kept blasting away their "rightful" message thinking that the world was clearly agreeing with them. Sure, some of the points were valid, but they were not done in a diplomatic way that would appeal to the common Joe.

So while the liberals were all chatting with each other talking about how Bush was finally going to be out of office, the conservatives were actively going out and sending a message to the common Joe that Bush had a clear message and that your security was better off with him... Kerry was simply just going off criticizing Bush on everything that is going wrong. And nobody likes a Negative Nancy.

So anyways, the Democratic Party is completely screwed. I think this is one of the historical firsts, but the minority leader was unable to secure his own Senate seat ... the Democrats have no clear leaders and they've pretty much lost (in this round anyway) any power within the federal government. So what's up for them in 2008? They need a solid candidate to make a showing ... but who will it be? Barack Obama? (No, sorry .. not going to happen) Hillary Rodham Clinton? (Possibly) Whoever the Democrats pick, they NEED to make sure the party has a clear message and a clear idea to send to the American people. The lesson from this election is that criticisms of an incumbent is not the way to go.

It seems clear to me that Clinton did absolutely nothing for the Democratic party. As popular as he was with the common people, the Democratic party was in the exact shape when he left prior to when he came in: confused. If Clinton were a "great" leader, I think the Democrats would of actually been a reckoning force.

They say the best way to test the worth of a "great" CEO is how the company functions after he leaves. If a company cannot function after a CEO leaves, then he has failed his duty. This is the reason why Jack Welch (GE) is considered one of the greats... not only did he do a great job while the CEO, but he managed to make the transition to Jeffrey Immelt smooth ... and now Immelt is actively managing one of the largest companies in the world with no problem.

Let's see if Bush can secure his legacy.

. . .

Oh yeah, I just cannot resist gloating on just ONE issue: This post sums it up well... "I'm glad bush won, mostly because I so loathe michael moore and it is wonderful to see him fail in his attempt to subvert the political process."

Thank god Michael Moore was put back in his place; I have a feeling he actually hurt more than helped.