maybe it's time to embrace the new America. To accept that we're a fundimentalist / facist state, and move on.

I'm afraid, however, for my 10 year old son. By the time he's 18, the draft ought to be on, and we ought to be completely isolated in the world.

His grandmother was born in Dublin. My understanding is that since she was an Irish citizen, my wife can become one easily. If once she is, her kids also can easily get and Irish passport, and her husband, if married over five years.

I'm going to be seriously looking into the Irish escape valve. Before it becomes illegal.

Wa Wa Wa. Better luck next time. I'm not sure what to say....I'm happy as a taxpayer that it looks like Bush will win.

Yeah, enjoy your tax cut while the nuclear weapons are going off.

ok by nuclear weapons I assume you are indicating Iran...you think kerry would handle Iran with more tact than Bush? I'm curious.

Your tax cuts won't mean shit when the bottom falls out of the U.S. economy. About the only good this to come out of this is that it's now a good time to invest in the Euro!

It ain't over. Ohio is still uncertain. Nevada is neck and neck, with possibly a Kerry lead. But now it looks like Iowa might be turning towards Bush.

As pro bush as I am i do think Edwards would have made it. I liked him. People are afraid of Kerry. We still don't know his plan, and it's scary when someones voting record is contrary to what he says. That's just too much uncertainty.

It would take a miracle in Ohio. Bush is up by 100K, with 250K to be counted, including a bunch of overseas ballots, which are mostly military. (And which, BTW, will take 11 days to count -- lovely.)

From my " group home" in SE PDX(that I DO NOT LIVE IN ......FROM THE SLANDEROUS POST,about my arrest record that I Don't have ,I think those who want to move north to Canada or France is a good idea,should start packing.

What is going to go wrong.........is it will be lawyers like a few that may post here, that will not accept what they teach or say they defend,
that being the constitution and the election process that was evident tonight.

Former white house guy David Gergen said it best tonight where the "Demorats" screwed up is some people think Traditional values like marriage,the idea that the first job of an elected official is protection and security of those who elected him are not ready to be kicked out for more "progressive" ideas.

Too the people who will rail against my post, the nation is at war, we didnt start it, no matter what you say.

The people, you people defend, really want not only to hurt us but eliminate us.....WHEN YOU PROGRESSIVES....PROGRESS TO UNDERSTAND THAT, I PREDICT A CLOSER, stronger undivided AMERICA.

the thing one costume is interesting.....at least you had the guts to wear it!

Former white house guy David Gergen said it best tonight where the "Demorats" screwed up is some people think Traditional values like marriage,the idea that the first job of an elected official is protection and security of those who elected him are not ready to be kicked out for more "progressive" ideas.

Congratulations on passing Measure 36. Now that the traditional families are finally protected from the “Demorats,” I am sure the divorce rate in Oregon will drop significantly, along with incidents of domestic and child abuse.

Edwards just made a live statement. "We've waited four years ... we can wait one more night."

Said the Dems would stick to their promise that "every vote counts" and "every vote is counted."

Sure "One" but if the count is for Bush, WHAT THEN?

Then the count is for Bush.

CORRECT........then I TAKE BACK ALL THOSE THINGS I SAID ABOUT YOU, AFTER YOU SAID ALL THOSE THINGS ABOUT ME.

Great piece from Nov 2003 on Edwards, Mr. Bog. The ABB mantra & strategy was not enough. A conviction of righteousness is not enough.

I am a fiscal conservative and social moderate (I am beyond tolerant, I am apathetic), which means I have every reason to vote AGAINST Bush, but little to vote FOR Kerry. But, Kerry is bland enough that I probably would have voted for him as the better of two mediocre candidates.

However, the rabid, pathological, and extremely vitriolic feeling incessantly displayed by the American Left, Europe, and large chunks of the media firmly drove me into Bush’s camp. He may be incompetent, and a bit too religious, but you people have made a point of displaying how unhinged you are. I can’t help but feel that if I am not Left wing enough for you, I might be the next witch you burn at the stake. Plus, you hated Reagan too, and if you hate Bush this much he must be doing something right.

And, by constantly claiming that the sky is falling, you eventually lose all credibility. It is like a used car salesmen that is constantly in your face about the car. Or, more acutely, people start to suspect that you have covered the walls of your home with tin foil to keep the aliens mind control rays out. You sound like part of the tin foil hat brigade. Don’t oversell something, or people figure they are being taken and leave.
You may have a point, but if you describe the point to me like a lunatic, I’ll assume your point isn’t valid.

A suggestion, tone the Hate down. You are driving the moderates away.

Never forget Orwell wrote 1984, because he was scared of the Left.
(In case you missed "Big Brother" standing in for "Uncle Joe" Stalin.)

.
.

Alright, bring on the usual responses about how I am stupid, how I am a bigot, about how “world hunger is my fault” because I don’t Hate like you Hate. Yawn.

I don’t Hate like you Hate.

That's actually funny. Read what you just wrote!

Evil Dave is right on point.

I voted for Bush because I could not stand the sanctimony of the pro-Kerry folks. I could have gone the other way (EASILY) but Kerry is such a big douche.

After weighing the bleats of those prodding me to vote for that ass, I reluctantly voted for the turd sandwich.

Try again in '08. Nominate a fiscal conservative/social liberal and I'll consider this dying party's options.

I voted for Kerry, but I don't think a Bush win is the end of the world.

Its dissapointing but not devestating.

Also, 51 percent of America is not Evangelical. Bush didn't win because of the Evangelical vote, he won because Kerry wasn't a strong candidate. He won because it is incredibly difficult to defeat an incumband war-time president.

Also, for my money, this is the best test for the Republican party ever. They claim all their policies work... Well, the next four years will tell us the truth.

My slick creep vibe went off when I saw Edwards in the debate. The coffee mug, arrogant look, the sip . . . it was too much. And then the film footage of the compact and the hair and makeup really made me cringe. When one article was talking about a scenario with Bush as Pres and Edwards as Vice, I felt sick. But I feel sicker with Bush/Cheney.

Jack, Saletan agrees with you.

http://www.slate.com/id/2109079/

Try again in '08. Nominate a fiscal conservative/social liberal and I'll consider this dying party's options.

Uh. Wha?

The notion of voting for a presidential candidate because you find his opponent's supporters sanctimonious or irritating would be hysterically funny to me if it weren't so unbelievably sad.

I've never heard people so bold in declaring that they vote based on nothing of substance. I suppose I knew there were people who voted that way, and it's just as well they admit it, I guess, but . . . wow, what a total abandonment of your responsibility in a democracy. Just amazing.

Obama in '08!

It would appear from this board that being a terrible writer is a symptom of supporting Bush and "moral issues".

"I don’t Hate like you Hate."

"That's actually funny. Read what you just wrote!"

Hating Hate isn't the same as Hating. :) Although if actions speak louder than words, then I assess the actions (of the Bush vote) as substantially more "hateful" than mere words fed up past the gullet with the Bush haters.

ABB & hating Bush was either not enough or, through those eyes, too much.

To whither now, and how?

It would appear from this board that being a terrible writer is a symptom of supporting Bush and "moral issues".

Former white house guy David Gergen said it best tonight where the "Demorats" screwed up is some people think Traditional values like marriage,the idea that the first job of an elected official is protection and security of those who elected him are not ready to be kicked out for more "progressive" ideas.

OK.I did not go to college...don't write that well, but you "progressives" failed commonsense,an what people will stand for just so long, and for that you got "whipped!> LEARN FROM IT!

Get off the issues and face reality, the people that dropped the WTC towers don't like a few things you support too and if they could..they would make it all too clear, that even you people would get it.

It would appear from this board that being a terrible writer is a symptom of supporting Bush and "moral issues".

Former white house guy David Gergen said it best tonight where the "Demorats" screwed up is some people think Traditional values like marriage,the idea that the first job of an elected official is protection and security of those who elected him are not ready to be kicked out for more "progressive" ideas.

OK.I did not go to college...don't write that well, but you "progressives" failed commonsense,an what people will stand for just so long, and for that you got "whipped!> LEARN FROM IT!

Get off the issues and face reality, the people that dropped the WTC towers don't like a few things you support too and if they could..they would make it all too clear, that even you people would get it.

Winning by 20 or so electoral votes is not getting "whipped." Winning by less than 2% of the popular vote is not getting "whipped." Both are indications of the deep, deep divisions in this country that may well tear it apart. And the ugly rhetoric that you spew out of your keyboard, Mr. Peek, is just another indication of that ugly divisiveness.

The left is going to have to recognize how a majority of people in this country feel. But more importantly, in the next four years, I hope the right also learns that a significant portion of the country (48% to 49% at last count) is in disagreement with its policies and directions. If neither side wakes up and smells the coffee that is reality, I am afraid of the results.

My Dear Hilsy...WHIPPED! GOT IT! WHIPPED

537 VOTES..WHIPPED......130,000 VOTES.....WHIPPED..20 PLUS ELECTORAL VOTES...WHIPPED.

Please my dear, "Progressives/libs", prove too us "bigots/rednecks/nazi's / winners, that you care about the country and look at what we can do together to survive all we have reaching out to destroy us no matter what the issue.....COME TOGETHER...OR WILL WILL ALL PAY.

Yet more vitriol. It saddens me. But gee, I'm not exactly surprised. And how do you suggest coming together? Let me guess, blindly follow without questioning? Is that patriotic?

Both sides must reach out. Not just one or the other. And yes, Mr. Peek, the one thing I will agree with you on is that if this does not happen we "will all pay."

This country was founded by people who questioned authority... And that is what I will continue to do, REGARDLESS of who is in office.

With the amount of hot words and ideas of either you're with us or against us that is floating around, I have to agree with Jack Bog, it's time to hunker way, way down. The way that the Bush campaign refused to acknowledge dissenting views, even expelling people from a rally down here in So Or for wearing tshirts stating "Protect our civil liberties" makes me very concerned about being a dissenter in the very near future. Yeah, I'm hunkering in for a long 4 year winter.

hilsy...lets not assume I follow blindly>

ASSUME...know the little "ditty" about assume??

Bush sucks on some issues, but the one that won this is the one Kerry "sucked!" TOO!

Its never gonna sink in, Bush 43 won this on security of the nation.polls, showed it.

To have all else, we must be safe....all the polls showed Kerry was crap. LETS START THERE.

Then all issues after that are debate topics in a manner that doesnt kill us.SORRY PEOPLE! ITS DIERECT, IN YOUR FACE FACT.

The nation is at war...doesnt matter who started it...it must be won....then all issues can be handled after that.

Mr. Peek:

I don't quite understand what you are saying. Perhaps if you used more capital letters and exclamation points, it might become more clear.

Sincerely,

I like hearing republicans bask in GW's victory. The joke is on us all - including them. Most of them have mushy reasons for supporting him, like that "they feel" he is better on security, or that he is trustworthy. Fair enough - we can base our vote on any reason. However, most GW voters don't realize, among other things, that 1) they (the poor and stupid people) lose more benefit from the tax cuts than their tax savings; 2) that we are living on a lot of borrowed money; 3) that they will bear the brunt of any war we fight; and 4) that they have the most to lose from social security privatization.

Even after they realize how bad they've been duped, they'll never admit it because that is contrary to human nature. I'm just waiting to buy up their property for cheap when they grow old and broke. Hahaha!

JUSTIN.....really sad.....you do not get it>

I'll bet you're "wounded" today, let me guess, RIGHT?

I held my hat in hand with you folks a couple of years ago, trying to seek a middleground on an issue of neighborhood safety over 400 kids in a grade school, I DONT DO THAT ANYMORE!

Hey everybody, take some deep breaths. The history of the United States shows that any jackass can be elected President, but the country survives. The next four years will neither result in a fascist state nor a nuclear wasteland. Some things will go well, some things will go poorly, and we will all get through it. That's the beauty of the system of checks and balances provided by the framers.

Jack Peek, I am banning you for a couple of weeks. On this blog, people don't shout at each other, and they stay on topic.

Dave Lister. I agree with you for the most part but I'd actually like to throw out the idea that maybe the system of checks and balances that the framers envisioned is potentially at its breaking point. The House of Representatives is virtually without competition thanks to re-districting. To become a United States Senator you have to first hit the Megabucks. Federalism is a convenient idea to the Federal government; some issues states' rights prevail, some they do not. The Court will get more partisan. Where, save the Senate's filibuster rule, are the checks and balances the Framers envisioned? As an example, has Mr. Bush vetoed one act of Congress? Was their a Congressional declaration of War to invade Iraq? I just throw that out for discussion.

Jack. Thanks again for the blog. I love it.

Three cheers for Jack Bog's Blog! Aside from hot water and sewage treatment, I will miss this blog the most when we slip into chaos.

Thank you, Jack, for banning Jack Peek. I was sickened to read his rambling disjointed vitriol. And by the way, Jack Peek, some of the smartest people I know didn't go to college, so that's no excuse.

Ken,
I think you make some good points but I'm wondering... when in American history were politics not partisan? When in American history did big money and commercial interests not have a major influence on politics? Is there really any difference between Haliburton no-bid contracts and Teapot Dome? George Bush got us into a war in Iraq over non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Lyndon Johnson got us into the escalated Viet Nam war over a trumped up attack on our ships by non-existent gunboats (the Gulf of Tonkin). Eisenhower sent spy planes over Russia and lied about it. Nixon burgled the DNC and lied about it. Clinton had sex with an intern and lied about it. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Despite it all, we have the best system of government in the world, providing our citizens with the best level of liberty and security in the world. I wouldn't trade it.

I never said it hasn't been partisan. In fact, you could say that the two-party system is part of the checks and balances both between the parties and within each party. Certainly, the two-party system has been given a stamp of approval by the Supreme Court over the years (closed primaries, campaign finance rulings, etc.). My point was only that the current federal government lacks sufficient checks and balances either between the two parties or within the Republican party.

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." -- Federalist 47