Gapers Block has ceased publication.

Gapers Block published from April 22, 2003 to Jan. 1, 2016. The site will remain up in archive form. Please visit Third Coast Review, a new site by several GB alumni.
 Thank you for your readership and contributions. 


Thursday, July 25

Gapers Block

Gapers Block on Facebook Gapers Block on Flickr Gapers Block on Twitter The Gapers Block Tumblr


winterdeath / November 3, 2004 8:46 AM

the end of gapers block . . .


Krissy / November 3, 2004 8:53 AM

I'm so uncomfortable with this. I don't know if I want it to be over or if I want to cling to some shred of hope. At least, according to the polls, my shock and awe is shared with all of my Chicago neighbors -- maybe we can take some comfort in being freaked out together.

emme / November 3, 2004 9:01 AM

Personally, I'm not shocked by the outcome. As much as I wanted Kerry to win, I somehow doubted that he could defeat Bush. I mean, look at the map of state-by-state election summary. It's red in the entire heartland with only a few blue states on the edges (and Illinois, of course). It's mind-boggling how a nation that deems itself "progressive" can be so conservative. People sited "faith" as one of the reasons they voted for Bush...I guess they missed that whole chunk of our history when the separation of church and state was declared. Oh well, at least stem-cell reasearch was approved in California.

RUthie / November 3, 2004 9:01 AM

I'm proud of Illinois and I'm proud of Minnesota (my home state). I'm very disappointed in about 52% of America right now.

At least there's Obama. All my hopes and dreams are pinned on Obama right now.

Jason / November 3, 2004 9:01 AM

There is a distinct possibility that the majority of American voters do not agree with you.

Get over it. And if I hear any more "he still stole it in 2000", you'll meet an army of me.

miss ellen / November 3, 2004 9:03 AM

i am just so happy to live in this state. and, i can't wait to watch barack over the next few years.....

i believe HE will be president someday!!!

this other mess, well, can't say i didn't expect it. that smugass m*therf*cker bush, i mean, what was up with that stunt with the press? get your smirk off my TV please.

Naz / November 3, 2004 9:08 AM

"the end of gapers block . . .



Sarah / November 3, 2004 9:16 AM

I think that the American people have made an incredibly poor choice, in spite of clear evidence demonstrating the ineptitude, arrogance and recklessness of the current administration.

I also think that while the Democrats did a good job of mobilizing young, educated voters in urban areas, they didn't do a particularly good job of presenting a platform to rural and moderate voters in terms that would appeal to them.

I think that it is a huge mistake to write off all rural voters as being illiterate, gun-toting, evangelical, pro-life, homophobes. That's just narrow minded. I grew up in a conservative, rural area of Pennsylania, and the people that I new were good people, who lacked equal access to education, health care, and employment opportunities. If progressives are smart they will work to improve or come up with a plan to improve the quality of life in these areas, presenting a viable alternative to the hope that other organizations, such as the church, offer these people.

I am deeply saddened by the huge role that fear played in determining votes for candidates on both sides, and by the passage of the bans on gay marriage and the wide margins by which they passed.

As frustrating as the situation is at present, I hope that people don't mope about it for too long, but rather see this as a rallying point to do whatever it is that we need to do to make things better.

jennifer / November 3, 2004 9:17 AM

I'm in denial, and will remain as such for the next four years.

Suzanne / November 3, 2004 9:26 AM

The rest of the world is convinced that most Americans are complete morons and now,so am I.

steven / November 3, 2004 9:30 AM

i'm shocked.

i'm also very happy to live in IL, but what's up with the sea of red surrounding us? and all of the votes to ban gay marriage? thank god CA voted for stem cell research.

i heard a stat this morning: only 1 out of 10 people in the 18-24 age group went out and voted. hellooooooo people, you are the ones that will be drafted out when the call for more soldiers is made. does anyone care anymore?

and i don't ever want to hear anyone say "why bother voting? my vote won't count anyway." if i heard correctly, over 100 million people voted. bush leads kerry by only 140,000 votes in OH. once all of the votes are finally tallied in OH, it's possible that kerry could only trail by less than 100,000 votes. that is a very small percentage, even in OH, where the number of voters is 1.2 million. now while it's true that more votes throughout the country wouldn't necessarily help OH right now, it could've helped overall, in other states. kerry could have won by now.

is it me or does bush seem more smug now than he did when he took office?

the only bright spot if bush wins is that this will be his last term. but who knows what shape we'll be in by then?

Michael / November 3, 2004 9:32 AM

Time to dig in and bunker's gonna be a long four years. Considering the alarming setbacks we as a nation have faced economically, environmentally and diplomatically in the first four years, it should be quite interesting, if not amusing, to see if Bush can completely bring down the Roman Empire in the next four.

Heather S. / November 3, 2004 9:33 AM

Yesterday at work we had a discussion about the division of church and state especially in regards to the history of George Washington and religion. I think this is interesting in light of the election yesterday:

Those who attempt to project a religious theology upon Washington often seek to connect theological beliefs with civic benefits, assuming morality is based on religion. In contrast, Madison and others crafted a government that could succeed even if Americans were not angels, thanks to a balance of powers. Jefferson and other "natural law" theorists assumed that individuals in a mature society would follow a common set of ethical principles, independent of the different religious beliefs held by individuals.


Phineas / November 3, 2004 9:35 AM

Fear beat sense. Hate beat hope. Lizard brain beat cerebral cortex. That simple.

miss ellen / November 3, 2004 9:38 AM

sarah, the NYT hit what you were speaking about today, read it here.

basically, the dems NEED to reconnect with middle america. will it ever happen? if we don't, then we'll be seeing red for along time to come.

Anthony / November 3, 2004 9:43 AM

Good comments Sarah. It seems like the Dems should start focusing on how to appeal to suburban and rural voters. How do you think this should be accomplished? Must it be an emotional appeal, like the Republicans have perfected?

I think this is a sad day for America. We now have a Republican Congress, Republican President, and will have a Republican Supreme Court. What happen to 'checks and balances?'

It deeply saddens me that America has become a more fearful and intolerant society. I firmly believed in the America that could have rose to lead the world after 911, and thought it would be apparent during this election, but now see that we are cowering in this little corner of the world. We’re obese and complacent, and anything to make it “A Safer America” gets votes.

People voted emotionally. Pollsters are saying that the most important issue in exit polls was ‘moral values,’ a phrase so subjective and without meaning it makes me want to choke. Separation of church and state?

I’m appalled at the propositions to ban gay marriage passing in every state. For the first time ever we are passing laws to curb freedoms. How two men getting married affects my relationship with my wife is beyond me. Again, people voting emotionally, without thinking. Focusing on diversionary issues instead of the quagmire happening in Iraq. “I-don-wan-dem-queers-getting-maired.”

Bush’s agenda frightens me. He doesn’t have to worry about re-election, and he can basically fait anything he wants through the legislature.

And now that the election is over, the violence in Iraq is going to expand 100%.

steven / November 3, 2004 9:54 AM

i made an error in my post above. i stated that in OH 1.2 million voters showed up. it's actually more than 5 million. how's that for making your vote count? this election has inspired me to get involved in the "get out and vote" drives. anyone with me?

katie / November 3, 2004 9:56 AM

basically, i feel like throwing up!

eep / November 3, 2004 10:01 AM

I don't know what happened, but I like Sarah's take on things.

For lack of a better description, it will be interesting to see what happens next.

I voted / November 3, 2004 10:08 AM

the only good thing that can possibly happen with bush being president for another *eep!* 4 years is that Obama will run next time and blow everyone out of the water. If Kerry won this year then he'd be running for re-election and Obama would have to wait. That is my only ray of light. Go Obama!

miss ellen / November 3, 2004 10:18 AM

I really don't think Barack can run in 4 years. Think he at least needs a complete Senate term (aren't those 6 years).....
but, if we're so far gone, the people may beg him to run.

america / November 3, 2004 10:25 AM

in the next presidential race, the republicans will have the McCain/Gulliani ticket, which will be a very very strong one, meaning Hillary, if she tries, will lose out. As much as Obama seems promising, let's keep in mind that he still is a politician, and it takes a cetain type of person to be a politician (handling the interests of so many people=pleasing many conflicting desires), and as we see here in this little blog, most all people are self-serving and ignorant of others' self-serving views, and so it will probably be wise to be cautious about throwing all hope and faith at a single politician, especailly one who has only now begun to really prove himself as a politician.

I voted / November 3, 2004 10:34 AM

Yeah, we'll see how Obama does over the next few years. It seems to me like the dems are grooming him for a presidential run. So far though I really like him. It doesn't seem like he has it in him to turn all slimey, smarmy.

As far as when he'd be able to run, I was hoping 4 years, but miss ellen, you may be right.

Cinnamon / November 3, 2004 10:36 AM

Obama needs to wait. He needs some more experience under his belt before he can convince the majority of voters that America is ready for a fairly young and non-white President. I will cross my fingers and hope that he does well. He's a great speaker and it's possible he could be a wonderful shining star, but he's green. He needs a record to stand on.

In general, I'm just sad and a little bit worried of what the next four years will hold for us. But it means we have four years to work on eliminating voter fraud, getting the media to actually be "fair and balanced", and get some change to happen on the progressive side of the fence. Daschle lost cause he's out of touch. I don't want to hear the "they stole the election" arguments either. We need to find a candidate that we can all vote for and be excited by. Voting against someone is never the best option.

Tom / November 3, 2004 10:37 AM


The reason it bothers you is because he won. He is no more smug looking than before. We had record turnouts around the country and the votes have been cast. We even gave some states a whole week to vote....I give Kerry credit if he did call an concede as reported in the AP (haven't seen a news conference yet so still rumor at this point). Gore would be (still is) stomping his feet.

Anthony / November 3, 2004 10:51 AM

Would Dean have been a better challenger?

robin.. / November 3, 2004 10:52 AM

the worst part is that my *true* liberal parents, who vote democratic in kansas every year (please lay off the red-state bashing), aren't really upset at all. i really thought they wouldn't have given up.

but i hope 52% of america knows they've been USED. i hope they know that their fondest held moral beliefs were USED AGAINST THEM for the PROFIT of WOLVES IN SHEEPS' CLOTHING. i hope they know that their fear about the safety of our country has been USED AGAINST THEM to wage a war that, while deposing a despicable man, will also happen to kill so many people and make one or two WHITE MALE AMERICANS rich beyond any amount of money most people in our country might ever hope to have. i hope they know that their MORALS are being twisted to mean NOT "love thy neighbour" but "some animals are more equal than others."

LET US NOT FORGET, however, that 52% yes means 48% no. there are STILL PEOPLE HERE who WILL FIGHT. I AM NOT A DESERTER, AND NEITHER ARE MY ANGRY FRIENDS. i love my country and i believe in its ability to heal, and come back around. i believe in my ability. i believe in my candidates. barack's in the congress and all will be well. WE SHALL JUST SEE HOW THIS WORKS OUT.

winterdeath/fresh: shut up. jason: he didn't steal it in 2000, his court did, when they told florida to stop counting the votes of its citizens. you may also shut up.

I voted / November 3, 2004 10:54 AM

I have a question-

Ok, so Kerry conceded, but aren't they still recounting Ohio? If it turns out that he won Ohio, would he become president? Or have they stopped the recount?

SadandAngry / November 3, 2004 11:10 AM

Well, the unborn are safe. But I think they're the only ones. Watch out women, gays, minorities and immigrants..

(I'm being bitterly sarcastic here....)

And for all you that voted for Bush, have fun in the war.

Thurston / November 3, 2004 11:15 AM

I am not a liberal, and kind of fancy myself a pragmatic brand of libertarian. I basically think the democrats and the republicans are both totally full of shit. I love the politicians who irk their parties by daring to tiptoe outside of the party line. Even if they aren't perfect, at least they have the ofrtitude to reject the blind party conformity Bill Frist and Tom Daschle have always advocated. I would have had no problem voting for a candidate like John McCain. Or a guy like Wesley Clark. But I could never bring myself to vote for George W. Bush.

What disturbs me about GW Bush's victory is that, in a broad sense, his support is based on the citizenry's biggotry and ignorance.

Biggotry, because so-called "moral values" seemed to rule so many people's decision making this election. The only new moral value that was really in play in this election was gay marraige. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate how two dudes going to the court house and getting a piece of paper giving them joint property and custody rights is going to negatively impact anyone else's life. So it comes down to people thinking that gay guys are gross, which is a pretty indefensible prospect in my book.

Ignorance plays a role because the war on terror, which I support, and the war in Iraq, which I have decried since day one, have somehow become intertwined. I think most Americans, who haven't any idea about life and people outside of our borders, just think that all Arabs are the same, be they in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq or elsewhere. The irony is that there are few Arabs in Afghanistan: most of them are Urdus, Pahstuns and Tajiks, who are as different from Arabs as Italians are from Swedes. The fact that Iraq had no weapons, that they only postured as such because of local polcitics with their rivals the Iranians is lost on the underinformed and misinformed. Nor does it garner much attention that Iraq was a secular country, where in rhetoric Islam entered the picutre sporadically (as Christianity does here) but in practice the religion was totally divorced from any say over politics. Burqas were banned in Iraq. Iraqi Christians occupied prominent places in the Hussein regime. You could hardly call it an Islamist country along the lines of Afghanistan od Saudi Arabia. An unforgivably governed country? Yes. A threat? Absolutely not.

But these facts are lost on the masses, who respond to base emotions to fear "all those brown people over there" and who don't want gay dudes going to Vegas chapels and county courts (because, by the way, almost no churches will allow gay marraiges in their confines - another issue entirely). Do I sound like an elitist? I shouldn't, but I probably do. It's a shame that thinking things out and being well-informed is considered elitism however.

These are of course my opinions and not facts, though I stand behind them as firmly as if they were facts. But if you care to react to them, let's avoid the acrimony that took over this board yesterday. Lively and well-informed debate is a keystone of democracy and also good clean fun! Let's revel in it respectfully!

Pete / November 3, 2004 11:22 AM

I don't know. I'm truly at a loss.

What this all means, for those of us who can see beyond our private self-interests, is that now we're just going to have to work harder. For the poor, for the working class, for adequate and affordable health insurance, for better income equality, for the environment, for public education, for freedom of choice, for equal rights for all people, for freedom both of religion and from religion.

In other words, for all the things that Bush doesn't give a shit about.

Maggie / November 3, 2004 11:23 AM

One of my coworkers just said "I can't believe it came down to morals." I have to agree with her - and question who dare define morals. I am proud to be an Illinoisan today but that's where my pride ends. I think we all need to invest some time working on electoral college reform. I know that Bush won the poular vote - but that's what a candidate SHOULD have to do to be elected.

Would Howard Dean have won? I don't know but I would have liked that fight.

Anthony / November 3, 2004 11:26 AM

Great comments Thurston, exactly what I think, too.

At least Dean could have called Bush's War (in Iraq) bull shit, without having to worry about any conflicting stances.

Governors seem to be better challengers than senators.

Shylo / November 3, 2004 11:32 AM

Yeah, I think that the Dems do need to appeal emotionally to middle America. The Republicans have chosen to pick at every fear we have; Maybe the Democrats can try hope, unity, and mutual respect. Hrm? Or is that too hippie to work?

paul / November 3, 2004 11:37 AM

What happened? More than half the country think differently than the people who've posted here.

It's really time we stop concentrating our energies on making up funny names, insults, or even well thought out, logical essays pointed at one man and start concentrating on educating the other half of the country.

It's not about Bush, it's about Right and Left now.

Andrew / November 3, 2004 11:41 AM

Agreed, Shylo. Let's see if they do it.

My ideal would be for the Republicans to piss off the moderate wing of their party badly enough for them to break off and join with moderate Democrats to form a new Centrist Party. But that's not likely to happen.

Dean wouldn't have been a more effective candidate -- he's too liberal and "kooky" for national tastes. General Clarke may have been OK, since he was the most conservative of the Dem candidates. At this point, though, it's all conjecture.

Howard / November 3, 2004 11:51 AM

With Bush we now have a LAME DUCK president.

As to whether Howard Dean could have won, he also is from New England and these guys tend to be on the losing side.

patrick / November 3, 2004 12:05 PM

It seems all the talk here is focused on how mad people are that W won. It seems if Kerry was truly a better man for the job we would be talking about how a man with great ideas and hope for the country has been defeated. The problem with the election is that Kerry never proposed a new vision, he certainly talked about change but he never made a convincing proposal for it to happen. Bush won, and I believe, even as a social liberal, that people were not possesed with fear to vote for Bush. They voted for Bush because much of America is still conservative.

miss ellen / November 3, 2004 12:07 PM

I think Ramsin's new piece hit in on the head. The Dems went dirty & dirrrrty lost.

yoyo / November 3, 2004 12:40 PM

The Democrats must spend the next few years looking inward and asking themselves what kind of party they have become. In the course of several generations, the Democratic Party has gone from a ruling party that led the nation—and the world—in creating a new global system to a party that suffers from a paralyzing self-doubt. The transatlantic alliance, NATO, the United Nations, the global trading system, all were creations of the Democrats in the 20th century. But since the Vietnam debacle, Democrats have suffered such an insecurity complex over national security that they have automatically conceded the issue to the GOP, as they proved in this election. That helps to explain why even a certified war hero, John Kerry, dithered so shamefully on the war against terror and Iraq throughout his campaign, allowing himself to remain on the defensive against the attacks of the Republicans (few of whom had served a day in uniform). The Democrats must, at long last, leave Vietnam behind and reclaim their credibility on foreign policy. And that means reclaiming their legacy, one of judicious American leadership of the global system they had such a major role in creating, and holding Bush’s feet to the fire to make sure that he repairs American credibility abroad.

robin.. / November 3, 2004 1:12 PM

yoyo--yes! calm in the storm, you are! sense against my hot, hot head! thank you.

now, do you think the republican party faces any similar identity issues as they look at members who are, as i don't know a better term, "political"-type republicans (small government and those traditional things associated with the party) versus those who are "moral fabric"-type republicans (anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-fundamentalist agenda)? just something i've wondered about, having seen a the repubs run against their own in KS in the past on these lines...

Gordon / November 3, 2004 1:29 PM

The end of GB? Not if GB-haters like Winterdeath keep upping our unique hits tallies by coming here day in and day out! Thanks, guys!

You know, what I'm ALMOST more afraid of than Bush actually getting ELECTED this time is Tom Daschle getting voted out of office. The Democrats are going to have a hard time for the next several years, I think.

Anthony / November 3, 2004 1:31 PM

waleeta / November 3, 2004 1:33 PM

I'm a little nauseous, but I keep remembering: Republicans are hereon responsible for all that happens the next 4 years, as they will control all three branches of government. No more room to blame liberals. So in 4 years, when our economy is damp, our military forces spread thin, and terrorism at an all time high - maybe, just maybe, the 52% will say enough?

Although I have a sneaking suspicion that all the Republicans will have to do is say "See? We are still not safer. Vote Republican" and people will believe him.

Americans made me so sad last night.

I swear they voted for him just because they hate gay guys.

Jason / November 3, 2004 1:39 PM

A lot of republican bashing going on here. this is something that I don't understand about Liberal America. It positions itself as open-minded and progressive and the rest, but then it turns out just as bigoted and ugly as its opponenants. If you're not pro-gay, then you must be anti-gay, and the like.

What you may have not noticed is that republicans gained more seats during the election. What does that say about the democratic party? It doesn't appeal to the majority of voters.

All of you people and your "I'm not going to stop fighting" and "this is just so depressing" BS. Do the rest of us a favor and leave. You did promise to do just that yesterday.

Michael / November 3, 2004 1:58 PM

Actually, says more about the ignorance and close-mindedness of the moral majority. Just as most network television programming is geared towards the lowest common denominator in terms of viewer intelligence, so too is the message of the GOP. Instill fear, make sure to include some hot topics on the ballot such as the banning of gay marriages, and fool all the simple folk of the nation into thinking that we're safer, tax cuts are good (even as government spending spins wildly out of control) and Bush prays every night. Gimme a fucking break.

Brandy / November 3, 2004 2:06 PM

waleeta said:
"Republicans are hereon responsible for all that happens the next 4 years, as they will control all three branches of government. No more room to blame liberals."


I voted / November 3, 2004 2:08 PM

I was just writing to my friend in New Zealand. She visited in September and was telling me how everyone over there thinks we're nuts for having bush for president and this and that. Other countries can see why he's a bad president, why can't we? When other countries do come out against our president, people cry over here. They start saying "at least we have freedom!" (Well, that's one of the main cries I hear.) Anyway, when I think about it, who has all this freedom? It really is rich, white men. I hate that phrase, but think about it. Gay people can't get married. Is that freedom? They can't have someone they love and have spent years with visit them in the hospital. How fair is that? That's not freedom. Not even close. And bush has a habit of taking rights away from women. We're heading back 50 years at full force. Make sure your helmets are secure.

I'm very sad that bush is in office again. Now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election, he can do whatever the hell he wants- and he will. He doesn't listen to the American people.

I love how he won't appoint activist judges because they rule based on personal opinion, yet a ban on gay marriage amendment was based on his personal (religious) opinion. It makes my head spin. He does not look out for America as a whole. We're not all christian. There are tons of different religions here and we need to separate church and state. bush hasn't figured out how to do that.

I can't believe he won.

Tom / November 3, 2004 2:10 PM

Everyone is a liberal til they actually go out and work for a living.
It reminds me of a joke where a conservative father has been chastised by his liberal college daughter. The father asks how she is doing in college. Daughter responds that she has no social life, studies all the time, in labs but has made the Deans list and received some job offers.
Father then inquires into daughter's roommate...daughter is flabbergasted....roomie doesn't study, is out partying all the time and is barely passing some classes.....
Father asks daughter why daughter doesn't offer up part of her GPA to aid roomie know so all is equal in the world.... daughter becomes angry ranting about how hard she is working and how it isn't fair to just give it away to someone who isn't working to earn it.........Father are now a republican......

Pete / November 3, 2004 2:21 PM

Except for someone like me, who voted for Reagan in my first election while in college and have been voting Democratic ever since. If anything, it's not until you go out and work for a living and acquire some creature comforts that you realize how fortunate you are, and how so many people are lacking the basic necessities of life. Most people don't come to this realization while living in the insular world of college--I certainly didn't.

Tom / November 3, 2004 2:26 PM

Hey Brandy:

As far as the house and senate ..republicans have been the majority during his present term also...

Senate Current Holdover won Total
Rep 51 36 18 54
Dem 48 29 15 44

House Current New
Rep 223 234
Dem 210 200

I voted / November 3, 2004 2:27 PM

I've gone to college (put myself through, thank you very much). I work and have been working since I was 10. I support myself. I've never had mommy and daddy give me a dime since I moved out. Even when I was at home, I was working, so I still didn't ask them for money. I have my own place, pay my own bills, take complete care of myself and I'm still not a republican.

Barack Obama / November 3, 2004 2:35 PM

To Carrie a/k/a "I voted"-

I hate white men, too! I'm gonna legalize murder against white men and kill them all next year!


Maggie / November 3, 2004 2:39 PM

AMEN I VOTED! I don't see why people equate "growing up" with turning our backs on our beliefs.

Joe / November 3, 2004 2:39 PM


The Republican Party is no longer the party of the hard working self made rich man, it is now the party of the Evangelical Church. Thats who turned out to vote and thats who controls this nation now. Thats why I am not a republican. I will never vote republican unless there is a separation between church and state within the party. Our foreign policy under Bush is based on the the want to see the book of revelations lived out in our life time. Enjoy the fire from the sky, Im out. PEACE.

Jason / November 3, 2004 2:39 PM

See Mike, that is why you are no better than the fundamentalist right - you truly believe that you are so much more superior of a human being than anyone that doesn't agree with your views.

Joe / November 3, 2004 2:40 PM

The gay marriage issue should not a republican / democrat issue. It should be an us vs. government issue. Why the hell does ANYONE need the blessing of the folks in Washington DC to get married? Gimme a break. I'll agree the Republicans are a good target for the anger this issue produces, but would Kerry have done anything about it? Remember the fiasco when Clinton said he'd let homosexuals serve in the military when he was campaigning? Did that help anyone?

Look at how coroporations deal with this issue. Some give benefits, some don't. The ones that do have a pool of more, potentially better, applicants. None of them can tell you what you can and can't do.

Once we get the government off our backs, we will be able to marry who we want when we want. Even if we elect someone friendly to the cause, and give him more power over us, there is nothing to say someone won't come along after him and use that power to abuse us. Or that the friendly person won't turn on us if he needs to.

Kris / November 3, 2004 2:45 PM

Jesus, Tom. Who's your favorite band, Me First and the Gimme Gimmes? Is your voting philosophy really based on this selfish Ann Coulter fantasy of liberals taking away all of your money and giving it to some welfare queen bogeyman? Oh, and poor people are just lazy. That's another good one.

robin.. / November 3, 2004 2:51 PM

tom--your aggrandizement of the working man is classist just like intellectualism is classist. take a good look at yourself. don't whip out that romantic look at the workin' man (of "red america," it is so ofter implied) and his hardworkin' values until you've made sure that everyone you're measuring against had silver spoons in their mouths and clean fingernails instead of a stalk of wheat between the teeth and a dad on a combine. i hate when y'all do that.

leah / November 3, 2004 2:59 PM

Me First and the Gimme Gimmes--hahahah. That might be the first laugh I've had all day. Nice. I agree with you--the logic of that "joke" Tom told, was well, illogical. It implies laziness and carelessness are the reasons those in need are in need.

Leech / November 3, 2004 3:07 PM

Who was the last president that served without a disaster hitting in his second term?

Clinton - Impeached
Reagan - Iran Contra scandal
Nixon - Resigned
Johnson - Vietnam War *
Eisenhower - Stroke
Truman - Korean War *
Roosevelt - died **

* - second term after serving out previous president's term
** - 4th term

The powers that be will make sure GW doesn't do anything to rock the boat.

Michelle / November 3, 2004 3:16 PM

well done Illinois, I'm proud of you. Other states, specifically those that even had to vote on gay marriage issues and judge relationships that they are not in and have nothing to do with, I feel sorry for the past that you seem to be stuck in.

Other than that I agree wih Paul, it's left and right now. The division this election has carved out is profound. I'm not sure where our "United states" went.

steven / November 3, 2004 3:23 PM

unfortunately bush played the religion and faith cards big time, in addition to "we're all safe now". he's not afraid to push forward his agenda based on his faith. and since at least 51% of the people in this country feel the same way, we're stuck. so many people believe that our way of life should be based on god and the church. when they find a leader who isn't afraid to say the same thing, they attach themselves to that person without question. he's been working on this election for a long while, talking about his faith in god and whatnot.

i'm not saying that religious people can't think for themselves and that they all follow when led, but a lot do. if their leader has expressed faith, they will too. i think who they really elected into office this time is god, not bush.

JackDaddy / November 3, 2004 3:26 PM

The real fact is that elections are selfish. Everyone votes for the candidate that best suits them, who are we kidding? The gays want gay rights, i.e. gay marriages, tax reformists voted for the person that may be best suited to reform taxes, the pro choice people wanted abortion rights, the moralists wanted a moral president, the enviromental people wanted to save the planet, then suddenly stem cell research came into the picture, etc. etc. etc. Yet when the candidate they voted for loses they throw in all these other issues that seem to be bigger than those they felt the most strongly about. Is that wrong? What's wrong with selfish voting? Maybe it's okay. But don't throw all these other reasons that you never used as voting criteria into the picture when your candidate loses, i.e. the War on Terror, the fact that 2nd term presidents don't have a great track record, the economy, etc. Sounds like poor loser whining to me... We all voted for our selfish reasons now deal with it... I am and I feel quite comfortable for the reasons I voted.

FEAR / November 3, 2004 3:28 PM

Guns, God, Gays

that's an easy way to win.

kate / November 3, 2004 3:33 PM

if i answer the question will i wake up from this horrible nightmare?

what happened? evolution.
put simply, we are building for a great change and this is just one more step towards the inordinate and inevitable entropy that will ultimately demand a reorganization of the country, the world, and the human race. unfortunately for us these things come at a great cost to the individual.

it is, perhaps, an unfledged idea but contemplating it kind of gives me comfort in times like this, when i feel as though i've lost a loved one - a combination of utter shock, mourning, and denial, the way i imagine the idea of God comforts others. however, i do believe we are headed for a revolution of sorts and you could argue that the sooner we get there the better.

biff / November 3, 2004 3:49 PM

Face it,

We live in a country of gun totin,' SUV drivin,' Bible huggin,' reality TV watchin' obese idiots who are too busy suckin' on their super-size Cokes to actually read the facts and realize the difference between a good civil servant and a bad one.

Have you seen network TV these days?? Do see what Jerry Bruckheimer bullshit is playing at the multi-plex? The sad fact is that Americans don't like to think...they just want action and catchy sound-bites.

G.W. Bush won because he plays the action hero who the average man can relate to perfectly. Yes, the man is an bubbling idiot who has coasted on his name his entire life...but that doesn't matter. He says cool things like "we're gonna gitcha" to the enemy and looks really cool wearin' an aviator uniform. The masses don't read the facts, they just vote for who is going to kick some foreign ass and keep gas prices down.

I agree that "progressives...need to improve the quality of life in these areas," but how do you change the mentality or beliefs of 51% of the country?

steven / November 3, 2004 3:51 PM

selfish voting? not all of us are looking just to suit ourselves. many of us are voting for fairness, for a chance to let our country grow. i want a fair president, one who makes choices based on common sense, not on religious thought. and i know that kerry said in one of the debates that he believes in god, he was an altar boy and that he is catholic. but what struck me is that he said just because he believes in certain things, it doesn't mean he should push it on everyone else. abortion is a right every woman should have. plain and simple. men who love men and women who love women should be allowed to marry. plain and simple. why? because why not. there are things that just make sense.

give me someone who has everyone's interest in mind, not just their own. if that person doesn't exist, i'll take the next best thing. i know it isn't bush.

Andy / November 3, 2004 3:55 PM

I've been reading the posts all day...and I'm to the point of shame to admit, I voted for Bush (how can I read GP regularly and vote BUSH, OMG, right?). Knowing that Kerry would win IL in any case, it was more a symbolic gesture than a true choice. I was on the fence for a long time, with regard to voting for Kerry. I concur with much of what has been written here; Bush has done some major fuck-ups, no doubt. However to make a point, I know of many centrists (just to simplify) who were in the same predicament. Specifically, two friends from Ohio actually; where it mattered most. And they ended up voting Bush. Unfortunately, what Kerry (and the democratic party) didn't do was speak and make his message and plan clear to US. I wanted something more on education; something more on economy and taxes; something more on human rights issues. That and more. He didn't give us much reason to vote for him, and since I haven't polarized my thinking into Bush as the Antichrist, I wasn't going to vote for Kerry out of spite. Know that it was a difficult choice for many individuals who land more on the "conservative" side. I would have voted for Kerry if I felt any confidence about his ability to make a change for the positive. I guess ultimately I think with Bush in office his person provides a catalyst for debate and reform. I believe Kerry would make this nation more sluggish than it already is, with his platitudes and morosity. But I'm sure most disagree with me. Your right to do so.

kelly / November 3, 2004 4:12 PM

Once again, defiant denial triumphed. It's the easier way to go, really... I understand that people can make reasons, some compelling, for wanting to be conservative -- self governance, small government, etc. I don't agree with it, but I understand how some people do. Unfortunately, that's not what this administration stands for. How can people say that they believe in a Republican government when they vote for a man who seeks to govern our lives according to religious doctrine that not everybody shares? Our government isn't smaller because of him -- it doesn't offer as much of a saftey net, but it's quietly seeping into all of the cracks of our lives. Honestly, I'm nervous -- this means that he has four more years to implement policy according to a *religious moral ideology* that, frankly, goes against one of the founding principles of this country.

We are told to fear other countries that are ruled by strict religous fundamentalists, yet many people seem oblivious to our own.

Cinnamon / November 3, 2004 4:14 PM

Andy, thanks for making a clear and concise argument as to why you voted for Bush. I disagree with you, but am very glad to read why you made the decision you did. I'm sure you weren't the only one and what you've said is what the Democrats need to listen to.

JackDaddy / November 3, 2004 4:17 PM


If you truly believe what you are saying then you should be proud that you are represented by someone who has the interest of Pro Life, Tax Reform, National Security, Family Values, Right To Bear Arms - which are not your interests.

Eamon / November 3, 2004 4:19 PM

Wow, Andy, if that's true, that was a terrible reason to vote for President Bush. A single party will control the Executive Branch, both houses of the Legislative Branch, and in the next year or so, the Judicial Branch. I really don't think "debate" or "reform" has a snowball's chance in hell on a federal level over the next four years. Frankly, I'm stunned more fiscal conservatives didn't cross the aisle: the only real governmental reform comes from balanced parties.

I suppose it's heartening that so many people voted against their economic interests yesterday in order to create a better nation, but I just don't see a way to cross the chasm between how Democrats and Republicans want to go about it.

Carrie / November 3, 2004 4:34 PM


you said that Kerry didn't really speak up about human rights issues, yet he's the one who is for civil unions and protecting a womans choice. Those seem like human rights issues to me.

Anyway, I'm glad that you actually weighed both of your options.

Eamon / November 3, 2004 4:36 PM

Oh, come on, JackDaddy. Can we please stop recycling the same tired doublespeak? Sending soldiers to attack Iraq is not "Pro Life", $25 dollar checks are not "Tax Reform", Bin Laden in the wild is not "National Security", and denying marriage rights aren't exactly "Family Values". If you really want to say something, tell us why you believe a blastocyst is human, why the rich deserve to keep the money they worked hard to make, why terrorism is here to stay and requires a certain restriction on freedom, and why procreative relationships must be held up as a keystone of a modern society. The devil's in the details: trite soundbites and ridiculous oversimplifications aren't doing anybody any favors, and they're certainly not going to convince me.

patrick / November 3, 2004 4:49 PM

I just had to comment on the gay marriage issue. People on this website continue to speak about how unfair it is that gay people cannot get married. I am an atheist and do not believe in marriage yet I believe gays should be able to get married if they want. In a more general perspective I dont believe marriage should need the approval of government no matter what your sexual orientation. The biggest problem I have with both political parties is that they both promote segregation. The republicans organize under religion while democrats organize under race, generally speaking. Republicans cater to religious fanatics while democrats make promises to minorities both in race and sexual orientation. Until we as a nation learn to treat people for what they are, as individuals instead of lumping people into groups the division we currently see will never go away.

Another thing: One person said that democrats are generally more intelligent than republicans, this is preposterous! Both groups are represented by the stupid and the smart relatively equally. Also, just because you live in a city does not make you smarter or more knowledgable of issues. Most of the inner city dwellers are uneducated minorities, that, as a group turn out for democrats, just like the uneducated rural peoples in general turn out for the republicans. Lets stop grouping people and start talking about real issues.

Eamon / November 3, 2004 5:13 PM

Anyway, Halliburton up 4.33%! Woo hoo!

Michael / November 3, 2004 6:25 PM

Jason -

In reviewing my comments, you are right...I did come across as an elitist, didn't I? You'll have to forgive me--staying up till one in the morning watching the results has made me cranky and irritable. I guess this is what really irks me...I am a white, Christian, heterosexual male who works in the financial markets (supposedly this is as good as it gets, right?) Needless to say, as a liberal, I am in the political minority. Although I always try to argue my reasons coherently and with an open mind (like many of the people who post on this board), rarely do I get any intelligent arguments in return for why they are conservative--rather I get a lot of "fag" jokes, comments such as the Muslims want to rule the world and we should just nuke the entire Middle East, and the baseless and oft-repeated flimsy excuse discussed here earlier that we liberals are all for taking the hard-working man's money and giving it to the lazy and unemployed poor people, who are more than happy to take the free handout. It scares me that this type of ignorance is leading people to choose party affiliations and elect the most powerful man in the world.

JackDaddy / November 3, 2004 6:43 PM

Eamon, $25? Everyone I know, myself included got $300 last year. That is, unless you failed to claim it, as many did. It's there waiting for you. Also, how is it that you believe the more you make the more you keep. It's quite the contrary. See for yourself...,,id=109877,00.html

So consider one year you made $68,800 in annual income, look at the chart and you will see that a flat amount goes to federal to the tune od $3910. But that's not all. On top of that, also to federal you pay %25 of the amount of income over $28,400. That comes to $10100. So the total paid to federal comes to $14,010. Now next year you get a second job and work twice as hard and you make $100,000 that year. Check out your new taxes to federal. Flat amount of $14,010 plus %28 of the amount over $68,800. This is a total of $22746.00. You made more you paid more. It's that way for ALL levels of income. And the fact is the more you make the more your tax money goes back into the system. Sounds fair to me.

The tax schedules speak for themselves... the more you make the more you pay. Simple. Educate yourself on that first.

Ipsy / November 3, 2004 6:55 PM

What went wrong? The GOP moblized evangelicals and religious americans in general to GET OUT AND VOTE. In droves.

How they do it? They didn't even need a lot of money or effective grassroots campaigns or anything of the sort.

They just needed to get propositions to ban gay marriage on the ballots in many states. The "threat" of homosexuals was enough to motivate a lot of religious folks to vote in droves -- and oh, while they were they were there making sure their vote to ban gay marriage was counted? They voted for President as well. Bush, of course.

I am for gay marriage, yes I am. But I am of the opinion that these propositions were put on ballots not to progress the lives of gay americans, but mostly to serve the GOP by making sure their "base" was hoppin' mad and mobilized.

Cynical? Yes. But that is me.

Shasta MacNasty / November 3, 2004 7:58 PM

I'd be more comfortable with the election results if the supreme court, republicans, and religious extremists would find their way out of my uterus. What happened to less government... : /

Kris / November 3, 2004 8:41 PM

The efforts to enshrine discrimination in 11 states probably did a lot for the Republican GOTV, but the Republicans aren't alone in that particular bigotry. In Arkansas, for instance, Democratic voters went 7-3 in favor of their gay marriage amendment, and amendments passed in two states that also went for Kerry (Michigan and Oregon). Democrats are just as guilty on that crap.

Sarah / November 4, 2004 10:12 AM

I think that many people, liberal and conservative, fail to realize government bans on marriage are not only discriminitory but also can affect a host of other rights including the right to adopt the child of a partner, the right to inherit property, the right to share medical benefits, life insurance, etc, and the right to visit your partner is in the hospital.

Pete / November 4, 2004 1:53 PM

FYI...Kerry has said he is opposed to gay marriage, but supports legalized civil unions which confer the same rights that Sarah listed. So it's not inconsistent for Democratic voters to vote for both Kerry and a gay marriage ban.

Incidentally, the new Democratic saint Barack Obama is also opposed to gay marriage, citing his religious beliefs.

I'm not bashing either Kerry or Obama--I enthusiastically voted for both of them--but I thought their positions on the issue should be spelled out.

wc / November 4, 2004 3:26 PM

Tom - I liked your GPA story. But the father missed the point - her lazy, wild roommate was right there alongside her, awarded the same OPPORTUNITY to go to school. That's the point. She was given the chance to go to school, now she is free to do with it what she likes.

GB store

Recently on Fuel

Urban Ethos [26]
What is Chicago's "urban ethos"?

Cool Glass of... [16]
What're you drinking?

Supreme Decision [22]
What's your reaction to the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act?

Taking it to the Streets [20]
Chicago Street Fairs: Revolting or Awesome?

I Can Be Cruel [9]
Be real: what is the meanest thing you've ever done?

View the complete archive

GB Store

GB Buttons $1.50

GB T-Shirt $12

I ✶ Chi T-Shirts $15