This is the thread where we acknowledge that we are in panic mode right now and that eventually most of the things people fear Bush is going to do is not going to happen...

*Mind you, 2006 is also an election year. Methinks there's an even chance the the tide will turn then. But we (the embittered Left) have got to MAKE IT HAPPEN!

Actually, can we talk rationally about the Supreme Court? Assuming Rehnquist kicks it, Bush will appoint another conservative judge -- who may be more conservative than Rehnquist, but it still wouldn't change the split, since it's a Republican for a Republican.

I'm guessing, though, that if Stevens or even O'Connor leaves the Court in the next four years, things could get dicey (Stevens because he's a liberal, O'Connor because she often goes both ways, and is socially liberal if not nominally so). So what are the actual odds of this happening? Stevens is 84 years old, so chances are he could die soon. What about O'Connor -- there have been rumors of her retiring, but why?

Why can't all the opposition use their panic, anger, and dissappointment for something poitive and write intelligent letters to congressmen, media, etc.

They are the final arbiter of all cases appealed in Federal courts.

It presumes that NOTHING will go right (as it were). It presumes that EVERYTHING will go wrong. It presumes that EVERYTHING the other side hopes for and plans for will happen swimmingly and with no problems or repercussions or other scenarios like that. Tell me, do you think that strikes you as realistic?

I do not believe in this mindset being created and I most definitely do not seek to cling to it as some sort of anti-security security blanket, something to use as some sort of immediate catchall and assumption that not only will nothing go right but that nothing can be done. If that is the case, you have flat out already given up.

Do I worry about the Supreme Court situation? Indeed, I think it's the most fundamental domestic concern over the next year in many ways. But I am not giving into immediate abject despair. I have seen enough stupidity and cupidity in my lifetime already and somehow the world continues.

I realize it is early days yet, of course. I understand all the emotional frustration even if I do not feel it in a similar manner. Personally I'm very glad places like ILX exist so the venting can happen. But apocalypse is NOT coming in immediately on the wing and that people seem to want to equate an election with a narrow split as either (on the Republican side) a triumphant absolutist mandate or (on the Democratic side) a sign that the entire country is worthless makes for two sides of the same coin.

This I fully agree with.

(this is not really a consolation at all since I still made MORE FUCKING MONEY and had MORE FUCKING JOB OPTIONS and was GENERALLY HAPPIER when my taxes were higher under Clinton).

I wouldn't bet my life on that.

Do we need to list the litmus tests Karl Rove and co. will apply to any Dubya nominees?

Ned how do you know apocalypse is not in the wings? Environmental collapse (thanks to our use of energy) and/or civilizational collapse (thanks to running out of energy) are real possibilities. The potential for collpase existed before Bush, but he is not going to do anything to head them off (and they were essentially non-issues in the campaign, at the mainstream level). When it comes to large-scale global apocalypse, I think Bush's dismissal of global warming and his lack of serious support for alternative energy research are the most serious threats. Maybe I am underestimating the increased risks of nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and global economic collapse that might come with a Bush presidency. I also don't meant to downplay the immediate threat that the U.S. war machine poses to people around the world.

Because that obviously doesn't do a goddamned thing when there are more religious fundementalist retards in the midwest than cultured intelligent people who give a shit.

I remember talking to Simon Rosenberg, the head of the New Dem Network, at the Democratic convention last summer. You'll remember, he and his group were profiled in the Times magazine around that time. The article, in brief, was about plans to create a Democratic-leaning counter-establishment along the lines of what Republicans did two generations ago -- with an alternative media, activist groups, organized political giving, in short a political infrastructure.

He told me he thought it would take ten years to accomplish. And I told him my one worry was that it could all be strangled in its crib if Kerry didn't win.

Well, here we are. And this is the test for people who care about this kind of politics and these sorts of values -- making sure that what has been started is not allowed to falter. This isn't 1964 or 1972 or 1980. This wans't a blow-out or a repudiation. It was close to a tie -- unfortunately, on the other guy's side. Let's not put our heads in the sand but let's also not get knocked of our game. Democrats need to think critically and seriously about why this didn't turn out 51% for Kerry or 55% for Kerry (and we'll get to those points in the future). But it would be a terrible mistake to stop thinking in terms of those ten years Simon described.

Take time to feel the desolation and disappointment. But I remain confident that time is not on the side of the kind of values and politics that President Bush represents. It took conservatives two decades to build up the institutional muscle they have today. Though I was always nervous about the result, I thought we could win this election. But it was always naive to believe that that sort of institutional heft could be put together in 24 or 36 months.

President Bush and the Republicans now control the entire national government, even more surely now than they have over the last four years. They do so on the basis of garnering the votes of 51% or 52% of the population. But they will use that power as though there were no opposition at all. That needs to be countered.

Leave today for disappointment. Tomorrow, think over which of these various groups and organizations you think has made the best start toward what I've described above, go to their website, and give money or volunteer. After that, okay sure, take a few more days for disappointment, maybe a few more weeks. But this takes time. And you shouldn't lose heart. The same division in the country remains, the same stalemate. The other side just got the the ball a yard or two into our side of the field rather than the reverse. And we have to deal with the serious consequences of that. Tomorrow's the day to start.

That is one of the most important steps for any supporter

I'll be reading this when it comes out in 5 days. Good wishes and strength to all distressed by the unfortunate election results, especially those living in the U.S..

Presidential elections are all about organization. Bush didn't win because he's so fucking amazing; he won because he was sitting on top of an effective organization and the Democrat organizations fell short of what Bush could command. The best antidote to this is to organize, organize, organize - a fact the left seems to have forgotten since labor unions started to decline in the 1970s.

Parenthetically, Americans in general don't seem to understand the functional power of political parties and of party discipline. The point is to put together a winning coalition of voting blocs and hold them together. The old Dem coalition of FDR is dead and thoroughly decomposed. The more recent Republican coalition glued together by Reagan hasn't yet exploded from its internal contradictions. As the opposition, our job is to expose those contradictions and apply pressure relentlessly at those points to break off some of their voting blocs - especially in key states. Ask Karl Rove and he'd tell you the same thing.

Total Votes: 121,397

Abortion will never be illegal in New York or California or wherever. Roe v. Wade could definitely fall, but that will just move it back to the state level, most likely (barring something completely bonkers.)

And Bush ain't invading anyone for a while as we don't have enough troops to invade Grenada right now.

Bad shit is gonna happen (really bad shit) but don't go crazy with hyperbole, the awful shit Bush will do (gutting Social Security, the environment, the government regulatory agencies and oversight, etc) is bad enough without making shit up out of thin air.

The Congressional Republican ranks haven't broken into a mob, but they are restive and wanting to define their differences with the president rather than holding tight to his coattails, in anticipation of the 2006 mid-term elections.

In lieu of new ideas, Bush can still do damage by carrying on with some of the Reagan-era leftovers. The federal courts are already being sown with the seeds of mayhem. Wait until Rehnquist goes away and you'll see worse.

Let us pray that Bush doesn't open up another big can of tax re-form, because once that rock is rolling downhill there's no telling what will get smashed before it hits bottom. Congress would go hog wild.

I always thought it was funny that one of the big premises of the move SEVEN was they couldn't arrest the psychokiller because if people knew the govt could search library records, there would be crazy outrage scandal. but apparently the public is much more lax and stupid about civil liberties than Morgan Freeman thought.

...In a line already headed into sound bite history, Bush accused Democratic leaders of embracing "the philosophy of the stop sign, the agenda of the road block." From there, he piled it on, with further attacks on what he likes to call "the other party," criticizing Democrats for always saying "no" to his ideas without offering up alternative proposals of their own.

There are two pretty clear sides to this story: George Bush as the overbooked fund-raiser, and George Bush as the frustrated Dem-basher. We decided to see which side our three favorite dailies chose to play up.

For the Washington Post, Bush's attack on Democrats was the main focus. In their coverage of Bush's fundraising speeches (headline: "Bush, at GOP Fundraiser, Cites Democrats' 'Obstruction'"), reporters Mike Allen and Michael A. Fletcher lead by saying that "President Bush poured out his most politically confrontational rhetoric since his reelection to a huge gathering of Republican donors last night, asserting that Democrats 'stand for nothing but obstruction' on Social Security and other issues on his agenda."

Allen and Fletcher provide ample examples of Bush's "confrontational rhetoric," as well as a few reactions to his angry words. The first two reactions they quote: "[B]y framing Democrats as obstructionist, [Bush] is beginning to insulate himself against possible defeat on Social Security," and "[H]e is as determined as ever." We were a little surprised at how positive the reactions were, until we realized who exactly was reacting: "Republican congressional aides" and "administration officials." Nice choice of sources, guys -- both specific and balanced...