LOL!! I'm sorry, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't amused by all the wailing and gnashing of teeth at FT. I sincerely don't mean this post as a gloat; I'm not totally without sympathy since I went through the same thing in the '90s (though I don't think I was quite as close to sliting my wrists as some of you).Most of what is written here shows a lack of understanding of how our system works and nearly hysterical predications of doom during the next four years. I would love to address many of the comments made here but there are just too many. Let me just say that the Democratic party may finally realize how out of touch they are with mainstream America. James Carville, Clinton's attack puppy, said if Kerry couldn't beat Bush this year with what he described as a "lousy economy and lousy war" and all the hundreds of millions spent to defeat him, then the Democrats may never win again. Cheers!

The Democrats will win in 2008 (if, God willing, there is an election). With Hillary Clinton running then, the Democrats will surely get in!

When was this country thrown out of the UN? I know I would have heard news about that!

Anyone who is anyone knows Hillary will run in 2008. All we need is her in office! Just remember, Daschle lost also, so who do the Dems have to turn to for leadership? They also lost seats in both houses of Congress.

Quote:

---

When was this country thrown out of the UN? I know I would have heard news about that!

---

When bush went to war with Iraq. The war was unsantioned.

I've been hearing this all day, so I'm guessing it's true.

Wow. Somehow Bush has become short-hand for the Devil, and Kerry has become the next savior. Hardly. I think the disgust present on this board is hardly justified. Perhaps we should be taking a closer look at Congress (you know, the guys who actually declare war) and their complicity in the Iraq situation. Also, we average citizens do not have complete access to top secret intelligence files that the President and his advisors (and, yet again, Congress) do. Because Kerry supported the war at first, I don't think his actions would have been any different- although it is possible that, because of a vocal minority, he would have backed out of the situation and left Iraq on its own to rebuild. Bush does not single-handedly control the economy; in fact the President doesn't have nearly as much power over this as some people (mostly anti-Bush) would have us believe.

Sorry about this rant, but I am tired of reading so many dire predictions of the world going to hell in a handbasket because of one man.

Quote:

---

Because of bush, we were thrown out of the UN.

---

From your post to God's ears.

What color is the sky in your world?

First, I don't think it is hysterical of me to suggest funding for education in my state is in jeopardy. It is already drastically underfunded. Excellent teachers are being educated in Nebraska and then leave because they can't make nearly enough money here. Education funding has been cut year after year under the current governor, who strives for "tax relief" in the midst of budget shortfalls, while steadfastly proclaiming none of the corporate tax-cuts can be touched. Taxes were raised in this state, and it is a financial hardship on me and my family. But when given the choice between higher taxes and another education cut, I simply do not see how I can afford NOT to choose higher taxes. (This is what I mean about tax relief. It doesn't relieve me.) Many school districts have been forced to consolidate or close outright, leaving the students to be absorbed by other districts. School districts here are suing the state for more funding because they simply cannot meet state and federal mandates. I acknowledge this is a state and local issue. However, if these schools are already struggling, I fear the gap will be widened by NCLB rather than closed. I foresee many schools losing federal funding which may be the only thing keeping them afloat, causing surrounding areas to try and take up the slack, a further burden on their budgets and their teachers. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I strongly feel my daughter's education hangs in the balance.

I was using hyperbole when I suggested that all programs but military funding might be cut. But I can't see how it can be argued that if the Bush administration and their supporters in congress continue on their crusade for "tax relief" we will be faced with one of two problems; either the country will be sent even further into debt or many programs (possibly even some important to people on both sides of the issues) will lose their funding. I think it is likely that both of these things will happen. I am not a wealthy person. And taxes in Nebraska are some of the highest in the nation. But paying taxes is an obligation of the citizens in order to fund programs which are essential to the growth of our nation. If taxes are cut, spending must be as well. And there are some programs out there that I would rather keep on the books than get an extra couple hundred dollars a year back. I can't imagine how anyone who is living above the poverty line could think otherwise.

If I could chose where my tax dollars were spent, believe me, I would. All I can do is my best to choose the people responsible for allocating my tax dollars. Believe me, when I voted on Tuesday, it was not just for president. I voted in the congressional race as well. I am well aware of how important Congress is to changes in policy, and I do my part on that front as well.

Diehard, I might concede the point about mainstream America if the popular vote had gone to Bush by a decisive margin. As it stands, he only won it by 4%. That shows me that democrats are only about 2% more out of touch with mainstream America than Republicans are. When the exit polls show such large numbers voting for a given candidate as a vote AGAINST the other (for BOTH candidates) and another large number voting for the incumbent not because they particularly support him, but because he is a known factor, it shows me that NEITHER party has a very strong grasp on mainstream America. Now, I am registered non-partisan, but I voted strongly Democratic this year. I'm not particularly "mainstream" though, so I am not a great example.

Edited to add:
If Hillary runs for president in 2008, I might just vote Republican for the first time in my life.

Quote:

---

Because of bush, we only have England and Australia as allies, when we used to have much more. Because of bush, we were thrown out of the UN.

---

Surely, you're not serious.

I am, and don't call me Shirley.

boom boom

If the Philippines president has pulled her troups out of Iraq , in order to save the life of one of her citizens, can that country be said to be supporting the war? I don't know how.

Of course I just counted 19 countries in that list that are not third world countries.
Ren because a country has been forced to withdraw troops does not by any means suggest that in "theory" that country does not support the war, if not by their presence then in spirit.
Edited to add this list of countries as it`s interesting to compare both the numbers and the countries involved.
World War two allies.
France United Kingdom China Soviet Union United States Britain: Australia Canada New Zealand South Africa Most countries occupied by the Axis powers continued the fight with resistance movements under governments in exile: Belgium (invaded by Germany, May 10, 1940) Czechoslovakia Greece (invaded by Italy, October 28, 1940) Luxembourg (invaded by Germany, May 10, 1940) Netherlands (invaded by Germany, May 10, 1940)
Norway (invaded by Germany, April 9, 1940) Poland (invaded by Germany and Russia in September 1939) Yugoslavia Iran Iraq Ethiopia Philippines Bolivia Brazil Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Dominican Republic El Salvador Guatemala Haiti Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Panama

Lothruin, I completely understand your concerns about the education system. First of all, lets remember that GWB has thrown three times as much money at education as his predecessor. (Do people still believe that the evil Republicans want to throw kids and old people out into the streets to starve and die a horrible death?) That schools still don't have enough money for the teachers or students indicates a problem with priorities and allocation of available funds. Private schools spend far less per student than do public schools and often give better results. Why? 'Cause private schools don't have a bottomless pit of the public treasury to draw from so they make the necessary budget constraints to get the most bang for the buck. Public schools waste and waste, throwing billions into administrative costs, and then cry for more. You mentioned federal mandates. This is another drain on local resources and a great argument against federal involvement in state and local matters. The education system has sold its soul to the federal bureacracy and now the local taxpayer must pay the piper.

The answer may be found in school vouchers, we don't really know because of the unexplainable opposition it faces. Democrats have used anti-religious and sky is falling rhetoric to scare people away from this concept. Consider that the money the government already spends each year on your child is given to you in the form of a voucher. You, the parent (I know, this is a radical concept), are given the perogative to send your daughter and spend that money at the school of YOUR choice. Suddenly that school becomes accountable to you, not only for the results your daughter reaps, but for how responsibly it spends the money. If the school doesn't deliver, you can send your daughter to a school that does. Those that benefit the most will be poor and middle-class families that can't afford the private schools that the Congressmen send their kids to. How any parent can oppose this confounds me.

But don't worry about funding. Bush spends like a Democrat.

I don't think private school is the answer to better education. And actually, test results and attendence and graduation rate records show that Nebraska public school students rank consistently high compared to other states with much better-funded educational systems. My specific fear, as I said, is that No Child Left Behind will widen the gap rather than close it.

I'm on the fence about the voucher system. Part of that is that I don't think private schools are the answer to poor education, but part of it is I don't know how well or poorly it will work in rural areas. Because of my state being what it is, the primarly concern is NOT lower-class families. I think we haven't got a large percentage of families living below the poverty line, and very few living in what would be considered "inner-city" by most people. Omaha is the only metro area in the state which even has anything resembling an "inner-city" and most of those folks strongly oppose NCLB. But if a school's sole funding comes from vouchers granted to its parents, how in the world will all the small rural schools even be able to stay afloat, and what will happen to those students once they close? It is already a hardship for many students, who drive as much as 45 minutes on gravel roads just to get to school, and that does not include extracurricular activities. These are extremely small school districts, already struggling. Consolidation has already increased the burden on families in the form of time, money on gas and vehicles that can handle the incliment conditions, and a dramatic increase in deaths of teenagers involved in accidents coming and going from school. I simply fear that a voucher system will quash the rural school systems in my area, and cause a HUGE problem for my state.

The Democrats would be fools to back Hilary Clinton for the White House. She has a rather large, and philandering albatross named Bill around her neck, and I think she would alienate more voters than she would pull over to her side.

A better choice, although we have 4 years to see how he does, would be Barack Obama. He seems to be young, smart and popular, three Democratic values, and then the Republicans would have to counter with someone with as much personality. Can you say Colin Powell?

America gets it's first black President, and it's about time, too.

I'd take either of those guys over Bush or Kerry!