Oh, we didn't mean *you*!
President Bush was reelected last Tuesday, and by a large margin. Not a landslide, but a three and a half million vote lead is not squeaking by, either. As a conservative and a republican (not the same thing, by the way) I was relieved and pleased that my candidate had won the election. I went to bed when it became clear that it was over, and was up in time to see Kerry's gracious concession speech. The talking heads began their usual dissection of the results, and wondered what it meant for the losing side. All seemed well with the world, and I made a conscious decision not to post any gloating remarks here at perfidy, lest I seem to be, well, gloating.
I might not have bothered. My small gloats would have been entirely lost in a sea of ridiculous whining and moaning from the left. Leaving aside the moonbats at the Democratic Underground, and the covers of leftist British newspapers, there has been an awful lot of crying. But along with the crying has come loads of insults directed at the winner, and those who supported him.
In Slate, Jane Smiley has some not very smiley things to say about the 51% of the electorate that voted for Bush:
Why Americans Hate Democrats - A Dialogue
The unteachable ignorance of the red states
The reason the Democrats have lost five of the last seven presidential elections is simple: A generation ago, the big capitalists, who have no morals, as we know, decided to make use of the religious right in their class war against the middle class and against the regulations that were protecting those whom they considered to be their rightful prey - workers and consumers. The architects of this strategy knew perfectly well that they were exploiting, among other unsavory qualities, a long American habit of virulent racism, but they did it anyway, and we see the outcome now - Cheney is the capitalist arm and Bush is the religious arm. They know no boundaries or rules. They are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant. Lots of Americans like and admire them because lots of Americans, even those who don't share those same qualities, don't know which end is up. Can the Democrats appeal to such voters? Do they want to? The Republicans have sold their souls for power. Must everyone?
Progressives have only one course of action now: React quickly to every outrage - red state types love to cheat and intimidate, so we have to assume the worst and call them on it every time. We have to give them more to think about than they can handle - to always appeal to reason and common sense, and the law, even when they can't understand it and don't respond. They cannot be allowed to keep any secrets. Tens of millions of people didn't votethey are watching, too, and have to be shown that we are ready and willing to fight, and that the battle is worth fighting. And in addition, we have to remember that threats to democracy from the right always collapse. Whatever their short-term appeal, they are borne of hubris and hatred, and will destroy their purveyors in the end.
Ironically, she implies that Democrats aren't Americans. This is one of the more sensible responses to Kerry's loss that I found.
Over at Q and O, Jon collects some responses from the left:
James Wolcott nails it with a sledgehammer:
"Good, Go Ahead, America, Choke on Your Own Vomit, You Deserve to Die."
Osama Wins!!
I hope the people who voted for Bush get eight legs, ten arms and brain tumors.
...
The rest of the world should know that we ... will never succomb to the relentless efforts of right-wing extremists who seek to turn the United States of America into a replica of the Third Reich.
...
welcome back to 1923
...
What we have been doing isn't working, it's time for a new plan. I bet the Jews and Germans thought they could ride Hitler out, too. You see where that got them.
...
...Chimpy McCokespoon...
...
[Ohio] is just as full of morons as any other, except more so. Fucking ruined my life and my body - hope to be able to kill a few of them before I leave...
...
We are on the path to becoming a fascist state--only revolution or a violent coup will stop it.
As a conservative, it would be easy to take offense at all of this - and there is plenty more out there. I can personally vouch for the fact that had Kerry won, I would not be reacting in this peculiar manner. There seems to be a common feeling among right wing bloggers that the reactions of the left seem a little too much, a little over the top in both vituperativeness and whining tone. Patton over at opinion8 shared a similar thought via email, and Michelle Catalano has an interesting story to tell over at a small victory.
Why all of this rage, angst and fear over Bush's victory? Let's leave that for a moment, and move a little closer to home. I can easily dismiss the ravings of other bloggers, because they're likely talking out of their ass just as I often do here. But intelligent people that I personally know, have met face to face and who know me are guilty of the same rhetoric that I cited above. Yesterday, Mrs. Buckethead's band was in the studio working on their new, full length album. One would think that this would be a happy time for the band, but the news of Bush's victory weighed heavy on their minds. You see, everyone in the band save my wife is a liberal. Oh, to be sure, the bass player votes Republican just to spite an old girlfriend, and GuitarPicker is a longtime commenter here at Perfidy and has many libertarian leanings. But the band is in fact reliably liberal.
After her experience yesterday, my wife was loathe to return to the studio today. Nearly everyone in the band had said something grossly offensive to conservatives, completely unwilling to remember or recognize that my wife the conservative was in the room. One of the other singers made a comment along the lines of, "How could so many people be so stupid and vote for that idiot?" My wife gently pointed out, "I am not an idiot and I voted for him." The response was classic - "Oh, we don't mean you!" This pattern is classic bigoted behavior. Bigot: "All x are filthy, stupid mouthbreathers." Interlocutor: "What about this x?" Bigot: "Oh, that one's different. It's all the rest of them that I'm talking about."
No doubt, that singer would be shocked to hear her pronouncements classed as bigotry. She is a liberal, from a long and distinguished line of liberals, and nothing she says could ever be bigotry. She is careful to excise all racist, classist, sizeist, and genderist concepts from thought and speech. But, damn, those conservatives are baby-eating, rapist, warmongering idiots. Other members of the band had similar thoughts to offer my gentle conservative wife. The usual gamut of base canards was offered - Bush is stupid, the fundamentalist Christians are going to put us in camps, and of course, OIL! The banjo player had shaved his head and vowed never to cut until a democrat was once again in the white house, and we are free of the abomination that is George W. Bush. (Saving grace - apparently he looks like much less of a dirty hippy than previously. I hope he ends his days an old man, never having cut his hair.)
Mrs. Buckethead is not political in the sense that I am. While her conservatism is likely stronger than mine, she does not enjoy political argument and finds political discussion rather beside the point. She'd much rather play music. So, being subjected to this from her friends and bandmates is painful on at least a couple levels. One, she is being insulted by friends who in the depth of their pain over Kerry's loss, seem unable to realize that they are saying rather hurtful things. Two, she doesn't like to talk about these things - and therefore has never developed the snappy comebacks and putdowns that characterize modern political argument. She doesn't want to appear a poor winner, despite the fact that that means that these ungracious slobs can continue being tragically poor losers.
And here, on this very website, my friend Ross has given into the temptation to view Bush's victory as apocalypse. Despite the fact that the previous four years have failed to see the arrival of apocalypse; the determined chicken littles on the left - just like the preachers in the nineteenth century who constantly were calibrating the date of the arrival of the end times - must postpone the immanentizing of the eschaton. Here's a sample of what Ross thinks about Bush's reelection:
But Bush represents the certainty of an economic death spiral, the affirmation of xenophobia (and just about every other phobia, including homo-), and the sunsetting of liberty. He's got a four year track record to prove it. At least with Kerry there was a chance for fiscal discipline and for cooperation on the international level; no such chance exists now.
We're really entering a new era, now. If you're a smart, wealth-producing, socially liberal, fiscally conservative person, you need to start thinking about protecting yourself and your family from this lunacy, and you need to start doing it right now. The bible-wielding welfare-staters are coming for us. They want to spend our tax dollars on things we don't agree about, like stupid wars. They want to force everyone to hate gays. They want to take away a woman's right to choose. They do not believe the environment should be protected. They want to swagger around the playground, declaring that the opinions of those who live elsewhere in the world don't matter. They talk financial discipline, but implement the largest discretionary spending increases in modern times. They hand huge breaks to the buddies of the people in charge of their "party", and they hand the bill to us, and to the next generation.
So how do you protect yourself and your family against this lunacy? I don't know yet. I'm trying to figure it out. I'm not sure it's possible; at least, not in America.
So there you have it! Now that the benighted majority has consigned us to another four years in hell, what can we be certain of? The economy will go into a death spiral - despite the stock market rally that is still ongoing, and the new positive job numbers that just came out. We know that our leadership hates all the wogs. Despite the fact that we were once all wogs ourselves, and that same leadership has committed this nation to the expenditure of blood and treasure in an attempt to bring freedom to those same brown skinned folk. Also, the administration and all its followers are afraid of everything, including gays. Well, that's obvious, isn't it? Without fear, the hate core of the right could never create the fear based police state that Ross figures is right around the corner. Liberty, well that's right out the window. (Except the liberty to own guns. The left never did support the complete bill of rights.) We'll start more stupid wars, which will make the rest of the world hate us even more, and that will destroy the environment, and we'll all either freeze to death or broil, depending on what the global warming activists are predicting today. And don't forget the swaggering. The villain must swagger, because otherwise we won't know he's evil. That's important, because unless a villain swaggers, you never have the satisfying denouement.
I think Ross has his hate labels confused though, given that the bible thumpers rarely if ever support the welfare state - though they are famous for their charity. They'll be coming for you, though. Probably to give you a homemade pie or something, but they'll be coming nevertheless. Ross, at least you are a Canadian; you can run to the Canadian embassy when the jackbooted thugs start roaming the streets. I guess the rest of us are stuck here to face the worst.
I cannot express in words the extent to which this kind of thinking both bores and offends me. Every time a Republican wins national office, the litany of despair begins anew. In situations like 2000, the litany is embellished with whining over stolen elections. Always it's dark conspiracies and the end times drawing nigh. Only two liberals of my personal acquaintance have resisted the temptation to parade this thinking in front of me or my wife: Johno and Mapgirl. (And with my hair trigger set, I came close to accusing Johno of it - sorry, dude) I understand the disappointment, but seriously liberals, believe me when I say that:
- The fifty-nine million of your fellow citizens (a majority, btw) who voted for Bush are not idiots, at least no more so than a normal bell curve would indicate.
- Neither are they evil, fascist, or baby-eating.
- Liberals will not be put in camps.
- We have just as strong, if not stronger, feelings for liberty than you. If by some strange cosmic irony, someone does start a police state in the next four years, I assure that we'll be fighting it too, and we're a hell of a lot better armed.
- The economy will not suffer a melt down.
- Rationalizing the tax code and reforming social security are not bad ideas. Further, they are not sneaky attempts to create a police state or some other nonsense. See above.
- If the rest of the world hates us, 1) that's not new and 2) It doesn't mean we're wrong.
- The end times are not nigh.
Make the attempt to be a gracious loser, for lose in fact you did. Last Tuesday, Bush became the first candidate since 1988 to receive a clear majority of the vote. His party increased its strength in both houses of Congress. Deal with it, accept it in you hearts, and get on with your life. Cease and desist referring to me and others who supported the president as idiots, morons and worse. The world will not come to an end.
on
| § 12
§ 12 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
B: Agreed, on all fronts.
B: Agreed, on all fronts.
I'd love to assert that this mini-storm of protesting the stupidity of the "red states" will end soon, but recent history tells us otherwise. There are those who still believe that Bush was "selected not elected" in 2000, along with the whole host of other catchy jingles we've been treated to for the past four years. Those positions and their espousers are irrelevant, made redundant by current events.
Enough. The people have spoken, and there's no getting 'round it while still appearing to be a rational adult. Not that this will stop the whining, because, well, it won't. Even though it should.
A tip to those of who preferred Kerry, er, "anyone but Bush": You know, you catch more flies with honey than you can by telling the majority of your fellow citizens that they're too damned stupid to be entitled to express their opinions. Next time, find a better candidate. With a plan he can risk articulating without alienating half of his supporters every time he injects nuance. And how about a plan with which a majority of your fellow citizens can agree? Then find a way to convince, not bludgeon. Any argument for your position that starts with "Hey, {dumbass|redneck|homophobe|racist|"unteachably ignorant red-stater"}: let me tell you how it REALLY should be..." will be met with deafness and derision during the indefinite future.
Elections are won and lost at the ballot box, not in post facto fits of whining and condescension. For those who can't believe the horrible choice that the majority made, grow the hell up, and welcome to the tyranny of the majority. Just because you disagree doesn't make you right, any more than being in the majority makes me right. But, in polite democratic society, majority trumps invective.
Oh, and have a little faith in the fabric of the country, would you? I didn't rejoice when my candidate in 1992, GHW Bush, was defeated. But it didn't ruin my weekend either, and I seem to recall that, eight years later, the globe was still spinning. You see, the world won't end, even if you don't get your way. The country won't end up looking the way you wanted just now, but the fix for that is simple: Change your views, change the views of those who outnumbered you, or find a middle ground. It's still a democracy, after all, no matter what the spittle flecked radical left wing tells you.
Thanks Honey! And Patton,
Thanks Honey! And Patton, excellent post! You're spot-on!
Twice over the last two (what should have been fun, but turned out to be, at times, tortuous) days, I have gotten the "Oh, but not you" treatment from my bandmates when I've tried to defend myself against the insults. If not me, then who?
I've also been dismissed as reading too much into things and taking offense where none was meant. It's nice of certain members to try and keep things happy within the band, but things are not happy when one member is constantly on guard from fear of attack and gets ganged up on whenever those attacks are not just swallowed with a giggle and a smile.
I know that my bandmates don't have nightmares about me as they sleep. I know that they don't view me personally as "the enemy," but they have been altogether unwilling to admit that the things that they say are nasty and hurtful, and that I have a right to expect that they not say those things. (At least to my face.) I know that my bandmates are all Democrats. Most of my friends are Democrats, so to be quite honest, I am more likely to assume someone I know is a Democrat than a Republican. Because of that, I try to refrain from inflamatory remarks, blanket statements, and I don't send nasty email jokes about Democrats to my entire address book (and that's not because there aren't any). I cannot say the same for my associates.
And do you want to know the thing that realy pisses me off? With the exception of one person, whose friendship precedes the band by a couple of years, I have never once been asked what my actual views are on the issues. Never. If some of them asked, they might be surprised at what they find. We might actually be able to have a dialogue. But ,apparently, it doesn't matter what I actually think. "Belinda is a nice person, but, tragically and misguidedly, she's a R*********." I guess it's easier to demonize people when you see them as steriotypes who believe XYZ just like all the other people you hate. Not that we all believe the things Democrats say we all do, and certainly not for the reasons that are cited, but why should that matter.
That being said, when politics aren't interfering, I really do like being in the band. I like what we do. The CD hasn't even been mixed or mastered, and I am more please with it and proud of it than I ever thought I could be. It's good stuff, and only some of that is my own personal bias. I like the company. I like the people, but I have to admit to a certain sour taste in my mouth. Why, now, does my heart start to race whenever the topic turns from music? Oh, that's my body's survival instinct gearing up for an attack. Call me Pavlov's dog.
BTW, Steve in his desire to
BTW, Steve in his desire to defend me accidentally mixed up his quotes. The singer in question (who can be very nice and fun when the Republican issue isn't at hand) didn't say that particular quote. It was a different band member all together who said that bit about the stupid people.
With respect, B, you're
With respect, B, you're engaging in exactly what you complain about.
Most Republicans inform me that I am surrounded by "liberals", listening to "liberal media", being ruled by "liberal activist judges" or corrupt "liberal politicians", being talked down to by a "liberal elite", or that every Democrat is a "liberal". I'm not sure exactly what the word "liberal" even means any more. I know that Republicans believe it represents what's wrong with the country.
The difference I see is this. Republicans are almost unified in their determination that "liberalism", an entire collective of ideas and people, is the enemy. Democrats believe that their enemy is the current _leadership_ of the Republican party, not the people voting for it, who have been mislead.
You have always had the ability to present your best arguments for a Bush Presidency. Some arguments for Kerry were presented here; I was perplexed as to why you didn't summarize and present yours.
With respect, your feelings about personal liberty seem to be quite different from mine. Personal liberty, according to your party, is about the right to carry a gun, and the right to put whatever you want into the environment. Personal liberty to me means that a government does not have the right to throw you in jail without any evidence other than a funny last name or the word of a nameless official. It's happened in the past four years, many times, and doesn't seem to be raising any alarms on the Right.
I think that we are at a turning point in this country's history. Do you believe that more oil will magically appear? The age of _cheap oil_ is over, and requires substantial adjustment. Buying _expensive oil_ means needing even more foreign trade. The current trade deficits are financed by massive foreign investment in the US, as are the government's deficits. Much of the planet actively _dislikes_ the US, now, due to Bush's stances. This has caused a drop-off in foreign purchases of US bonds, which will result in interest rate increases. Those will lead to higher deficits.
Nobody believed the stock market would melt down, but it did. The US economy has "melted down" several times, in fact. Four years ago Bush declared, repetitvely, that global warming didn't exist. A few months ago they quietly acknowledged that it did, and proceeded to do nothing. Discourse in this country has reached a depressing nadir; a fact-free zone of red vs. blue. 90% of fish in the ocean have disappeared in the last few decades. The baby boomers retire in five (count'em) years. Not fifteen, not twenty.
Within two or three years very significant numbers of citizens will be subject to AMT, which will harshly increase taxes, particularly on those who have large families. Rising interest rates due to trade deficits and government debt will begin an inflationary cycle, as will the higher cost of "cheap" imports America has become so dependent upon. Since AMT is not indexed to inflation, this will suck ever-larger numbers of taxpayers into a parallel world of dramatically higher taxation.
Getting more subjective: On
Getting more subjective: On top of that, Bush's (sorry) "F U, World" attitude has guaranteed that the hate is going to be out there for a long time, and it's going to breed a lot of brand new terrorists. Did we come to educate, or to kill? If we came to educate, we screwed it up bad. If we came to kill, the spilled blood is but a fraction of the river that comes.
Our best defense against terrorism, native populations that agree with and call America friend, is lost. They were the ones who could deal with it, and they're lost. If American's Right could not convince its own citizens of the essential benificence of its actions, how did they expect to convince others?
They didn't, and what's more, they don't care what foreigners think. When discussed, it is discussed as an issue of _sovereignty_ instead of as an issue of _cooperation_. And I have news for you: the rest of the world hasn't always "hated" America. I've been, in my life, to twenty or thirty countries, from Russia to Spain to Brazil. I've never had anything but a friendly reaction, anywhere, and heard America discussed in anything worse than clucking tones of disapproval. Until the last couple of years. There's been a sea change out there in the world, and you can either deal with it or not.
Bush has had four years to bring "reform" to the system. He has done nothing. He did find the time to push through huge, unfair tax cuts that grossly distorted the nation's finances.
His plans for social security privatization make no sense, mathematically. He hasn't bothered to indicate how he'll _pay_ for it. The reason is that the only known solution is to increase the social security taxes, to "save" the system and allow privatization to take place.
75% of Americans pay more in social security and medicare taxes than they pay in income tax. If we give them a tiny income tax cut and couple it with a huge social security tax increase, who does that affect?
"Simplification" of the tax system is code for "fewer brackets". Fewer brackets mean, mathematically that lower income people _pay more_, and upper income people _pay less_. A flat rate tax system, and dual rate tax system...whatever. Mathematically, it amounts to the same thing.
People vote for "simpler taxes", and what they get is higher taxes.
Just show me the path, where we can "have it all", and make it make sense to me.
Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions. Some of them have let children die, clinging to that belief.
Has the left been harsh, post-election? Yes.
Also with respect, dude: If
Also with respect, dude: If the massive deficits, enormously expensive "oops" commitment of almost all of American's military to Iraq, the destruction of America's position around the world, distressingly accelerated global warming, the depletion of life in the oceans, the crossing of the hubbert curve in oil prices, huge trade deficits, debt culture, the runaway cost of the medical system, impending demographic shifts, innumeracy, illiteracy, DON'T constitute an apocalypse, you should at least understand that some of us consider it to be something of a preview.
Bush has wasted four years of CRITICAL time, where he could have made serious decisions about serious problems. It is likely that he will waste another four. And by then it may be too late.
The sensible thing to do is plan for the risk. If everything stays peachy, like you seem to say, then I'll be just fine, thank you, doing quite well. If the cracks in the system DO appear...
With respect, Ross, my
With respect, Ross, my husband does not stand around during my band practices and make nasty jokes and comments about "liberals" and "Democrats" and "stupid people" who don't vote the way he wants them to and in the process, personally attack my bandmates to their faces while making sure those comments are always made when they are outnumbered 5:1 or more. So your claim that he is doing "the same thing" shows that you're missing the point of the post. My husband is not mad at anyone because they are a "Democrat," he is offended that some of our friends have been treating us like dog poo on the bottom of their size tens.
We are not saying that the same demonization doesn't happen on the "right." Modern political discourse shows nearly as much grace and nuance as a smack-addicted tasmanian devil. In heat. But that doesn't mean we can't be upset about it and vent a bit when we experience that demonization FROM OUR FRIENDS who, in earnest, we would never treat in such a manner.
You dismissed what Steve was saying and why he was saying it. Then, you just rattled off a set of stereotypical things that you are apparently saying about the two of us because we dared question the fact that suddenly and suspiciously most of our Kerry-supporting friends are acting like we deserve to be flogged. If our few conservative friends and our libertarian friends were doing this, we would need to consider other reasons. Do we smell? Did we borrow a bunch of DVDs and not return them? Did we accidentally back over their dog? BTW, neither Stephen nor I believe that "liberal" is a dirty word, especially considering the fact that we happen to describe ourselves as "classical liberals."
You said:
"Democrats believe that their enemy is the current _leadership_ of the Republican party, not the people voting for it, who have been mislead."
My reason for voting for Bush was not because I was misled (or stupid/redneck/brainwashed/etc.), although it's awfully nice of you to condescend. I find it interesting that in that statement you spoke on behalf of Democrats to say that the problems aren't with the individuals who voted for Bush, but with the administration. Or in other words, "Oh, we didn't mean you."
Also, just to be extra clear, the post wasn't about policy, so why make it about policy? It was about me and Steve and the abnormally nasty treatment we've been getting from some of our friends based solely on the fact that we are not Democrats and didn't vote for Kerry. Why not comment on that in the comment thread for the post?
We would never have treated our friends like this had Kerry won. Why should we not expect to receive the same respect we would have had for them? Trying to say we are doing the same thing by being upset about the nasty treatment shows that you either missed the point, don't believe us, or don't care.
Based on my past interactions with you, I believe if we had discussed this in person, you would have cared. You would have heard the specifics of what made me upset, heard the pain in my voice, and seen the tears that were shed because my friends have decided that, as a non-Kerry supporter, I am the whipping boy. You would not have rushed in with a bunch of posts to try and prove how wrong Stephen and I are, and thereby, pour the proverbial salt in our proverbial wounds.
My wise friend Chris was
My wise friend Chris was talking with me, years back, when I was in the middle of a "problem" with a woman. She would come home, tell me about all these problems at work, and I'd try to figure out what we could do about them.
"You're an idiot," he told me, "Stop analyzing everything. "
"What am I supposed to do?"
"Just listen and hug. It's not the right time to solve the problem."
Group hug, everyone.
Last time I was outnumbered 5 to 1 was, say, a few weeks ago at a friend's (who is a GOP fundraiser) party. Ouch.
Thanks Ross, I needed that
Thanks Ross, I needed that hug.
Plus you gotta know that I'd
Plus you gotta know that I'd never be _rude_ to you, like seems to have happened. I'm a little surprised that it happened right in front of you like that. People do their heavy bitching in like-minded groups, but you gotta dial it back when you're in mixed company. Like, say, when chicks never hear the really dirty stuff guys talk about in bars. ;)
Buckethead & Mrs. Buckethead:
Buckethead & Mrs. Buckethead: Sorry to hear it. The guys in my band are also lefties, but we just joke about it if we talk about it at all (it may help that the others aren't all that political).
Ross: believe me, it doesn't work that way (to be fair, it doesn't really work that way on either side of the fence). Well, it might work that way in Canada, where people are famously and ferociously polite (I learned much from standonguard.com, the Canadian World Domination site, before it went dormant). ;-)
Let me explain. I'm an ex-leftist, now right more-or-less libertarian, and I've pretty much always maintained two disparate groups of friends--strongly liberal in the local music scene, and staunchly conservative wargamers. I've been a political outlier with each group, and neither were shy about letting fly at the other side, even in my presence. The degree of venom varies with the individual, not the faction. The worst was a Kerry supporter who first asked, "What, did Cheney instill you with fear?" (my answer: "if you say so,"), followed by: "It's all about consuming! All you do is consume, consume, consume" (she lives in a bigger, fancier house than I do).
A final thought: Anybody who was thinking seriously about putting anybody else in camps wouldn't be trying to expand their right to keep and bear arms. If liberals are really worried, they ought to become good friends with the Second Amendment. That government governs best which fears the governed.
Update: Talks have been had,
Update: Talks have been had, realizations have been met, people (including me) have agreed to chill out a bit, and all is well. Thanks for the chance to vent, get some much-needed support, and parse things out. I thought that I had prepared myself for any potential backlash, but I really hadn't. (The fact that a lot of this happened while we were exhausting ourselves with 10-hour marathons in the studio didn't help much either.)
I hope noone judges any of my bandmates by this. None of my 'mates would ever want to hurt anyone else in the band, although if we are recording a CD in 2008, I think I will NOT vote for recording 2 days after the election:-) Sometimes people just need to decompress for a bit. Also, please dont' take this as a sign that I am someone who you can't talk politics in front of or with. It's not like that. I am more than willing to talk politics if there is actual talk (if you know what I mean), and I think I've learned some valuable lessons about what constitutes talk, and where my limits are for dealing with non-talk.
Thanks. Onward and upward!