I really like the apartment building I live in, not only because it's reasonably well-maintained and comfortable, but also because it provides me entertainment on the weekends. The damage done to the hallway areas is like a drive-through version of CSI- you can figure out which drunk broke what, just by walking by. My favorite discovery this morning was the broken lamp and the eviscerated chest of drawers, which some drunken genius had decided to perpetrate directly in the view of the security cameras.
One of the smaller clues about last night was one of the typical party flyers you find around every college campus, which I found on the floor of the elevator. Since I read everything (I mean everything- it drives my brother nuts) I picked it up, and found that the front cover of the flyer featured a now-famous cartoon of the political leanings of North America. (It's available here: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/11/con04485.html.) The title read, "Screw it, we're out!!!!" and below, with a time and address, the flyer advertised the "Welcome To Canada Party."
I regretted missing it, because the idea of a bunch of liberal Maryland college students dressed up in flannel, drinking Molsen Golden and saying "Eh" sounded like a lot of fun. On second thought, I doubt anyone would have gotten into costume except me. But regardless. I did wish I'd been able to witness the shindig itself. It probably would have been reminiscent of a tongue-in-cheek article I read, describing how Canadian immigration authorities had been flooded with 55 million telephone requests for citizenship, most of them sobbing incoherently.
I wanted to flee the country as much as the next guy when we found out that Ohio had gone red. Personally, I wanted to go to Ireland, because they'd recognize my EMT certification and the beer was better. The leaving-the-country jokes were a morning-after coping mechanism, a way of reassuring ourselves that it was only our country that was crazy. But it keeps going. The Canadian immigration page, I'm told, had its biggest day ever on Wednesday. I've heard of at least three people around here who are actually trying to transfer to college in Canada. It's becoming an assumption among the left that our country is now occupied territory.
This crap has got to stop.
The appeal of leaving Jesusland for Canada is that, in our minds, we know that the rest of the world doesn't conform to the anti-abortion, fundamentalist Christian viewpoint that's marching on Washington. And I understand that very few people actually want to leave the country. We know it, and any semi-intelligent conservative knows it, too. But even the casual references to leaving are killing the credibility of the left.
One of the Bush administration's favorite digs at the left is to claim that we don't really love our country; that the liberal ability to recognize and address the glaring problems in American society reveals some kind of deep-seated distaste for the country and its heritage. This is ridiculous- we know it, and they know it. We love America, and so do they. The fundamental difference is how we love America.
Al Franken once said that conservatives love their country like a six-year-old loves their favorite athlete or movie star; they idolize and blindly worship, throwing a temper tantrum whenever anyone points out that the object of their affection might not be completely perfect. Liberals love this country like husbands and wives love each other; the succesful ones aren't squeamish about identifying the other's strengths and weaknesses, and since they love each other, and want the relationship to last, they work through the good times and the bad.
Think of the message we're sending. Conservatives already love to assail the left on charges of disloyalty to America, and being soft on defense. And now we're acting like a bunch of spoiled children. We didn't get our way, so we're throwing a temper tantrum and talking about running away where the people will understand us, and love us for who we are. If I were Ed Gillespie, I would be doing the Conservative Happy Dance right now, because the left would be doing my job for me. If you talk about leaving the country, you're handing over one more victory to the elected representatives of Jesusland.
So even if you're kidding, for crying out loud, put a sock in it. It undermines the liberal commitment to make America stronger and smarter, regardless of the fight some of our fellow citizens put up. Think about it. The motivation behind the Republican platform is to scare people into voting for them. Scared of a mythical gay threat to straight families. Scared of abortion clinics, even though they'll never see one. Scared of terrorism, even though the sparsely-populated, rural Red States probably aren't too high on Osama's hit list. The Republican agenda is pushing the country back to the 1950s, but the only way it'll work is if we let it.
At this point, I'm just preaching, and so I'll step down from the soapbox for the moment. But 56 million of us voted against the fundamentalist, conservative agenda, and goddammit, it's our country, too.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Thursday, November 04, 2004
The Ghost of Daschle and the Demons of Newt
What were you worrying about ten years ago? Think back to what your problems were. For me, they had a lot to do with math. I was in Mr. Hughes' homeroom class, and though grades weren't a huge priority yet, it was pretty obvious that I was sucking it up when it came to basic algebra. Girls were barely even on the horizon (which was what happened when you went to an all-boy's middle school.) When you weren't even old enough to see an R-rated movie without your parents, the political realities of the world you lived in weren't very, well...real.
But ten years ago, something very bad was happening for Democrats across the country. The Democratic President was mired down in Watergate and Troopergate. The Republican minority had engineered a furious and resounding defeat of the Clinton health care plan. And the election of 1994 had been the worst defeat for the Democrats in 40 years. All this helped to propel a white-haired guy from Atlanta with a funny name to the forefront of American politics. The Gingrich Revolution was on, the Contract With America was rapidly being enforced, and things looked supremely bad.
(A side comment about that chart-topping masterpiece of conservative crap. The titles are amazing. The "National Security Restoration Act" actually helped piss off our allies, and the "Senior Citizen Fairness Act" did great things for forcing the elderly to work until age 70. Whoever came up these deceptive and disingenous nicknames is clearly still employed by the Republican Party, however. "No Child Left Behind," anyone?)
The situation is not the same as it is right now- it's clearly worse. We elected a Democratic President in 1992, and in 2004 we have a President who wasn't even democratically elected (at least the first time around.) But the wild-eyed Republican determination to mold the country in their image (even though this image in 2004 is far more terrifying than that of a decade ago) is the same. And that's a blessing in disguise.
Oklahoma elected a Senator who supports the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions and decried "rampant lesbianism" in public schools. South Carolina's new Senator doesn't think that homosexuals or unmarried pregnant women should be allowed to teach. And President-re-elect Bush (who, among a myriad of other reasons I hate him, wants to cripple and eventually destroy stem-cell research) has stated as of today that he has accumulated "political capital," and "intends to use it."
Of course he does, and of course they do. Every political party that gallops into the majority and promotes a reactionary agenda, will implode. Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America had their day, culminating in the glory days of 1995, where a bunch of conservatives shut down the government just because they could. And because that Clinton dude pissed them off. Within a year, Newt Gingrich had become symbolic of the same stagnant political system he had galloped into Washington to supposedly defeat. 60% of Americans had a negative impression of the Speaker. The Republican cheese, hand-delivered to the American kitchen by Newt, had gone decidedly stinky.
The unpleasant and depressing victory of the Republican Party in 2004 no more represents a sea change in American values than it did in 1994, or, for that matter, 1982. Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill, a massive figure (in every sense) who I miss terribly in this age of revolving-door Congressional Democratic leadership, was disgusted with the tax plans and social security cuts proposed by the popular Republican President. And though he theoretically had a majority, conservative Democrats split the party vote and left O'Neill in the minority. But instead of wasting political capital, O'Neill, a crafty Irish politician of the old school, simply smiled at his lieutenants and said, "Give him rope." And he did- just enough rope to let Reagan craft the epic disaster we call Reaganomics.
Our government is currently controlled by the most reactionary, fundamentalist administration in history. And, by their own account, they are hell-bent on imposing their agenda on the rest of the country- just like ten years ago. We should realize that this administration is tearing down a path which was cleared by Gingrich, a path which leads them straight over the same cliff. We can acknowledge that we have been forced to retreat, but we must never consider surrender. We should not give them the opportunity to make us backpedal on the liberal principles which are going to move this country forward. In fact, we should give them only one thing.
Rope.
But ten years ago, something very bad was happening for Democrats across the country. The Democratic President was mired down in Watergate and Troopergate. The Republican minority had engineered a furious and resounding defeat of the Clinton health care plan. And the election of 1994 had been the worst defeat for the Democrats in 40 years. All this helped to propel a white-haired guy from Atlanta with a funny name to the forefront of American politics. The Gingrich Revolution was on, the Contract With America was rapidly being enforced, and things looked supremely bad.
(A side comment about that chart-topping masterpiece of conservative crap. The titles are amazing. The "National Security Restoration Act" actually helped piss off our allies, and the "Senior Citizen Fairness Act" did great things for forcing the elderly to work until age 70. Whoever came up these deceptive and disingenous nicknames is clearly still employed by the Republican Party, however. "No Child Left Behind," anyone?)
The situation is not the same as it is right now- it's clearly worse. We elected a Democratic President in 1992, and in 2004 we have a President who wasn't even democratically elected (at least the first time around.) But the wild-eyed Republican determination to mold the country in their image (even though this image in 2004 is far more terrifying than that of a decade ago) is the same. And that's a blessing in disguise.
Oklahoma elected a Senator who supports the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions and decried "rampant lesbianism" in public schools. South Carolina's new Senator doesn't think that homosexuals or unmarried pregnant women should be allowed to teach. And President-re-elect Bush (who, among a myriad of other reasons I hate him, wants to cripple and eventually destroy stem-cell research) has stated as of today that he has accumulated "political capital," and "intends to use it."
Of course he does, and of course they do. Every political party that gallops into the majority and promotes a reactionary agenda, will implode. Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America had their day, culminating in the glory days of 1995, where a bunch of conservatives shut down the government just because they could. And because that Clinton dude pissed them off. Within a year, Newt Gingrich had become symbolic of the same stagnant political system he had galloped into Washington to supposedly defeat. 60% of Americans had a negative impression of the Speaker. The Republican cheese, hand-delivered to the American kitchen by Newt, had gone decidedly stinky.
The unpleasant and depressing victory of the Republican Party in 2004 no more represents a sea change in American values than it did in 1994, or, for that matter, 1982. Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill, a massive figure (in every sense) who I miss terribly in this age of revolving-door Congressional Democratic leadership, was disgusted with the tax plans and social security cuts proposed by the popular Republican President. And though he theoretically had a majority, conservative Democrats split the party vote and left O'Neill in the minority. But instead of wasting political capital, O'Neill, a crafty Irish politician of the old school, simply smiled at his lieutenants and said, "Give him rope." And he did- just enough rope to let Reagan craft the epic disaster we call Reaganomics.
Our government is currently controlled by the most reactionary, fundamentalist administration in history. And, by their own account, they are hell-bent on imposing their agenda on the rest of the country- just like ten years ago. We should realize that this administration is tearing down a path which was cleared by Gingrich, a path which leads them straight over the same cliff. We can acknowledge that we have been forced to retreat, but we must never consider surrender. We should not give them the opportunity to make us backpedal on the liberal principles which are going to move this country forward. In fact, we should give them only one thing.
Rope.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Coalition Governments and the Tent
In the parliamentary system, the two-party system is a little different; there is a government, and an opposition. Since, in the European political tradition, there tend to be a lot more political parties running around, they all have candidates for representative office. Once they get elected, it's pretty obvious that hundreds of parliamentarians and dozens of political parties aren't going to get along. So they form a government- the parties with the most in common, will team up to create a majority, and the ones who don't join, form the opposition.
Though this sounds foreign, we used to do it in this country, and the Democrats used to be damn good at it. When we got the different voter groups- the middle-class suburbanites, the urban poor, the rural poor- and got them under one big umbrella, things got done. Remember the 1960s? JFK's Democratic party was still heavily supported by the Southern Democrats. (You may remember those guys from such memorable historical moments as, the Civil War, and, Reconstruction.) Though the Dixiecrats jumped ship, and local heroes such as George Wallace weren't known for their support of the civil rights movement or the Great Society, they didn't call it the Solid South for nothing. Up until the late 1960s, the South was one big Democratic stronghold.
How was that possible? Was every Southern Democrat related to our own Zell Miller of today? I don't think so. The tent was big enough for everybody. The fact was that, though the people of the 1960s South didn't always see eye-to-eye with their President on some emotional and relevant issues, they knew that the domestic, social policies of JFK and Johnson were the right thing for them, and for the rest of the country.
The Democrats are collapsing across the country in 2004, and it's for two reasons, both involving the allegorical "tent." The first is that the Republican tent is getting bigger and bigger. Constituencies that used to be solidly Democratic are vulnerable to one of the many Republican messages. We'll start with well-educated, white-collar, middle-class suburban voters. These have been a swing population for both parties in the last decade, but they're slipping further and further to the Republican column, because the Republican party has done an excellent job of redefining the debate. Democratic policies appeal to doing what's right; Republican policies appeal to doing what's right for you.
George Bush was able to gain access to this voter group- which, I'm relatively certain, would have completely ignored him otherwise- through the post-9/11, war-on-terror, world-is-safer-after-Saddam scare tactics. But once he got through to them, he was able to deliver a much more appealing message; it's okay to vote your pocketbook instead of your conscience. When you convince a large voter group that a vote for you is a vote for Number 1, the underprivileged in society are not going to be having a good day. Or a good four years, rather.
The second reason the Democrats are collapsing, is also a "tent" reason. The Republican tent isn't just getting bigger- they're building it differently. It's what gave Bush his win last night. Ever since the late 1970s, the Republican Party has been able to skillfully shift the debate in rural America- the South, the Midwest, the western Plains states. Instead of talking about relevant issues- tax cuts targeted at the working class, serious reform and funding for education, and health care- the Republican Party focuses instead on morals.
What do they mean by morals? Something like 81% of Bush voters listed it as their highest priority. They want their candidate to share their moral perspective- to believe in the things they believe in, and to occasionally act on those beliefs. "I don't believe in gay marriage or abortion, and I'm Christian. Hey, so's my President!" It sounds reassuring, but if you're a poor, rural voter, it's the most articulate lie you'll ever hear, because, once you vote on your "morals," you are unwittingly joining someone else's coalition government.
The Republican Party has managed to become the new coalition government in America; a massive assemblage of poor, rural Americans largely concerned with preserving their moral values, and a smaller, more powerful group of wealthy citizens concerned with preserving that wealth. And they have everything to gain from each other.
Since Republicans have successfully made desperately-needed social programs seem like liberal, big-government intrusions to rural voters, they don't need to spend much money to ensure their support. Supporting a gay marriage amendment, violently condemning abortion, or excoriating the feminist movement don't cost anything. Instead of doing the right thing for your constituents (like securing health care and education) you can just paint yourself as morally principled, and then pack your bags for Washington.
And, if you're a wealthy Republican who wants to make sure his friends remain wealthy Republicans, all you have to do is espouse reactionary moral positions, and keep taxpayer money going to special interests. If you cut social programs, there is more money to cut taxes, and keep Republican special interests flush with cash. Hell, you can even call this a smart economic move, because there will be plenty of economists at the Weekly Standard to provide sound bites that making the rich, richer, is good for America. Somehow, the failure of Reaganomics didn't kill these people. Don't ask me why.
So, to recap. Poor, rural voters want their politicians to "share their moral values," and since last I checked, speeches on moral values didn't cost money, Republican politicans are happy to oblige. As long as those politicians convince them that the help the government could provide with health care, education and job training is actually an intrusive liberal boondoggle, they won't have to spend very much money on those rural voters. This maintains wealthy-voter loyalty.
The problem is not that the rest of the country is insane, though it sure seems like it. The problem is that the Republican Party builds better coalitions in 2004, than the Democrats do. The tragedy is that in the last 25 years, the rich, overwhelmingly-white base of the Republican Party has managed to distract rural, poor voters with meaningless non-issues. (How many Alabama Christians are going to ever see an openly gay person, or have an abortion themselves?)
They've built themselves one hell of a coalition, all right. The inclusiveness of their “big tent” is dependent upon brainwashing the American heartland, and it looks like that tent isn't coming down for a while.
Though this sounds foreign, we used to do it in this country, and the Democrats used to be damn good at it. When we got the different voter groups- the middle-class suburbanites, the urban poor, the rural poor- and got them under one big umbrella, things got done. Remember the 1960s? JFK's Democratic party was still heavily supported by the Southern Democrats. (You may remember those guys from such memorable historical moments as, the Civil War, and, Reconstruction.) Though the Dixiecrats jumped ship, and local heroes such as George Wallace weren't known for their support of the civil rights movement or the Great Society, they didn't call it the Solid South for nothing. Up until the late 1960s, the South was one big Democratic stronghold.
How was that possible? Was every Southern Democrat related to our own Zell Miller of today? I don't think so. The tent was big enough for everybody. The fact was that, though the people of the 1960s South didn't always see eye-to-eye with their President on some emotional and relevant issues, they knew that the domestic, social policies of JFK and Johnson were the right thing for them, and for the rest of the country.
The Democrats are collapsing across the country in 2004, and it's for two reasons, both involving the allegorical "tent." The first is that the Republican tent is getting bigger and bigger. Constituencies that used to be solidly Democratic are vulnerable to one of the many Republican messages. We'll start with well-educated, white-collar, middle-class suburban voters. These have been a swing population for both parties in the last decade, but they're slipping further and further to the Republican column, because the Republican party has done an excellent job of redefining the debate. Democratic policies appeal to doing what's right; Republican policies appeal to doing what's right for you.
George Bush was able to gain access to this voter group- which, I'm relatively certain, would have completely ignored him otherwise- through the post-9/11, war-on-terror, world-is-safer-after-Saddam scare tactics. But once he got through to them, he was able to deliver a much more appealing message; it's okay to vote your pocketbook instead of your conscience. When you convince a large voter group that a vote for you is a vote for Number 1, the underprivileged in society are not going to be having a good day. Or a good four years, rather.
The second reason the Democrats are collapsing, is also a "tent" reason. The Republican tent isn't just getting bigger- they're building it differently. It's what gave Bush his win last night. Ever since the late 1970s, the Republican Party has been able to skillfully shift the debate in rural America- the South, the Midwest, the western Plains states. Instead of talking about relevant issues- tax cuts targeted at the working class, serious reform and funding for education, and health care- the Republican Party focuses instead on morals.
What do they mean by morals? Something like 81% of Bush voters listed it as their highest priority. They want their candidate to share their moral perspective- to believe in the things they believe in, and to occasionally act on those beliefs. "I don't believe in gay marriage or abortion, and I'm Christian. Hey, so's my President!" It sounds reassuring, but if you're a poor, rural voter, it's the most articulate lie you'll ever hear, because, once you vote on your "morals," you are unwittingly joining someone else's coalition government.
The Republican Party has managed to become the new coalition government in America; a massive assemblage of poor, rural Americans largely concerned with preserving their moral values, and a smaller, more powerful group of wealthy citizens concerned with preserving that wealth. And they have everything to gain from each other.
Since Republicans have successfully made desperately-needed social programs seem like liberal, big-government intrusions to rural voters, they don't need to spend much money to ensure their support. Supporting a gay marriage amendment, violently condemning abortion, or excoriating the feminist movement don't cost anything. Instead of doing the right thing for your constituents (like securing health care and education) you can just paint yourself as morally principled, and then pack your bags for Washington.
And, if you're a wealthy Republican who wants to make sure his friends remain wealthy Republicans, all you have to do is espouse reactionary moral positions, and keep taxpayer money going to special interests. If you cut social programs, there is more money to cut taxes, and keep Republican special interests flush with cash. Hell, you can even call this a smart economic move, because there will be plenty of economists at the Weekly Standard to provide sound bites that making the rich, richer, is good for America. Somehow, the failure of Reaganomics didn't kill these people. Don't ask me why.
So, to recap. Poor, rural voters want their politicians to "share their moral values," and since last I checked, speeches on moral values didn't cost money, Republican politicans are happy to oblige. As long as those politicians convince them that the help the government could provide with health care, education and job training is actually an intrusive liberal boondoggle, they won't have to spend very much money on those rural voters. This maintains wealthy-voter loyalty.
The problem is not that the rest of the country is insane, though it sure seems like it. The problem is that the Republican Party builds better coalitions in 2004, than the Democrats do. The tragedy is that in the last 25 years, the rich, overwhelmingly-white base of the Republican Party has managed to distract rural, poor voters with meaningless non-issues. (How many Alabama Christians are going to ever see an openly gay person, or have an abortion themselves?)
They've built themselves one hell of a coalition, all right. The inclusiveness of their “big tent” is dependent upon brainwashing the American heartland, and it looks like that tent isn't coming down for a while.
Last Night's Blow-By-Blow
I never figured I'd start one of these things until I woke up this morning, in a country that had just re-elected George W. Bush, and had entirely too much I wanted to talk about.
I'm a dedicated Red Sox fan- it even comes through in the title of this site, which you may recognize if you waste your time reading a lot of baseball postings. And last night started out like a playoff game- a big, long playoff game, with 20 minutes between each inning and Wolf Blitzer talking to Larry King about God knows what. Neither of them had anything substantive to discuss, but somehow, they kept talking.
So, like a playoff game, it began in pleasant, celebratory fashion. I sat there with a bunch of my friends, eating pizza and agonizing every time Wolf Blitzer ran over to the CNN Projection Screen (you could hear the capital letters and bold face in his voice) and announced, in grandiose terms, that Kentucky had most certainly gone for Bush! And Vermont! This just in! Vermont's four people and 19 cows had definitely endorsed Kerry!
There was never a moment where I felt like things were going well; they just seemed to be a different shade of crappy. It wasn't that Florida and Ohio took until 4 a.m. to figure out who they were voting for; it was just that all the other states that were "in play" (more sports metaphors) seemed to be drifting into that sickeningly red column.
Jon Stewart was a momentary bright spot. The Daily Show has a remarkable capacity to cheer you up, or, in this case, make you grin halfheartedly as the tide of impending doom starts lapping around your toes. He was clearly as disgusted as the rest of us when the ugly numbers came in on gay-marriage referendums, and issued perhaps the most eloquent line of the night; "America is looking more and more like it did in a dream I had. A dream in which I wake up crying..."
After the Daily Show, however, life began to feel a lot more like it did during Game 3 of the American League Championship Series. People moved away from the TV, unable to bear witness to the blossoming horror. I didn't watch Die Hard 3 this time- and this time, there was no Game 4 to be played the next day, and no team of happy idiots to pull out the miraculous victory. This was it.
By 11:30, it was clear that Ohio was the only possible way John Kerry could win, and that hope was fading in slow, agonizing fashion. My girlfriend and I were alone with the TV, so we left her apartment to walk around the streets and try to understand how the country could actually re-elect George Bush. We meandered around a bit more, played video games and eventually fell asleep.
It felt like a different world when I left my apartment this morning. 95% of my friends have already commented to me that they're going to leave the country. Canada is the leader right now, with England right behind and Ireland pulling up a surprisingly close third.
The reason I'm starting this site is because I'm in the same boat as them- I want to leave any country that would re-elect George Bush- but on the other hand, it's still my country. And I think that if it could make a decision as horrendous as the one last night and surprise me by doing it, then I don't- and a lot of those on the left with me don't- fully comprehend the enormity of what the hell is going on in America right now.
I'm a dedicated Red Sox fan- it even comes through in the title of this site, which you may recognize if you waste your time reading a lot of baseball postings. And last night started out like a playoff game- a big, long playoff game, with 20 minutes between each inning and Wolf Blitzer talking to Larry King about God knows what. Neither of them had anything substantive to discuss, but somehow, they kept talking.
So, like a playoff game, it began in pleasant, celebratory fashion. I sat there with a bunch of my friends, eating pizza and agonizing every time Wolf Blitzer ran over to the CNN Projection Screen (you could hear the capital letters and bold face in his voice) and announced, in grandiose terms, that Kentucky had most certainly gone for Bush! And Vermont! This just in! Vermont's four people and 19 cows had definitely endorsed Kerry!
There was never a moment where I felt like things were going well; they just seemed to be a different shade of crappy. It wasn't that Florida and Ohio took until 4 a.m. to figure out who they were voting for; it was just that all the other states that were "in play" (more sports metaphors) seemed to be drifting into that sickeningly red column.
Jon Stewart was a momentary bright spot. The Daily Show has a remarkable capacity to cheer you up, or, in this case, make you grin halfheartedly as the tide of impending doom starts lapping around your toes. He was clearly as disgusted as the rest of us when the ugly numbers came in on gay-marriage referendums, and issued perhaps the most eloquent line of the night; "America is looking more and more like it did in a dream I had. A dream in which I wake up crying..."
After the Daily Show, however, life began to feel a lot more like it did during Game 3 of the American League Championship Series. People moved away from the TV, unable to bear witness to the blossoming horror. I didn't watch Die Hard 3 this time- and this time, there was no Game 4 to be played the next day, and no team of happy idiots to pull out the miraculous victory. This was it.
By 11:30, it was clear that Ohio was the only possible way John Kerry could win, and that hope was fading in slow, agonizing fashion. My girlfriend and I were alone with the TV, so we left her apartment to walk around the streets and try to understand how the country could actually re-elect George Bush. We meandered around a bit more, played video games and eventually fell asleep.
It felt like a different world when I left my apartment this morning. 95% of my friends have already commented to me that they're going to leave the country. Canada is the leader right now, with England right behind and Ireland pulling up a surprisingly close third.
The reason I'm starting this site is because I'm in the same boat as them- I want to leave any country that would re-elect George Bush- but on the other hand, it's still my country. And I think that if it could make a decision as horrendous as the one last night and surprise me by doing it, then I don't- and a lot of those on the left with me don't- fully comprehend the enormity of what the hell is going on in America right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)