Speaking as an independent who always seeks a moderate from any party, the thing that saddens me most about this election is the perceived mandate the neocon-right now feels it has. There was plenty of talk prior to the election about the potential for a "civil war" within the Republican party, because a sound defeat would mean the neocon "experiment" had been refuted by the people. Now we have just the opposite. So, to centrist independents, libertarians, educated churchgoers, and the like, this is a defeat for centrism that should be mourned.
No McCain in `08, or likely in '12 unless the Republican party fails miserably in '06 and '08, which is not going to happen barring another terrorist attack. That's not pessimism but simply the fact that many of Bush's supporters support him because he is perceived as honest, moral, humble and hardworking (I suspect he really is the latter three) and will (obviously) let poor performance slide in favor of these qualities. The ultimate result: no moderate GOP candidates for the foreseeable future. And that really is a loss for us all, for anyone who would like to see genuine compromises being made in our legislature, and genuine justice being served in our courts...
That being said, my own postmortem of Kerry's candidacy (I know this is completely gratuitous and probably redundant), and indeed the last 4 years of politics, is the dominance of the GOP in controlling the language, message, and agenda. It started with language: the large-scale adoption of the terms "partial-birth abortion" and "Democrat" in the adjective form. I am a nitpicker but I think every time a representative of the Democratic party hears that, they should correct it - Democrat*ic* party. Any conversation in which the term is used after that correction should include the adjective "Repuglican." If the GOP can change some letters, so can the Dems. This seems silly but it really is the foot in the door. This extends to the lies, so well-documented this time around, flung from the right. I cast an anti-Bush ballot this year (though Kerry's service, his post-Vietnam actions and his debate performances won my respect and support for Kerry the candidate) and decided very early to do so. My primary reason was because of the lies that were already being used in support of Bush, which sickened me at the time and only got worse and worse. Anyway, these should be challenged at every turn. Fox news succeeds in providing faux balance by skewing questions to liberal guests and allowing lies to go unchallenged. The mainstream media (so often accused of partisanship from both sides) is actually largely nonpartisan in my view, they are just scared. They won't go out on a limb with fact-checking. This is why only Jon Stewart will call Bush a liar when he so obviously is. So it is up to Democratic party mouths to make the assertions, to never let a distortion slide. Then the media will pick it up and run with it, and then Americans will get balanced information.
I was going to end this with a hope that Bush would indeed reach out to the other side. But, from today's press conference I can see that he's taking this "broad mandate" thing and running with it. So that may be unlikely. Can't we make laws and decisions that take both viewpoints into account? Can't we have legal civil unions now and give Americans time to get used to the idea of "marriage" being applied to something other than one man and one woman? Can't we ban D&E with an exception for when it is healthiest for the mother? Can't we set up optional private Social Security accounts and subsidize them with payments from those who want a private account? Can't we compromise on anything?
