Before the election I went on a date with a young lady and the topic of politics reared its ugly head. The woman, who I will call Nikki, said she was voting for George W Bush. This was one week from Election Day and emotions in America were riding high. I was not only backing Kerry but was also very enamored with him as my generation’s answer to George McGovern. Many times this past election I compared this election to McGovern versus Nixon. Unfortunately, I was given the displeasure of suffering the same crushing blow as McGovern supporters had to endure. When I heard her profess her devotion for President Bush I knew there would not be another date. I am no James Carville and cannot fathom seriously dating someone from across the aisle especially during these divisive political times. I can share a friendship with a right winger but not a romance. After almost gagging on my Filet Mignon while she spoke of her admiration for President Bush the dreaded question I was waiting for finally came; who are you voting for? I lied and told her that I was voting for President Bush.

"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

I just wanted to thank you for not only writing discrimination into the Ohio Constitution, but also for undermining the benefits and rights of straight couples who have enjoyed long-term, unmarried relationships spanning not just years, but decades.

Driven by the fear, ignorance and prejudice of a few, you have cheerfully damaged, if not ruined, the lives and relationships of many. Some might even be friends, or former friends now, of yours.

So, rest easy Ohio, while the spectres of terrorism, poverty, inadequate health care and a crumbling social safety net still haunt us, you've saved us from the horrors of same-gender couples enjoying the same rights and priviledges as married couples.

As seen below, two of the four current lead-ins on The New York Times website (http://nytimes.com) at 2:12AM ET mention a "mandate" for the president and a third states that the country is "center right". Let's stop and think about this. President Bush was just elected in a tremendously close election.

He had 3 percentage points more votes than Kerry.

He won with 51% of the vote.

I don't know about you, but the support of only half the country and the dissent of the other half doesn't seem like a mandate to me. The words I'd use to characterize a president who only has half of the country's support are tenuous, fragile, delicate, and, perhaps, weak.

Why is the New York Times (and countless other mainstream media outlets) using such strong language for Bush and his political agenda?

President Bush has a weak hold over our country. Let's flex some political muscle and break his grip.


From NYTimes.com:

TOP HEADLINE: Bush and Republicans Celebrate Victory; Mandate Is Seen for the Next Four Years

Dear Molly,

It is now November 3rd and we are faced with the horror of four more years of Bush.  I firmly believe that there will be a reactivation of the draft, no matter what Bush said while campaigning.  I have a sixteen year old son who is an intellectual and anti war.  I cannot bear to think of this child with a gun in his hands or a knife at his throat.  I am feeling a lot of anger at family and co-workers whose only concern was that they get a chance at vouchers for their private schools.  How can people be so short sighted?  When and where will this end?  I am very sad today.  Thank you for your column.  Pam Clibon

Pamela  Clibon

Dear John:

Hey, buddy, I just thought I would drop you a line and share a few thoughts, ask a question or two. I want to understand what has just happened to you, and I want you to understand what this means to all of us who supported you, and thought you were serious when you announced that you wanted to be President of the United States.

     First of all, when George W. Bush asked you if you would have still authorized the use of force against Iraq if you had known at that time that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, the correct answer was, “No, I would not have done so, because Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the security of the United States and its people.” It was the easiest question any presidential candidate has ever been asked, to my knowledge. You could have dominated the news in a positive and vote-getting way for ten news cycles, easily, and it would have made a nice opening for you in the debates. But you said yes. Why, John? Were you trying to lose?