Lots of hearts to be Left in San Francisco

[Guest]

I don't mean for this to be a political thread (though I don't care anymore) but I want to state I'm happy with my adopted city (been here since 1970). The article is not an exaggeration, the mood is palpable here. My 70+ year old mentor (English lit. prof.) has decided not to go back home (NY) for xmas as all her relatives voted for Bush. It's a very common reaction at the moment (fortunately I don't have that problem). I have really strong negative feelings about Ohio (e.g., violent fantasies), but I presume its population has similar feelings about SF. It's not all sentiment but people can't help feeling what they feel. I'm glad to be here, for the moment. - Perdita

San Francisco in No Mood for Tolerance After Bush Win - Nov. 7, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The summer of love has given way to the autumn of fear in San Francisco, a liberal stronghold where residents bitterly disappointed by the Bush victory are in no mood to reach out and mend divisions. Rather, they are waving "United States of Canada'' maps, redrawn to show Canada extending down to include California, New England and the other so-called "blue states'' that voted decisively for Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry in the U.S. presidential race.

Some are canceling plans to travel to neighboring "red states,'' where Bush drew most of his support. They are asking serious questions about the future of American democracy. And the usual post-election bravado about moving out of the country when a favored candidate loses is sounding different this year. It sounds a lot more serious. "I'm going in on Monday and getting a new passport,'' said an electronics technician and volunteer at the Green Festival environmental conference who requested anonymity. "I'm not leaving yet, but I'm getting prepared,'' he said. "I can imagine that this country is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.''

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat who competed with Kerry for his party's presidential nomination before backing the senator, urged the crowd at the festival to remain hopeful and connect with the other concerned citizens. But the questions Kucinich fielded were anything but hopeful. "Why should we believe we will ever have another fair election in this country?'' asked one woman.

After the well-publicized electoral chaos in Florida in 2000, the United States invited international observers to monitor the Nov. 2 election. Despite widespread allegations of electoral fraud before last week's vote, they were unable to substantiate the claims. The woman's frustration was echoed throughout San Francisco, arguably the most liberal city in one of the most Democratic states in the country. On Tuesday, 83.3 percent of voters in San Francisco County cast their ballots for Kerry, compared with 62.8 percent in Los Angeles County and 54.7 percent statewide.

STAYING OUT OF RED STATES

Peace and tolerance have long been the words to live by in San Francisco, known for its large gay community, broad ethnic mix and frequent anti-war protests. But days after the election, many residents said they were so worried about an erosion of civil rights, environmental standards and the escalating violence in the Middle East, that they did not know how they could tolerate the Bush administration, or Americans who voted to re-elect him.

"I have family in Idaho, but I told my wife we're not going to visit them now. It's all Republicans there,'' said Ron Schmidt, a public relations executive. "We have family in Indiana and I don't want to go there either.'' It was not the reaction George W. Bush must have been hoping for when he made his acceptance speech on Wednesday and told Kerry supporters: "I will need your support and I will work to earn it.''

Schmidt said: "The ideologies of the two parties are too different. I don't see how healing can take place. I feel like the disenfranchised minority now, and that's a funny thing for a tall, good-looking white guy like me to say.'' Schmidt's friend, magazine editor Joseph Connelly, said one of his columnists who had moved temporarily to Paris six months ago decided Wednesday she would settle there permanently. "She was hoping she would want to come back,'' Connelly said, "but after she saw the election results she just didn't.''

 

[LadyJeanne]

The city's felt a bit subdued the last few days. The coffee shop down the street that had been all about political discussions for months has been mostly quiet, if not empty.

Wednesday morning, the usually silent guy behind the counter at the deli lamented the election results with the customer in line ahead of me, continued bemoaning our future as he rang up my purchase, and I'm sure kept on going with the folks behind me.

Our voices feel muted.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

When Bill Clinton won his second term, I was living back home. The feelings the author describes were there in profusion. Hatred of "democrats and welfare bums", lamentation that he was taking us down the road to socialism, fear that we would loose our basic rights, like the right to own firearms, disbelief that people could vote for a man with such a lack of moral values.

All of us who were conservatives felt like our voices weren't being heard.

Elections engender such feelings. The run up to them is, in general, pure theatre and the doom and despair predictions of what will befall us if one of the other wins stick with you long after the fervor to go and vote has passed.

As deviceive as this election was, it too will pass away into history. For 200 years we have "stood on the brink of destruction" every four years. For 200 years the winner has failed to deliver on arrmegeddon, despite the most dire predictions.

In four years we will go to the polls again. We will hear the same predictions. It's as much a part of america as baseball and apple pie.

Be glad you live in Frisco Dita, it suits you Just don't let the negativity weigh on you too heavily. In two years the chance to wrest the senate away from the GOP will be occuring and people are likely to be just as deeply into it as they were in trying to wrest the white house from them.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

Thanks, Colly, for all your goodwill and wishes. I'm Ok really. A good friend reminded me of the big picture (i.e., Life) and how from a not too distant perspective it all doesn't matter in the end. P.

p.s. Ya know you're not supposed to call it Frisco? Maths always did it deliberately to goad me.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thanks, Colly, for all your goodwill and wishes. I'm Ok really. A good friend reminded me of the big picture (i.e., Life) and how from a not too distant perspective it all doesn't matter in the end. P.

p.s. Ya know you're not supposed to call it Frisco? Maths always did it deliberately to goad me.

LOL, I missed a lot of the earlier rules. If you recall in one of my first posts I asked if gauche was from Chicago

Duly noted Will not use Frisco again

 

[Guest]

If you recall in one of my first posts I asked if gauche was from Chicago

That made me laugh all over again . I was just teasing, you can say Frisco anytime. P.

 

[rgraham666]

I disagree Colleen.

Your country did almost disintegrate once before.

I think it's dreadfully close to it happening again.

And perdita? Before you do anything nasty to Ohio, can we evacuate EmeraldKitten and Dranoel first? I'd miss them.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

rgraham,

As my fellow white southerners learned back in the early 1860's, you can fight the Feds, but you can't whip 'em. And these days, they've got the A-bomb.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[steve w]

While I'd agree that Bush is a dangerous idiot and shouldn't be elected to anything, I have to offer a couple of observations from across the pond -

1 He seems to have genuinely won this time, without Jeb's intervention

2 Over half the country voted for him, on a high turnout

3 Perhaps his opponent wasn't that good - the Democrats have only themselves to blame for that as they picked him

4 It is a central tenet of democracy that you accept the vote of the majority. If Kerry had won, how many of you would listen intently to the complaints of the Republicans that they now lived in a divided and failing nation?

5 At least the candidates represented some form of choice. Try the UK, where it's hard to put a cigarette paper between the three main parties, and most votes don't really count anyway because of the voting system.

Not to decry your despair, just to offer some perspective.

 

[rgraham666]

rgraham,

As my fellow white southerners learned back in the early 1860's, you can fight the Feds, but you can't whip 'em. And these days, they've got the A-bomb.

Rumple Foreskin

This time I think it will be the Northern States that try to secede.

And in such a case, both sides will have WMD.

Shudder.

 

[scheherazade_79]

5 At least the candidates represented some form of choice. Try the UK, where it's hard to put a cigarette paper between the three main parties, and most votes don't really count anyway because of the voting system.

I disagree. Over here when it comes to electing a leader, we have a choice between an alcoholic, an extra from a horror movie and a compulsive liar.

I'm also wondering why most votes don't count. Can you expand on this, Steve?

 

[steve w]

Schez,

Yes, the leaders are all pretty feeble, plus if you vote for Tony you'll probably end up with someone else, but in terms of policies, they're really arguing about the nuances. They've all committed to more or less the same spending plans, so there isn't too much of an ideological divide.

My comment about the votes was based on two things -

1 The amount of national support doesn't translate into seats. The Lib Dems end up with a handful of seats from over 20% of the vote, Labour get twice as many seats ans the Conservatives with only a slightly higher proportion of the national vote. A consequence of the first-past-the-post system and the role of constituencies. It does avoid endless coalition governments though, which may or may not be a bad thing.

2 In many constituencies, the result is as good as done before you begin, so voting for anyone else is effectively wasted. For example, thousands of votes are cast in the South Wales valleys for other candidates, but Labour nearly always have a majority. So those non-Labour votes effectively fall into the ether, because they have no other influence. If we had a proportional representation system, those votes would still matter. I'm not necessarily in favour of PR, just pointing out the impact of the present system.

 

[scheherazade_79]

Schez,

Yes, the leaders are all pretty feeble, plus if you vote for Tony you'll probably end up with someone else, but in terms of policies, they're really arguing about the nuances. They've all committed to more or less the same spending plans, so there isn't too much of an ideological divide.

My comment about the votes was based on two things -

1 The amount of national support doesn't translate into seats. The Lib Dems end up with a handful of seats from over 20% of the vote, Labour get twice as many seats ans the Conservatives with only a slightly higher proportion of the national vote. A consequence of the first-past-the-post system and the role of constituencies. It does avoid endless coalition governments though, which may or may not be a bad thing.

2 In many constituencies, the result is as good as done before you begin, so voting for anyone else is effectively wasted. For example, thousands of votes are cast in the South Wales valleys for other candidates, but Labour nearly always have a majority. So those non-Labour votes effectively fall into the ether, because they have no other influence. If we had a proportional representation system, those votes would still matter. I'm not necessarily in favour of PR, just pointing out the impact of the present system.

I feel quite despondent Why do they make it so complicated? Does it just make it easier for politicians to cheat when very few people understand what's going on? This is depressing. Thanks for the info, Steve

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Many people accept that a parliamentary form of government is more representative, where even the party with the least support usually wins some influence. (Commensurate with the number of voters who voted for them.)

I understand that Canada is experiencing the travail of their first Minority Government in ten or twenty years.

Any comment from the “Original 10 Provinces” of The United States of Canada?

 

[rgraham666]

I understand that Canada is experiencing the travail of their first Minority Government in ten or twenty years.

Any comment from the “Original 10 Provinces” of The United States of Canada?

It has been about twenty five years. I think the last minority government was that of Joe Clark in 1979. Lasted less than a year.

Currently, Paul Martin, leader of the Liberal Party also known as the Natural Governing Party is Prime Minister of a minority.

The main opposition is the Conservatives who are actually neo-marxist revolutionaries like the Republicans.

Other parties holding seats are the NDP (social democrats, commie scum in America) and the Bloc Quebecois (seperatists who want to split the province of Quebec from Canada. Christ alone knows why. I can't figure out why they think they can make it on their own)

I don't think Martin will last long. He's spent the last twenty years trying to become Prime Minister. He's spent so much time and effort on it, he has no idea what to do now that he has the office.

 

[fogbank]

Well, the minorty government is kinda interesting, because it changes the balance of power in somewhat unexpected ways. While the Conservative Party greatly increased their number of seats, the balance of power actually shifted to the left -- because the Liberals no longer have a majority, they need to align (informally) with the two small left-wing parties (the New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois). So while a minority government would seem like it would be more middle-of-the-spectrum, it can actually go the other way, as smaller parties suddenly become much more important.

Many people accept that a parliamentary form of government is more representative, where even the party with the least support usually wins some influence. (Commensurate with the number of voters who voted for them.)

I understand that Canada is experiencing the travail of their first Minority Government in ten or twenty years.

Any comment from the “Original 10 Provinces” of The United States of Canada?