Battle cry??? Sounds like your planning for war, aren't we having enough problems dealing with a war without people like you stirring anger. Although I too hate Bush, how many of you who are complaining went out and campaigned or encouraged people to vote?

Highly respected Princton economist Paul Krugman has concluded that the Bush administration represents what Henry Kissinger's doctoral thesis describes as a "revolutionary power." This power uses public and private institutions to do what it wants, and sets rules or breaks rules as a matter of course. Paraphrasing Kissinger, people who have lived in a long period of relative stability become conditioned to deny the rise of a revolutionary power. The power can become deeply entrenched before the public realizes what is happening. (Introduction to "The Great Unraveling by Paul Krugman").

Excuse me if my writing seems to convey anger or hate. That's not intended, and I should reflect on my writing style.

Note the word "hope" in the title. I'm advocating long-range planning, and the building of lasting institutions of power. In the long-run, we can reverse the takeover of the US House, Sentate, Presidency, US Supreme Court, a majority of the governorships, a majority of the state legislatutres, AM talk radio and other media, and laws like electoral procedures, and campaign finance among others.

In his book 1984, George Orwell described the state of perpetual war in his fictional society by saying that the war wasn’t meant to be won, it was only meant to be continuous.

That's what Bush is doing now. When your government pretends to be legitimate, but launches a war on false pretenses and uses the uncertainty of war to induce public fear and influence an election, it's a "come to the aid of your country" moment. That's part of the picture.

Former Clinton Treasury Secretary and Wall Street executive Robert Ruben, among others, has strongly suggested that the Bush administration's budget deficit is intentional. The purpose is to create a fiscal crisis that will leave no alternative but to roll back social security and Medicare. This isn't conspiracy theory. President Reagan official David Stockman refered to their use of this strategy as "starving the beast."

Officials in the Bush administration and the Republican controlled Congress say routinely that they they want smaller government, and they mean it. Grover Norquist, a no-tax advocate, who is very influential with the Bush administration, has said famously that he wants to shrink government until it can be "drown in a bathtub.

Perhaps "Battle cry" is a bit too shrill. Maybe others have an opinion.
.

Voting doesnt work.

We have a system where the parties ideologies are not that far from one another. We as so called people for progressive change were supporting a person who in many aspects was pushing forward the same polices as the man who got into office. We did this because we were opposed more to the man who got into office than the one who was running for office. So since I didn't go out and encourage people to put their very real emotions, disgusts, anger, etc. into voting for a candidate who represented nothing they believe in then what me and others like me do is irrelevant?

Hardcore dems and apologetic liberal types got their "movement" handed to them on a platter with a bit of hot sauce and a kick in the ass. You all sold out. You got weak. You sent a man to run for president who you thought would beat Bush because of his war record, because of his middle of the ground statements and his "not pushing the limit of what is already taking place" policies.

Yes, this is war.

Yes, we need powerful language.

Yes, we need people really willing to push the envelope and challenge the political system in this country.

Yes, we must never vote based on fear again, meaning never vote for a candidate who stands for nothing you do all because you hate the other one that much more.

I am not sure if you noticed but this country is extremely divided. As much so that one side supports extreme right wing christian values and unilateral polices of war no matter what the reason for getting there. We need to come up with just as much as an extreme in policies for the "left" to present to the country. Not move further to the right. Not play the middle ground. Not adopt religion in hope that we can bring some of the religious community in. Politics needs to go beyond PR and the bullshit that it has been in my life time and become real.

Anger, emotions, disgusts, BATTLE CRYS, are real.

In some regards I agree: Dems are spineless, corrupted by money, play too much to the middle and thus fail to energize the populace.

We can be "radical" but must also be practical & constructive: We can work to institute instant runoff voting, which would help us to build an alternative to the Dems and Reeps. We can work to build alternative media outlets to counter the drumbeat of AM Talk Radio that brainwashes the heartland.

This election was vitally important for several reasons.

1) Some believe that Bush's extreme agenda will finally "wake the sleeping giant." Yes, people will be activated, and we must use this to full effect. However, this phenomenon will be counter-balanced by other things, the effect of which will depend on the strength of the consolidated power of the right wing, and the shifted public opinion.

+ Popular opinion in this country has shifted to the right implying that the "sleeping giant" isn't as big as it was before. (Things are so far out of kilter that we face having to shift the public opinion from the extreme to the moderate. Radical messages like, "We're anarchists and we're going to smash the state," might not resonate too well in middle Amerka - I'm exagerating for effect here).

+ The grip of the far right is so deep and wide, as I describe in "response to love kids," that an awakening of the sleeping giant could easily be supressed, made to look like fools (remember the WBAL coverage of the Nov 3 protest), coopted, or bought off. (We need to regain some of the basic institutions of power in order to give the groundswell a fighting chance. Keep in mind only about 60 people "groundswelled" the evening of November 3 when Mt Vernon should have been swarming with people. We need to be careful about wishful thinking).

+ True, we are very likely to see an energized public during Bush's second term. However, the country is poised to fall into a very long, very dark period if we are not careful. If/when we were to emerge from such a dark period (decades?) we might simply find ourselves where we are today, but with many irreparable damages. The chances of a continued and deepening rightwing revolution is far more likely than a deep leftwing revolution given the state of affairs in the US today - I hope I'm wrong on this. Ironically, radical right tax reformer Grover Norquist and the Anarchists both want government small enough that they can drown it in a bathtub.)

2) With Bush in office, we will be busy holding ground, rather than advancing our vision. True, we wouldn't have as many people energized by Bush, but most of the people who will be energized by Bush will simply be working to hold ground:
+ Stopping radical Supreme Court nominations.
+ Trying to stop the next war.
+ Fighting to preserve basic social safety net programs. etc. etc. etc.

With Kerry in office, we wouldn't be fighting some of these whacky battles, and could turn our attention to making progress. The Alaskan Refuge Oil drilling issue was included in Bush's Energy Bill as a distraction. While people worked "against" drilling in Alaske, they were not working as much "for" renewable energy and conservation of energy. We can expect more of this tactic.

With Kerry in office, we could have focused on things like rolling back NAFTA or at least having Chapter 11 of NAFTA removed.

I contend that we are worse off with Bush than with Kerry. Even if my analysis is wrong, I wanted to wipe that arrogant smirk off Bush's face. One has to wonder, if the resources devoted to the RNC protests had instead been focused on winning Ohio, would Bush be President today?

One also has to wonder whether a Bush presidency is leading us closer to our goals or further away. I wish I had faith in the American public to respond to Bush's second term by moveing toward a counter revolution; however, my faith was shaken when the American public failed to dump Bush by the fairly simple process of the vote on November 2.
.