One of the big complaints I hear from readers is that I’m too opinionated on US domestic issues, too partisan. “You’re great when you write about China, but you’re totally partisan when you write about Bush.”

Well, the bad news is, I believe I’m mediocre when I write about China and at my best when I write about the US. That’s because my knowledge of China is sketchy and relatively recent. I’ve been studying US politics since I could read, and am much more informed about the intricacies of US law and history than I am of China’s.

In each case, I write what I see, through my own filters. If I am opinionated and partisan about bush, then I’m certainly just as opinionated about China. I think the real issue is that these readers want me to be partisan in the same way that they are. I’m afraid they’ll be disappointed; I’m not toning down my criticisms of bush — unless he gives me reason to.

Yes, I’m partisan as hell, but I also try to be open minded. I’ll praise China if I think it’s merited. I’ll endorse a war led by Bush if I think it’s justified. But this is a blog, not a public information service funded by tax dollars. It’s supposed to be opinionated. So I don’t understand the complaints that I’m opinionated. These same readers love Conrad, who’s certainly as partisan as I am. Would he be any fun to read if he weren’t opinionated? Of course not. In fact, it’s those opinions that make him so readable.

So please, just try to accept it: I am a liberal and I find bush a menace to this country and the world and I say so, like thousands of other liberal bloggers. Instapundit loves bush and hates Kerry and he believes the Swift Boat Liars and he says so, and that’s his right. It’s what blogs are supposed to be. I realize I will never, ever convince you to join my side, but I’m not trying to (though it would be nice). I have no illusions — some readers hate my politics and come here to fight, others relate to my politics and come here to agree. But to tell me to stop being partisan about bush — forget about it. I am watching my country go to hell in a proverbial handbasket, and the last thing I’m going to do is go mute.

Anyway, it’s a hard week and it’ll take me and nearly 50 percent of the country a while to fully recover from the shock. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t ready to pick up the fight and press forward. We have to organize now more than ever before, because come 2008 the country is going to be even more of a basket case than it is now. I hate to even think about it — our environment, our tax system, our jobless, our Supreme Court. So as far as shrub goes, this blog won’t be getting any kinder or gentler. Take it or leave it.

In a post back in February, one smart blogger had it figured out.

It all reminds me of a line from a famous, or rather infamous, memo Pat Buchanan, then a White House staffer, wrote for Richard Nixon in, I believe, 1972 when their idea of the moment was what they called ‘positive polarization’.

At the end of this confidential strategy memo laying out various ideas about how to create social unrest over racial issues and confrontations with the judiciary, Buchanan wrote (and you can find this passage on p. 185 of Jonathan Schell’s wonderful Time of Illusion): “In conclusion, this is a potential throw of the dice that could bring the media on our heads, and cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half.”

And there you have it. Tear the country apart. And once it’s broken, our chunk will be bigger.

The party of inclusion, indeed. All the talk now about unity and reaching out are pure BS. You can’t get the genie back into the bottle, and you can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together. It’ll be fascinating to watch the coming political drama unfold, because the US is now in uncharted territory. We really are two countries now, split right down the middle, the result of a very intentional strategy to divide us along moral/religious lines. It worked, but it’s the saddest, most terrible thing I’ve ever seen happen to America. You have 48 percent of the people shell-shocked and comatose, fearful that reason and the liberal ideals upon which this country was founded are no longer cherished, and are in fact despised by the no-longer-silent majority.

Now this is really interesting. It’s a chart demonstrating quite dramatically that the lower the average IQ of a state’s population, the more likely it was to vote for bush. Read the description of the methodology at the end. While I can’t say if this would hold up to detailed scrutiny, it’s certainly eye-opening.

If you don’t read Maureen Dowd’s column today, it’s your loss. She can drive me crazy sometimes, but today she’s deadly serious and absolutely great. Please, just go there.

There’s always more than one way to look at things. I savored these bullets, which drive home just how broad the president’s new mandate really is.

— This is the largest number of people who have ever voted AGAINST a president

— 1% more than 50% is not a mandate but a bare, thin, majority.

— At 80% approval after 9-11 and guaranteed a landslide election by prognosticators 2 years ago, only half the country supports him

— A president who leads a divided country owes it to all Americans to lead fairly or have his party face the consequences begining in 2006. No one else is here to blame

— Assuming Bush gets New Mexico and Iowa, he will have gotten the lowest percentage of electoral votes (54%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Wilson. If those two states should swing Kerry’s way (NM might), it’ll be even lower.

— He will have won with the lowest percentage of the popular vote (51%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (well, technically since Clinton, but he also ran against Perot, who was a more significant 3rd-party candidate than Thurmond and Wallace were in ’48)

— He will have won by the lowest margin of the popular vote (3.5M) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (2.1M, and back then only 50M voted).

Of course, shrub behaved as though he beat Gore by a huge landslide in 2000. I’m afraid now he’s going to think he’s lord emperor, if not god himself.

Update: A picture’s worth 1,000 words, so here’s a pie chart showing bush’s massive victory.

Graphic via Pandagon.

And that’s from a member country in the “Coalition of the Willing”!

Did you know gay marriage is an evil that compares to slavery? From CNN:

COOPER: But Democrats argue look, John Kerry doesn’t support gay marriage. I mean he doesn’t want a constitutional amendment about it, but he didn’t support gay marriage. Why is it that the Republicans have been able to benefit from that whereas the Democrats did not? Is it simply the question of the constitutional — the federal amendment?

FALWELL: Well, nobody believes John Kerry on that because his voting record, pro choice, his voting record on the family issues, does — belies his statement. And the fact that he would not support a federal marriage amendment, it equates in our minds as someone 150 years ago saying I’m personally opposed to slavery, but if my neighbor wants to own one or two that’s OK. We don’t buy that.

While we’re on the topic…. I’ve received several emails from indignant Christians who misunderstand my posts about the importance of Evangelical Christianity to bush’s campaign strategy and victory. I have nothing against Christianity, and my own home is decorated with many paintings of Christian saints, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, etc. (I live with a Catholic.) All I am against is any kind of fundamentalist mentality that generates intolerance, that scoffs at science and that insists on imposing its own values on others. The quote up above by Jerry Falwell underscores my deep distrust of the Evangelical mentality when it comes to political issues. Gay marriage — two people swearing their love to one another — as vile and evil as slavery?? WTF?

Link via Atrios.

No, not for president. For some inexplicable reason, this blog has been nominated for Deutsche Welle’s “Best of the Blogs” awards, in the category of Journalistic Blogs. Of course, being up against such superstars as Wonkette and Back to Iraq, I’m at a slight disadvantage (i.e., there’s no way on earth I’m ever going to win). But if you enjoy this blog, consider casting a vote. Thanks.

What a great analysis.

I’m too weary and dispirited right now to get into the inevitable fight that’s gearing up within the party, but suffice to say I don’t agree that we lost because we weren’t liberal enough. But, neither was it because we weren’t culturally conservative enough or populist enough.

I believe it was simply because we weren’t entertaining enough and that’s the sad truth. I think that Democrats are serious, earnest and substantive people. We are the reality-based community. And I think we top out at about forty eight percent of the population.

For everybody else politics is show business, whether in religious, political or media terms. Image trumps substance,charisma and personality trump everything. I don’t find George W. Bush appealing in any way because my vision of an attractive politician is that he be smart, competent and rhetorically talented. But, to many people, politics is interesting because of the spectacle and the tribal competition and they just aren’t interested in any other aspects of it. (See the PEW poll.) Oh, they mouth all the right platitudes about values and all, but this is not about governing for them because they have been taught that government is only relevant to their lives in that it houses their enemies — liberals who want to take things from them and force things on them. This is a reality TV show and they want to vote someone off the island.

It’s clear that a small majority of the country buy Junior’s “Top-Gun” act. His youthful failures are seen as acts of anti-hero rebelliousness. His smart ass attitude is the sign of a macho rogue. He isn’t the smartest guy in the class and he’s often in trouble, but he’s a fearless warrior when it counts. His image is of a fun loving rascal who found himself in an extraordinary position and rose to the occasion. I know it’s bullshit, but that’s the archetype that his handlers have laid upon him and it’s a role he plays with relish.

We have always chosen leaders for superficial as well as substantive reasons. It’s not fair to say that Democrats aren’t seduced by their own archetypal dreamboats. But, Bush is a new paradigm and we need to study him and recognize its power. He is a character created out of whole cloth by marketing and political people for the single purpose of appealing to a specific portion of the population that can guarantee a small political majority without having to compromise in any way with the opposition to enact an agenda. He’s the first gerrymandered president.

(Emphasis mine; this is a huge post and you should read it all.)

The first gerrymandered president. A marketing creation. It is such an eerie phenomenon, one so out of the sphere of traditional American politics, I can only look at it with a sense of wonder and dread. Aspects of Reagan were also the products of marketing, but the core was real — no matter what we think of him, he had his ideals and principles, and he certainly had outstanding and time-proven leadership abilities. With shrub, we have a…shrub. Pondscum repackaged for the far-right as a great leader.

And to those who say I am a bush-hater and I am out of touch, and that most Americans see him as a great leader so they must be right…. All I can say in response is that 1.) bush earned my hate one step at a time, and I went out of my way to give him every benefit of every doubt; 2.) nearly 50 percent of the country voted against him and 3.) most of the people of the world seem to be more in my camp than that of the bushies. So I’m sure not alone here.

As we know, second-term presidents, for whatever reasons, are often plagued with crises. I can’t back it up with any evidence, but I’m going to guess shrub will be engulfed in crisis and scandal sooner than any of us imagine. And don’t worry, I’ll be right here ready to report on them as they occur.