Time this week mentions that on November 3rd the winner will need to unite the nation he helped to divide. I ask you, though, looking at the electoral votes that are locked in, perusing the red and blue, and then comparing that against 2000 and Bush/Gore, where's the the major change in these past four years. How do you define a "divided nation"?

The majority of the states that were Bush states in 2000 are Bush states in 2004. No real time to research the flippers, but I know New Hampshire is a Kerry state where it was previously a Bush state.

The middle of the country does seem to think - as a whole - differently than the coasts. Is this new? I'd say not. Perhaps a better argument would be that the vehemence with which we adhere to our respective standpoints as Kerry or Bush supporters may be heightened when in comparison to presidential political following in years past (voter turnout is a good metric for that), but dividing the country? Naa - I'm sure that happened long ago but was less in the front and center.

I offer the same thoughts to a Bush presidency as I would to a Kerry presidency. May the next four years be fruitful, peaceful, and full of growth and promise. May our enemies be fearful and silent.

hln

Posted by: hln at 12:45 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 1 kb.