Daiwa--
The last position I want to be put in is apologizing for the more vitriolic elements on the Left. At the same time, though, some of the more vocal "hate-speakers" you mention from the right seem, well, equally as problematic. Fairly early on in his presidency, I think, President Bush participated (I resist saying "created") an atmosphere of distrust by holding fewer press conferences than usual and doing much of the business of the White House in secrecy. Certainly, a certain amount of secrecy is necessary for national security, but I think that secrecy participated (again!) in that atmosphere of distrust. Now, based on what you've said, the generous response to this presidential tactic of secrecy is that it was in response to Democrat "hatred" -- no point in handing them ammunition on a plate, afterall. Possibly so. But then, if so, I think it is really important for his second term to find a way to break that cycle of distrust between the parties. Frankly, he is in the best position to make successful overtures in that direction (and seems to be doing just that in his victory rhetoric) in meaningful and substantive ways.
It is hard to listen to folks talk about Democrats as the "Party of Hate" when the Clinton years seem to have been all but derailed by vitriolic attacks from the right. At the same time, I self-reflectively acknowledge that pointing to that behavior serves almost no other function than "justifying" current Democratic behaviors (which, arguably, it doesn't). The bottom line is that I don't really think either party can wear the title of the "Party of Hate." They both deploy hate (and, well, fear) as political tactics, and I think the people most worn down by those tactics are the voters.
GruntSGT--
Nope, no Canada for me. I also don't think President Bush will blow up the world, but I am sometimes afraid that he might consider actually using tactical nuclear weapons as a component of his pre-emptive doctrine. I am not saying that he will use such weapons nor do I have any evidence that he is planning to. So maybe it is an irrational fear. My point, though, is that I am trying not to be guided by such fears, and I am trying to come out of this election cycle ready to do good work for the good of the country in my own small way -- which of necessity means finding ways to work and dialogue with the proponents of the dominant ideologies.
Also, while I think gloating is not the best choice for those who feel their candidate/party is in power, I do think there is something (if not quite a mandate) for conservatives/GOP to rally around in this election. No, it wasn't a landslide, but I think the President won a tight race by a decisive margin, fair and square. And his opponent, John Kerry, did the right thing for the country in conceding when he did. I do wish that the country I live in was not "Bush Country" -- it will be a long time before I can let go of that desire. But the truth of the matter is that it is "Bush Country," and part of being an adult is accepting and dealing with the reality of your present conditions. The option of making it not Bush Country is past; that option failed. Now it is time to learn from that failure by accepting what it means that it failed (and not distracting ourselves by looking for facile excuses for why it failed).
Anyway, that's what I can bring to the table by way of meeting on some common ground for the Blogosphere Congress. I will do my best not to speak/write from a place of "hate" for Bush, but it may be asking too much that I regularly express "like" for the man. I can admit to a considerable amount of "respect" for him, though (begrudging though that may be at times). Hopefully that is a start.
