[Moneyguy1]

Fint:

I don't know who is the majority anymore. Many voted for Bush out of fear: fear of the unknown, fear of change. Had there been a stronger alternative, the results might have been different. The very fact that one party now "owns" both the executive and legislative branches will be an opportunity to continue doing things that the checks and balances system tries to prevent. It is the tension between these two that protects the balance and provides some measure of sanity. By the design of our founding fathers, the federal government is supposed to grid slow but fine. The very fact that we now have a massive fiscal problem could rationally be put down as a result of the lack of balance. Who is to stop and shout "Enough, already!!" Who in the Congress is brave enough to do anything to displease the leadership? Even our own Senator, McCain, had to straighten up and fly right if he expected not to be ostracized.

Like I said, Bush is the president of all the people, not 51% of the people. It is time he realized that. If he perceives that he has received a "mandate", this could be a very large step in the wrong direction.

I don't personally give a rodent's patottie. The sun will continue to rise in the east and set in the west, like clockwork. And, four years will go by whether we want them to or not. At the end of those four years, depending upon whether there has been a real effort to "heal the divide", we may, as a country, have to rethink what are our true values.

One cannot continually be a Cafeteria Christian or anything else for that matter. There will have to be some consistency in the application of moral principles. something that seems like many have ignored in their rush to embrace "family values". There has been little or no consistency for the past few years. Both parties are equally guilty of bending the rules of ethics and morality to their advantage, sometimes to the detriment of the public good.

Morality is often in the eye of the beholder. Consider that December 7, 1941 was looked upon by one side as a "day that will live in infamy" and by the other as "a necessary pre-emptive strike".