Nutz does have a point.
All banter and bitching about things done under the Bush administration aside, what's worse: to have an inexperienced newb come in and try to upend everything and *possibly* make things worse because he really doesnt know what the hell is going on, or stick with predictable idiocy?
Think about this in the Canadian context, Si. How do you think Chretien stayed in for three terms? In the 2000 election, the Liberal Party won at 40% of the popular vote(for our Yankee friends: we've got no fewer than 5 goddamn parties: Liberal (mishmash of everything, but generally level), Conservative (these days, actually small-'c' conservative), NDP (communists. well, alright in the 50s they were. But it's the socially-minded soapboxers who couldn't govern their way out of a paper bag if they had one. We do have a registered Communist Party of Canada and Marxist-Leninist Party though), Bloc Quebecois (based out of Quebec; depending on leader, is arguably the most radical group for many deep historically cultural reasons) and usually another independent group, notably the Green Party (environmentalists). Anyways, in the 1997 election, Liberals had 51.5% of the popular vote, and had won previously in 1993. It's speculation, but from what I recall the opposition (which is basically just the Conservatives, historically) had undergone a number of changes in leadership. Basically, we could vote for the same old, or some new guy nobody really heard of. Even though the country was kinda boring itself up under Chretien, we knew what to expect. Same idea.
Source:
Simon Fraser University, Department of Political Science
The other problem with Kerry is that he was a soapboxer; a lot of people simply don't like it, despite what good intentions he may have had. It's very easy to go 'rrraaaaaagghhh this bad!'. Same thing with Jack Layton (NDP leader up here). He might have some good intentions (environmental policy), but he soapboxes a lot (on silly things too sometimes. Like ATM fees), and that bothers/bothered people a great deal I think. Remember Bob Rae? (NDP Premier of Ontario [premier is equivalent of a governor]) In the early 90s everyone was ticked off with the Liberals and Conservatives, and so the vote goes to the lesser of three evils. And he farked the province up but GOOD because they really didnt know what they were doing.
But still, keep in mind that US voters really only have two choices if they vote at all. Would things be any different under Kerry? You can't just drop into a situation and start changing ****, channels and senates and approval BS notwithstanding things simply fall apart if you try and change them in rapid order, and a smart person realizes this. (A manager we had at work didnt. We hated her.) Likely, you would be seeing a very similar playout of politics had it been Kerry. Different face, different BS on CNN, but honestly what the hell else would be different in a political apparatus that takes TIME to do things and is effectively based on individual approval of ideas by votes in a Senate? You can get voted in, but honestly if you don't have support high up, you're not gonna get dick passed.
Am I disputing the very NKVD feel of the Patriot Act? No. In this application, in fact, i'm likening it to the political strength behind Socialist Realism from 1934-1953; you show what's deemed politically appropriate, and even past texts and films were reconsidered and deemed to be politically unsound. Same thing. That the Patriot Act creates a carte blanche that exists outside the judicial framework of the state is what is most frightening.
And also: to play devil's advocate. Before you start an Anti-American rant with a Christian overtone, our country has been just as naughty in terms of censorship on religious grounds:
Source:
Canadian Book and Periodical Council, Freedom to Read: list of banned texts
(as for films, I can't readily find an objective resource)
You want to talk about something frightening? Busholino's out next year. Predictability's out the window.