San Francisco in No Mood for Tolerance After Bush Win

[PSU84]

San Francisco in No Mood for Tolerance After Bush Win

Sun Nov 7, 2004 By Andrea Orr

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The summer of love has given way to the autumn of fear in San Francisco, a liberal stronghold where residents bitterly disappointed by the Bush victory are in no mood to reach out and mend divisions. Rather, they are waving "United States of Canada" maps, redrawn to show Canada extending down to include California, New England and the other so-called "blue states" that voted decisively for Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry in the U.S. presidential race. Some are canceling plans to travel to neighboring "red states," where Bush drew most of his support. They are asking serious questions about the future of American democracy. And the usual post-election bravado about moving out of the country when a favored candidate loses is sounding different this year. It sounds a lot more serious.

<SNIP>

STAYING OUT OF RED STATES

Days after the election, many residents said they were so worried about an erosion of civil rights, environmental standards and the escalating violence in the Middle East, that they did not know how they could tolerate the Bush administration, or Americans who voted to re-elect him. "I have family in Idaho, but I told my wife we're not going to visit them now. It's all Republicans there," said Ron Schmidt, a public relations executive. "We have family in Indiana and I don't want to go there either."

<snip>

Schmidt said: "The ideologies of the two parties are too different. I don't see how healing can take place. I feel like the disenfranchised minority now, and that's a funny thing for a tall, good-looking white guy like me to say." Schmidt's friend, magazine editor Joseph Connelly, said one of his columnists who had moved temporarily to Paris six months ago decided Wednesday she would settle there permanently. "She was hoping she would want to come back," Connelly said, "but after she saw the election results she just didn't."


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&u=/nm/20041108/pl_nm/usa_politics_sanfrancisco_dc&printer=1

[CTyankee]

1. It pains the hell out of me

but I must go see my 93 year old mother in Texas next month. I can't punish her for the sins of most voters in Texas. But I have kids in blue states and a vacation home in a blue state so, with the exception of Texas, I don't have to set foot in a red state. I am cheered by the fact that Texas has Molly Ivins and Jim Hightower and those good souls who voted for Kerry.

[fudge stripe cookays]

2. We're some of them, Yankee.

Thanks.

Where's your mom? You'll feel better if you get a chance to visit with some of us and find out we busted our asses trying to change things.

There's plenty of DUers around:

The PDitties, citysky and slutticus in Houston

Reprehensor and myself, ginbarn and derby378, the anarchy1999s, sui generis, crispini and others in Dallas

VelmaD, GOPisEvil, sonias, nopasaran and others in Austin.

And various and sundry others around the state. We'd love to show you how Texas USED to be.

FSC

[mainer]

3. Wow! It's like an echo chamber between S.F. and NYC!

Exactly what we're hearing here on DU.

[chiburb]

4. Stay out of Illinois too... except Chicago.

We may be a Blue State, but only because of right-minded URBAN folks...

[rogerashton]

5. Rump States

Here's a column with a similar view from this morning's Inky. They may want you to register.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/10124740.htm

Not Red States. Rump States.

The rump is what is (left) behind. In the English Civil War, some of the parliamentarians decamped to join the King. The rest were the Rump Parliament because they stayed behind. Even if the waterside states do not secede, the other states are Left Behind by our progress and civilization.

So. Rump States, not red states.