Image of US 2004 election results resemble 1860 map on Slavery

[Caid Ivik]

Well, you have CDU/CSU in Germany, which is rather far from ulsterian nationalists, and yet has its ideology based on religion. To be sure, religion is another argument than productivity (in EdricO's terms, "extremely right-wing ultra-capitalist") as well as than social equilibrium (in his terms, "social democrat"). I still point at senselessness of this categorization; you are twisting words out of their meanings and thus see no possibility of "middle way".

Which is the core of politics, anyway...

[Acriku]

The problem with this idiocy is that the anti-christian forgot to mention that those states voted a Republican president who prayed to Jesus openly in Office and loved GOd, loved the Bible.  He appealed to Jesus, he appealed to public prayer, public endorsement of Christianity.  He really loved God, he loved the Bible.  Did I mention that those free states in 1860 voted for an outspoken Christian Jesus-loving president.

I hope I didn't forget to mention that the president those free states voted for believed in Jesus.

The slaves states, of course, voted for the amoral democrat.

It's funny that all of this came out of a picture that I thought was something good for a laugh. Ha!

[Dante]

This wasn't directed to me, however, in the Netherlands we have a party that calls itself the Christian Union that is clearly left of centre on things such as fighting poverty, yet has very moralistic ideas on things like gay emancipation and abortion.

Interesting choice of word, 'emancipation.' Seems... accurate.

Over here, no-one, not liberals, conservatives, left or right, uses religion as an argument for politics. The only exceptions are racist parties like the BNP and Northern Ireland, which is a rather different kettle of fish.

And I for one am infinately pleased about that.

It's funny that all of this came out of a picture that I thought was something good for a laugh. Ha!

It's rather funny, but PRP was never much of a place for laughs...

[SurlyPIG]

""Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right""

BTW, that was a quote from Abraham LIncoln.

Not even Bush has said things so unbelievably hard-nosed fundamentally Christian.

Actually I remember a speech he gave a year or two back in which he repititiously said "God is on our side."  It made me think of that Lincoln quote when I heard it.  The notable difference is that G Dub seemed to know that God was already in his pocket whereas Lincoln seemed to want to try hard to make sure that he was on God's side.  So either Bush is arrogant in his presumptions or schizophrenic.

Personally, I think it's absolutely ridiculous to believe that it is at all possible to be on the side of a pure, perfect being, or that God would even take a side in matters such as these.

[Acriku]

By bringing his god into this debacle, President Bush not only declares his god to be the true god (more importantly all the other gods are false gods), but also allows his credibility and motivation to be questioned seriously as a president and leader. This lessens his ability to act as a leader, which includes bringing his people together for a cause and providing an icon of trust.

[Caid Ivik]

Declaring, that God (and most people in USA believe there is only one and true, both Bush and Kerry believe this too) is on his side, is showing his ability as a leader, or perhaps his demagogic skill. He brings what most of you want.

[emprworm]

Actually I remember a speech he gave a year or two back in which he repititiously said "God is on our side."

[Acriku]

Declaring, that God (and most people in USA believe there is only one and true, both Bush and Kerry believe this too) is on his side, is showing his ability as a leader, or perhaps his demagogic skill. He brings what most of you want.

The job of a leader is not to bring most of the people together. If that is so, then when Islam becomes the most popular religion over Christianity then the President must declare Allah to be the one and true God, if he is to be a good leader correct? Wrong. This in fact divides the people. It not only divides the people who don't believe in the god Bush believes in from the people who do, but also divides the people who disagree with bringing religion into politics from those who agree. There are numerous Jews, Christians, and other religious members that are for the separation of Church and State. Bush just divided himself from those people by mentioning his god in the many times that he did. The job of a leader is to bring all of the people together.

[Caid Ivik]

Democracy itself isn't about compromise, but about the will of majority. Art of politics in democratic enviroment is to understand this will. If you would come with rasta thinking into Iran, you cannot expect support, you know. Also, to take a simple concept of "God", Bush sees yet something enough abstract to lure most of religious communities, as it is typical for any christian sect, catholics, Jews or muslims as well. There is only one God for them all and it doesn't make a difference if you use an english, latin, arab or a hebrew term for it. Of course, Bush isn't such medial mage as ie Putin, but this guy has a more solid nation, as well as better political enviroment to hold the power. Putin is closer to bring all people together, into nice fascistic empire of Great Russia.

[Wolf]

I don't know about Edric's argument about the cultures of the two halves of the United States being similar to where they were in 1860. After 144 years, and taking into account population growth, immigration, the advent of information technologies, and all sorts of things that mix up cultures, I wouldn't be so quick to say that the old-style Northern liberal culture still exists with an antiquated Southern fascination with the land and traditional values. Granted, there are places where this still holds true, but was not the split of many states -- even Fortress Texas -- somewhere around 60-40, 70-30? The United States isn't really as divided as people think, I think the distribution of liberals and conservatives is farily evenly spread out.

Case in point, I know a Marxist from Arkansas and a Neocon from New York.

[HasimirFenring]

I don't know about Edric's argument about the cultures of the two halves of the United States being similar to where they were in 1860. After 144 years, and taking into account population growth, immigration, the advent of information technologies, and all sorts of things that mix up cultures, I wouldn't be so quick to say that the old-style Northern liberal culture still exists with an antiquated Southern fascination with the land and traditional values. Granted, there are places where this still holds true, but was not the split of many states -- even Fortress Texas -- somewhere around 60-40, 70-30? The United States isn't really as divided as people think, I think the distribution of liberals and conservatives is farily evenly spread out.

Case in point, I know a Marxist from Arkansas and a Neocon from New York.

Nationwide, liberals are concentrated in cities and conservatives spread out across the rural area (that is, the bulk of each group).  You may be right in that sense, there really weren't any Dixie-style slave holders living in rural New England the way there are evangelical conservatives there now.

[Wolf]

Oh, I definately agree that there are more liberal-slanted individuals living in urban areas than there are in rural ones, the opposite holding true for their conservative-slanted counterparts. However, we don't do the electoral vote by city, we do it by state.

[alchemi2]

The Electrol collage system distorts the results anyway so it's hardly surprising the maps reflect each other.

one party beats the other by a 10000 votes and yet gets all the seats, hardly representitive of the peoples views.