See  http://indymedia.us/ for Indymedia coverage of the election.

Bush has not won a landslide in the US election. At best, he's split the states.

- Bush is not my president.

Mike
Charlotte

I remember reading an interview with the director of Fight Club, saying he would vote for Bush in the election because things had to get a lot worse before they got better. I also remember the statement by the Madrid bombers, saying they hoped Bush would win because his incompetent policies and outright imperialism was slowly waking people up.

OK, so it would have been nice for the rampant march of US imperialism to have been downgraded to ImperialismLite for a few years, under Kerry, but to be honest, Kerry's election would have changed nothing, and would maybe even have legitimised and consolidated some of the moves the Bush administration has made. The occupation of Iraq may have seemed more legitimate because 'It was the last guys that did it'.

Kerry would have changed nothing. He could well have been worse. Bush is so unbalanced and incompetent that there is really the chance that he will bring the empire crashing down. By him remaining in power, the worldwide resistance to the policies that BOTH candidates stood for will grow stronger and stronger. Bush can mobilise a resistance to his policies in a way Kerry simply can't, because Kerry is slightly less offensive to watch and listen to.

Also, over the years, we have made plenty of posters, TShirts, mugs, magazines, books of Bushisms, etc, and if Bush was gone we'd have to make a whole new set of stuff. So in fact Bush's reelection has saved us money.

So don't be glum. Let's celebrate in the knowledge that when Rome is burning, it will be Bush playing the fiddle in the White House.

Don't mean to stamp on your soap bubble (and I do understand the desire to look for the positive) but from experience I don't believe this logic of things getting worse being a good thing because it drives people to revolution or whatever.

Look at history. In practice defeats may make people angry but they also depress and demoralise, maing people less likely to keep trying for change and also less likely to mobilise, so ending up isolated and even more demoralised; a vicious circle. This happened for twenty years under Thatcher/Reagan/Major/Bush Sr.

Whereas small victories buoy (sp?) people up for further efforts and bigger victories.

The relevance here is that the anti-war movement shouldn't take this as a cue to give up on mass protest and go off on our own (nor to give up altogether) but to keep on and in fact to reach out further than before. Our power doesn't rest on electoralism so we should keep on the streets!