Post election demonstrations

November 3, 2004 9:58 PM

Post election demonstrationsand protests in Portland, San Francisco (pics). And a few more.
posted by loquacious (42 comments total)

I post this newsfilter because I'm not seeing anything about this (yet) in almost any broadcast/mainstream media channels.

Not that I was or am expecting or condoning direct action, I expected there to be at least some public and vocal displays of displeasure about the election and have been disturbed that it took this long to hear about it.
posted by loquacious at 10:03 PM on November 3, 2004

Thanks for posting this! A friend in Portland heard mention of it on her local radio or news, but the most we could find online were traffic warnings related to the protests :P
posted by valerie at 10:22 PM on November 3, 2004

There were a hundred or so of us down in Eugene at the Fed building. . .it just felt good to gather, if nothing else.
posted by Danf at 10:39 PM on November 3, 2004

My housemates all went downtown for the Portland one earlier today. I suspect it didn't stop the war or change the fact that the nation voted for bigotry, greed and murder last night.
posted by cmonkey at 10:49 PM on November 3, 2004

What's there to protest? The dude won the election, seemingly fair and square. You think walking down the street yelling is going to convince anyone he shouldn't be president? You think this won't let folks label protestors as people with seemingly no jobs that oppose anything for any reason?

Why not do something constructive? Maybe start with talking to people in a civil manner instead of shouting and carrying signs. Get to know some "red staters" and talk to them rationally. You'd be surprised at how many things you probably have in common with folks in Utah or Missouri, or Alabama.

Seriously, it just seems like sore losership to me, and I'm on the losing team here. Put your chin up, regroup, refocus, and let's make a real difference next time.
posted by mathowie at 10:51 PM on November 3, 2004

Matt, I agree with you, actually. But perhaps this is regrouping and refocusing for them.
posted by loquacious at 10:58 PM on November 3, 2004

Well, he shouldn't be president (in the same sense that I shouldn't be president, ignoring the fact that I'm less than 35 years old), but he did win the election.
posted by oaf at 11:04 PM on November 3, 2004

Hey guys, it's y2k calling. You're a little late.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:04 PM on November 3, 2004

I wonder if any of these folks have seen the film "PCU"....
posted by spirit72 at 11:24 PM on November 3, 2004

That public men publish falsehoods
Is nothing new. That America must accept
Like the historical republics corruption and empire
Has been known for years.

Be angry at the sun for setting
If these things offend you.

--Robinson Jeffers, quoted by Hunter Thompson after McGovern's 1972 loss to Nixon.
posted by uhnyuftz at 11:34 PM on November 3, 2004

If you really really really feel the need to protest why not do it in a manner the GOP leaders will grasp? Get organized. Have your like-minded friends show up in a standard uniform of black shoes, black pants and white shirt (low cost). No yelling, no chanting, no talking at all, no fist pumping and only ONE sign that says “Mr. President: We are watching you.”. Do this on a regular basis (say every Tuesday night at 8 PM). Each week hand out a concise one-page summary of a different argument against the President and his gang. It won’t remove GWB or anyone else from office but it will get attention and MIGHT change some minds in ’08. The sixties are gone and won’t be back. If you feel a need to protest try to do it in a way that will not make it easy for people who disagree with you to dismiss you as a dumb poser wannabe.
posted by arse_hat at 11:36 PM on November 3, 2004

I won't believe W won legitimately until the diebold machines have been turned inside out.

I say this will little emotion. I say it to inform those of you who do believe it to be legitimate that there are people out there who do not. Do not assume eveyone agrees with you, you ignore this position at considerable risk.
posted by krisjohn at 11:39 PM on November 3, 2004

That makes pretty good sense, arse_hat. Uh, tho i cringe a bit at using that name after a sentence of praise. :)

We should try Aikido: blend with your opponent first, THEN change his direction. Should be more effective than butting heads in confrontation.
posted by zoogleplex at 11:47 PM on November 3, 2004

Somebody give these dipshits a newspaper. The people have spoken already. It's not that they didn't hear us, it's that they disagree. Can't we just take a fucking break for a second and try to figure this shit out before picking up the same tired banners? It seems pathetic and absurd to be protesting now, like watching someone whose legs have just been blown off trying to hop around like nothing had changed. We just got cock-slapped, and it is humiliating to get cock-slapped, so can we please be the guy who slinks off, takes a long shower and learns karate, rather than the guy who breaks down and cries right there in the middle of the gang-rape?
posted by Hildago at 11:49 PM on November 3, 2004

"Uh, tho i cringe a bit at using that name after a sentence of praise. :)" - zoogleplex

Cringe not! I wear it proudly!
posted by arse_hat at 12:00 AM on November 4, 2004

I'm surprised to actually find MF still here. I figured you'd all have packed up and moved to Europe or somewhere.
posted by HTuttle at 12:11 AM on November 4, 2004

like watching someone whose legs have just been blown off trying to hop around like nothing had changed.

BLACK KNIGHT:
Just a flesh wound.
ARTHUR:
Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Chicken! Chickennn!
ARTHUR:
Look, I'll have your leg. Right!
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT:
Right. I'll do you for that!
ARTHUR:
You'll what?
BLACK KNIGHT:
Come here!
ARTHUR:
What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT:
I'm invincible!
ARTHUR:
You're a looney.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:15 AM on November 4, 2004

i don't think protesting post-election is a silly or pointless thing to do.

firstly, it is not something that the bush administration wants to see. they're trying to portray an america that loves them, an america that is united. there's a tiny itsy bitsy chance that it will have some influence on the bush admin - that they will try to mend rifts, or woo the left, or something.

secondly, it helps the democrats because people see that they are not alone in their grief, their anger, their unwillingness to let bush turn this powerful country into an almost dictatorship-theocracy. it is really important for people to know that there are others who feel just as strongly as they do. it is a display of unionship and a willingness to fight.

thirdly, and maybe most importantly, it gets media attention. the media is going to gobble up stories like this: burning bush effigies! come on! that's very powerful footage. and if the media senses that there is a story in the dissent and division of this election, they will go after it. so it will get airplay and radioplay and articles and attention.
posted by kv at 1:38 AM on November 4, 2004

i don't think protesting post-election is a silly or pointless thing to do

I'm sure once the 'ring leaders' of the incident are identified they can be fairly dealt with using the Patriot Act that you guys voted into law, so it won't have been pointless I guess *sigh*
posted by DrDoberman at 2:12 AM on November 4, 2004

there's a tiny itsy bitsy chance that it will have some influence on the bush admin - that they will try to mend rifts, or woo the left, or something

Ha ha ha. HA HA HA.
posted by Summer at 2:20 AM on November 4, 2004

The left needs to start studying propaganda and not be afraid to use it.
posted by iamck at 2:27 AM on November 4, 2004

Stop being scared of fighting for what you believe in. Shit I heard people say yesterday that the election was lost by "Teh Gays" getting married and offending middle America. Middle America needs to be offended, they voted for bigoted, hate-filled warmongers. What the fuck is the point of winning an election if you have to become a slightly less bigotted, slightly less hate-filled warmonger to do it?

Ignore the religious right, those fuckers wont vote for you in the same way Strom Thurmond would never have voted for Obama, they hate you and your liberal faggoty ways. So you're 40% down already, but you still have your soul. Find those people who don't hate gays, but are frightened by them, find those people who don't hate liberals but are frightened by them, find these people and show them the hate-filled, purple-heart band aid wearing, Sadam-911 linking, lying, cheating party they have just voted for.

It works, just look at the Tory Party in the UK now vs The Tory Party in the UK in the 80s. They have gone from a platform of Clause 28 to Equal rights for Gay Couples. They may still be a party with a large racist, homophobic section of their membership, but they cannot preach to this part of their membership because they would be laughed out of town.

Have your rage, show your displeasure, then turn the cameras around and film the right-wing demonstrations, show the corporate whores which hide in the shadows, show the hatred and bigotry and lying that you are up against. Take back your media and show the truth. Want to know why people voted for Bush? Ask them, and when they've finished telling you about the link between sadam and obl, the wmd found in Iraq and the fact the world loves you realise that Karl Rove et al really do create their own reality and you have to pull back the curtain.

Take back your media, take back your reality.

Or Secede ;)
posted by fullerine at 2:40 AM on November 4, 2004

Obama...Osama? Coincidence?

/derail
posted by iamck at 2:46 AM on November 4, 2004

Obama...Osama? Coincidence?

If Obama runs in 08 this will be a meme I guarantee it. You may laugh but these people made W's vietnam record look better than Kerry's

That is what your up against, the constant muddying of the waters.
posted by fullerine at 3:02 AM on November 4, 2004

What the fuck is the point of winning an election if you have to become a slightly less bigotted, slightly less hate-filled warmonger to do it?

the point is that you get to be president instead of bunch of whiny losers. you get to make laws that move the country in the direction you want instead of holding a cardboard sign in the rain. you change the world instead of looking like a prick.

in all, seems like quite a smart idea to me.
posted by andrew cooke at 4:16 AM on November 4, 2004

Hey guys, it's y2k calling. You're a little late.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:04 AM EST on November 4

Word. Where was the outrage then? But I can see this as seeds for something positive if it doesn't get out of control (breaking windows = bad). Let's take this to levels the gov't won't be able to ignore. Turn it into something constructive where you can recruit others to start taking an interest in how they are governed. Let's really "get out the vote" and make sure that the next election actually hears what we want, whether it be jobs, health care, etc, louder than things we don't want such as gays infecting our values, yadda ya... Give a shit already. And remember that simply pissing them off usually just gets you arrested. Get a plan. Follow through this time. Peace.
posted by LouReedsSon at 4:29 AM on November 4, 2004

Y'know what might just work?
puppets!
Ungh.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:48 AM on November 4, 2004

What's there to protest? The dude won the election, seemingly fair and square. You think walking down the street yelling is going to convince anyone he shouldn't be president?


No, but it's healthy to vent. Just don't break any windows or burn any cars; remember, your state voted for Kerry...!


Get to know some "red staters" and talk to them rationally.

Now that's a tall order.

Me: So Mr. Joe Redstater, why did you vote Tom Coburn to represent your state in the US Senate?

Redstater: Oh I like that he wants to give the death penality to abortionist...

Me: Uh...
posted by sic at 5:26 AM on November 4, 2004

thanks matt, you took the words outta my gaping maw. i've gotten some invitations to an "inauguration protest". i just don't see what any of this serves to do other than further polarize us and stilt the dialogue in this country.

and there is some seriously insipid quipping going on at the portland site.

"But, I wondered, is this what democracy looks like? Marching on the sidewalks? Waiting for the lights to change before we cross the street?"

No, that's traffic law and has very little to do with Democracy. Are these people confusing Democracy with Anarchy? I don't get it.

"I have been saying for months that if he steals the election again we need to have riots in the streets. I have a five year old and a teaching job, so I don't feel like i can be a leader in this and serve jail time but we need to have the message sent that we are pissed."

um. the bastard got the highest popular vote of any president in history. how is this "stealing the election"? This one is even harder than 2000, folks, because we just flat out fucking lost. we can't blame nader, we can't blame katherine harris, we can't even blame BUSH (for once). Now is the time to stop with the consipiracies and screaming in the streets and fucking sit down for coffee and start sharing ideas. because as it stands we ain't gettin anywhere.
posted by glenwood at 5:34 AM on November 4, 2004

Hey, man, Missouri isn't a red state. The majority just ends up voting for who becomes president. We can't help it!
posted by zsazsa at 5:50 AM on November 4, 2004

The idea that protests in Portland and San Francisco are "not something that the bush administration wants to see" is a one-sentence demonstration of the left's political incompetence which permitted Bush to win.

Bush absolutely does want to see such protests.

In the vast majority of this country, the radical left is invisible or is confined to that one long-haired dude in the neighborhood who won't weed his lawn. They'd never believe that it existed in a politically meaningful sense, and hence needed to be opposed (preferably by the election of Republican officeholders) were it not for such things as widely publicized protests.
posted by MattD at 5:51 AM on November 4, 2004

I'm surprised to actually find MF still here. I figured you'd all have packed up and moved to Europe or somewhere.

In case you didn't notice, these are the fucking internets, pal. No geography here.
posted by acrobat at 6:03 AM on November 4, 2004

They'd never believe that it existed in a politically meaningful sense, and hence needed to be opposed (preferably by the election of Republican officeholders) were it not for such things as widely publicized protests.

that makes no sense! we should meekly pretend that we are not trying to politically take over the nation, so that the right won't put up a fight? huh.
posted by kv at 6:09 AM on November 4, 2004

This just in: Hissy fits accomplish nothing!
posted by tommasz at 6:21 AM on November 4, 2004

But they feel so good.
posted by darukaru at 6:35 AM on November 4, 2004

The article sums up Reason #34957934 Why I Moved Away from Portland in 2000.....
posted by dhoyt at 7:12 AM on November 4, 2004

"Why not do something constructive? Maybe start with talking to people in a civil manner instead of shouting and carrying signs. Get to know some "red staters" and talk to them rationally. You'd be surprised at how many things you probably have in common with folks in Utah or Missouri, or Alabama." - I'll second that and up the ante :

See: Dailykos, "Still Missing The Big Picture" (warning - very long, 1 Mb thread discussion)
posted by troutfishing at 7:26 AM on November 4, 2004

matt and troutfishing hit it. Seriously...these people think they are doing something :

"thirdly, and maybe most importantly, it gets media attention. the media is going to gobble up stories like this: burning bush effigies! come on! that's very powerful footage. and if the media senses that there is a story in the dissent and division of this election, they will go after it. so it will get airplay and radioplay and articles and attention."

--> this idea might be workable, before people were exposed to 24 hour a day news attrocity network.

I live in columbus ohio, and there was supposed to be a big " blackwell, we're watching you " rally..until the consecion speech. SOme people still went down, to assemble, blow off steam, show unity, etc.

It was a circus..there were lefty freaks (god love us) there all chanting crazy slogans, and looking like a carnival. THere was even some direct action/peaceful resistance thing going on, where they were trying to get arrested.

End result?
all teh people who were walking around the capitol building last evening....black , white, latino, were laughing at 'those idiots getting arrested for nothing'..

I spectated, and used that time to realize I was on the losing side, and this was why.

If we want to make a difference, stop thinking that everyone has the same social values, and 'if they could just listen, and hear our voice, they'd agree!'
--no one wants to hear that voice. The 60's are over. Love is here, love is great, love is wonderful. Just to be clear.
but freaks on display doesn't shock...coverage of that shit jsut cements the belief that they 'voted right'..

engage in debate ..protesting is dead.
posted by das_2099 at 8:19 AM on November 4, 2004

engage in debate ..protesting is dead

I like this idea, but I have a question: how do you debate with people who have core values so different from your own? mathowie said earlier in the thread, "Get to know some 'red staters' and talk to them rationally," which is a good idea, but how do you rationally discuss abortion, or gay rights, or separation of church and state, or even the war in Iraq with people who base their opinions on faith?

I sincerely wonder about this. It seems to me that it would be mind-bogglingly difficult to turn people away from what they believe their religion dictates.
posted by jess at 8:43 AM on November 4, 2004

You'd be surprised at how many things you probably have in common with folks in Utah or Missouri, or Alabama.

To admit that would rob many of these people of their cultivated identity.
posted by jonmc at 8:52 AM on November 4, 2004

it would be mind-bogglingly difficult to turn people away from what they believe their religion dictates.

Damn right. I have spent far too much time over the years doing that kind of thing. It is not difficult to have rational discussions about beliefs that are based on irrational faith, but it is ineffective to try and change them based on logical arguments alone. You really have to understand the faith, and work within its mysterious realm.

There is some real truth in Christianity, for those who can find it. The same kind of truth that all the big religions share to greater or lesser degrees. People find a little of it, see that it's Good, and then accept whatever ridiculous lies are told them by the same sources that showed them that sublime Truth. Allow any imprecision in your arguments against the lies, and they instantly feel that you are arguing against the Truth.

There are other problems. Often there is a defensive attitude that arises because they do not really trust their own faith, but know that they want to. Those who truly do have a secure faith are easier to talk to, but they may have attached a whole range of opinions and thoughts to "faith" on subjects that are better served by reason, and it will be difficult to convince them to separate one from the other. Then there are those in the church who are secure in their lack of faith, are confident in their hearts that it's a sham, or just a political movement, or some other thing unrelated to the truth, but they keep up pretenses and preach all the more vehemently. I've never met him, but I bet Pat Robertson is in that category. At best, he is a Chritian Totalitarianist,

"We want ... as soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family Christians by 1996." --Pat Robertson, 1992.

It's probably easier to understand this sort of thing by looking at the widely-discussed Islamic fundamentalists who want the same sort of thing for their own countries. Most Americans seem capable of seeing the distinction between them and the faith of Islam. Seeing the same distinction in your own faith and your own country is much more difficult, but it's the first step if you want to save that minority of Christians who don't already get it.
posted by sfenders at 9:32 AM on November 4, 2004

I guess what we could reasonably see in this "protest" is a reaction to the last few months of incessant propaganda from both political parties ; while I don't find propaganda per-se to be harmful (as in a system with a number of parties, each party tries to win more voters by convincing them of the validity of their arguments) I urge you to read the following wikipedia article

about Propaganda

and the difference between balanced propaganda (nothing to do with anybody claiming to be fair and balanced, regardless of their party color) and the techniques for propaganda generation and propagation : among these the one most used during this election is certainly appeal to fear.

Take this as an appeal to take your head out of your arse and try seeing things without party telling you what you're supposed to hear, listen and most importantly, understand. That applies both to Reps and Dems.
posted by elpapacito at 9:41 AM on November 4, 2004