Taking No for an Answer

For parents, it’s almost a daily thing: one of the kids wants something, and no matter what you say in return (other than some form of “yes”), you’re going to hear the question again. And again, and again, and again. Please? Why not? Just for a minute?

The kids have to learn that when you say no, you mean no. It’s frustrating, but it is part and parcel with being a parent.

A certain group of homeowners along Baraboo’s Second Avenue might recognize that frustration.

The city wants to buy a part of their property – about 50 feet wide and adjacent to the river – to extend the Baraboo Riverwalk, a civic improvement project that has, so far, been a big success.

The Riverwalk begins on the west side of the city, at lower Oschner Park, and currently follows the mighty Baraboo River up to Second Avenue, with one small break near another park.

The plan is to eventually extend it all the way to Circus World Museum, making some needed improvements to some rather seedy parts of town, and giving everyone – locals and tourists – a chance to enjoy a beautiful bit of nature along the river.

It doesn’t cost the city that much: the City of Baraboo pays only about a third of the cost. The rest comes from the state and from the Baraboo Kiwanis, who also provide some of the labor.

All in all, the Riverwalk is a good deal, and a fine project. The part that’s already done is a credit to the city, and I’m sure the rest of it will be, too.

There’s just one little hitch – that handful of property owners on Second Avenue. Five of them, out of a series of nine homes, don’t want to sell. Unless they change their minds, the Riverwalk will have to either go around them, somehow, or do without them.

The city has been trying, so far unsuccessfully, to change the owners’ minds. Parks and Rec director Tim O’Keefe said he will “keep plugging away” to do so. One landowner put it a different way: he said the city is pressuring them to sell.

The landowners do have their reasons: strangers walking along in back of their homes, particularly at night. Trash, dogs, and noise. Price: the city was offering $2.08 per square foot, but recently went up to $2.50.

Whether it’s a fair offer or not may not matter. People have reasons for choosing a particular home: access to the river is likely to be among them.

Imagine it’s you. Along comes the city, asking you to sell. You tell them no. You tell them no again. And again. And again. And again. And, according to O’Keefe, that won’t be enough. They won’t stop asking. Ever.

I can’t help but wonder: at what point does this become harassment?

It’s tempting to look at these five homeowners and decide they’re just being selfish. The river doesn’t belong to them, after all. The problems of trash and noise haven’t arisen along the completed portion of the Riverwalk, according to one local writer, at least.

And the Riverwalk is such a great project. I, for one, would love to see it completed.

But it’s not my property. If it were, I think I would feel the same way those five homeowners do – I wouldn’t want to sell my children’s back yard, and I would resent being pressured to do so.

I, along with the rest of the city, have been told no, thank you. It’s time for me, and the rest of the city, to learn what we’re all trying to teach our kids: no means no. Accept it, and move on.

Eventually, the city will get the property. They may have to wait decades, until the land changes hands. Perhaps the new owners will agree to sell. Perhaps the city or the Kiwanis can become the new owners themselves: separate the 50 feet they need, then re-sell the property.

Until then, they should concentrate on getting the rest of the project done. Leave a business card for the owners, along with a standing offer. If they change their minds, they can call.

If city officials just can’t help themselves, if they just can’t stop “plugging away,” they should have to offer a higher price every time. They should have to negotiate. Asking repeatedly, without offering more, makes no sense.

Above all, we should remember whose property it is. Or perhaps more to the point, whose it isn’t.

The Thanksgiving Day Column

The Thanksgiving Day column. Almost a cliché in itself, isn’t it? I mean, what’s there to say, that a thousand other writers haven’t already said?

Oh, sure, I could list out all the things I’m thankful for. My wife, who I really don’t deserve (though she doesn’t seem to know that). Our four kids, the rest of our family and friends. Our house, big and old with lots of history, as well as lots of space.

The job, my boss, my coworkers. For the opportunities my work provides, the camaraderie, all the funny little things that happen when you like what you do and the people you work with.

I like it here in Wisconsin – took me some years tooling around in the Army to realize that. I’m thankful for the weather: mostly for the fall colors, but even for the snow, and even in February.

I might have been born in Liberia, or Sudan, or Afghanistan. I wasn’t: I was born in a country where the poor people own color TVs and their kids are overweight. Where we’re free to hand out pamphlets on the street corner, accusing our government of evil and suppression.

There it is: your standard Thanksgiving Day column. Across the country, people who write for a living are writing some variation on the words I just wrote. And we’ll all do it again next year.

That’s what makes it so tough to write a Thanksgiving Day column – it’s all been said already. What is there new to say? Nothing. Cliché, man. It’s all cliché. Trite. Boring. Everybody says the same thing, year in, year out.

And why has it been said so many times? Possibly, because it’s true. That is, after all, one of the major ways a cliché becomes a cliché – it’s repeated over and over, because it’s true.

There’s a fact of life there, that it took me a long time to learn: life, daily life, the in and out of the regular grind, isn’t exciting. It’s routine. Normal. Cliché.

I used to think that made life boring. Staying home Friday nights, the minutiae of daily life, washing the dishes, checking homework. Day in, day out. That may be your life. It isn’t mine. My life is supposed to be exciting.

This is the real effect of popular culture, I think. In the movies, life isn’t boring. We always win the big game, and even if we don’t, we’re reconciled with our estranged fathers afterwards, anyway. Love is easy: you meet, argue a few times, and bang, it happens. Add a car chase, roll credits, fade out.

The arguments are always over by the end of the movie. The loose ends are tied up. Bad guys are dead or in jail. Kids behaved. Evil defeated. The boy and girl who are supposed to end up together do end up together, and we just know it’s going to last forever, no questions asked.

It’s all so neat and clean. So perfect, and it only takes between two and three hours.

It happens in the movies, so we think it should happen in real life, too. Not only should things finish up neatly, loose ends tied up tight, it should also be spectacularly exciting along the way.

At some point, not sure when, I learned life isn’t like that. Things don’t tie up neatly. When one problem is solved, another takes its place. And sometimes the next one doesn’t wait for the first one to finish up.

There’s no sliding along with a lousy job, and still hanging out with your friends at the coffee house all the time. No bouncing from girlfriend to girlfriend with no regrets. No undying romantic relationship that stays fresh and exciting day in, day out.

Life is paying the bills, mopping the floor, fighting the headache and wishing the kids would stop fighting just for five minutes.

At some point, I learned how to take a step back, to get a broader perspective on things. What I saw was this: it’s those little annoyances, the problems, the struggles, the anxiety, that make it all worthwhile in the end. It’s not exciting, it’s routine. But, as my younger self would never understand, I love it.

It’s not that I’ve given up. I haven’t just “settled.” I have learned there’s great satisfaction in walking in my front door at night, and sitting down to dinner. Who would have thought?

That I have learned this is, I think, is what I’m most thankful for.

What’s next for Tommy?

The resignations have slowed, but not stopped: President Bush’s cabinet will look a lot different over the next four years than it has over the last four.

Some posts – State, Attorney General, Education – have already been filled. Others haven’t. Still others may come open in the very near future.

Among that last group is the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Tommy Thompson, former governor of Wisconsin, has served as HHS Secretary for the past four years, and the word around both Washington and Madison is: he isn’t looking for another four.

He hasn’t come right out and said so himself, of course. Nor has he said what he would like to do next.

Whither Tommy? Lots of speculation there. Will he run for Governor again? Maybe for U.S. Senate? Join private industry? Become a lobbyist?

How about this: he’ll stay in Bush’s cabinet, just as head of a different agency.

Here’s how the Wisconsin State Journal put it recently (emphasis mine):

While Wisconsin Republicans are keen to have Thompson run for office again, either for governor or for the U.S. Senate, Thompson could choose to stay in the Cabinet, most likely as head of the Department of Homeland Security, according to Washington pundits.

That’s right, Homeland Security.

And why not? As head of HHS, he frequently seemed more involved in homeland security than the actual secretary of that office. Remember the anthrax scare? At Homeland Security, Tommy would have a front-line role in defending the nation from terrorism.

And then, before you know it, 2007 will be here, and the political parties will start whittling down their rosters for the 2008 presidential election.

Why do I mention that, you ask?

In presidential politics, common wisdom says governors have the advantage. They’re chief executives already: big picture people, who know you can’t run a company by handling every little detail yourself. That’s important, in campaigning and governing both.

Tommy was an immensely popular governor for 14 years, who spearheaded immensely popular and innovative reforms, like welfare reform, and school choice.

Governors have one glaring weakness in presidential politics: no foreign policy experience.

Well, heck, Tommy just got back from Tanzania, where he was working on the African AIDS epidemic. Put him at Homeland Security, and his foreign policy resume will only get better.

Now, I’m not calling this a done deal – not by any stretch. There are a lot of other better-known potential contenders for 2008.

Plus, there’s an awful lot that can happen over the next four years. One of the most interesting theories has Vice President Cheney resigning before his current term is up, and replacing him with the heir apparent.

From a political standpoint, this is a good idea. Assuming Cheney really doesn’t want to try for the Presidency himself, holding onto the Veep slot until 2008 takes a big advantage away from the Republicans – the advantage of incumbency. A Vice President running for The Promotion is usually the 800-pound gorilla in any given election. Cheney knows this.

So, Cheney resigns due to health concerns.(his heart), and is replaced by... the most common answer is Condoleeza Rice, thereby setting up a potential Condi vs. Hillary cage match in ’08.

Possible, interesting, tantalizing, but unlikely. Rice may be an incredibly capable person, but she’s never run for office before. As hot as her spotlight burns now, it’s much, much hotter when you’re the candidate. She hasn’t been vetted. She should be – at least as a Veep candidate herself – before trying for the big chair.

Who else? There’s more than enough names to choose from. Colin Powell has the same disadvantage as Rice, plus he’s squishy-soft on social issues. Ditto Rudy Guiliani, and besides, I’m hoping one of those two New Yorkers tries to unseat Hillary in 2006.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist? Colorado Governor Bill Owens? Arizona Senator John McCain?

Maybe, maybe, and maybe. All are attractive candidates, but no more so than Wisconsin’s own Tommy Thompson, who, I might point out, comes from a swing state – a political advantage none of those others can claim.

Wild speculation? You betcha. But Thompson didn’t become Wisconsin’s most successful and most powerful governor in history by lacking in political skill – or in ambition.

In another week or so, we’ll know who’s going to Homeland Security. If it’s Tommy, well, I’ll keep my eye on 2008.

Sauk County…going to the Dems?

What’s going on in Sauk County?

For twenty years, Sauk County has been reliably purple. Today, we’re drifting further and further toward blue.

I’m referring to the colors on those Bush-Gore and Bush-Kerry maps – the ones that color each county in the U.S.: red for Bush, blue for Gore or Kerry.

The last time Sauk was a red county was in 1984, when Ronald Reagan won his blowout victory for a second term. Since then, we’ve always gone into the Democrat column.

But that’s as far as it’s ever gone. Other than presidential elections, we’ve voted reliably Republican. Republicans held every county-level partisan office – Democrats didn’t even bother running. Until the last redistricting put Merrimac into a Madison-area state senate district, every state legislator representing us has been a Republican, dating back a very long time.

The tide seems to be turning, at least over the past few election cycles. Russ Feingold just barely won – in Sauk County and Wisconsin – in 1998. This year, he won in a blowout.

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin lost the county heavily in 1998 and in 2000, while still winning the election. In 2002 and 2004, though, she won Sauk County with larger majorities than those she previously lost by.

And, of course, John Kerry won Sauk County by a slightly larger margin (1,492) than Al Gore did (1,449).

Now, the news isn’t all bad. For example, add Ralph Nader’s votes to the Democrat margin of victory. They add up to 2,307 votes in 2000, but only 1,676 in 2004.

I know, all of Nader’s votes wouldn’t automatically have gone to the Democrat candidate. They sure wouldn’t have gone to Bush, though. It’s improvement.

Also, fewer wards went to Kerry than to Gore: Gore won 39 wards to Bush’s 16. Kerry won 33 to Bush’s 22.

More, Republican Rep. Sheryl Albers won a decisive victory in northwestern Sauk County, even though she faced opposition from both a Democrat and a prominent local Libertarian.

That’s about where the good news ends. State Rep. J.A. Hines, who represents eastern Sauk, lost the county while winning re-election. He lost, to the same Democrat he beat in a special 2001 election.

And a Democrat won a county office this year. Yes, it was only for county surveyor – why is that a partisan office in the first place? But it’s been a long time since a Democrat even challenged for a county office, much less won it.

Parse the numbers however you like. Democrats have gained a foothold in Sauk County.

Why? One common refrain is this: eastern Sauk County – the Dells-Baraboo-Sauk Prairie area – is growing fast, largely with transplants from much more liberal Dane County.

There’s no real demographic data to prove that, but it does help explain the shift, at least in part: eastern Sauk went for Kerry by seven percent. Kerry won the rest of the county by 0.4%.

Another possible reason: Fighting Bob Fest, the annual “progressive” get-together of far-out leftists at the Sauk County Fairgrounds in Baraboo.

Not the Bob Fest alone, of course. More than that – it’s the publicity the event gets, and the publicity for its causes. This helps along a perception that Sauk County is more liberal than conservative.

That perception is important. It’s a perception that conservatives in Sauk County should – must – actively combat.

Why did George W. Bush supporters put up so many yard signs? Yard signs are supposed to help with name recognition, right? Well, everybody already knew who Bush was, and that he was running for re-election. He clearly didn’t need any more name recognition.

But yard signs have another purpose: they add to a perception of momentum, of higher levels of support.

It’s the same thing with polls. Why does each side in an election crow when the polls show their guy ahead? One would think that positive poll results might depress turnout for that candidate – he obviously doesn’t need my vote to win, so why bother?

Because the opposite is true. If you look like you’re losing, fewer people will bother to go vote for you. You can’t win, anyway, and we like winners. We like to be on the winning team. Polls and signs help craft that perception.

There’s not much Republicans (and, more importantly, conservatives) can do about people moving into the area. We can do something about what people perceive. We can make our argument. Let people know we’re here.

And we’d better get started.

The Last Straw...Or Not

Easy on the sauce, Guido, there’s a tomato shortage.

Hurricanes on one coast, rain and floods on the other coast have devastated this year’s tomato crop. The shortage has naturally driven prices up, as farmers and distributors try to minimize their losses.

Or, put another way, the tomato industry is making ends meet on the backs of its customers.

On the backs of…somebody. Is anybody else sick of that phrase? Seems like it’s everywhere. Last week, it was university students: the UW System was balancing their budget on students’ backs, they complained.

This week, it’s state employee unions. State agencies are beginning to turn in their budget requests for the next two years – requests that have to include, by the Governor’s order, a 10% cut in administrative costs.

The red is starting to run. The Health Department says they’ll cut more than 200 jobs. The DOT says more than 350. And union boss Marty Beil, whom I heard on the radio this morning, accuses Governor Doyle of balancing the budget “on the backs” of state workers.

I find both the phrase and the philosophy behind it annoying, because of the sense of entitlement they exhibit. You see, state employees are owed those jobs. They belong to the workers who hold them, just as a college education belongs to the students. From the protesting student’s perspective, increasing tuition isn’t just a policy decision they disagree with – it’s a fundamental wrong, akin to theft.

Never mind that most of the cost of a college education is paid for “on the backs of the taxpayers,” as are the ever-growing costs of government – salaries, health insurance, bureaucracy, red tape.

Can we just get this straight? When something begins to cost too much, we stop buying it. At $5 a ticket, lots of people will go to the movies. At $10 a ticket, fewer people will go.

Ergo, as the cost of government rises, more people will be more willing to forgo some of the services they’ve had provided to them in the past, in exchange for a lower cost.

Yes, I know, that’s scant condolence to the employees who stand to lose their jobs. Yet, government employees are hardly alone in this. Even during good economic times, layoffs are common. State jobs are not sacred, and shouldn’t be treated that way.

Unless, that is, you’re a union representative, or an elected Democrat. Which is why a spat between the unions and Governor Doyle would be so amusing.

Not that I expect this to turn into one. Sure, the unions are making the usual noises about their members’ overburdened spines, but odds are that’s all they’ll do: make noise, and probably not for very long.

The budget deficit was the state’s biggest issue in 2002, when Jim Doyle ran for Governor. In order to outflank his primary opponents, Doyle thought he had to be fiscally conservative, and he was, promising not to raise taxes and to cut 10,000 state jobs in eight years. He won the primary, then beat semi-incumbent Governor Scott McCallum, with an assist from Ed Thompson.

He can’t back off now. There have been too many eruptions in the state over fiscal issues the last two years. Whatever Republican wins the chance to face him in 2006 is likely to be coming hard from the fiscal right. He’s got to hang onto those credentials.

This puts Doyle in a bit of a spot. His promises and his upcoming re-election on one side, a core constituency – government union members – on the other.

He needn’t worry, of course. It’s almost inconceivable that the unions would support anybody other than Doyle in 2006. It’s nearly as inconceivable that they would just sit on their hands – if the race is close at all, that alone could be enough to elect a Republican.

That would mean a Republican governor, with a large Republican majority in the legislature. No matter what Doyle does between now and then, government employee unions don’t want that to happen.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if their current complaints are part of an overall strategy, aimed at a date two Novembers from now. Make noise, help Doyle enhance his image as a fiscal warrior, then back him for re-election in 2006, anyway, even if you have to be quiet about it.

Karl Rove-like maneuvering, if true. Doyle’s administration hasn’t shown that kind of aptitude so far, but then, if it was obvious, would it really be that clever?

Taxes Rise, No Matter What

The Sauk County Board got a thumbs-down from the Baraboo News Republic today. The reason: the Board voted to increase the tax levy.

This year it will go up by 4.3 percent, which is more palatable than last year's 14.5 percent increase. Because many homes and businesses in the county have been reassessed, taxes aren't lower. Property is worth more, and most owners will pay more in taxes. The county's growth also helps, but taxpayers don't benefit.

Only three supervisors voted no. All three are budget hawks, dedicated to keeping taxes down. I usually am, too, but this time, I’m not sure I would have voted with them.

The newspaper made two points: first, the county will tax 4.3% more dollars in 2005 than in 2004.

That’s an increase, it’s true, and I’ll always favor lower taxes over higher.

But as I wrote a few weeks ago, 4.3% is well within the range of economic growth that feeds county government. Property values rose by about 10% – the board could have increased their levy by up to 10%, and still kept the same tax rate.

That brings me to the paper’s second point: yes, the county kept taxes down, but thanks to reassessments, taxes for individual property owners are going up – in Baraboo, at least.

Think of it like the income tax: when you get a raise, you pay more taxes, even though the tax rate didn’t change. When your property’s value rises, you pay more property taxes, even though, in this case, the county lowered the tax rate.

The big difference is: when your income rises, you’ve got more money to pay the taxes with. That’s not the case, with property value.

Now, why do I say I may not have voted with those three budget hawks?

Because the county did what I wanted them to do: they kept taxes to a reasonable increase.

It’s just not sensible to think that government won’t need more money each year. Costs go up. Employees need raises now and then (although not as much or as often as government employees get them, if you ask me). Health insurance costs more. Supplies and materials cost more.

Granted, there’s a lot of room for reductions in any government’s budget. There are a few services that government – and only government – can provide. Law enforcement, and roads, to name a couple of examples. Other than those and a few more, our governments at every level do things they don’t need to do.

We could cut the cost of government by quite a lot, if we had the political will. Until then, we’ll have to grin and bear it…but at least we can try to keep growth of government down to a reasonable level. Income taxes should grow at a slower rate than per-capita personal income. Property taxes should grow at a slower rate than property values.

That’s what the county board did, and I’m grateful to them for it.

Yet, despite that success, taxes are going up. MY taxes are going up, because property in my city was reassessed – even for those of us who made no improvements to our property. Assessments city-wide are going up by an average of 30%.

It’s like getting a 30% raise: the taxes go right up with it. But you don’t get to keep the rest.

So no matter what the county does, taxes are going up. Unless other local governments cut their levies by significant amounts, taxes are going up.

I’m not holding my breath.

That’s the problem: it seems that no matter what we do, we’ll end up paying more to our government. Even if all five of the governments that collect property taxes cut their levies, we’d get hit from another direction. Maybe the city creates a storm-water runoff district. Maybe the DOT decides to increase the fee for a driver’s license or car registration. We pay those bills. Our pocketbooks take the hit.

UW Professor Andrew Reschovsky wrote that government spending in Wisconsin grew from 17.5% to 21% of personal income between 1976 and 2000. Since 1970, our state has never – not once – fallen lower than 9th nationally in state and local taxes as a percentage of personal income.

Taxes are not a new issue in Wisconsin. We’ve had tax revolts before, and government continues to grow. Government continues to slowly but surely claim larger and larger chunks of our money, and our lives.

Even when the county passes a budget that even I can support.

Mandate, No Mandate, Who Cares?

Just what is a mandate?

Depending on whom you ask, it’s a 3% margin of victory. Three and a half million votes. A 286-252 Electoral College lead.

Or not.

Debate over this question has gone on for nearly a week. It began the moment John Kerry conceded the election to George W. Bush. Here’s hoping it doesn’t last much longer.

On one side are those conservatives who say Bush did earn a mandate, and should now use it to advance a conservative agenda. On the other side, liberals who say his victory was too narrow to claim a mandate, and that instead of plowing ahead, he should reach out, govern from the middle.

And from my small corner of the universe, a loud, long yawn.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan won re-election in a blowout. Fifty-nine percent of voters cast their ballots for him. Only Washington D.C. went decisively for his opponent, Walter Mondale, who also won Minnesota, but only by two tenths of a percent. Reagan won the Electoral College 525-13.

If any election conferred a mandate on the winner, that was it. You can’t do much better.

In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote by a half-million ballots, but won the Electoral College by a vote of 271 to 266. We all remember it: the longest November in history. Bush won Florida by fewer than 600 votes, throwing the victory to him, although there are still plenty of people who dispute even that.

If there’s an opposite of a mandate, that election must have been it. You can’t do any worse without losing.

In 2004, the result has been much more decisive than in 2000, but nowhere near as decisive as 1984. So, does Bush have a mandate, or not?

Answer: it doesn’t matter. All this talk about a “mandate” is just that: talk. Something to keep TV’s talking heads from working for a living. Nothing more.

Politics may not be beanbag, but it’s not basketball, either. There’s no three-point line in politics – no bonus for making a really great shot. . Running up the score might help in the BCS standings, but in politics, you either win, or you go home. Or back to the Senate.

In 1984, Reagan re-assumed the Presidency with exactly the same powers he had in 1980. Exactly the same powers Bush assumed in 2000, disputed election or not. And exactly the same powers Bush has kept, by winning again this year.

Yet the pundits insist: Bush won a mandate. Or he didn’t. One of the two.

Newsflash: there’s no such thing as a mandate. There is such a thing as achievability. Politics is the art of the possible: what can you accomplish, given the vast variety of variables that exist in human society?

Popularity is one of those variables. Popularity, which can be fleetingly measured through electoral success. I think that’s what President Bush meant, when he said he’d earned “political capital” from the election, and he intends to spend it.

This is also, I believe, what the pundits are referring to, when they say “mandate.” Did enough people vote for you, to give you that political capital? To give you the momentum you need to accomplish more than you might have otherwise?

The problem is, that analysis only takes one variable – the margin of victory – into account.

What about other variables? There are national and world events about to unfold that we are completely unaware of today. Did Bush’s 2000 squeaker give him a mandate to take on terrorism? No, but 9/11 did.

More to the point, Bush has an expanded majority in Congress to work with – Republicans gained 3 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate. Not filibuster-proof, but a stronger hand for the President, no doubt about it.

Six months from now, the electoral count will be all but forgotten. That congressional majority, though – there’s no ignoring that. If anything gives President Bush a mandate, that majority is it.

And I think the punditry knows they’re jousting over nothing. Writing in Madison’s “progressive” newspaper, the Capital Times, liberal columnist John Nichols says: “In the language of American politics, the term ‘mandate’ refers to a sweeping electoral win that confers upon the victor the authority not merely to govern but to radically alter the course of the country.”

So, John, Democrats just shrugged their shoulders and got out of the way, following Reagan’s “sweeping electoral win” in 1984?

Nope. Why? Because there’s no such thing as a mandate.

Worn Out

Last week, a local columnist named Myra Furse wrote of her own confusion: she couldn’t understand why half the country thinks George W. Bush is good for America.

My response: me neither. What can the other half possibly be thinking?

If Election 2004 had a theme, that was it. You either loved Bush or hated him, and couldn’t for the life of you figure out why anyone disagreed. I found myself in the same conundrum: even after acknowledging my disagreements with Bush’s first term, I could not understand how anyone could prefer Kerry.

This was the hardest-fought, angriest, most intense Presidential campaign in memory. My memory, anyway, and I know I’m not alone. Vandalism and theft of political signs; yelling, name-calling, swearing at volunteers; mobbing of Bush campaign offices. There didn’t seem to be any sense of civility at all.

Now, I don’t really believe that this election was any more uncivil than any other election. Politics is a contact sport, and it always has been. Nasty, unfounded accusations, political vandalism, even politically-motivated violence are nothing new.

I do believe, though, that the intensity of this campaign has been incredible. Exponentially greater than past election years.

Why? Hearken back to the 2000 election aftermath: that horrible month-plus during which the courts seemingly chose a President. A significant portion of the country’s Democrats never got past their anger over the final outcome. The election was stolen, they continued to claim. The Village Idiot from Texas was selected, not elected. Defeat Bushitler again in 2004!

That rage evoked a certain defensiveness in Republicans. Those of us who support and look up to President Bush responded, quite logically, with a resounding “nuh-uh!”

“Did too!” “Did not!” That’s the atmosphere I’m talking about. Sure, there was debate on the issues – believe it or not, there was reasoned, logical, agree-to-disagree debate.

But the anger and counter-anger of the past two years took its toll. I sure felt it.

Sure, I thought (and still think) that Bush was the better choice. I want those tax cuts made permanent. I want tax reform and tax simplification. I want Social Security reform.

Most of all, I want strong leadership on the world scene. I think Bush provides that. Would Kerry have done the same? If so, he never gave me reason to believe it.

Perhaps he would have: some pundits have argued that Kerry would have had to follow much the same path Bush has. That gaining the Presidency would have forced Democrats to “grow up.”

And there is something to be said for divided government. A Democrat President would have been at odds with the majority Republican Congress. Kerry’s plan for socialized medicine was DOA. Ditto his tax increases.

And a President Kerry would have to avoid letting the Republican Congress paint him as a rabid liberal, at least in his first term, as they would surely be drooling to do. So, no massive new spending proposals. Fiscal sanity through mutual animosity. Maybe.

Oh, sure, there’s at least one, possibly two Supreme Court nominations coming up. But that still has to get through a Republican Senate, and even then, it’s not easy to predict what new Supes will do, once they’re confirmed. Just having Bush nominate them doesn’t guarantee a more conservative Court.

In fact, it’s possible that my biggest regret from a Kerry administration may have been losing the chance to see Hillary run in 2008, if she really does.

But I’m sure the spectacle of Teresa as First Lady would have offset that.

Intellectually, I know all this. Bush is better, but Kerry’s not the end of the world. So, why did I feel such massive intensity?

In part, because of the intensity of Bush’s opponents. Because of those who couldn’t let go of Election 2000. Because of those who think it’s an argument to say Europeans don’t like us anymore.

Yes, it’s juvenile, but deep down, I wanted Bush to win because I couldn’t stand the thought of a celebrating Angry Left. I couldn’t stand that their side would feel vindicated. That Bush would go down in history as the “illegitimate President.” That Canadian and French and American elites would think that we, Americans, had finally come around to their point of view.

Sometime in 2007, both parties will begin to sort out their field of candidates for 2008. Bush won’t be among them. Maybe that will finally put 2000 to rest.

I hope so. Because 2004 wore me out.