Well, I'm one of those young people who DID vote. K-E & Dino, for starters.

I don't get it: They're the ones who fight our nations wars so others & themselves may live in freedom and they don't vote. I'm just physically sick over this to the point of borderline shock.

The failure to teach civics is what saved Bush. If there are any "outside groups" to blame - it's those whom represent those responsible for teaching civics to our children.

The failure to teach civics is responsible for the wild overreach of the Federal government into the personal affairs of it's citizens, far beyond even a cursory reading of the constitution. If civics were successfully taught in our public schools, I dare say Republican candidates (although not altogether consistent on the desire for smaller government) would have far larger electoral majorities. The left is the beneficiary when our schools fail to teach civics or even an elemental understanding of the constitution.

I also don't understand a political philosophy that would support Rossi and Kerry. Rossi is a Bush supporter and advocate of Bush's policies, without many differences between the two.

Kerry occupies another political universe from Bush and Rossi.

Gary;

As to civics, I tend to agree with you. What you and I didn't say (but I implied) is that part of teaching civics is the importance of voting. Good, pithy spin of my somewhat vague point.

As to my split vote, Kerry and Rossi may not agree on much but I strongly believe both of them campaigned on civil liberties and on fiscal responsibility (the "pay as you go" I heard from Kerry was repetitive to the point of a broken record AND Kerry broke with his party to support balanced budgets). I also justify my split vote on the fact that Gregoire does NOT represent most Democrats, it represents the elitist statist hijackers of the party, the state agencies and the taxspenders. Bush respectfully has expanded the bureaucracy, approved record amounts of pork barrel spending and record deficits. Draw your own conclusions - since MY generation pays the debt bill.

I have two observations.

First, about voter registration. As the New York Times points out, many Republicans out hustling for votes were volunteers. As such, they were much more likely get their new registrants to actually vote on election day.

Most Democratic "vote-getters" were hired -- mercenaries. They were much more interested in simply registering people (that's how they get paid, per registrant). So they were less interested in actually getting these new voters to show up.

The second observation is this. You NEVER rely on new voters to give you victory. The Ragin' Cajun called politicians who expect such help to be, simply put, "losers."

I worked as an election official in Seattle on November second and encountered a number of younger adults who were voting for the first time. It was amusing in some cases, since those people were in their mid-twenties or even late thirties. Admittedly, "a number of" is an imprecise and ambiguous non-scientific accessment of how many; and Seattle is, I feel, unfortunately not Ohio this year (or any other).
It is my understanding that more people between the ages of 18 and 30 years of age turned out to vote this year, than ever before. However, the percentage of young people in the (total) population is smaller than in previous years. The source for that is MoveOn.org, which of course has a bias; and their source for this information was not revealed. But I don't think they would be foolish enough to post inaccurate information at their website. Of course, as Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. My hunch is, some "kids" didn't show, because they don't understand they are invested, by the very nature of being a citizen and paying taxes. If President Bush brings back the draft, maybe they will learn to show up on time. And if the return of the draft is their motivator, don't expect them to vote Republican or maybe not even Democratic; think Libertarian. Ah yes, as we all found out, circa 1965 through 1972, nothing motivates people like having your friends come home in a box (with apologies to Country Joe McDonald).

"The source for that is MoveOn.org, which of course has a bias; and their source for this information was not revealed. But I don't think they would be foolish enough to post inaccurate information at their website."

Oh, yes, they would be. Think again.

"If President Bush brings back the draft, maybe they will learn to show up on time."

Didn't stop you from bringing up that idiotic election stunt again, did it?

I'm in my 30s, but if the President were to bring back the draft, I'd be happy to be the first one to volunteer to be shipped wherever he intends to send me -- because it would have to one freakin' serious national emergency, like invasion of CONUS by Cuba (I saw "The Red Dawn" many times as a youngster, you know).

The notion that this President may bring back the draft (or that the US Armed Forces would want such unmotivated, untrained manpower rather than motivated, long-service volunteers) is so laughable as to deserve nothing but a sad sigh.

Okay, just a little history lesson: it was a Republican who ended the draft. It was a group of Republicans who brought about the all-volunteer military. It will continue to be a group of Republicans who thwart every attempt by DEMOCRATS (Charlie Rangel, et al.) to revive the draft or a national servitude, I mean service, scheme.