I post a lot of links to good articles here. But occasionally I come across something so good that I wish I'd written it myself, and I want other people to read it right away. Pete DuPont has just such an article in today's Wall Street Journal.
Here's the link, if you want to go there. But in this case, I'm all about serving the lazy folks, so here's the text:
_____________________________________________________
The real reason Republicans win.
BY PETE DU PONT Monday, November 29, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
A prescient friend among serious Democrats explained last week what was wrong with his party and how it had contributed to liberalism's defeat on Nov. 2. He believes a growing majority of Americans simply don't trust Democrats because Democrats don't trust Mr. and Mrs. America to make sound decisions for themselves and their families.
Blue-collar Americans believe liberals are anti-Christian and seek to suppress all public expression of religious beliefs, including school prayer. That they are amoral--or, as Irving Kristol once said, a liberal is someone who thinks it is all right for an 18-year-old girl to perform in a porn film so long as she is paid the minimum wage.
Liberals see themselves as self appointed Robin Hoods, but they are seen by red-county Americans as taking from the productive and giving to the indolent. They look down on average Americans as misguided and too dumb to know what is good for them and their families. Since such people are unlikely to make the right decisions, a wise government must do it for them. And of course the bigger the government, the better.
An equally serious friend on the other side of the political spectrum says the acrimony of the past four years may have been intensified by social issues, but it is the economic issues that are determining the outcome of elections. He believes the liberal left may actually be winning on the social issues--that gay rights and stem-cell research, for example, are trending in their direction--but that liberals have suffered a wholesale rout on their economic beliefs. They were wrong about communism (it was an economic failure), wrong about socialism (it didn't work either), wrong about the welfare state, wrong about high taxes and government regulation of economic matters.
But what was determinative in this election was not that one party is a religious party and the other is not; nor that one party is in favor of same-sex marriage and the other is not; nor that liberals are for raising the minimum wage and gun control and conservatives are not.
What was determinative is that the two political parties view the American people very differently.
The Republican Party has become the party of individualism, believing that free enterprise, market economies, and individual choices give people the best chance of a good life; that if ordinary Americans are left alone to make their own decisions, they will generally be good decisions, so they--not the government--should have the power to make them.
Conversely, the Democratic Party is the party of centralization, believing that a wise and benevolent, best-and-brightest, urban blue-county government can make better choices than those of rural, red-county Americans. This is not a new belief; it is the legacy of the 1930s (the New Deal) and the '60s (the Great Society). It was fully reflected in John Kerry's campaign: Taxes must rise and government must grow; trade must be regulated and limited; the 1935 Social Security system is perfect and nothing about it may be changed.
But America today is very different than in the '30s and '60s. Socialism is dying; collectivism is vanishing. Market economies have overtaken government-run ones around the globe. Life expectancy is increasing; inflation-adjusted median family income is up 24% in 20 years; 69% of American families own their own homes, and 52% own stocks, bonds or other financial instruments. Americans have expanded their vision and abilities and prospered; we have become an opportunity society where individualism is far more important than centralization. People want to be a part of that progress, to participate in the pursuit of happiness.
And so red-county Americans resent elitists, Hollywood, the establishment media and the Democratic Party telling them they can't participate:
• That taxes must always be higher, never lower, because in the words of one traditional Democrat "I want the government to have the money."
• That Americans should be protected from free trade, because lower-cost foreign goods in the marketplace interfere with higher-priced American ones.
• That you should not be allowed to invest some of your Social Security taxes in a personally owned account that will grow over your lifetime and give you some asset ownership upon your retirement, because it is a bad thing for you to have such assets.
• That allowing parents to choose the best school for each of their children is also a bad thing; you might make the wrong choice, so it is better that government make the choice for you. Or in the words of former teachers union president Keith Geiger, why should some children be allowed to "escape" from bad public schools?
Rather than applauding Hillary Clinton's telling them last summer that their taxes must be raised because "we're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good," they prefer Newt Gingrich's observation that the Declaration of Independence's Pursuit of Happiness includes an active verb: "Not happiness stamps; not a department of happiness; not therapy for happiness. Pursuit."
If the Democratic Party allows itself to be defined by Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore and the editorial page of the New York Times, while Republicans, their president and their strengthened congressional majorities encourage the pursuit of happiness in an opportunity and ownership society, then Mr. and Mrs. America will make sure conservatives are in power for a great many years to come.
Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.
11.29.2004
11.24.2004
Ignorance and Apathy
I love getting good comments like these last few.
Tommy says: "I don't think that its the education our kids get that instills them to believe only what they hear, I think that they are lazy. Ask your average teenager what the ramifications of a new Supreme Court Judge appointment would have on the country. They won't care, they may know but it doesn't matter as much because its not important at the time."
(I'm not really speaking directly to Tommy here, just thinking out loud.)
I certainly agree that kids are lazier today than they used to be, but I'm not so sure the education system has nothing to do with that. I know there are thousands of factors in the laziness equation, like technological advances and such. But specifically with regard to how the government works, how can you not place a good portion of the blame for youth apathy on our schools? I really don't think schools are teaching kids to think for themselves. I think there are a lot of teachers who are trying to teach kids to think the "proper way," and it's not working. Kids don't respond to having things shoved down their throats. So rather than teaching kids to make their own choices about how they view government, the end result is that we're teaching kids not to care.
I know I'm running the risk of starting to sound paranoid, with all the writing I do on media bias and the like. I suppose I probably crossed that threshold a long time ago with some people. But I don't think it's paranoia to say that public schools, like the media, are also an overwhelmingly liberal environment. Before you dismiss that idea, consider for a second how long the teachers' unions have been endorsing Democrats. Teachers and other academic types, along with trial lawyers, are probably the biggest and most powerful liberal constituency in America. And we're supposed to believe that this doesn't affect our kids' educations? There are plenty of people who are seeing it. It's no coincidence that enrollment at private schools is way up, and that homeschooling numbers are going through the roof.
Tommy says: "I don't think that its the education our kids get that instills them to believe only what they hear, I think that they are lazy. Ask your average teenager what the ramifications of a new Supreme Court Judge appointment would have on the country. They won't care, they may know but it doesn't matter as much because its not important at the time."
(I'm not really speaking directly to Tommy here, just thinking out loud.)
I certainly agree that kids are lazier today than they used to be, but I'm not so sure the education system has nothing to do with that. I know there are thousands of factors in the laziness equation, like technological advances and such. But specifically with regard to how the government works, how can you not place a good portion of the blame for youth apathy on our schools? I really don't think schools are teaching kids to think for themselves. I think there are a lot of teachers who are trying to teach kids to think the "proper way," and it's not working. Kids don't respond to having things shoved down their throats. So rather than teaching kids to make their own choices about how they view government, the end result is that we're teaching kids not to care.
I know I'm running the risk of starting to sound paranoid, with all the writing I do on media bias and the like. I suppose I probably crossed that threshold a long time ago with some people. But I don't think it's paranoia to say that public schools, like the media, are also an overwhelmingly liberal environment. Before you dismiss that idea, consider for a second how long the teachers' unions have been endorsing Democrats. Teachers and other academic types, along with trial lawyers, are probably the biggest and most powerful liberal constituency in America. And we're supposed to believe that this doesn't affect our kids' educations? There are plenty of people who are seeing it. It's no coincidence that enrollment at private schools is way up, and that homeschooling numbers are going through the roof.
Some good reading today...
Ben Shapiro: "I'm just an Orthodox Jewish hillbilly from Los Angeles."
National Review's Deroy Murdock with an excellent piece on the Unhinged Left.
A hilarious look at the divide between Red America and Blue America.
National Review's Deroy Murdock with an excellent piece on the Unhinged Left.
A hilarious look at the divide between Red America and Blue America.
11.23.2004
Back for More
Sorry for the long absence. It's been a crazy week.
A comment on my "Liberal Romper Room" post elicited a lucid and reasonable response from "Sparkey." I highly recommend reading it. I don't agree with much of what she says, but the level of discourse is commendable.
I appreciate anyone who can make a point in this manner, even if I disagree with it. Her point that liberals also find it difficult to have a civil conversation with those on the right is not lost on me. I know there are many people who share my beliefs who can't keep that kind of a discussion on an emotionally mature level. Occasionally, I'm one of those people. When somebody challenges or assails your passionate beliefs on how things ought to be, it's difficult not to lash out in anger. All my life, I've had difficulty in controlling my emotional responses. This blog is part of an effort to do that better. So with that in mind, here's what I have to say about Sparkey's remarks.
First, more than anything else, Sparkey reinforces my opinion that most liberals are good people who have just been force-fed the liberal line all their lives, and don't know any better. That's honestly not meant to be condescending, because I used to be one of those people. Growing up, my parents called themselves Democrats, and so I naturally thought Democrats were on the right side of everything, even though I had no clue about what they believed. My parents were pretty young at the time, and later came to see things differently, but my indoctrination had begun. It was reinforced by the occasional news and political coverage that I did pay attention to. Looking back, I can see that what I was watching was just as slanted as what you see on the news today. The media back then did their best to do to Reagan what they're doing to Bush now… make him look like some weird combination of an inbred moron and a scheming, evil dictator. And because I watched it without question, I disliked Reagan. But I was young and stupid.
Interestingly, it appears that Sparkey thinks liberals are at a disadvantage in the media game. She says "I think (liberals) should have done what the Republicans did back in the 80s and early 90s - established an immense base of power by investment in and development of their own media outlets in radio, television, etc."
I'll give her a pass on the notion that the Republicans have established an immense base of media power for themselves. But she ignores the fact that Democrats have had their own immense base of power for years in the mainstream media. That media base of power continues today, and it's probably the biggest reason why an ultra-liberal candidate like John Kerry can get even 48 percent of the vote in a national election. If it weren't for liberal cheerleading (for Kerry) and undermining (of Bush) this election would have been a blowout of McGovern-esque proportions. It's a serious blind spot on the part of Sparky and most liberals to think otherwise.
Most people get their news from CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, USA Today, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press and Reuters. That's what you call the "mainstream media." And if that's the only place you get your news, you're getting a one-sided version of the story. On one level or another, those are all outlets that acknowledge themselves to be liberal. Surveys of people who work in these outlets indicate that they're better than 90 percent liberal.
They're all a little more hesitant to admit that their liberalism creeps into their news coverage, but it's true. They all allow the occasional conservative "commentator," but liberal thought dominates everything they do. If you get your news exclusively from those sources, you're being trained to be a liberal, and you're being trained to oppose conservative thinking. You can reject that premise if you wish, and continue your training.
Or you can think for yourself. Do a little reading on the conservative side of things, and decide if the other side is really as evil and wrongheaded as we're being made out to be. See my links over there if you'd like some suggestions. If you're truly interested in hearing both sides of things, a good place to start would be to read some specific examples of how the media is biased toward the liberal point of view. The best place I know to do that is the Media Research Center.
Responding to my assertion that liberals have lost it when they start talking about secession and civil war, Sparkey dismisses it by saying: "Both sides have represented themselves poorly in the past, and I am sure both will continue to do so in the future. Do you embrace those such as Michael Savage, when they say things like "I hope you get AIDS and die!"?
Well, of course not. I don't know much about Michael Savage, but what little I do know leads me to believe he's either a crackpot nutcase, or he's just trying to generate shock value entertainment like Howard Stern. In either case, I'm not really interested in what he has to say. When I made the statement about liberals and secession, I was talking about liberals that are a whole lot more mainstream than Michael Savage. Consider this from MSNBC Senior Political Analyst Lawrence O'Donnell, when asked about secession:
"Well, I'm not, uh, a proponent of it but what I've pointed out, which is separate and apart from the election result, is the dynamic that can make a discussion of secession over the next 20 years or so for certain states somewhat more serious than it is now, and that is the fact that the blue states pay for the federal government. Every single blue state pays more into the federal government than it receives from the federal government in federal spending. Virtually all of the red states, all but three of the red states, collect money from the federal government. They are, in effect, welfare recipients."
So you've got a "Senior Political Analyst" of a major cable network saying that he's not personally in favor of secession of the blue states, but trying to stir up people to think about it, and generating class division and resentment in the process. Hey, way to be a "uniter, not a divider," Larry. But even Lawrence O'Donnell has a certain fringe element about him. It's not like MSNBC has more than a few thousand viewers every night. When I talk about liberals going off the deep end, I'm talking about major networks like CBS using faked documents to try to defeat George Bush. How can anybody believes CBS gives unbiased coverage after that? I'm also talking about major, influential media figures and elected Democratic officials saying things that are just plain nuts.
So I'll wrap this thing up by asking Sparkey and other liberals if the following people are more mainstream and influential than someone like Michael Savage, and if they embrace comments such as these:
Former CBS Anchor and "the most trusted man in America," Walter Cronkite, on CNN’s Larry King Live, October 29, saying that he believes Republicans were working with Osama Bin Laden to manipulate the results of the election:
"I have a feeling that it [the bin Laden tape] could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I’m a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, that he probably set up bin Laden to this thing."
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, implying that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks:
"We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"
Senator Ted Kennedy, asserting that the Iraq war was a fraud cooked up by George Bush and other Republicans for political and financial purposes:
"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud. My belief is this money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops."
Former Vice President Al Gore, saying that the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison is what should be expected when Republicans are in power:
"What happened at that prison, it is now clear, is not the result of random acts of a few bad apples. It was the natural consequence of the Bush administration policy."
More Gore:
"(Bush) promised to 'restore honor and integrity to the White House.' Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon."
A comment on my "Liberal Romper Room" post elicited a lucid and reasonable response from "Sparkey." I highly recommend reading it. I don't agree with much of what she says, but the level of discourse is commendable.
I appreciate anyone who can make a point in this manner, even if I disagree with it. Her point that liberals also find it difficult to have a civil conversation with those on the right is not lost on me. I know there are many people who share my beliefs who can't keep that kind of a discussion on an emotionally mature level. Occasionally, I'm one of those people. When somebody challenges or assails your passionate beliefs on how things ought to be, it's difficult not to lash out in anger. All my life, I've had difficulty in controlling my emotional responses. This blog is part of an effort to do that better. So with that in mind, here's what I have to say about Sparkey's remarks.
First, more than anything else, Sparkey reinforces my opinion that most liberals are good people who have just been force-fed the liberal line all their lives, and don't know any better. That's honestly not meant to be condescending, because I used to be one of those people. Growing up, my parents called themselves Democrats, and so I naturally thought Democrats were on the right side of everything, even though I had no clue about what they believed. My parents were pretty young at the time, and later came to see things differently, but my indoctrination had begun. It was reinforced by the occasional news and political coverage that I did pay attention to. Looking back, I can see that what I was watching was just as slanted as what you see on the news today. The media back then did their best to do to Reagan what they're doing to Bush now… make him look like some weird combination of an inbred moron and a scheming, evil dictator. And because I watched it without question, I disliked Reagan. But I was young and stupid.
Interestingly, it appears that Sparkey thinks liberals are at a disadvantage in the media game. She says "I think (liberals) should have done what the Republicans did back in the 80s and early 90s - established an immense base of power by investment in and development of their own media outlets in radio, television, etc."
I'll give her a pass on the notion that the Republicans have established an immense base of media power for themselves. But she ignores the fact that Democrats have had their own immense base of power for years in the mainstream media. That media base of power continues today, and it's probably the biggest reason why an ultra-liberal candidate like John Kerry can get even 48 percent of the vote in a national election. If it weren't for liberal cheerleading (for Kerry) and undermining (of Bush) this election would have been a blowout of McGovern-esque proportions. It's a serious blind spot on the part of Sparky and most liberals to think otherwise.
Most people get their news from CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, USA Today, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press and Reuters. That's what you call the "mainstream media." And if that's the only place you get your news, you're getting a one-sided version of the story. On one level or another, those are all outlets that acknowledge themselves to be liberal. Surveys of people who work in these outlets indicate that they're better than 90 percent liberal.
They're all a little more hesitant to admit that their liberalism creeps into their news coverage, but it's true. They all allow the occasional conservative "commentator," but liberal thought dominates everything they do. If you get your news exclusively from those sources, you're being trained to be a liberal, and you're being trained to oppose conservative thinking. You can reject that premise if you wish, and continue your training.
Or you can think for yourself. Do a little reading on the conservative side of things, and decide if the other side is really as evil and wrongheaded as we're being made out to be. See my links over there if you'd like some suggestions. If you're truly interested in hearing both sides of things, a good place to start would be to read some specific examples of how the media is biased toward the liberal point of view. The best place I know to do that is the Media Research Center.
Responding to my assertion that liberals have lost it when they start talking about secession and civil war, Sparkey dismisses it by saying: "Both sides have represented themselves poorly in the past, and I am sure both will continue to do so in the future. Do you embrace those such as Michael Savage, when they say things like "I hope you get AIDS and die!"?
Well, of course not. I don't know much about Michael Savage, but what little I do know leads me to believe he's either a crackpot nutcase, or he's just trying to generate shock value entertainment like Howard Stern. In either case, I'm not really interested in what he has to say. When I made the statement about liberals and secession, I was talking about liberals that are a whole lot more mainstream than Michael Savage. Consider this from MSNBC Senior Political Analyst Lawrence O'Donnell, when asked about secession:
"Well, I'm not, uh, a proponent of it but what I've pointed out, which is separate and apart from the election result, is the dynamic that can make a discussion of secession over the next 20 years or so for certain states somewhat more serious than it is now, and that is the fact that the blue states pay for the federal government. Every single blue state pays more into the federal government than it receives from the federal government in federal spending. Virtually all of the red states, all but three of the red states, collect money from the federal government. They are, in effect, welfare recipients."
So you've got a "Senior Political Analyst" of a major cable network saying that he's not personally in favor of secession of the blue states, but trying to stir up people to think about it, and generating class division and resentment in the process. Hey, way to be a "uniter, not a divider," Larry. But even Lawrence O'Donnell has a certain fringe element about him. It's not like MSNBC has more than a few thousand viewers every night. When I talk about liberals going off the deep end, I'm talking about major networks like CBS using faked documents to try to defeat George Bush. How can anybody believes CBS gives unbiased coverage after that? I'm also talking about major, influential media figures and elected Democratic officials saying things that are just plain nuts.
So I'll wrap this thing up by asking Sparkey and other liberals if the following people are more mainstream and influential than someone like Michael Savage, and if they embrace comments such as these:
Former CBS Anchor and "the most trusted man in America," Walter Cronkite, on CNN’s Larry King Live, October 29, saying that he believes Republicans were working with Osama Bin Laden to manipulate the results of the election:
"I have a feeling that it [the bin Laden tape] could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I’m a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, that he probably set up bin Laden to this thing."
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, implying that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks:
"We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"
Senator Ted Kennedy, asserting that the Iraq war was a fraud cooked up by George Bush and other Republicans for political and financial purposes:
"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud. My belief is this money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops."
Former Vice President Al Gore, saying that the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison is what should be expected when Republicans are in power:
"What happened at that prison, it is now clear, is not the result of random acts of a few bad apples. It was the natural consequence of the Bush administration policy."
More Gore:
"(Bush) promised to 'restore honor and integrity to the White House.' Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon."
11.11.2004
Liberal Romper Room
I need to make something clear right up front. I don’t hate liberals.
I think most liberals are well-intentioned, but severely misguided people. I think they are wrong about almost every major issue of the day -- from national defense, to abortion, to taxes, to capital punishment and gun control -- they’re wrong about almost everything. But I don’t hate them. I can have a civil conversation with any liberal who wants to have a civil conversation with me. If the liberals were to be swept back into power in four years, I wouldn’t be worried that the country would immediately self destruct. I would view it kinda like forcing everybody to go to work in a building full of loose asbestos. It certainly wouldn’t be a good thing, but it wouldn’t kill everybody immediately. We would survive it.
Now, that all being said, I am continually amazed at the visceral hatred that most liberals seem to have for people who think like me. When I say I’m a conservative or that I voted for Bush, I’m immediately tagged as a Nazi and/or an inbred moron. Most of them can’t have a civil conversation without using terms like that. These people don’t seem to be interested in anything I have to say on behalf of myself as a reasonably intelligent, caring and non-genocidal human being. They only seem interested in dominating discussions and having things their way.
If you need evidence of this, all you have to do is look around at the aftermath of the election. People are really wigging out. Take a spin around the internet and read some of the liberal reaction to Bush’s re-election, and you’ll see a meltdown of epic proportions. These people really think the end of the world is at hand. They’re talking about secession and civil war.
I try my best to understand these people, but their childishness is simply overwhelming. Civil War? Secession? Good grief, people… you lost an election. Are the terms “liberal” and “adult” mutually exclusive? It’s really frightening that people with this mentality are allowed to vote in the first place. This liberal reaction to the Bush win really has me wondering about the future of political and intellectual discourse in this country.
We’ve just had a major political party suffer a decisive loss in a national election, and they have now essentially explained the loss by saying that “the majority of people in this country are just stupid.” What are we coming to here? Is this Romper Room? Have Democrats on the far left become so deluded by their hatred of George Bush and the fantasies of their own intellectual superiority that they are completely losing their grip on reality?
Look, let me explain the United States of America to you liberal kids. You can think whatever you want in this country, and you can cast your vote for government representatives who think the way you do. But that doesn’t guarantee you that things are going to go your way. And when things don’t go your way, that doesn’t mean everybody else is just not as smart as you. That’s second-grade logic. Don’t embarrass yourselves that way.
Now, I’m well aware that liberals don’t have a monopoly on childish behavior. There are plenty of Republicans who just make me cringe. But collectively, when the Republicans were swept out in 1992, they didn’t throw a temper tantrum. They went to work recreating their image, and they subsequently came up with the “Contract with America” and won a decisive mid-term victory in 1994.
Where is that attitude among Democrats today? If these people can’t accept that the other side has a respectable knowledge base and a significant amount of appeal with the American people, do they really have much of a future? The Democrats have some legitimate ideas that resonate with a large portion of our population. Right now, those ideas, and really the whole Democratic approach, are in danger of becoming underrepresented because they’ve got too many children in charge.
I think most liberals are well-intentioned, but severely misguided people. I think they are wrong about almost every major issue of the day -- from national defense, to abortion, to taxes, to capital punishment and gun control -- they’re wrong about almost everything. But I don’t hate them. I can have a civil conversation with any liberal who wants to have a civil conversation with me. If the liberals were to be swept back into power in four years, I wouldn’t be worried that the country would immediately self destruct. I would view it kinda like forcing everybody to go to work in a building full of loose asbestos. It certainly wouldn’t be a good thing, but it wouldn’t kill everybody immediately. We would survive it.
Now, that all being said, I am continually amazed at the visceral hatred that most liberals seem to have for people who think like me. When I say I’m a conservative or that I voted for Bush, I’m immediately tagged as a Nazi and/or an inbred moron. Most of them can’t have a civil conversation without using terms like that. These people don’t seem to be interested in anything I have to say on behalf of myself as a reasonably intelligent, caring and non-genocidal human being. They only seem interested in dominating discussions and having things their way.
If you need evidence of this, all you have to do is look around at the aftermath of the election. People are really wigging out. Take a spin around the internet and read some of the liberal reaction to Bush’s re-election, and you’ll see a meltdown of epic proportions. These people really think the end of the world is at hand. They’re talking about secession and civil war.
I try my best to understand these people, but their childishness is simply overwhelming. Civil War? Secession? Good grief, people… you lost an election. Are the terms “liberal” and “adult” mutually exclusive? It’s really frightening that people with this mentality are allowed to vote in the first place. This liberal reaction to the Bush win really has me wondering about the future of political and intellectual discourse in this country.
We’ve just had a major political party suffer a decisive loss in a national election, and they have now essentially explained the loss by saying that “the majority of people in this country are just stupid.” What are we coming to here? Is this Romper Room? Have Democrats on the far left become so deluded by their hatred of George Bush and the fantasies of their own intellectual superiority that they are completely losing their grip on reality?
Look, let me explain the United States of America to you liberal kids. You can think whatever you want in this country, and you can cast your vote for government representatives who think the way you do. But that doesn’t guarantee you that things are going to go your way. And when things don’t go your way, that doesn’t mean everybody else is just not as smart as you. That’s second-grade logic. Don’t embarrass yourselves that way.
Now, I’m well aware that liberals don’t have a monopoly on childish behavior. There are plenty of Republicans who just make me cringe. But collectively, when the Republicans were swept out in 1992, they didn’t throw a temper tantrum. They went to work recreating their image, and they subsequently came up with the “Contract with America” and won a decisive mid-term victory in 1994.
Where is that attitude among Democrats today? If these people can’t accept that the other side has a respectable knowledge base and a significant amount of appeal with the American people, do they really have much of a future? The Democrats have some legitimate ideas that resonate with a large portion of our population. Right now, those ideas, and really the whole Democratic approach, are in danger of becoming underrepresented because they’ve got too many children in charge.
11.09.2004
Sometimes, gloating is justified.
Predictably, the post on "gloating" was received with mixed results. I'm getting calls to "rise above it" and "not be a force for division" etc. etc. And that's fine. Anybody who can demonstrate to me that they truly want healing more than division will get as much cooperation as I'm capable of giving.
But I simply ask those people to read that post again and take note on where it was specifically directed. To repeat really quickly, here's who I was talking to:
"For Hollywood types like Michael Moore, Al Franken, Janean Garafalo, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand… gawd, I could go on forever here… For "news" types like Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Chris Matthews, Paul Krugman, and on and on… For political types like Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Barbara Boxer, Cynthia McKinney, Jim McDermott… etc. etc. etc. For anyone who has said (or even suggested) that George Bush is a liar, an idiot, the modern equivalent to Hitler… you get the idea..."
Now, forgive me for being so blunt, but I don't have enough time to listen to anybody waste good air by defending these people. These are not people who want healing, or to bridge any divide. These are people who think that anybody who voted for Bush is an idiot and a nazi who should be run out of the country post-haste. Go read some of the things that these people were saying before the election, and what they've said since. If they had won, they'd be giving no quarter right now. They should expect none. Bridging a divide, when properly done, happens from both riverbanks at the same time. But what you have here are a bunch of people throwing rocks at the people on the other side of the river, and all the while yelling at them to start building the bridge.
There are many people on the Kerry side who are deserving of respect, consideration, humility and cooperation today, and I will gladly give it to those people. But the people I'm talking about are not among this group. If you think they are, you're probably not as objective and non-partisan as you think you are.
But I simply ask those people to read that post again and take note on where it was specifically directed. To repeat really quickly, here's who I was talking to:
"For Hollywood types like Michael Moore, Al Franken, Janean Garafalo, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand… gawd, I could go on forever here… For "news" types like Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Chris Matthews, Paul Krugman, and on and on… For political types like Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Barbara Boxer, Cynthia McKinney, Jim McDermott… etc. etc. etc. For anyone who has said (or even suggested) that George Bush is a liar, an idiot, the modern equivalent to Hitler… you get the idea..."
Now, forgive me for being so blunt, but I don't have enough time to listen to anybody waste good air by defending these people. These are not people who want healing, or to bridge any divide. These are people who think that anybody who voted for Bush is an idiot and a nazi who should be run out of the country post-haste. Go read some of the things that these people were saying before the election, and what they've said since. If they had won, they'd be giving no quarter right now. They should expect none. Bridging a divide, when properly done, happens from both riverbanks at the same time. But what you have here are a bunch of people throwing rocks at the people on the other side of the river, and all the while yelling at them to start building the bridge.
There are many people on the Kerry side who are deserving of respect, consideration, humility and cooperation today, and I will gladly give it to those people. But the people I'm talking about are not among this group. If you think they are, you're probably not as objective and non-partisan as you think you are.
You want healing? Really?
My good friend Beau says in regard to unification and healing, that the most important thing that Bush opponents can do is to “get behind our troops in word and deed.” I couldn’t agree with that more.
You may think that Iraq isn’t the best choice to front the war on terrorism right now. Fair enough. But this President has made that decision and is fighting terrorists the best way he knows how. Public mockery of that decision, and of the job that our troops are currently doing, does nothing but make the situation worse. Do you really want healing? Then put up or shut up. Quit paying superficial lip service to the idea of “supporting the troops,” and get behind the troops and behind this effort that people have voted to support. If you still feel the need to dissent in the midst of your “support,” then write your congressman. But continued public mockery of what we’re trying to do in Iraq isn’t helping anything. Do you want to help, or do you want to hurt?
Beau also says, “We have a great opportunity to unite as one America. We can all support our troops and their Commander and Chief, or we can continue to tear apart the war effort for personal gain.”
Exactly, people. Which way do you want it?
You may think that Iraq isn’t the best choice to front the war on terrorism right now. Fair enough. But this President has made that decision and is fighting terrorists the best way he knows how. Public mockery of that decision, and of the job that our troops are currently doing, does nothing but make the situation worse. Do you really want healing? Then put up or shut up. Quit paying superficial lip service to the idea of “supporting the troops,” and get behind the troops and behind this effort that people have voted to support. If you still feel the need to dissent in the midst of your “support,” then write your congressman. But continued public mockery of what we’re trying to do in Iraq isn’t helping anything. Do you want to help, or do you want to hurt?
Beau also says, “We have a great opportunity to unite as one America. We can all support our troops and their Commander and Chief, or we can continue to tear apart the war effort for personal gain.”
Exactly, people. Which way do you want it?
11.08.2004
Winners and Losers
My good friend J.R, in response to my "Divided? So What?" post, says the following:
I can't beleive you are actually saying that Bush has not responsibility to placate the people who didn't vote for him. He is the President of the United States of America, not just the part who voted for him. He has just as much a repsonsibility (maybe even more) to those who didn't vote for him than for those that did. Here's why. "One nation under God" soudn vaguely familiar. Does that mean he needs to rethink his position on fetal stem cell research or gay marriage? No, not really. But he is obligated to listen to dissenting viewpoints and consider the thoughts of people who disagree with him. ALL, not some, ALL the great advances in this society came from either third party issues that became part of the mainstream or from compromise among dissenting views. The Electoral college? Compromise. Balanced Budget amendment? Third Party issue (remember Perot and his charts) Abolition of slavery? Third party issue. Please rethink your stance on this.
Third, Federal Marriage Amendment? By that I suppose you mean saying that marriage can only be between and man and a woman. Well there you seem to be with the majority. But again, the majority of the weren't against slavery. The majority of the people were against women's suffrage. The majority is not always right on thing and they clearly aren't this one either. Let me quote again, "We hold the truths to be self evident...that all men are created equal" Hmmm unless of course that man as a consenting adult want to devote his life to another man who is also a consenting adult. Here's the deal. Marriage is, always has beenm and should always remain a religious issue. The government shouldn't be involved in the issue at all. That's right you heard me. No more marriage certificates. No more blood tests. Leave it up to the churches. If your church doesn't want to sanction gay marriage, that's fine but the government doesn't shouldn't have any say in the matter. I say the government gets out of the sanctioning of marriage all together.
Where to start? Well, first I'll give full disclosure that J.R. and I have had more than our share of animated political discussions. In fact, I still owe him a case of beer from a political bet that's almost 3 years old now. (We both insist that the bet be paid and consumed in person, which is proving to be problematic.) Politically speaking, I don't agree with him very often, but I respect his opinions and I always like to hear what he has to say.
With that out of the way, I suppose I should begin with a little clarification on my earlier post. I'm fully aware that the President presides over the entire country, not just those that elected him. I'm fully aware that he's just as responsible for the well being of his opponents as he is for his supporters. And I'm fully aware that a wise president considers all views, especially dissenting ones, before making decisions and before formulating policy.
None of that has any bearing on the point I was trying to make. My point is this:
After four years, everybody knows where George Bush stands on just about any subject. At this stage, you have to figure that he has heard all the various viewpoints on any number of issues. He's done his due diligence and he has decided where he stands. And he has made his positions very clear to the public. Now… the people of this country, knowing George Bush's policies fully well, just re-elected him to a second term quite decisively. A clear majority in this country, both in the electoral college and the popular vote, has said "we approve of the way you're doing things."
At the same time, the minority (with 30-something fewer electoral votes and 3.5 million fewer popular votes) is screaming that it is now George Bush's responsibility to "heal the nation" by doing what THEY want him to do. Ummm… wait a minute. How does that work? The anti-war liberals lost, so now we're supposed to pull out of Iraq or something to make them happy? If not Iraq, then what? George Bush was re-elected for (in order of importance) his stance on:
1.Terrorism
2. Moral values such as abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research
3. Tax cuts and monetary policy
So…which principle should George Bush toss over the side of the boat to placate the losing side?
That's my point. He need not, and MUST not abandon any of those principles… in the interest of "healing" or anything else. It is the LOSING side who must come to grips with the results of this election, not the winning side. It is the LOSING side that must come to grips with the fact that they are currently in the MINORITY in the United States of America, and that the minority does not rule. It is the LOSING side who bears more (but not all) of the responsibility for healing and conciliation. The people elected Bush to fight terrorism, oppose gay marriage and keep their taxes low. He now has an obligation to DO IT.
Should the other side still be treated with respect, and have a regular forum for their views with the President? Of course. Should he still take their opinions into account when making decisions? Of course. But should Bush let down the people who elected him in the interest of pacifying the people who hate him? No way, buddy.
Look at it this way. Let's imagine that:
1. John Kerry had just won 286 electoral votes and 51 percent of the popular vote; and
2. The Democrats had picked up 4 Senate seats and several House seats; and
3. Amendments banning gay marriage had been soundly defeated in 13 states
If that were the case, what chance would there be that the people now screaming for a voice would be worried about a "divided country" or preoccupied with "healing a nation"? If John Kerry had won decisively, would he not have an obligation to implement the platform on which he ran? Of course he would, and the people who elected him would be demanding it. If that were the case, it would make me sick to my stomach that the majority of the country thought that way. But I would have to accept the results, and wait for the next election.
Let me be clear that I don't expect Bush to now be immune from criticism… from the left or anywhere else. I fully expect his opponents to be as critical as they've always been. That's part of the game. But a decisive re-election trumps complaints and criticisms from the losing side... at least for now. It is time to get on with the business of moving this country in the direction that it has voted to be moved.
I can't beleive you are actually saying that Bush has not responsibility to placate the people who didn't vote for him. He is the President of the United States of America, not just the part who voted for him. He has just as much a repsonsibility (maybe even more) to those who didn't vote for him than for those that did. Here's why. "One nation under God" soudn vaguely familiar. Does that mean he needs to rethink his position on fetal stem cell research or gay marriage? No, not really. But he is obligated to listen to dissenting viewpoints and consider the thoughts of people who disagree with him. ALL, not some, ALL the great advances in this society came from either third party issues that became part of the mainstream or from compromise among dissenting views. The Electoral college? Compromise. Balanced Budget amendment? Third Party issue (remember Perot and his charts) Abolition of slavery? Third party issue. Please rethink your stance on this.
Third, Federal Marriage Amendment? By that I suppose you mean saying that marriage can only be between and man and a woman. Well there you seem to be with the majority. But again, the majority of the weren't against slavery. The majority of the people were against women's suffrage. The majority is not always right on thing and they clearly aren't this one either. Let me quote again, "We hold the truths to be self evident...that all men are created equal" Hmmm unless of course that man as a consenting adult want to devote his life to another man who is also a consenting adult. Here's the deal. Marriage is, always has beenm and should always remain a religious issue. The government shouldn't be involved in the issue at all. That's right you heard me. No more marriage certificates. No more blood tests. Leave it up to the churches. If your church doesn't want to sanction gay marriage, that's fine but the government doesn't shouldn't have any say in the matter. I say the government gets out of the sanctioning of marriage all together.
Where to start? Well, first I'll give full disclosure that J.R. and I have had more than our share of animated political discussions. In fact, I still owe him a case of beer from a political bet that's almost 3 years old now. (We both insist that the bet be paid and consumed in person, which is proving to be problematic.) Politically speaking, I don't agree with him very often, but I respect his opinions and I always like to hear what he has to say.
With that out of the way, I suppose I should begin with a little clarification on my earlier post. I'm fully aware that the President presides over the entire country, not just those that elected him. I'm fully aware that he's just as responsible for the well being of his opponents as he is for his supporters. And I'm fully aware that a wise president considers all views, especially dissenting ones, before making decisions and before formulating policy.
None of that has any bearing on the point I was trying to make. My point is this:
After four years, everybody knows where George Bush stands on just about any subject. At this stage, you have to figure that he has heard all the various viewpoints on any number of issues. He's done his due diligence and he has decided where he stands. And he has made his positions very clear to the public. Now… the people of this country, knowing George Bush's policies fully well, just re-elected him to a second term quite decisively. A clear majority in this country, both in the electoral college and the popular vote, has said "we approve of the way you're doing things."
At the same time, the minority (with 30-something fewer electoral votes and 3.5 million fewer popular votes) is screaming that it is now George Bush's responsibility to "heal the nation" by doing what THEY want him to do. Ummm… wait a minute. How does that work? The anti-war liberals lost, so now we're supposed to pull out of Iraq or something to make them happy? If not Iraq, then what? George Bush was re-elected for (in order of importance) his stance on:
1.Terrorism
2. Moral values such as abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research
3. Tax cuts and monetary policy
So…which principle should George Bush toss over the side of the boat to placate the losing side?
That's my point. He need not, and MUST not abandon any of those principles… in the interest of "healing" or anything else. It is the LOSING side who must come to grips with the results of this election, not the winning side. It is the LOSING side that must come to grips with the fact that they are currently in the MINORITY in the United States of America, and that the minority does not rule. It is the LOSING side who bears more (but not all) of the responsibility for healing and conciliation. The people elected Bush to fight terrorism, oppose gay marriage and keep their taxes low. He now has an obligation to DO IT.
Should the other side still be treated with respect, and have a regular forum for their views with the President? Of course. Should he still take their opinions into account when making decisions? Of course. But should Bush let down the people who elected him in the interest of pacifying the people who hate him? No way, buddy.
Look at it this way. Let's imagine that:
1. John Kerry had just won 286 electoral votes and 51 percent of the popular vote; and
2. The Democrats had picked up 4 Senate seats and several House seats; and
3. Amendments banning gay marriage had been soundly defeated in 13 states
If that were the case, what chance would there be that the people now screaming for a voice would be worried about a "divided country" or preoccupied with "healing a nation"? If John Kerry had won decisively, would he not have an obligation to implement the platform on which he ran? Of course he would, and the people who elected him would be demanding it. If that were the case, it would make me sick to my stomach that the majority of the country thought that way. But I would have to accept the results, and wait for the next election.
Let me be clear that I don't expect Bush to now be immune from criticism… from the left or anywhere else. I fully expect his opponents to be as critical as they've always been. That's part of the game. But a decisive re-election trumps complaints and criticisms from the losing side... at least for now. It is time to get on with the business of moving this country in the direction that it has voted to be moved.
11.04.2004
To Gloat, or Not To Gloat?
A friend of mine who is anti-Bush called me the day before the election. He felt pretty sure that Bush would win, and wanted to warn me that if I were to do any gloating afterwards, it might well be disastrous for our friendship. That really took the wind out of my sails, since I was really looking forward to stamping big W's on my butt and mooning him. Just kidding, dude.
But as the reality of this election sets in, I find that the instinct and desire to gloat is stronger than I expected. Not at my friend, really, because I like the guy and I know he wouldn't take it well… and I never intentionally offend my friends. I still haven't spoken with him since his call. I hope he's doing well, and I'll be calling to touch base soon. But right now, I've still got this primal urge to dance in circles around a large bonfire in nothing but my "W" boxers, beating a drum, drinking whiskey, breathing fire and chanting "Hail to the Chief." It's probably not a good time to call just yet.
It's not that I want everybody who voted for Kerry to be forced to sit in a pile of cow manure, drinking sour milk and watching an endless-loop tape of W saying "nook-ya-ler"… although that does have a certain appeal. I do believe that there are actually some Kerry supporters who were honest, fair and objective in their assessment of the presidential race, and who treated the President with the respect he deserves. For those people, I say 'no hard feelings, and I hope the next four years turn out well for you.'
But then there are the vast majority of Kerry supporters. These are the people who deserve to listen to a LOT of gloating.
For Hollywood types like Michael Moore, Al Franken, Janean Garafalo, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand… gawd, I could go on forever here…
For "news" types like Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Chris Matthews, Paul Krugman, and on and on…
For political types like Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Barbara Boxer, Cynthia McKinney, Jim McDermott… etc. etc. etc.
For anyone who has said (or even suggested) that George Bush is a liar, an idiot, the modern equivalent to Hitler… you get the idea...
You people need a nice long vacation at someplace like this.
It warms my cockles to think that you are crying in your latte's right now, thinking the world is about to end. It breaks my heart that you were unable to convince the heartland of America of your vast intellectual superiority, and that you know more about what's good for Ma and Pa Smithbucket than they know about what's good for themselves. It's so sad that a majority of Americans can't stand your socialistic and morally bankrupt worldview. Life is so unfair, isn't it?
Here's an idea for you: Go to France. Or to the Gaza Strip, where they danced in the streets on September 11. Go anywhere that most people hate what America is and what it stands for. Go someplace where you can spout off slanderous, deluded lies about a great American, and people will applaud you for it. Stay there a LONG time. Many of you promised to leave the country when Bush won 4 years ago, but either you were lying or you didn't have the stones to follow through on it. Now is your chance to redeem yourselves. Just go. We'll hold down the fort for you here, and we'll probably never even know you're gone… except when the blissful silence and domination of rational thought just becomes too much to bear.
Hitler won, so you’d better get the hell out while you’ve still got the chance. Just go.
But as the reality of this election sets in, I find that the instinct and desire to gloat is stronger than I expected. Not at my friend, really, because I like the guy and I know he wouldn't take it well… and I never intentionally offend my friends. I still haven't spoken with him since his call. I hope he's doing well, and I'll be calling to touch base soon. But right now, I've still got this primal urge to dance in circles around a large bonfire in nothing but my "W" boxers, beating a drum, drinking whiskey, breathing fire and chanting "Hail to the Chief." It's probably not a good time to call just yet.
It's not that I want everybody who voted for Kerry to be forced to sit in a pile of cow manure, drinking sour milk and watching an endless-loop tape of W saying "nook-ya-ler"… although that does have a certain appeal. I do believe that there are actually some Kerry supporters who were honest, fair and objective in their assessment of the presidential race, and who treated the President with the respect he deserves. For those people, I say 'no hard feelings, and I hope the next four years turn out well for you.'
But then there are the vast majority of Kerry supporters. These are the people who deserve to listen to a LOT of gloating.
For Hollywood types like Michael Moore, Al Franken, Janean Garafalo, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand… gawd, I could go on forever here…
For "news" types like Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Chris Matthews, Paul Krugman, and on and on…
For political types like Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Barbara Boxer, Cynthia McKinney, Jim McDermott… etc. etc. etc.
For anyone who has said (or even suggested) that George Bush is a liar, an idiot, the modern equivalent to Hitler… you get the idea...
You people need a nice long vacation at someplace like this.
It warms my cockles to think that you are crying in your latte's right now, thinking the world is about to end. It breaks my heart that you were unable to convince the heartland of America of your vast intellectual superiority, and that you know more about what's good for Ma and Pa Smithbucket than they know about what's good for themselves. It's so sad that a majority of Americans can't stand your socialistic and morally bankrupt worldview. Life is so unfair, isn't it?
Here's an idea for you: Go to France. Or to the Gaza Strip, where they danced in the streets on September 11. Go anywhere that most people hate what America is and what it stands for. Go someplace where you can spout off slanderous, deluded lies about a great American, and people will applaud you for it. Stay there a LONG time. Many of you promised to leave the country when Bush won 4 years ago, but either you were lying or you didn't have the stones to follow through on it. Now is your chance to redeem yourselves. Just go. We'll hold down the fort for you here, and we'll probably never even know you're gone… except when the blissful silence and domination of rational thought just becomes too much to bear.
Hitler won, so you’d better get the hell out while you’ve still got the chance. Just go.
Divided? So what?
On matters of great importance, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal usually gets it right. Their interpretation of the election results absolutely nails it.
George Bush has no responsibility to placate the people who voted against him. He has no responsibility to "move to the center" in the interest of "healing a divided nation." People who say such things are inevitably people on the losing side who are trying to salvage some small victory in their loss. They're entitled to respect and consideration, but not much more. I don't expect them to stay silent when they don't get their way. But neither do I expect their complaining to have much of an effect for the next four years.
When liberals said that Bush's loss of the popular vote in 2000 should mean a less conservative policy approach, they had a legitimate point. But now it must work the other way. Now, he has been given a mandate… a solid electoral win and a decisive popular vote margin. Now he has a responsibility to the majority who elected him, much more so than to the minority who desperately wanted him gone. Logic dictates that it is the MINORITY that bears the greater responsibility to compromise.
Now, we must see a continuation of the administration's policy on terrorism… hopefully with better results. Now, we must see a Federal Marriage Amendment. Now, we must see an end to the Democrats' obstruction of qualified conservative judges. Now, we must see a reform of Social Security. And so much more. It's what the people voted for.
To the victors go the spoils. Gimme.
George Bush has no responsibility to placate the people who voted against him. He has no responsibility to "move to the center" in the interest of "healing a divided nation." People who say such things are inevitably people on the losing side who are trying to salvage some small victory in their loss. They're entitled to respect and consideration, but not much more. I don't expect them to stay silent when they don't get their way. But neither do I expect their complaining to have much of an effect for the next four years.
When liberals said that Bush's loss of the popular vote in 2000 should mean a less conservative policy approach, they had a legitimate point. But now it must work the other way. Now, he has been given a mandate… a solid electoral win and a decisive popular vote margin. Now he has a responsibility to the majority who elected him, much more so than to the minority who desperately wanted him gone. Logic dictates that it is the MINORITY that bears the greater responsibility to compromise.
Now, we must see a continuation of the administration's policy on terrorism… hopefully with better results. Now, we must see a Federal Marriage Amendment. Now, we must see an end to the Democrats' obstruction of qualified conservative judges. Now, we must see a reform of Social Security. And so much more. It's what the people voted for.
To the victors go the spoils. Gimme.
11.03.2004
Kerry's Choice
In 2000, people finally embraced Al Gore when he (belatedly) accepted the inevitable and gave a gracious concession speech. Since that time, he has reverted to form and become a cartoon character. A radio show guy I listen to called him a "combination of Orel Roberts and Chucky." Love that.
John Kerry now has the choice of who he wants to be. Does he want to be the gracious Al Gore, or does he want to be Chucky? He can concede today and people will applaud him for it. Or he can prolong this thing, and people will view him as a guy who thinks that HE is more important than the good of the country.
Your choice, Jean-Francois.
UPDATE: Kerry will concede at 1 p.m. Eastern today. I congratulate him and thank him for this wise and magnanimous decision. Thank you, Senator, for not putting this country through what Gore did. I mean that in all sincerity.
John Kerry now has the choice of who he wants to be. Does he want to be the gracious Al Gore, or does he want to be Chucky? He can concede today and people will applaud him for it. Or he can prolong this thing, and people will view him as a guy who thinks that HE is more important than the good of the country.
Your choice, Jean-Francois.
UPDATE: Kerry will concede at 1 p.m. Eastern today. I congratulate him and thank him for this wise and magnanimous decision. Thank you, Senator, for not putting this country through what Gore did. I mean that in all sincerity.
What it ALSO means
Despite the perception that I knowingly create, I'm no shill for George Bush. I want to see a LOT more from him in his second term. I want to see some spending bills vetoed. I want to see him force a couple judges down the liberals' throats. Lots of things. So, to me, George Bush getting re-elected is only the second most important thing that happened last night.
So what's number one? Easy...
We found out that John Kerry is NOT going to be President of the United States. And that's good news for all Americans, whether they realize it or not.
So what's number one? Easy...
We found out that John Kerry is NOT going to be President of the United States. And that's good news for all Americans, whether they realize it or not.
What it means
Some random, post-election thoughts:
1. There can be no more talk of a "selected" president without a mandate. Bush just got the biggest popular vote total of all time, and the first actual majority since Reagan. That's a mandate. Deal with it. Will liberals now quit complaining about our judicial nominations? I doubt it. Expect them to find a new reason to torpedo Bush's legitimately qualified judges.
2. Florida 2004 is the REAL Florida. The 2000 election was a joke. Bush lost about 20,000 votes there when the liberal networks called Florida for Gore too early. But with all precincts allowed to vote before the outcome was predicted, Bush won 52-47, with a margin of more than 375,000 votes. This is what happens when you let a Republican run a fair race in a moderate/conservative state. This is justice.
3. Bush's re-election, plus the pickup of three seats in the Senate and four in the House validates the conservative approach to the War on Terror. Saddam-esque despots and others are now on notice: the left fringe in America does not determine our foreign policy. If you are connected to terrorism, you could be next on our list.
4. I wonder what Michael Moore has to say today…..
1. There can be no more talk of a "selected" president without a mandate. Bush just got the biggest popular vote total of all time, and the first actual majority since Reagan. That's a mandate. Deal with it. Will liberals now quit complaining about our judicial nominations? I doubt it. Expect them to find a new reason to torpedo Bush's legitimately qualified judges.
2. Florida 2004 is the REAL Florida. The 2000 election was a joke. Bush lost about 20,000 votes there when the liberal networks called Florida for Gore too early. But with all precincts allowed to vote before the outcome was predicted, Bush won 52-47, with a margin of more than 375,000 votes. This is what happens when you let a Republican run a fair race in a moderate/conservative state. This is justice.
3. Bush's re-election, plus the pickup of three seats in the Senate and four in the House validates the conservative approach to the War on Terror. Saddam-esque despots and others are now on notice: the left fringe in America does not determine our foreign policy. If you are connected to terrorism, you could be next on our list.
4. I wonder what Michael Moore has to say today…..
Shameless
Let's get this straight right off the bat. Ohio 2004 is NOT a repeat of Florida 2000. There is no comparison between the two. Florida had a margin of about 1,500 in favor of Bush when Gore asked for his first recount. With a margin that small, asking for a recount was entirely reasonable. So they recounted the whole state and Bush's margin went down to about 500 votes. That's where Gore should have stopped, but let's not get into all that.
With all precincts reporting, Bush leads Kerry in Ohio by about 136,000 votes. Obviously, no recount is going to overcome that. So the Dems are trying to say that there are 250,000 "uncounted" votes in Ohio. I'm sure they're talking about provisional ballots.
Provisional ballots are ready made for voter fraud. If you show up at the polls and they don't let you vote because your name isn't on the list, or it shows that you've already voted or whatever… you can get a provisional ballot. You "vote" with that provisional ballot and it goes into a pile for later inspection and verification. So what we apparently have here is a bunch of Democrats who, knowing that Ohio would be close, maneuvered within the system to make sure there were a bunch of "uncounted" ballots out there. Now they're going to repeat the refrain from 2000 that "every vote should count" even though the vast majority of those provisional ballots are probably fraudulent. It appears that they're going to hold up the entire American election process with their army of lawyers once again.
If this is indeed the Democratic strategy, it is a shameful piece of electioneering. The most important number right now is the exact number of provisional ballots issued in Ohio. If it's really 250,000, this could be another nightmare. I want to know exactly how many provisional ballots are out in Ohio, and how many were out by comparison in 2000. Maybe, just MAYBE... Kerry will have the grace to give this thing up before he makes a complete disgrace of himself. We can always hope, I suppose. But if this goes on past noon today, and the Dems are still crying about provisional ballots, then they are trying to steal this election.
This election has been decided. Bush has won the popular vote by 3.5 million votes. He has already won Ohio, and he is going to win Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada. The final electoral margin is most likely 290-248. Like it or not, that is a decisive Bush win. If Kerry and the Democrats refuse to accept that fact and continue to contest this election over provisional ballots, then they are putting their own desperation for power ahead of the interests of the country. But did you really expect anything less from these guys?
With all precincts reporting, Bush leads Kerry in Ohio by about 136,000 votes. Obviously, no recount is going to overcome that. So the Dems are trying to say that there are 250,000 "uncounted" votes in Ohio. I'm sure they're talking about provisional ballots.
Provisional ballots are ready made for voter fraud. If you show up at the polls and they don't let you vote because your name isn't on the list, or it shows that you've already voted or whatever… you can get a provisional ballot. You "vote" with that provisional ballot and it goes into a pile for later inspection and verification. So what we apparently have here is a bunch of Democrats who, knowing that Ohio would be close, maneuvered within the system to make sure there were a bunch of "uncounted" ballots out there. Now they're going to repeat the refrain from 2000 that "every vote should count" even though the vast majority of those provisional ballots are probably fraudulent. It appears that they're going to hold up the entire American election process with their army of lawyers once again.
If this is indeed the Democratic strategy, it is a shameful piece of electioneering. The most important number right now is the exact number of provisional ballots issued in Ohio. If it's really 250,000, this could be another nightmare. I want to know exactly how many provisional ballots are out in Ohio, and how many were out by comparison in 2000. Maybe, just MAYBE... Kerry will have the grace to give this thing up before he makes a complete disgrace of himself. We can always hope, I suppose. But if this goes on past noon today, and the Dems are still crying about provisional ballots, then they are trying to steal this election.
This election has been decided. Bush has won the popular vote by 3.5 million votes. He has already won Ohio, and he is going to win Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada. The final electoral margin is most likely 290-248. Like it or not, that is a decisive Bush win. If Kerry and the Democrats refuse to accept that fact and continue to contest this election over provisional ballots, then they are putting their own desperation for power ahead of the interests of the country. But did you really expect anything less from these guys?
11.02.2004
Election Day
The day is finally here, and it couldn't come soon enough. I've still got a really good feeling about this election. I still think Bush will have enough of a popular and electoral vote margin by tonight that Kerry will look silly if he mounts a legal challenge. Of course, that may not stop Kerry from hauling out the lawyers. Looking silly doesn't seem to bother him too much.
For as long as I've felt confident about a Bush win in this election, I've struggled to put a finger on the source of that confidence. This paragraph, from a source of Jim Geraghty at National Review's "The Kerry Spot," encapsulates it about as well as I ever could.
“Bush will win, pretty decisively… Maybe, worst case scenario, it's 51-49 [percent]. But everyone has looked at how the voters will decide too cerebrally. You walk into that voting booth, you pull the curtain behind you, and you’re alone. It’s the centerpiece of our democratic process, and voters take that responsibility seriously. It’s almost a religious experience, a sacred rite. And they’re going to go with who’s going to keep them safe. Who’s been tested. It’s an emotional, gut reaction.”
That's it. All these polls that are calling it such a close race… this is why they're off base. Because you can't poll people when they're alone in that voting booth. And when people are alone in there, Kerry is going to become a much less viable option. When some pollster calls them while they're sitting in their living room eating beef macaroni and listening to Dan Rather, Kerry seems OK. But for people who take this stuff as seriously as they should, when the weight of the world is on their shoulders, they're going to go with the safe choice.
I've never been too good at making predictions, and maybe I'll be eating a big serving of crow in this space tomorrow. But I think it's going to be big for Bush. I think he'll outperform the polls by about 4-5 percent for a convincing popular vote victory. And my current guess on the electoral college has Bush winning Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and Hawaii… for an Electoral College win of 300-238.
Please God… let it be so.
For as long as I've felt confident about a Bush win in this election, I've struggled to put a finger on the source of that confidence. This paragraph, from a source of Jim Geraghty at National Review's "The Kerry Spot," encapsulates it about as well as I ever could.
“Bush will win, pretty decisively… Maybe, worst case scenario, it's 51-49 [percent]. But everyone has looked at how the voters will decide too cerebrally. You walk into that voting booth, you pull the curtain behind you, and you’re alone. It’s the centerpiece of our democratic process, and voters take that responsibility seriously. It’s almost a religious experience, a sacred rite. And they’re going to go with who’s going to keep them safe. Who’s been tested. It’s an emotional, gut reaction.”
That's it. All these polls that are calling it such a close race… this is why they're off base. Because you can't poll people when they're alone in that voting booth. And when people are alone in there, Kerry is going to become a much less viable option. When some pollster calls them while they're sitting in their living room eating beef macaroni and listening to Dan Rather, Kerry seems OK. But for people who take this stuff as seriously as they should, when the weight of the world is on their shoulders, they're going to go with the safe choice.
I've never been too good at making predictions, and maybe I'll be eating a big serving of crow in this space tomorrow. But I think it's going to be big for Bush. I think he'll outperform the polls by about 4-5 percent for a convincing popular vote victory. And my current guess on the electoral college has Bush winning Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and Hawaii… for an Electoral College win of 300-238.
Please God… let it be so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)