mr-knowitall's Diaryland Diary

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Word Smithing

New Page 1

I was forwarded this on email, and I just had to share it here. Consider it some humor to start the holidays

 

The Washington Post's Style Invitational once again asked readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition. Here are the 2003 winners:

1. Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.

2. Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly

3. Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.

4. Foreploy: Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid.

5. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period.

6. Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very, very high.

7. Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.

8. Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.

9. Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.

10. Osteopornosis: A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)

11. Karmageddon: It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like, a serious bummer.

12. Decafalon (n.): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.

13. Glibido: All talk and no action.

14. Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.

15. Arachnoleptic fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after you've accidentally walked through a spider web.

16. Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.

17. Caterpallor (n.): The color you turn after finding half a grub in the fruit you're eating.

And the winner:

18. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an a$$****.
 

9:23 a.m. - 2004-11-24

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I love broad sweeping generalizations

New Page 1

I'd like to respond to some feedback regarding my last post:

karamazov said:

Poor bleeding-heart conservatives. What noble humanitarians! Sorry, but the right-wing being upset about racism is only slightly more believable than the outcry over the gross insensitivity in John Kerry's "outing" of Mary Cheney. Sorry, she was already out of the closet. And there's no shame in saying someone's gay. Unless you're the Republican party and your power is derived from the exploitation of homophobia and other prejudices.

You have got to be kidding me!! There are several things I'd like to say in response to this.

  1. You're missing the point of my post. I said, "Could you imagine the outcry if Bush and Condi were democrats?" It is the double standard in the mainstream media that I find sick... (i.e. Trent Lott and Rush Limbaugh) not to mention that those caricatures are a bit over the top, especially when you you look at the record and qualifications of Condi Rice. I think that the "first black female" Secretary of State would be heralded as a great accomplishment in our country, but since she was appointed a republican, she's reduced to a parrot who can't think for herself. That's what is really at issue here.
  2. I see that you're trying to draw a parallel between the gay and racism issue, but I don't see where it applies to my post, unless you're making generalizations about me based upon my beliefs. Ergo, I have to disagree with what are apparently your prejudices toward the 'right-wing'. (if I'm mistaken, please clarify)
  3. Furthermore, it seems like you are suggesting that I'm a "racist homophobe" by virtue of being a republican. I'm sure my Hispanic wife, black nephew and niece, and gay friends (all of whom I love dearly) will be glad to hear that. It's also nice to be continually likened by those on the far left as "trailer-dwelling, gun toting, uneducated, Bible-thumping, xenophobic, and homophobic."
  4. This is why I have to appreciate the irony when you say, "Unless you're the Republican party and your power is derived from the exploitation of homophobia and other prejudices" when it can be equally said, "Unless you're the Democrat party and your power is derived from the exploitation of 'christophobia' and other prejudices."

I really hope you're not that narrow-minded to see the world in that light.

12:37 p.m. - 2004-11-23

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SHAME ON YOU ALL

New Page 1

I haven't heard anything about this yet, but these cartoons by widely syndicated liberal cartoonists are blatantly racist. Could you imagine the outcry if Bush and Condi were democrats? This, is SICK.

1:15 p.m. - 2004-11-17

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peterson is Guilty

New Page 2

Like I was saying ... I was on the fence on this one. BUT... I really wasn't that well informed on what was going on.

I heard on the radio earlier today that Scott was telling Amber Frey that his wife was already dead before she even went missing, and that the upcoming holiday was his first without Laci.

That... in and of itself put me over into the "Scott is guilty" column.

4:33 p.m. - 2004-11-12

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Kraut Speaks

New Page 1

I like to post articles that reflect my thought on current issues. It's incredible to me that so many of political thought different than mine would be so vitriolic over their recent loss. I know that there are  those on my side of things that are just as guilty; and I am ashamed, but when it's coming from the opinion pages of the New York Times and other media organizations it becomes all the more disheartening. Charles Krauthammer has a good analysis of this subject:

'Moral Values' Myth

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 12, 2004; Page A25

In 1994, when the Gingrich revolution swept Republicans into power, ending 40 years of Democratic hegemony in the House, the mainstream press needed to account for this inversion of the Perfect Order of Things. A myth was born. Explained the USA Today headline: "ANGRY WHITE MEN: Their votes turn the tide for GOP."

Overnight, the revolution of the Angry White Male became conventional wisdom. In the 10 years before the 1994 election there were 56 mentions of angry white men in the media, according to LexisNexis. In the next seven months there were more than 1,400.

At the time, I looked into this story line -- and found not a scintilla of evidence to support the claim. Nonetheless, it was a necessary invention, a way for the liberal elite to delegitimize a conservative victory. And, even better, a way to assuage their moral vanity: You never lose because your ideas are sclerotic or your positions retrograde, but because your opponent appealed to the baser instincts of mankind.

Plus ca change ... Ten years and another stunning Democratic defeat later, and liberals are at it again. The Angry White Male has been transmuted into the Bigoted Christian Redneck.

In the post-election analyses, the liberal elite, led by the holy trinity of the New York Times -- Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd -- just about lost its mind denouncing the return of medieval primitivism. As usual, Dowd achieved the highest level of hysteria, cursing the Republicans for pandering to "isolationism, nativism, chauvinism, puritanism and religious fanaticism" in their unfailing drive to "summon our nasty devils."

Whence comes this fable? With President Bush increasing his share of the vote among Hispanics, Jews, women (especially married women), Catholics, seniors and even African Americans, on what does this victory-of-the-homophobic-evangelical voter rest?

Its origins lie in a single question in the Election Day exit poll. The urban myth grew around the fact that "moral values" ranked highest in the answer to Question J: "Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president?"

It is a thin reed upon which to base a General Theory of the '04 Election. In fact, it is no reed at all. The way the question was set up, moral values were sure to be ranked disproportionately high. Why? Because it was a multiple-choice question, and moral values cover a group of issues, while all the other choices were individual issues. Chop up the alternatives finely enough, and moral values are sure to get a bare plurality over the others.

Look at the choices:

• Education, 4 percent.

• Taxes, 5 percent.

• Health Care, 8 percent.

• Iraq, 15 percent.

• Terrorism, 19 percent.

• Economy and Jobs, 20 percent.

• Moral Values, 22 percent.

"Moral values" encompass abortion, gay marriage, Hollywood's influence, the general coarsening of the culture and, for some, the morality of preemptive war. The way to logically pit this class of issues against the others would be to pit it against other classes: "war issues" or "foreign policy issues" (Iraq plus terrorism) and "economic issues" (jobs, taxes, health care, etc).

If you pit group against group, the moral values class comes in dead last: war issues at 34 percent, economic issues variously described at 33 percent and moral values at 22 percent -- i.e., they are at least a third less salient than the others.

And we know that this is the real ranking. After all, the exit poll is just a single poll. We had dozens of polls in the run-up to the election that showed that the chief concerns were the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq and the economy.

Ah, yes. But the fallback is then to attribute Bush's victory to the gay marriage referendums that pushed Bush over the top, particularly in Ohio.

This is more nonsense. George Bush increased his vote in 2004 over 2000 by an average of 3.1 percent nationwide. In Ohio the increase was 1 percent -- less than a third of the national average. In the 11 states in which the gay marriage referendums were held, Bush increased his vote by less than he did in the 39 states that did not have the referendum. The great anti-gay surge was pure fiction.

This does not deter the myth of the Bigoted Christian Redneck from dominating the thinking of liberals and infecting the blue-state media. They need their moral superiority like oxygen, and they cannot have it cut off by mere facts. Once again they angrily claim the moral high ground, while standing in the ruins of yet another humiliating electoral defeat.

"HAT TIP TO THE KRAUT"

4:05 p.m. - 2004-11-12

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here we go again...

New Page 1

Yasser Arafat is Dead... still... we are still awaiting word as to whether or not he will become undead... again.

***CONSPIRACY THEORY UPDATE***

SEE ARTICLE

This one won't go away for a while. Word has it that there is pressure on John Kerry to "un-concede" the election based on some of these theories.

I have to point something out here: because of the 2000 Florida debacle, The Kerry campaign, and well as the Bush campaign had numerous analysts and attorneys  watching this election. If there were any possibility that Kerry did indeed get more votes in any particular state, and the end result would give him the necessary 270 votes to become the 44th president of the USA, he and his cohorts would have already "un-conceded" , and probably would not have conceded in the first place.

I have to think that experienced jurists, democrats, republicans, poll workers, and paid analysts whose careers have been spent dealing with this very thing are going to have better bead on the election results than would those of us here in the blogoshpere.

Take for instance"

  • "There was no overwhelming reason to cast doubt on the outcome of this election," seconded Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, the campaign manager for Al Gore's 2000 campaign. "George Bush got more votes this time."
  • Doug Chapin, a nonpartisan election analyst, finds the claims to be baseless. "There were no problems that would lead me to believe that there were stolen elections or widespread fraud," he said.
  • Rep. Kendrick Meek, the co-chair of the Kerry campaign in Florida, says he knows why Bush was re-elected, and it has nothing to do with fraud. "We did a good job, but the other side did a better job," he said.
  • "It takes me about three times to explain" why the fraud allegation is untrue, said Kimberly Bartlett, community outreach specialist for the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections. "You have to ask them why no top Democrat is making these charges."
  • A high-ranking Democrat, mindful of balancing respect for the complainers and a desire to move on, summed up the conspiracy theorists with a line from Alexander Pope: "Hope springs eternal in the human breast."

I'm going to repeat myself now... but this is important to illustrate. The following is a sampling of everything the Bush family is accused of by the "CT's": [Conspiracy Theorists]

  • Prescott Bush supported the Nazis.
  • The Bush family supports crime and Satanism through the Skull and Bones Society.
  • While George H.W. Bush was head of the CIA, he was involved in the assassination of Orlando Letelier.
  • Ayatollah Khomeini dealt with George Bush and/or his operatives to arrange the Iran-Contra deal and allegedly the October Surprise, on behalf of U.S. Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan.
  • While Vice President, George H.W. Bush was responsible for Saddam Hussein's acquisition of weapons and funding during the Iran-Iraq War.
    The Bush family, through its ties to the bin Laden family aided Osama's rise to power.
  • George HW Bush is responsible for John Hinckley's assassination attempt against President Reagan, which would have made him president.
    There was an organized conspiracy between Jeb Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court, and ChoicePoint to rig the American presidential election in 2000.
  • Jeb Bush and George W. Bush smuggled drugs; they were filmed by the DEA doing so, and were being blackmailed because of this.
  • Drug trafficker and CIA agent Barry Seal had proof, but was subsequently assassinated by the CIA. Inside the Bush crime family
  • The Bush family--especially Neil and Jeb Bush--profited from the Savings and loan scandal.
  • The Bushes support the oil industry to enhance their own financial interests in the industry.
  • The September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack was planned or sanctioned by the Bush administration.
  • The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was planned by members of the Bush administration following the goals of PNAC, with the stated reasons being political cover.
  • Dick Cheney planned and executed the 2003 invasion of Iraq for the benefit of Halliburton, presumably with the connivance of George W. Bush.
  • Through legislation and actions which extend executive powers and reduce oversight as justified by the War on Terrorism, the Bush administration is working toward establishing a totalitarian state.
  • The assassination of Olof Palme may have been related to his knowledge of Iran-Contra.

And now... He's stolen two elections in a row.

Like I said yesterday.... If 1/3 of the accusations and theories surrounding this President and his family are true, then he is truly the most brilliant villain ever, and only James Bond will be able to take him down.

2:31 p.m. - 2004-11-11

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An email to a reader

New Page 1

Dave,

I agree with the idea that the [democrat] party is dying. They are faced with a serious dilemma. The far left wing of the party is dragging the more moderate part of it down. The problem they have is they will lose even more votes if they alienate them.

This is what happens when you want to pander to everyone, eventually you'll have to make hard choices, and you'll begin to lose support. John Kerry was the embodiment of this philosophical folly.

This is why I think the GOP has been so successful in recent years. They work in terms of what their vision is with conviction, and what they think is good for the country, instead of what is good for the party; plus, they are a whole lot more 'likable'.

I've thought ever since 2002 that the Dem's were in trouble. They can't seem to get traction on any issue. And as I said before, it's because they are so sharply divided within. It's not enough to be united against one man, they have to be united as a party.

If Hillary gets the nomination in 2008, you'll know they haven't gotten the message. Bush and Rove got out the vote on what many feel are 'values' oriented issues. They were able to mobilize and expand their base on conservative ideas like defense, defense of marriage, and smaller government. If the democrats believe that Hillary Clinton is the best answer to this ideological defeat they've just experienced... well, I think Einstein said it best, "Insanity is when you keep doing the same thing expecting to see different results".



Thanks for stopping by,

Rick

9:45 a.m. - 2004-11-11

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Take on Conspiracy Theories

A follow up on a previous entry

A follow up on a previous entry:

SEE ARTICLE

Well... It's gone mainstream now. Still, I hope they do inquire.

I've never really been a big fan of conspiracy theories. There was a time when I was younger that I was inclined to believe them. There is a litany of them too: The Bush administration knew about about 9-11, The Trilateral Commissions designs on world domination, The Warren Commission covered up the truth about the Kennedy assassination, FDR wanted the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, etc etc etc.

They are entertaining to say the least, but they rarely pass my sniff test. I always take the theories as they are presented, I then hold them in my hands, and raise them to just beneath my nose, and I take a deep breath, and say BULLS***!

I was cured of conspiracy theories at the tender age of 10 when it was presented to me that Paul McCartney of The Beatles was killed in a car accident, and it was covered up. I actually believed this for a number of years.

And how did we come to know of this tragedy? Well, the band left hints in their songs, and their albums!

  • In the Magical Mystery Tour, Paul is the Walrus, the Norwegian symbol of death, and it is told to us on the White Album in the song 'Glass Onion' where they declare, "And here's another clue for you all, the Walrus was Paul"
  • On the cover of Sgt. Pepper's, the picture is set like a funeral, look at the flowers, etc
  • On the back of the same album, Paul is the only one with his back turned, and his uniform has a patch that is only worn by Morgue workers in London
  • It is rumored that if you play Revolution 9 backwards you'll hear a car accident, and a man saying "pronounce me dead".
  • On the cover of Abbey Road, Paul is smoking, out of step, and barefoot. Of course when people are buried, they are barefoot.
  • And who is the fellow walking around claiming to be Paul? Why it's Billy Shears, the winner of a Paul McCartney look alike contest.

The last time I took a serious look at a conspiracy theory was of course the whole 'Bush knew' thing about 2 years ago. There was a guy out there named Mike Ruppert, and I think it was he who helped start this whole thing. I spent a lot of time looking at all of the "facts" that were tied into that whole thing, and it was overwhelming.

My conclusion was that I found it hard to believe that so many conspired together, and acted so stupidly. Plus, the sheer logistics of such a grand scheme boggle the mind. Not bad for a guy whose a simpleton or idiot in their estimation. David Corn a HUGE Bush critic wrote an interesting piece about it SEE LINK HERE.

It’s easy to piece together news reports, and tie them into a theory. But the notion that any American president would knowingly and purposefully allow such events to transpire is sickening, perverse, and fanatical. The common thread I see among the purveyors of this mantra is utter hatred  and distrust for George W. Bush. These accusations and conspiracies are created for the sole purpose of discrediting anything the man stands for simply because his politics are different from theirs, plus they don’t like the fact that he is in office.

Let's Recap the litany of Conspiracy Theories surrounding the Bush Family: (pasted from Wikipedia)

  • Prescott Bush supported the Nazis.
  • The Bush family supports crime and Satanism through the Skull and Bones Society.
  • While George H.W. Bush was head of the CIA, he may have been involved in the 1976 assassination of Orlando Letelier. Bush remains silent on this issue, and the CIA refuses to release many of the internal documents which could shed some light on it.
  • Ayatollah Khomeini dealt with George Bush and/or his operatives to arrange the Iran-Contra deal and allegedly the October Surprise, on behalf of U.S. Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan.
  • While Vice President, George H.W. Bush was responsible for Saddam Hussein's acquisition of weapons and funding during the Iran-Iraq War.
  • Osama bin Laden, then a minor Mujahedeen leader in Afghanistan, is reputed to have been a CIA agent who made use of CIA resources and US-funds to bolster the morale of radical Islamists after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Further, the Bush family, through its ties to the bin Laden family and other connections, otherwise aided bin Laden's rise.
  • The Bushes are somehow responsible for John Hinckley's assassination attempt against President Reagan, which would have made George H.W. Bush president.
  • There was an organized conspiracy between Jeb Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court, and ChoicePoint to rig the American presidential election in 2000.
  • Jeb Bush and George W. Bush smuggled drugs; they were filmed by the DEA doing so, and were being blackmailed because of this. Drug trafficker and CIA agent Barry Seal had proof, but was subsequently assassinated by the CIA. Inside the Bush crime family (http://www.stewwebb.com/CIA%20Inside%20The%20Bush%20Crime%20Family%20Part%201.html), CIA linked to Seal death (http://www.idfiles.com/cia-linked-to-seal-death.htm)
  • The Bush family--especially Neil and Jeb Bush--profited from the Savings and loan scandal. [1] (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/bush_family_and_the_s.htm)
  • More banking tomfoolery with Riggs by Jonathan Bush.[2] (http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html)
  • The Bushes support the oil industry to enhance their own financial interests in the industry.
  • The September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack was planned or sanctioned by the Bush administration. (See 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory)
  • The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was planned by members of the Bush administration following the goals of PNAC, with the stated reasons (the threat of WMDs and terrorism in the wake of the September 11 attacks) being political cover.
  • Dick Cheney planned and executed the 2003 invasion of Iraq for the benefit of Halliburton, presumably with the connivance of George W. Bush.
  • Through legislation and actions which extend executive powers and reduce oversight as justified by the War on Terrorism, the Bush administration is working toward establishing a totalitarian state.
  • The assassination of Olof Palme may have been related to his knowledge of Iran-Contra.[3] (http://www.kmf.org/williams/bushbook/bush17.html)
  • And now... He's stolen two elections in a row.

Finally, this kind of distrust and pessimism is depressing. I really can't understand the obsession some have with believing the worst about people. If 1/3 of the accusations and theories surrounding this President and his family are true, then he is truly the most brilliant villain ever, and only James Bond will be able to take him down.

1:19 p.m. - 2004-11-10

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secession

New Page 1




By Tony Blankley


    
    I assume the Republican National Committee is busy recording and archiving the idiotic statements coming out of national Democratic Party leaders and commentators. There is no doubt that the election has not only yielded a victory for the Republicans, but also a bumper crop of self-destructive vitriol and bitterness from the Democrats.
     The opinion pages of the New York Times (that would be pages A-1- D 37 inclusive) have been running articles by prime cut liberals, the general themes of which have been that conservative Christians are the equivalent of Islamic terrorists and that the benighted provincials who voted for President Bush are simply hate-filled bigots who have no place in America.
     The apotheosis of this political dementia was put forward in my very presence on last week's McLaughlin Group by my friend and colleague Lawrence O'Donnell. Lawrence, in cool blood and in apparent full control of his senses, asserted that this election will give rise to a serious consideration of secession from the Union by the blue states.
     I should point out that, though Lawrence has been barking more than usual in this election season's TV commentary, he is a brilliant political analyst and a serious Democratic Party player. He was the late Sen. Moynihan's top Senate staffer. He comes from one of the great Democratic Party families. I believe it was his uncle who was President Kennedy's White House chief of staff. He is also the most gifted writer/producer on the NBC show, "West Wing." He is not one of those no-name nitwits who the cable shows pull from obscurity to recite Democratic Party talking points.
     I elaborate on his enviable pedigree and qualities of mind and experience, because if he says such a thing to a television audience of 6 million viewers, it must surely reflect some measurable body of senior Democratic Party sentiment. And although it is inconceivable that any senior elected Democratic Party officials would ever repeat or act on such a deranged notion, it is a measure of how deep is the Democratic Party elite's contempt for and estrangement from the American public.
     In this regard, I couldn't help thinking of the founding election of the modern Democratic Party — the election of 1828, when Gen. Andrew Jackson of Tennessee defeated John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts by 139,000 votes out of 1.1 million cast.
     That election, which defined the Democratic Party that we have known for almost two centuries, has been called the first triumph of the common man in American politics. It pitted the moneyed interests of the Northeast against the farmers and working free laborers of the South and West. It was the first election in which almost all of the states (22 of 24) used direct popular election rather than state legislatures to elect the presidential electors.
     It was capped with a raucous inaugural celebration during which "rustic" common people shocked Washington society as they wandered through the White House celebrating, drinking and shaking President Andy Jackson's hand. And so started a bond between the Democratic Party and the typical working American that lasted 176 years — until last Tuesday.
     It's not that the Democrats lost an election, obviously both parties have lost numerous elections. But never before in my memory — which goes back faintly to 1956 — has either party in its loss reacted with such venomous contempt for the American people.
     When we conservatives got shellacked in 1964 — with Barry Goldwater losing 61percent to 39 percent to Lyndon Johnson — we knew we had a lot of work ahead if we were going to educate the public to our views. But I can honestly say that, although I remember thinking that the public was misguided in its judgment, I never hated or felt contemptuous of the majority electorate — of my fellow countrymen.
     This dominant sentiment of the Democratic Party elite — that scores of millions of Americans are categorically unacceptable as fellow countrymen — is evidence of a cancer in the soul of that party. These Democrats, quite expressly, are asserting that "Christers," people who believe in the teachings of Jesus as described in the inerrant words of the Bible, are un-American, almost sub-human. Some of these Democrats would rather secede than stay in the same country with such people. If they were in the majority with no need to secede, what would they do? Their bigoted and absolutist view of religious people is at least a second cousin to the Nazi view of the Jews.
     In Europe, the few remaining people of faith have recently taken to calling the increasingly more adamant European secularist majority "secular fundamentalists." While that phrase is unfair to the perfectly respectable fundamentalist religious sentiment, it shows how much more harsh and filled with fear the religious/secular divide is becoming.
     Fortunately, most rank and file Democrats are not infected with such secular bigotry. Democrats don't need to secede. They just need to purge their party of such of their leaders and intellectual vanguard as spew forth such rubbish.
    





Tony Blankley is editorial page editor of The Washington Times. His column appears on Wednesdays. E-mail: tblankley@washingtontimes.com
 

 

8:47 a.m. - 2004-11-10

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moderates, Not Moralists

New Page 1

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, November 9, 2004; Page A27

John Kerry was not defeated by the religious right. He was beaten by moderates who went -- reluctantly in many cases -- for President Bush. This will be hard for many Democrats to take. It's easier to salve those wounds by demonizing religious conservatives. But in the 2004 election, Democrats left votes on the table that could have created a Kerry majority.

Consider these findings from the network exit polls: About 38 percent of those who thought abortion should be legal in most cases went to Bush. Bush got 22 percent from voters who favored gay marriage and 52 percent among those who favor civil unions. Bush even managed 16 percent among voters who thought the president paid more attention to the interests of large corporations than to those of "ordinary Americans." A third of the voters who favored a government more active in solving problems went to Bush.

True, 22 percent of the voters said that "moral values" were decisive in their choices. But 71 percent picked some other issue. All this means that Bush won not because there is a right-wing majority in the United States but because the president persuaded just enough of the nonconservative majority to go his way. Even with their increased numbers, conservatives still constitute only 34 percent of the electorate. The largest share of the American electorate (45 percent) calls itself moderate. The moderates went 54 to 45 percent for Kerry, good but not enough. And 21 percent of this year's voters -- bless them -- called themselves liberal.

These numbers do not lend themselves to a facile ideological analysis of what happened. The populist left can fairly ask why so many pro-government, anti-corporate voters backed Bush. The social liberals can ask why so many socially moderate and progressive voters stuck with the president. The centrist crowd can muse over the power of the terrorism issue. The exit polls found that perhaps 10 percent of Al Gore's 2000 voters switched to Bush. Of these, more than eight in 10 thought the war in Iraq was part of the war on terrorism.

Everyone should notice that the Bush campaign knew it could not win without moderates. When Karl Rove went after the red-hot right-wing vote, he did so largely through person-to-person contact, mailings and conservative talk-meisters. Bush always spoke in code to this group -- he talked of a "culture of life" far more than he did about abortion -- reducing the risk of turning off the middle.

Democrats have an unlimited capacity to declare that their party suffers from some deep intellectual dysfunction. The insistence that Democrats need "new ideas" is especially popular among think-tankers and columnists, a band I have a personal interest in keeping employed.

But Rove and Bush won this election on decidedly old strategies that had nothing to do with ideas. These included the attacks on John Kerry for being weak and the claim that Bush would be tougher on the bad guys. That's familiar, Cold War-era stuff. Gay marriage was a new issue, but opposing gay marriage is an old idea. Social Security privatization and tax cuts are old ideas, too.

Yet the Bush campaign was innovative in its analysis of the electorate. Its effort to increase the overall Republican share of the vote by boosting turnout in the outer suburbs and rural areas was a big deal. Democrats need to chip away at those Republican margins.

It can be done, and Colorado offers a fascinating laboratory. Kerry lost Colorado by 52 to 47 percent, close to the national margin. But Democrat Ken Salazar won his U.S. Senate race by 51 to 47.

Like Kerry, Salazar swept the traditionally Democratic areas of Denver and Boulder. But in western Colorado, Salazar's work on water issues and his standing as a farmer and rancher gave him reach into normally Republican constituencies. Kerry lost Mesa County, which includes Grand Junction, by 35 percentage points. Salazar lost Mesa by only 26. Salazar also ran ahead of Kerry in other western Colorado counties.

Democrats cannot leave current GOP margins in rural America and the outer suburbs uncontested. While it pains me to say so, it was hard for Kerry, as a Massachusetts liberal who was painted as an elitist, to equal Salazar's feat. On the other hand, Colorado Democrats last Tuesday took both houses of the legislature for the first time in 44 years.

Nothing should be allowed to diminish the importance of the huge turnout efforts made in base Democratic areas. But that organizing needs to be supplemented by a campaign to reach both social moderates and populists, many of whom live in those far suburbs and small towns.

Ours is not a right-wing country. An alternative majority is out there, waiting to be born.

 

3:29 p.m. - 2004-11-09

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Clarification

There has been some comments about my previous post.

This is not based on any knowledge I have.

This is not what I want to happen in Fallujah.

I was taking the old commercial with the egg, "this is your brain" and then the egg in the frying pan, "This is your brain on drugs" and putting my own little twist on it.

Just a warning to some of you newer readers: I have a dry, irreverant sense of humor.

That was not serious

11:32 a.m. - 2004-11-09

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feeling a little 'hawkish' today

New Page 1

This is your Fallujah

This is your Fallujah on Nukes

Any Questions?

11:10 a.m. - 2004-11-09

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peterson Jury is... well... hung? (bad... I know)

New Page 1

Is it just me, or was the Peterson predicament of a possible hung jury totally predictable?

Scott Peterson busted picking his nose

From the beginning I've been ambivalent about the guilt or innocence of this man. What made it really hard for me was the fact that Laci was pregnant. I look at this guy, and I cannot picture him killing both his wife and his child, but on the other hand who else would? And what is his motive? Wouldn't a divorce and bankruptcy easier that potentially going to jail for the rest of your life?

But then you have to look at the plethora of circumstantial evidence against him.

So... I don't know, I'm a hung analyst....ummm, well, whatever.

3:32 p.m. - 2004-11-08

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not trying to be insensitive...

New Page 1

I've just readjusted my template, and now have this thing set up blog style.

Okay... I'm going to step in it again...

First, I wish to offer my sincere concern, and my prayers for Elizabeth Edwards.  I learned as most of us did about her Breast Cancer.  This is a young woman, with 2 small children, this is devastating news.  I've had to many of my friends and family die from that disease, and it is a delicate issue.

But I have a question I'd like to ask... who would want to be her doctor right now?

2:21 p.m. - 2004-11-08

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

post election babble reposted

New Page 1

It' s now time to turn from the election, I'd like to get back to the issue of what's happening in our country. I'm going to be changing the template again, and will start talking about current issues.

However, the is something nEo pointed out to me; there are some people over in the left side of the Blogosphere who believe that ballots using the "opto-scan" method are vulnerable to fraud. Apparently these can be hacked into, and the result manipulated since they are transferred by modem. This is a developing story/theory. Outside of Bloggers, I've not seen anything overtly declaring "scandal" in the media yet, and I'm not seeing any real traction to the story.

The premise is based upon the results from counties in Florida where registered Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans (SEE TABLE HERE) and the election results overwhelmingly go GOP. This send a red flag up with some saying that it suggests there is something fishy going on. In an election so divisive, where so many where so divided among party lines; how could so many Democrats vote Republican?

So I'm asked, "should there be an inquiry?" My answer: HECK YEAH!

Why?

  1. Win or lose, the integrity of our election system is what upholds our system of government. It must be maintained, and protected from fraud.
  2. Whether or the allegations are true or false, an inquiry would only serve to better the system.
  3. If the allegations turn out to be true, the guilty parties will serve as an example to prevent future fraud.
  4. To not make an inquiry would only give greater fuel to conspiracy theorists who will push this idea regardless of any forthcoming evidence to the contrary.

Personally, at this point I'm thinking it's going to amount to nothing. The numbers do suggest some abnormality, but I know nothing about how these numbers were ascertained. I know nothing about the demographics of the voters in those counties in question. The real question is, if it is true... would it have made a difference?

2:12 p.m. - 2004-11-08

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

another one

testing again....

2:10 p.m. - 2004-11-08

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*TESTING*

I just just switched to BLOG mode, and this is a test.... Testing 1,2,3, is this thing on????

2:05 p.m. - 2004-11-08

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

previous - next

latest entry

about me

archives

notes

DiaryLand

contact

random entry

other diaries: