Friday, November 05, 2004

The Nonsense Begins

Who Won the Election, Anyway?

I've about had it.

If I hear one more time about how President (for four more years) Bush and the Republicans need to "reach out" to Democrats I'm going to scream. Just who exactly won this election, anyway? Does anyone believe that had the situation been reversed, anyone would be talking about how Kerry needed to "moderate" his opinions, and seek compromise?

A divided Land?

They other thing we are incessantly told is that we live in a divided country. An editorial by a reliably liberal Post columnist perpetuates this nonsense
And we are disgusted that an effort consciously designed to divide the country did exactly that -- and won. With all his failures, Bush could not count on a whole lot more than 51 percent. Karl Rove and company calculated perfectly, organized painstakingly, greatly increased conservative turnout and produced a country divided just their way.
I see. And we were united in the 1980's? Oh yeah, Reagan wasn't villified at all. The Democrats in congress went along with his Central America policies with no objections. And Gore, Kerry, and Edwards? Why, they tried to unify us. All that talk about "two Americas" and "the richest one percent", I guess that was just understandable campaign rhetoric.

The myths are already starting. Don't let them get away with it.

Boy are they Bitter

Jane Smiley has just about lost it. In an article subtitled "The Unteachable Ignorance of the Red States" In her esteemed opinion
The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry.
But wait, she's just getting warmed up
The reason the Democrats have lost five of the last seven presidential elections is simple: A generation ago, the big capitalists, who have no morals, as we know, decided to make use of the religious right in their class war against the middle class and against the regulations that were protecting those whom they considered to be their rightful prey—workers and consumers. The architects of this strategy knew perfectly well that they were exploiting, among other unsavory qualities, a long American habit of virulent racism, but they did it anyway, and we see the outcome now—Cheney is the capitalist arm and Bush is the religious arm. They know no boundaries or rules. They are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant.

Half of me says "you go girl" because if opinions like that become mainstream in the Democratic Party they are doomed to minority status. The other half of me wishes for a more responsible opposition.

Richard Cohen is wishing for a recession

So it should come as no surprise that the power of culture - the power of it to override or cancel out economic self-interest - has become so prominent in American political life.

The very fact that Ohio remained a battleground state to the end is a case in point. It had - and has - a weak economy. It has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Yet it seems that countless Ohioans did not vote their wallets but their cultural values - 62% in support of an amendment banning same-sex marriage, for instance. The economy might be bad, but it was not so bad as the prospect of gay marriages.

How about an American perspective, Richard?

Who should Chair the US Senate Judiciary Committee?

I just called the Washington DC office of my Republican US Senator, Wayne Allard, and told the staffer that nominal Republican Arlen Specter isn't truly qualified to Chair the US Senate Judiciary Committee. I was persuaded by the new blog site Not Specter and by the comments of Kathryn Jean Lopez from National Review's Corner and those of the National Review's editors.

Sometimes I am reluctant to criticize and rebuke fellow Republicans, no matter how mushy-moderate they behave. But having just cashiered Tom Daschle, the Senate's obstructionist-in-chief, on Tuesday, I don't believe a Republican version chairing the US Senate Judiciary Committee is acceptable. Your thoughts?

The following was lifted from the Corner:

Here are the numbers for Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. If you want to take action on making sure Specter is not judiciary chairman, call your Republican senators. If you do not have a Republican senator, call Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. They are:

Hatch (202) 224-5251
Grassley (202)224.3744
Kyl (202) 224-4521
DeWine (202) 224-2315
Sessions (202) 224-4124
Graham (202) 224-5972
Craig 202/224-2752
Chambliss (202) 224-3521
Cornyn 202-224-2934

Get your senator's phone number/e-mail from the directory at

Again, no need to bombard Frist. Every Republican senator votes on the leadership. Every Republican needs to hear that Americans do not want Arlen Specter determining who can and who cannot sit on the Supreme Court.

And remember, this is time-sensitive. I've been told Republicans could caucus on this as early as next week. And then, friends, we're stuck.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

The 2004 Election was a political Gettysburg

Robert Moran hit the nail on the head in his column A Political Gettysburg. And have you read or heard that John Kerry called President Bush to concede?

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

2004 Election Post

Hi everyone. Here's a new post for us to leave comments on.

I'm back from the Frank Wolf's party and ready to blog! Frank Wolf, GOP congressman for Virginia's 10th district, won reelection handily, 66% - 33%. I worked on his campaign so the victory was sweet. One down, one to go!

Monday, November 01, 2004

The Day Before the Election

Tomorrow I will be poll watching at a precinct right up the street from where I live, so I might not have time to provide comments in real time tomorrow. Thus, I thought I would post my thoughts about this election tonight.

First, the local situation here in Colorado: I went to the "training" (it was really a rally) for the 96 hour get-out-the-vote volunteers at the Denver Marriott last Friday evening. And there were so many volunteers for this effort that the Colorado GOP had to rent a second ballroom just to hold all of the volunteers. Lots of enthusiasm. Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt was the one of the guest speakers, as were Colorado Governor Bill Owens, US Senator Wayne Allard, US Senate Candidate Pete Coors, US congressionmen Tom Tancredo and Bob Beauprez.

I went to the Denver GOP Headquarters this afternoon to pick up my packet of information for my precinct and the place was packed tight with volunteers making get-out-the-vote phone calls.

The bottom line is this: If Bush loses this election, it won't be due to a lack of enthusiasm among his base of supporters.

But this election does seem to be closer than I had thought it would be back in late January when it became apparent that John Kerry would be the Democrat nominee. Back then I predicted a 52 to 46 percent victory for Bush against Kerry, with Bush winning all of the swing states that are being closely contested. Such a sweep could still happen, since there are polls [quiet, Jamie :)] that "prove" Bush is winning in all of these states (in addition to those that "prove" Bush is losing in them).

Speaking to a couple of GOP volunteers last Friday has convinced me that the Bush campaign well organized in Ohio. An attorney made a very persuasive case to me that Ohio is a state where the Republicans win if they get their voters to the polls.

So, if you press me to make a revised prediction on the outcome of this election, this is it: Bush wins 29 of the 30 states he won in the 2000 election, all except for Florida New Hampshire, which gives Bush 274 electoral votes and that's enough for him to be reelected. But I also think Bush will win in Iowa, New Mexico and Wisconsin. My guess is that the stuff about Hawaii, New Jersey and Maryland being close is proven mostly wrong and Kerry barely wins Minnesota, Maine and Pennsylvania.

What are your thoughts?