Here We Go: Denial and Delusion
I just won a big bet with a friend. I wagered him on Tuesday night that, unfortunately, within 48 hours of the election we'd see the first major story out that Kerry was somehow robbed by a vote fraud conspiracy.
Well, here it is, right on schedule. Greg Palast, who fancies himself a crack investigative reporter but is much more a conspiracy theorist has written a piece titled Kerry Won.
I've read through it twice and frankly couldn't be bothered to deconstruct it here. Anyone who gives it a fair reading will immediately see on his or her own that beyond the authoritative-sounding "statistics" Palast lays out, he, in fact, has no substantive evidence for his assertion that Kerry actually won the majority in Ohio. This is but mumbo-jumbo.
Kerry didn't win in Ohio. And if even he had and was cheated out of it, he still would have been 3.5 million votes behind Bush nationally producing a morally vapid and politically un-sustainable "victory" in the electoral college.
This published fantasy by Palast -- who has somehow acquired a cult-like following among way too many liberals and progressives-- is precisely the tack the left should not be taking.
If there was ever a moment for serious self-reflection and poltical re-assessment, it is now. But, no, Palast has rung the bell for a self-deluding wild goose chase-- I shudder to think how big the Pavlovian response might be. Let's hope only a few will bite.
I fully expected Palast to come up with this sort of BS. What is depressing is how Tompaine.com -- a much more mainstream outlet-- has provided the platform. Four more years of this crap and there will be no progressive movement left to even worry about 2008.
Update 5:30 PM: Lee Miringhoff head of the Marist Poll, and appearing on MSNBC now, says exit polls are a "creation of the media to help them along" but they were, nevertheless, like taking a snapshot of a ball game during the 3rd inning. The final score comes in the ninth. He also says there is a margin of error, of course, in the polls. All this is obvious, but bears some repeating as the "stolen election" myth virally expands tonight.
November 4th, 2004 at 3:46 pm
I was listening Dianne Rehm last night and didn’t I hear Norman Ornstein raising questions are the vote counts in Ohio?
I thought Kerry was gracious in not wanting to drag the country through a repeat of 2000 but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ask questions or even be so bold as to make an assertion or two.
just my .02.
November 4th, 2004 at 3:58 pm
John: People should question whatever they want and assert whatever feels good. But shouldn;t we be spending our energy on something slightly more constructive?
Further, one’s credibilty is better maintained when one has evidence. There is none. Polls are polls — including exit polls. People lie on exit polls the same way they do in other polls. And even if they didn’t — there are margins of error whenever stats are based on sampling as exit polls are.
I read Palast’s piece very closely and maybe Im dumb, but I see NO evidence whatsoever for his assertions. The only “fact” that might stand up is that ballot spoilage is generally higher among Blacks and Indians. That is because educational levels among poorer racial minorities are lower and their voting error rate is therefore higher. True in every election, in every state, in every county.
But, really, Palast’s piece is wholly leveraged on the absolutely absurd assertion that exit polling should be taken as a standard of certainty. That’s a dead end.
November 4th, 2004 at 4:03 pm
Presidential elections in America have always had irregularities. Nixon chose not to fight in 1960, even though he had a good chance of prevailing (lots of ghosts voting from the Chicago democrat machine); Ashcroft, running for the Senate in 2000 chose not to protest some major illegalities in St. Louis balloting.
Conspiracy theories always pop up, because some folks are conspiracy minded. There are still conservatives who think someone killed Ron Brown on his plane before it crashed; who believe that Vince Foster was murdered (Gordon Liddy I think pushed this one along, though as a former FBI agent he had to know better); Clinton was involved in cocaine smuggling in Mena.
The internet allows conspiracies to be amplified.
A lot of conspiratorial folks believe in the face on mars, the hidden aliens from the Roswell UFO, and who know what else.
I hope nobody makes a big deal of vote conspiracies or it will create hatred, and we can do without that.
November 4th, 2004 at 4:15 pm
Your analysis of the Democratic Party is spot on. It needs reform. That’s where most of the energy should be focused on. Heads should roll.
But the voting system is still in bad need of updating despite 4 billion already spent. Only I think Nevada has a paper trail for those electronic machines.
According to blackboxvoting.org, the results from precincts in King County, WA are modemed to a Microsoft 2000 Remote Access Server. The results are stored in a Microsoft Access database! That is so unbelievably hackable!
Shouldn’t our votes have the same protections as say money being transferred between banks?
November 4th, 2004 at 4:16 pm
Yes.. the machines should be more secure, for sure.
November 4th, 2004 at 4:47 pm
There’s real irony here! Mr. Palast is almost singlehandedly responsible for the urban legend about massive disenfranchisement of Florida voters in 2000, a theme so dear to Democrats and so central to Campaign ‘04 rhetoric. His “facts” were every bit as flagrantly unreliable then — as anyone who tried to cull actual info & data (versus a few random anecdotes) from the subsequent Civil Rights Commission report discovered.
November 4th, 2004 at 4:48 pm
Your right, Marc ! Palast is off his gourd.
But Dennis Bernstein on KPFA’s Flashpoints will
run his nonsense as absolute truth and Amy Goodman
will probably give him a respectful hearing too.
November 4th, 2004 at 5:21 pm
Michael.. undoubtedly. By the way, I read ur post on the other thread and I know what u mean about the PC cabal at KPFA. An OSSIFIED PC cabal.
November 4th, 2004 at 5:25 pm
JM Hanes – I wasn’t aware that Katherine Harris irresponsible, indiscriminate use of a “felons list” supplied by a politically friendly contractor to scrub the Florida voter rolls in 2000 and it’s well-documented disproportionate impact on black voters who weren’t felons was a “random anecdote”.
November 4th, 2004 at 5:31 pm
I fully expected this kind of nonsense too. In fact I’m surprised its not more widespread.
The real story of this election is Karl Rove’s success in registering new evangelical voters in crucial swing states, including swing states where you’ll note gay marriage or social issues generally were not on the ballot.
The country remains as fundamentally divided along political and cultural lines as it was in 2000, and in fact John Kerry won impressive victories among the crucial independent vote in important swing states (57% in Florida, 59% in Ohio), carrying on the trendline that began in 1992. Had Rove not been quite so politically astute, and begun registering new evangelicals soon after the 2000 election, Kerry would’ve won the Gore states + Ohio + Florida + New Hampshire. He might still have lost the popular vote, but that would’ve had everything to do with Bush’s huge margins in red states.
Yes the Democrats need to fundamentally reform the party from within, but without a massive and permanent voter registration drive aimed at Democrat friendly constituencies – the tens of millions of unregistered single women, peeople of color, the working poor – it don’t mean a thing.
November 4th, 2004 at 5:40 pm
Palast wrote: “But this week, Blackwell, a rabidly partisan Republican, has warmed up to the result of sticking with machines that have a habit of eating Democratic votes. ”
Gee, how does the machine deterimine that the vote is Democratic?
Marc, you are again, as on so much on target. This is not rational discussions of what needs to change (for the democrats or republicans) or what needs to change in our political dialog. This speaks to paranoia.
I hope the real progressives in this country band together and take back the Democratic party, that can only be good for America. Just as the Democrats need to tone down the hate, the Republicans do too.
As Glen Renolds remarked, “It always strikes me that so many people who are quick to note the importance of understanding the differences in perception between nations, or races, or sexual preferences, and to try to bridge those gaps, are so unwilling to do the same thing where people from elsewhere in their own country are concerned. But Democrats must do better, or become a regional party. Because contempt doesn’t win a lot of votes.”
That goes for the right as well.
November 4th, 2004 at 5:42 pm
I agree with you Marc.
November 4th, 2004 at 5:55 pm
I’m not at all convinced by Palast’s argument about Ohio, though it wouldn’t surprise me to hear about some extent of the shenanigans that characterized the Florida farce of 2000. I doubt it’s enough to change the vote in Ohio, and of course not nationally.
I don’t believe that Palast spread urban myths about Florida and disenfranchisement. That sounds like a mantra that the right likes to use in response to clear facts about fake felon lists, mass numbers of Jews voting for Buchanan… That was rather blatant, so blatant that it required a massive get out the vote effort on the part of relgious conservatives to beat back the improvements that resulted from the work of people like Palast and the NAACP, ACLU, in the post-2000 mess.
November 4th, 2004 at 6:15 pm
Palast is full of it. KPFK is all over it already. Another stolen election! I had to listen to Quigley last night for laughs. Wow Pacifica is nuts. Democracy Now will be all over this…
I am suprised that you are not all over this one Steve.
November 4th, 2004 at 6:18 pm
I also heard Micheal Slate from the RCP on Pacifica talking about how Kerry “took one for the empire.”
The madness never stops…
Marc we need you back on the radio in LA.
November 4th, 2004 at 6:20 pm
I also heard Micheal Slate from the RCP on Pacifica talking about how Kerry “took one for the empire.”
The madness never stops…
Marc we need you back on the radio in LA.
November 4th, 2004 at 6:21 pm
“I am suprised that you are not all over this one Steve.”
Why would you be surprised that a person who likes the writings of Jerry Lembcke, Noam Chomsky, and Doug is not a big fan of conspiracy theory? If you read any of such people carefully, I can’t see how you could express such surprise.
November 4th, 2004 at 6:26 pm
First post to this board, been reading for a month or so.
I was very dissappointed in the Palast article, especially after the crack reporting on the 2000 debacle. I thought he had more sanity than that: guess I should’ve read him closer. Now do I have to re-read all of his 2000 stuff and make sure that wasn’t a bunch of bs as well?
November 4th, 2004 at 6:37 pm
Norman Ornstein? Vote count reform? Paper Trails? Treating our votes like first class citizens?
Nope. Instead I hear Glen Reynolds and Bill O’Reilly: Shut up! Just Shut Up!
In minority dominated precints the crappier equipment is generally used. Why? Separate and unequal seems to apply in those places. Doesn’t this amplify the disenfranshisement effect?
In a black precint in Columbus people were turned away after waiting for 5 hours. The reason? Only two voting booths!
Anyone have any figures on the number of lawsuits that were filed about keeping precints open in OH? Anyone have an estimate on many people just gave up?
Why can’t we ask these questions? Why shouldn’t this be an on-going national priority?
November 4th, 2004 at 6:49 pm
Josh – why on God’s good earth would you spend your time listening to a Maoist crackpot broadcasting on Pacifica ?
November 4th, 2004 at 7:09 pm
Marc… It’s too bad. Palast is bright enough, but he’s too taken with his vision of himself as muckracker demi-star—damn the facts.
While the KPFKs and KPFAs of the world may be grabbing on to these conspiracy theories, thankfully most of the large liberal blogs have nearly uniformly avoided this nonsense, and Salon has already come out against another version of the WE WAS ROBBED theory advanced by the Democratic Underground.
Look, I admit it: I was fully expecting a goodly amount of Rovian lying, cheating and stealing. But, if it went on, it appears it wasn’t on a scale to make any real difference.
As Jon Stewart said last night, in a lotta ways it kinda felt better to be defrauded—as some of us believed we were four years ago. It turns out we preferred the fraud thing to…you know…just plain having our asses whupped.
(All that said, JM Hanes, as reg pointed out, it’s far from just Palast who documented the vote scrubbing debacle of 2000; it has been pointed out by such notorious fringe whackos as former President Jimmy Carter.)
One final note: for all you sore winners out there lecturing with spectacular self-righteousness on the earlier thread (All but you, GM, you’ve been very adult and graceful), before you get too mandate-crazy, do keep in mind that your guy also had more Americans voting AGAINST him, than any candidate in any other election in US history.
And—separate and apart from the woefully enraging failings of the DNC and the DLC and anyone else who ever had a good thought about Terry McAuliffe — tens of thousands of ordinary people worked unbelievably hard and in good faith on the Blue State side of this election for a goal that they failed to accomplish—a huge number of them people who had never before been particularly politically active. In similar good faith, many of those same people, and others like them, gave more money to this or that aspect of this presidential race than they’d ever given cumulatively in their respective lives, and usually in $25 and $50 increments. All that involvement is a good thing, by any sane standard. More young people came out to vote than ever before (I know, I know: not proportionately more), meaning that more young people cared more about the democratic process than ever before and, as it happens, the greater number of those kids voted for Kerry. To cavalierly dismiss and deride all that work and caring and involvement, as many of you have been doing, is…..how to put it? a tad unAmerican
Think what you like, guys, but the overriding majority of these various folks were not working against you, dear Red State voter, or vilifying you, dear Republican supporter, they were working against the policies of George W. Bush, which they—and I—really and truly believed to be damaging and dangerous. Still do. And guess what? We get to think and say those things in a democracy. That’s how it works.
You don’t have to agree, you don’t have to like any of it, but—if you care about the country as much as you say you do—show some fuckin’ respect.
November 4th, 2004 at 7:18 pm
If only they’d listened to Howard Dean:
http://newhavenadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:88219
November 4th, 2004 at 7:26 pm
“One of the bright spots in Florida was the passage of the amendment
for an increase in the state minimum wage, starting at $6.15 an hour
and beginning six months after enactment. The wage is to be annually
indexed to inflation thereafter. Amendment 5, one of eight ballot
initiatives here, won with 71 percent of the vote, 4,834,437 votes to
1,990,465. It appears that the amendment got more votes than Bush”
(Bill Davis and Esther Moroze, “Florida Minimum Wage Amendment
Passes,” November 6, 2004,
http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/6051/1/239
November 4th, 2004 at 9:40 pm
Yes Palast’s piece is bollocks. That’s obvious. But there are also a number of disturbing irregularities emerging from Ohio, over and above the well-documented attempts by Sec of State and Bush-Cheney campaign co-chair Ken Blackwell to stack the deck against the Democrats as much as possible ahead of time.
What are these irregularities? Reports coming in from lawyers and other observers on the ground point to a lack of voting machines in predominantly African American and/or poor areas, compared with much better machine to voter ratios in more conservative areas in the same counties. That, in turn, led to queues as long as 10 hours on Tuesday in some places. Interestingly, when Fox called Ohio for Bush, not only were not all the votes counted, but not all the votes were yet cast. Voting carried on until 3am in some areas.
We are also learning there was a butterfly-ballot style format problem with the absentee ballot in Franklin County, seemingly favouring Bush. Likewise, there were problems in touchscreen voting machine counties, eg failure to record votes properly, or machines that light up for Bush when the voter presses for Kerry (and, it must be said, vice versa).
Now here’s the point. All of this info needs to be QUANTIFIED — a word Greg Palast doesn’t seem to understand or appreciate, to judge by his work on both Florida 2000 and this election — and it is simply too early to do that. The vote-counting process is still going on, and will last several more days. Once that’s over we can ask the hard questions: How did the provisional ballot count pan out? How many of them were discarded and on whose say-so? How many residual votes (eg undervotes or overvotes) did the punchcard machines produce? Any chance of making an open records request to inspect them? Etc etc.
Let me make clear, I’m not postulating a dark conspiracy theory here. It seems to me that, even under ideal impartial counting circumstances, Bush would more than likely stay ahead in Ohio, albeit by a reduced, perhaps significantly reduced, margin. Given the fact that Bush was well over three million votes ahead nationwide, Kerry clearly did the right thing to throw in the towel rather than hope against hope of eking out a Bush 2000-style fake victory after weeks of turmoil. (Just imagine what would have happened to him, and to the Democrats, if he had done that and still lost.)
It is equally clear, however, that a number of things in this election fell significantly short of the standards of transparency and fairness one would, ahem, expect a great and glorious democracy like the United States to aspire to. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to speculate that, while Bush won the election fair and square, his supporters had a few contingency plans up their sleeves in case it got really close again.
It is important to research the aberrations thoroughly and to continue to lobby for meaningful reform to fix them. It is also important to counter the emerging conventional wisdom that the electoral system is fine again after the freak meltdown of 2000. Contrary to popular belief, the management of elections was far from fine before 2000 and it is possibly even further from fine now.
What really ticks me off about Greg Palast is that he blends issues of genuine concern with self-aggrandising fantasies that make it way too easy for those in power to brush away the entire premise of his “investigations”. Here are the rest of us, trying to break into the evidence room, only to realise that Palast has already snooped around and pissed all over everything. In our brave new Bushworld, that’s the last thing we need.
November 4th, 2004 at 9:53 pm
Compare Josh’s version of Thomas Franks with the real Frank in the op-ed column of the NYT today;
http://nytimes.com/2004/11/05/opinion/05frank.html
Hmmm..no long winded attacks on affirmative action, gay marriage,…just straightup economic populism and pointing out the contradictions in the cultural wars of the right…interesting stuff…indeed, completely unlike the Thomas Frank josh is using against my arguments…
November 4th, 2004 at 11:08 pm
Here’s a question: Is this election likely to lead to violence, either by lone nuts or groups? I think of some of the violent leftist groups of the ’70s, and also Timothy McVeigh.
Will there be polemicists pushing anti-Bush theories (such as stolen election ideas) that will push people towards violence?
A lot of us on the right, seeing that nationwide vandalism directed against Bush supporters, and hearing the genuine raw hate from so many people, wonder if it will translate into violent action over the next four years.
Oh, and the comment spam filter is hassling me.
If there are war events, such as bombing Iran, might they cause it?
November 4th, 2004 at 11:15 pm
There are some good comments above. GM good to see u as always.
John thanks for joining us.
Richard… thanks for joining us too. Do it some more. Nice blog u got there.
Andrew… I agree with your take on the balloting and on Palast.
Steve… WHEN I begin purging commenters u are on on the top of the list. You seem incapable of doing anything but sniping. Please stop arguinbg with people for the sake of arguing. You clutter up the blog with sniping at Josh about Tom Frank and yet there is no comment on that subject in this thread from Josh. Can it.
Rosedog: SOme good sentiments from you. The self-righteousness of the Bushies is ill-placed. As I said, their punishment is that they now have to govern. I openly predict a second-term disaster for Bush. I take no glee in that. And I also note that if he does crash there’s hardly a cohereht Democratic Party ready to step in. The systemic political crisis in this country is acute and profound and encompasses both parties.
I will also remind the Bushies they dont have time to gloat. Our national deficit now requires us borrowing $2billion a day from foreign financiers… that ought to be taking up all their time.
November 4th, 2004 at 11:30 pm
One other thing:
The Saudis won too,
not just France.
God
November 5th, 2004 at 2:56 am
reg — You need to spend some serious time with the Civil Rights Commission Report. They tried as hard as humanly possible to uncover systematic fraud, and didn’t find much. They tried to make the whole exercise sound as dubious as possible in their summary, but in the end their primary beef was not disenfranchisement but the fact that Florida is one of the states which still does not restore voting rights to felons upon release from prison.
If you’re willing to do the leg work, you’ll also find that you can trace most of the various numbers of the purportedly purged back to Palast — who increased his totals, without proffering new info, every time he wrote another article.
November 5th, 2004 at 4:42 am
rosedog writes, “One final note: for all you sore winners out there lecturing with spectacular self-righteousness on the earlier thread (All but you, GM, you’ve been very adult and graceful), before you get too mandate-crazy, do keep in mind that your guy also had more Americans voting AGAINST him, than any candidate in any other election in US history.”
Rosedog, I really appreciate the compliment, but note that I am still a conservative and I still believe in conservative values. I dislike much of what Bush has done, but overall, he represents much more of my perspective of living and life than did Kerry and most of those “running” the Democratic Party.
Let me use some examples. In a Joan Baez concert recently, she “channeled” a young black woman from Arkansas to vilify Bush and conservatives in general ( http://www.reason.com/links/links110404.shtml ). Why is it OK for the left to use that kind of language but if a conservative does it it’s “racist.” Actually, it is racist regardless of who does it, but the all white audience ate it up according to the author of the above article. Shame on the left.
In San Francisco on the 3rd or 4th there was a “protest” march ( http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/ ) but look at some of the signs posted. These are people who expect the Bushies to “reach out?” I wouldn’t reach out to those folk for all the tea in China (and I love tea – in all its forms) nor would I expect any self respecting progressive to do so.
Marc has some rather pithy comments regarding how the Bush administration must be accountable for its actions, and cannot point the finger at anyone else. I agree if, and only if, we actually all pull together to work through some problems. If the left acts as a drag and a brake on the process and then in 4 years claim “See, he didn’t do anything” than by gosh, that does not count and the real obstructionists are the Left and the Democrats (Mr. Daschle, are you reading this by any chance? Hmmmmm?) It is ONLY by saying “Hey guys, Bush won, he has a limited but real mandate to govern and we have to help figure out how to solve some problems.”
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1342714,00.html ) This link shows that at least a British Progressive gets it. Marc shows that at least one American Progressive gets it.
I hope the American Conservatives get it also, but if the left pushes conspiracy theories, cries, has temper-tantrums, cusses, vilifies, etc., then guess what folks, the right won’t listen at all, they will retreat into a shell and tell the left (which includes clear minded progressives) to go to hell, and they will be right to do so.
I do not expect the left to like everything the second Bush administration does. I probably will not either. I KNOW they do not like what he did in the first Bush administration; just as I know that the vast majority of my conservative friends didn’t like everything Bush did in the first administration. However, I know this, the party that is supposed to be a party of tolerance, acceptance etc., is not and does not seem to understand it.
In the long run, this nation will survive any administration (I’m an incurable optimist folks, get used to it) and that would have included a Kerry administration and damn sure includes a Bush administration.
rosedog noted that Bush had more Americans voting against him than any president in history. Gosh, do you think so rosedog? Were there no citizens voting FOR Kerry? Moreover, there in lies the problem dear lady, too many don’t have any thing to campaign for in their pantheon of ideas, but they have lots of things to campaign against.
As I said, it’s time for America (and that includes the Left, the Right and the Center) to grow up and get cracking on some very real solutions to some very real problems.
That’s all of my time, I thank you for yours.
November 5th, 2004 at 6:17 am
I thought Palast’s piece raised a number of important questions, and to just dismiss it as a load of conspiratorial ravings is just as bad as embracing it as unimpeachable truth. We know that GOP operatives were intent on suppressing the minority vote in Ohio, handing out flyers telling them that they could vote on Nov. 3, wheeling in shitty, second-rate voting machines (and too few of them, as opposed to more affluent areas), and so on. These people people turned out anyway, and while I don’t know if the majority of them voted Kerry, it’s clear that the White House and its mouthpiece Fox News were rather in a hurry to declare victory, even while thousands of people hadn’t even voted yet. Is it a conspiracy to investigate this? Yes, we on the left need a serious self-assessment — Bush did win a hefty chunk of votes, which sickens me, but the numbers are there. But I would also say that we aren’t the only ones who need to look at ourselves. The tens of millions who voted for this criminal admin could stand a little self-analysis as well. Instead, I fear that what we’ll get from them is more gloating and braying. Bush certainly set the standard with his press conference. The gloves are off, friends. Cover your face and hope the body shots aren’t too damaging.
November 5th, 2004 at 7:11 am
“Please stop arguinbg with people for the sake of arguing. You clutter up the blog with sniping at Josh about Tom Frank and yet there is no comment on that subject in this thread from Josh. Can it.”
That’s fascinating really, because on the one hand you’re right. Late at night, I posted that to the wrong comments blog, my bad. I’ve been lambasted by Legere in the next previous comments section for being a conspiracist recently, something that you and he both know is not true. Moore frequently refers to anyone like me (or you for that matter) as ‘traitors’, writes long scrolls that are barely readable and generally disliked. Yet once again, I’m the person to be banned.
It’s interesting, I’d think someone with your politics would be encouraged and interested in the little factoid I posted before the comments on Legere’s interpretation of Frank and the real Frank. That was a post about the minimum wage victory in Florida, I’d think that a person like you would be wanting to remind people about such stuff, does it not support your post-election thesis? Or is it frustrating that a person whom you regard as a blind Chomskyite lifelong devotee of Amy Goodman would post something that you would agree with, thus making your odd anger at me for disagreeing with you or Josh appear a bit inconsistent?
November 5th, 2004 at 7:15 am
“I thought Palast’s piece raised a number of important questions, and to just dismiss it as a load of conspiratorial ravings is just as bad as embracing it as unimpeachable truth.”
Right on Dennis.
November 5th, 2004 at 7:49 am
You are right Marc… My frustration over things is manifesting itself in the wrong places. The KPFK left conspiracy reaction is driving me nuts. How can people deny this lost? I know denial is a stage of grief but a rational reaction would make more sense.
I think GM hit on some important points. It would be a tragedy if progressives spend 4 years reacting to Bush in the same manner versus building some sort of political movement.
It will be interesting to see how pundits on the Right like Ann Coulter react in the next 4 years. Now that Conservatives are undeniably in the saddle they will not have Liberals to blame. I know we will have 4 more years of Bush books from the left.
I just hope something positive will come out of this. I was playing volleyball the other night and my liberal teammates were saying things like “pretend that the ball is Bush’s face.” Or my co-workers who were doing flips over the cover of the LA Weekly. I am not happy about the election, but it seems like a lot of wasted energy.
November 5th, 2004 at 8:17 am
In my opinion it’s time for the Dems to either sharpen the distinctions between them and the Republicans instead of minimizing them or to let someone else do that.
November 5th, 2004 at 8:29 am
Three days later and it still feels great not to be one of those folks who succumbed to the charms of Bush and the wiles of Cheney. Feels even better when I read a lot of the spew and apologia from “them”.
As Howard Dean would say, “Yeeeaaaaaaah !”
But that’s just personal. Tears for the country and all that.
Liberals should definitely do some serious thinking about messages and strategies, but before long it will also be time to start checking the tires and warming the engines. It seems to me that the liberal and left-leaning folks on this blog could best spend their time talking to each other about best directions to put real energy than arguing with lost causes and random cranks on the other side. Of course, that’s not nearly as entertaining. Nor as easy…
November 5th, 2004 at 8:39 am
One more comment, which I promise to be my last. Isn’t it interesting that the people who actually suffered the direct hits on their city Sept. 11, 2001 and whose tragedies were pimped by the President relentlessly, rejected him by margins of 4 to 1.
But, as the sober analyist on The Daily Show put it, maybe people in New York are just too close to the terrorists and the homosexuals to be able to think straight. Thank you, thank you “red states” for saving them from themselves.
November 5th, 2004 at 8:56 am
Josh L. writes, “Now that Conservatives are undeniably in the saddle they will not have Liberals to blame.”
Sure we will.
November 5th, 2004 at 9:06 am
Josh missed out on the fact that the Repubs have been in the saddle for the last four years actually and enjoyed watching liberals quiver before daring to make the most tepid criticisms of the “war” on “terror” or the current US occupation of Iraq.
November 5th, 2004 at 9:14 am
Josh Legere writes, “It would be a tragedy if progressives spend 4 years reacting to Bush in the same manner versus building some sort of political movement.”
Josh, I could not agree more if I was a progressive (hmm, can one be a progressive conservative?).
The progressives in this country have three choices. 1.) Sulk, pout, whine, come up with conspiracy theories, act like children and totally ignore over 1/2 of the voting public; 2.)Begin to work on a saleable agenda and frustrate the right at every turn, but at least come up with a winning strategy and, 3.) Begin to work on a sale-able, winning strategy AND work with the right in a concerted manner to figure out what needs to be accomplished, how to accomplish it, understand the principle of principled compromise and do what ever it takes to get the job done.
Obviously, my choice for progressives and America is choice number 3. However, this is not my choice alone to make. It will take ALL of the progressives and ALL of the conservatives being willing to swallow the bile and get to work. That is a daunting task that I am not sure America is ready to tackle. I’m going to do everything in my power (including maybe start my own blog – oh, the horror!) to get the conservatives on board. I hope the grown ups (the vast majority IMO) in this blog will do the same.
November 5th, 2004 at 9:25 am
OT, but gotta say it; Josh, I just went to your blog. Great writing, It’s now on my daily read.
November 5th, 2004 at 9:27 am
GM, you know very well that just cause steve and I voted for the same candidate doesn’t mean we agree on all the issues. Apply that to your demonstration/photos. And while there certainly are conservatives I’d like to see Dem’s courting, there are those I don’t want anything to do with. I’m sure you feel the same way.
And about that mandate conservatives are braying about: the system is set up so after you win an election you institutionally have the upper hand. Your mandate is built-in. Bush took full advantage of the structural mandate last time, lacking the popular mandate to back it up. This time he has a slightly greater popular mandate. So what? Last time he took more than his due and this time we should give him more than that? Besides, his 51% share doesn’t require Democrats to abandon their principles and their constituents (I didn’t get Kerry but I did get Barbara Boxer so I EARNED some representation).
November 5th, 2004 at 10:12 am
I keep telling you all that there is a problem with the Kool Aid. It is tainted with a psychotropic psychosis inducing compound. At least the grape flavor is…
November 5th, 2004 at 10:19 am
Mavis writes, “GM, you know very well that just cause steve and I voted for the same candidate doesn’t mean we agree on all the issues. Apply that to your demonstration/photos. And while there certainly are conservatives I’d like to see Dem’s courting, there are those I don’t want anything to do with. I’m sure you feel the same way.”
First, how do you know Steve didn’t vote for Nader or for that matter didn’t vote at all? Second, the folks I’m talking about generally are not represented in this blog, and I’m not speaking of any one individual. Third, there is not one conservative or progressive or liberal or any other political flavor that I’m NOT willing to REACH OUT to if it will further improving the lives of the American people in particular and the world in general. I’m sorry you cut yourself off from some folk, I have many very close friends from a radical leftist rastifarian to a radical rightwinger who sees absolutely no use for a liberal of any kind. I wouldn’t give any one of them up.
November 5th, 2004 at 10:36 am
-GM
“look at some of the signs posted. These are people who expect the Bushies to “reach out?” I wouldn’t reach out to those folk for all the tea in China”
“there is not one conservative or progressive or liberal or any other political flavor that I’m NOT willing to REACH OUT to”
Did I quote you out of context?
Inconsistency aside, point taken. Perhaps I should amend to say simply that while anyone is welcome to join my side, there are some compromises I’m not willing to make.
November 5th, 2004 at 10:42 am
GM… Maybe progressive is the wrong word. Marc might have a point about a “populist” movement.
I am probably just as horrified by the state of our popular culture as the folks that voted based on moral values. Popular culture is not a reflection of America, but it is constructed by some rather cynical and alienated people (I work in the culture industry..). I guess my difference of opinion is that they are not really “liberals” or any political tag for that matter. The BoBo neighborhoods in NY and LA may as well be Mars. Most of them DO think they are better than the average joe, liberal or conservative. But they vote the way they do because Dems go easy on the entertainment industry and not out of any sincere compassion. I guess what I am trying to say is that the average John Kerry voter doesn’t share much with the average TV Producer or Music Journalist and probably shares most of the same basic values as the Midwesterners that voted for Bush. Yet the BoBo cultural elite dominate the entertainment world and taint the image of liberals. I don’t think the average Mid Westerner who voted for Bush shares much with the average member of Club for Growth either.
I am not willing to blame Karl Rove for the “culture war” and homophobia like everyone around me is right now. I am more willing to blame the mayor of SF and his grandstanding as well as the judges in Mass. The way that the pro-gay marriage folks approached the issue was un-democratic. That is the truth. I happen to not really care who gets married as long as they don’t try to marry my wife! In the end the pro-gay marriage folks have to ask themselves if it was worth it. Is ceding the word “marriage†that big of a deal? Is the word “civil unions†just not good enough? Is it an immediate, now or never, all or nothing movement? It appears that the problem with the opposition was that it was not a “movement†but a bunch of self-promoting individuals. No strategy or realism. They are paying the consequences of really bad politics.
I just wish we could take culture out of the equation and focus on policy.
November 5th, 2004 at 11:18 am
Mavis writes, “Did I quote you out of context?”
Nope, but you did hoist me on my own petard.
Mavis, that was, I guess more anger at the crudity, I generally despise the use of foul language. But, your point is well taken. I will try to amend the error of my ways.
November 5th, 2004 at 11:33 am
“GM… Maybe progressive is the wrong word. Marc might have a point about a “populist” movement.”
A switch of vocabulary that has really little significance. For example, Frank and Chomsky would essentially agree with each other on the language of ‘economic populism’, which is essentially the language that organs such as The Nation, The Progressive, have been speaking. In fact, look at what Frank in today’s NYT worries the Dems will do, exactly that which the Nation, Chomsky, The Progressive, Mother Jones,…criticise the Dems for.
“I am not willing to blame Karl Rove for the “culture war” and homophobia like everyone around me is right now.”
I don’t either, after all the nation is a whole lot less homophobic now than it was 30 years ago. My own guess is that in 5,10 years, as the polls show time and again, support for gay marriage will only increase and the big deals made about it will be seen as increasingly irrelevant, much like big deals about interracial marriages came to be seen as a wierd obsession.
And the whole obsession on the part of a liberal like Josh is really odd when ya consider that both candidates opposed gay marriage in any event. Looking at the election outcome by state and nationally, it’s rather obvious that this election wasn’t really much different from past ones, income played a big role in Bush’s votes and the lack of an economically progressive [or call it populist, left, fair, just, what have you] message that was vigorously pushed. Doubt that? Hey, Floridians voted in greater numbers for minimum wage increases than for Bush!
November 5th, 2004 at 1:57 pm
Josh – blaming the mayor of SF and Massachusetts’ judges for “culture war” and homophobia, rather than Karl Rove’s armies of the night, is more than a bit like blaming the Warren Court and MLKJr’s civil disobedience for the racism of the ’50s.
November 5th, 2004 at 2:36 pm
Dennis,
Palast’s piece does raise a number of questions, as you put it, but he didn’t frame it as such. He said “Kerry Won.” While I am certain there were dirty tricks on the Republican side, to say that “Kerry Won” flies in the face of the popular vote. Elements of the Republican Party certainly have been engaged in tricksterism this time around, but I really, really doubt they could get away with shenanigans to the tune of 4 million popular votes. In my admittedly limited experience, I just don’t see it.
November 5th, 2004 at 2:38 pm
>like blaming the Warren Court and MLKJr’s civil disobedience for the racism of the ’50s
Actually he was discussing the resultant backlash so your example is invalid. The racism produced the Warren Court and civil disobedience, not the other way around.
November 5th, 2004 at 2:54 pm
The racism produced the Warren Court and civil disobedience, not the other way around.
–ah yes, but that’s not the way it was understood then, which you seem to have missed was the point just a thought was making…
November 5th, 2004 at 4:12 pm
As with racism, the homophobia triggers the civil disobedience and attempts to secure equal rights. Your “correction” eludes me. Finger-pointing about backlash to “going too fast” was as endemic to tepid liberalism’s reaction to the civil rights movement as it is today regarding gays. Discussions about political strategy and timing are valid, but let’s not succumb to “blaming the victim”. That’s the GOP’s turf and they are more than welcome to the moral low ground.
November 5th, 2004 at 4:36 pm
“Finger-pointing about backlash to “going too fast” was as endemic to tepid liberalism’s reaction to the civil rights movement as it is today regarding gays”
Exactly, and MLK was constantly berated by ‘moderate’ ministers for going ‘too fast’ througout his career as leader of the Civil Rights Movement, as was Malcolm X For that matter…
November 5th, 2004 at 6:48 pm
I’ve read that
Cincinnati is probably the most reactionary part of a fairly
conservative state. This time, it had Issue 1 (the amendment banning
gay and lesbian marriage) and Issue 3 (repealing the local exclusion of
gays and lesbians from equal protection in their jobs, etc.).
The voters passed Issue 3 (repealing inequality) and Issue 1
(sanctioning new inequality).
The gay marriage is not nearly as strong as it looks, not even in Ohio. Ten years ago I bet there’s no way Ohioans would have voted to get rid of the ban on equal protections for gays and lesbians in the workplace.
November 5th, 2004 at 6:53 pm
anonymous writes, “Yes the Democrats need to fundamentally reform the party from within, but without a massive and permanent voter registration drive aimed at Democrat friendly constituencies”
I may be way off base, but wouldn’t it be more appropriate to convince a majority of the voting public of the rightness of their cause? Drives aimed at only “friendly” constituencies is exactly what happened this time, no attempt at message, no attempt at policy, just shrill rhetoric that was ABB in nature.
Anon, this is what Marc is referring to (if I may put intrepret him without his position) when he said the left needs to RE-THINK how they operate, and real progressives and real conservatives would have to agree.
November 5th, 2004 at 6:55 pm
That should have read “without his PERMISSION”
November 5th, 2004 at 8:21 pm
but wouldn’t it be more appropriate to convince a majority of the voting public of the rightness of their cause?
–not that difficult, get more of the majority to vote. the majority of people who earn less than 50k support dems. have done so historically for over 60 years now…this election included.
November 5th, 2004 at 8:47 pm
more on the hype on the ‘morals’ role in the election:
http://nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06langer.html
And David Brooks does a much better job on the election’s results than Nick Kristof this week, the latter who buys completely into the hype about ‘moral values’.
November 5th, 2004 at 10:54 pm
GM. Joan Baez had the voice of an angel as a young woman—but she’s an idiot politically. (I ran into her and “her people†20 years ago at the Thai Cambodian border, right after the Khmer Rouge had been finally driven mostly out of the country. She and her sorry group were naïve, uninformed, and spectacularly arrogant. Looks like not much has changed.)
Yes, liberals can be hateful and stupid. But we’re latecomers to the hard-core hate party. For years, pundits of the ilke of Rush Limbaugh, and the other right-leaning talk-show screamers have spewed virulent hatred…of a kind that is truly debilitating to any kind of healthy public discourse in this country. (“Feminazisâ€?) More recently one has only to look at Ann Coulter’s poisonous bile, or the columnists on News Max who, after 9/11, actually called for certain mainstream TV news anchors and newspaper columnists be shot as traitors.
When I said to the sore winners to show some respect, I meant that—agree or not, believe it or not—a great many ordinary, likeable, non-arrogant, non-conservative-demonizing, deeply moral, intelligent people are grief stricken at the outcome of this election. Not whining. Grief stricken. That isn’t a slam at conservatives. (Even Pat Buchanan doesn’t believe that Bush is a conservative president.)
Here’s from the e-mail I got from my kind, level-headed, non-KPFK-listening mom/lawyer/democrat/friend: “I heard David Gergen respond to a comment that the vote was a mandate by describing some Kerry voters as feeling like ex patriots in their own country. He also said he knew people who were so devastated that they felt like they had experienced a death. This is exactly how I have been feeling this week….â€
You don’t have to understand it, but you’d be wise to believe it.
November 5th, 2004 at 10:55 pm
I meant “ilk”
November 6th, 2004 at 6:27 am
Rosedog, check out David Wagner’s book *The New Temperance* if ya wanna understand this election, although I am inclined still to believe the morals business is major hype and class remains the primary determinant of election outcomes.
November 6th, 2004 at 6:30 am
rosedog writes, “When I said to the sore winners to show some respect, I meant that—agree or not, believe it or not—a great many ordinary, likeable, non-arrogant, non-conservative-demonizing, deeply moral, intelligent people are grief stricken at the outcome of this election.”
I believe it, and I know quite a few that fit in your catagory. I’m not referring to the “ordinary, likeable, non-arrogant, non-conservative-demonizing, deeply moral, intelligent people.” I’m specifically referring to the Joan Baez types, the Michael Moore types and the Paul Krugman types. I’m also referring to the equavalent idiots (stress that word) on the right who think that this election gives them a totally free hand to do what ever they want.
Folks, we better all grow up and learn to work with each other or we really are doomed. And remember, I’m the optimist.
November 6th, 2004 at 6:42 am
A letter that matches so much of America, and too many don’t understand; that is the real sadness.
http://fromasadamerican.blogspot.com/2004/11/how-you-could-have-had-my-vote.html
November 6th, 2004 at 7:34 am
My last post on this thread. Here is an excellent editorial in the NYTimes from a gentleman who worked for both Gore and Kerry. He asks, and answers the question of why did the Democrats lose this election?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/opinion/05cherny.html?exANDREI%20CHERNY=1257397200&en=e2374dbdadd222bc&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
What I would sincerely like to know, and perhaps someone on this thread can tell me, is why, after the Gore loss in ‘00, wasn’t this kind of thinking incorporated into the Democrat election strategy in the first place? Or, is it that the author (ANDREI CHERNY) did try, and was booted from the campaign (or resigned in disgust or for whatever reason in April of this year?)
November 6th, 2004 at 8:02 am
‘m also referring to the equavalent idiots
–Krugman’s not an idiot. He’s actually a respected economist out of Princeton who is pretty sharp.
November 6th, 2004 at 8:05 am
“What I would sincerely like to know, and perhaps someone on this thread can tell me, is why, after the Gore loss in ‘00, wasn’t this kind of thinking incorporated into the Democrat election strategy in the first place?”
That’s easy, the Dems are too afraid of making their corporate donors shift to the Republican Party if they become to economically populist or progressive or whatever else they call a lurch to the left. And that is the root of the dems’ problems, it really has nothing to do with morals hype…
November 6th, 2004 at 10:21 am
Anybody who calls Paul Krugman an idiot (and after equating him to Joan Baez and Michael Moore no less) is in fact the kind of idiot I doubt that one would want to spend time finding “common ground” with on serious political issues. Most of this “liberals, heal yourself”, of “Democrats lost disastrously and need to clone themselves as Joe Lieberman” blather coming from GMRoper and otheres is a waste of time. (And as soon as I read his “sad American’s” reference to “socialized medicine” – which plans for broadening or even guaranteeing health insurance aren’t incidentally – or the “necessary” war in Iraq I realize we are dealing with some seriously misinformed, vision-impaired folks. If that’s an “elitist” attitude so be it. In my book it’s common sense.
Frankly, I think the idea that every opinion is “equal” – the arrogant, blindered religious fundamentalists’ with the rational, inclusive liberals’, for example, or free-market dogmatics with the Keynesian pragmatism that guided the most successful expansion of shared economic productivity in the history of the world – is an indication of a glib cultural and moral relativism, which I find quite absurd. I won’t trade truth for bullshit in the interest of finding common ground with nincompoops who’s asessment of the country’s “best interests” are obviously driving us into a series of disasters. And to simply celebrate the wisdom of electoral majorities, especially a relatively slim, transient majorities who’ve succumbed to demagogic leadership and Limbaughesque propaganda machinery, is about as debased as it gets.
(Incidentally, to reference Joan Baez as a cultural influence among present day liberals is really a hoot. How about at least acknowledging Bruce Springsteen, Wyclef Jean, Willie Nelson, Eminem and the Dixie Chicks as representative of the Democratic base ? Now there’s a bunch of elitist, candy-ass entertainers for ya with no “red state” cred.)
November 6th, 2004 at 10:42 am
Just to add to the perspective above, when you’re as close as this in one election and you won the popular vote in the one previous, the job isn’t to find common ground with large numbers of people who are on the other side, it’s to shift the middle just a bit – which may mean all sorts of things in terms of strengthening the impact of your message and outreach on certain issues. But it doesn’t – or shouldn’t – mean despairing and giving ground to a bunch of thugs whose only interest is in shifting all political dialogue to the right, imposing a rampantly elitist economic agenda that includes revamping social security to enrich Wall Street, weakening not just our diplomacy but the American military itself by using it as an instrument of ideological adventure rather demonstrable national security and deliberatly creating a mountain of deficits in order to castrate the government by the time the Democrats, inevitably, take back power.
Anybody who thinks what we’re getting is anything less is very, very badly informed. And anybody who fully understands the agenda of the Bush crowd and enthusiastically endorses it and works to impose it on the country is, in the political arena, an enemy to be fought.
November 6th, 2004 at 11:33 am
“Presidential elections in America have always had irregularities. Nixon chose not to fight in 1960, even though he had a good chance of prevailing”
There has always been terrorism. 9/11 was an irregularity. Why should we fight it any more today than we did in the past?
What precisely is the matter with trying to eliminate those irregularities, aside from the mealy-mouthed suggestions that it’s rocking the boat or that one wrong justifies another?
November 6th, 2004 at 12:51 pm
I agree about Paul Krugman. Sorry, GM.
But about the two essays GM linked—I thought they were both excellent. (Reg—it doesn’t mean one needs to agree with everything “Sad American” wrote. That wasn’t the point. She expressed her feelings, her questions, and her longings—and all very eloquently. To simply disregard what she said is absurd.)
Actually, I intend to forward the “Sad American” essay to my friends, as I think it’s instructive reading—and, as it happens, will make THEM feel less alienated.
What the woman said was—what Marc has been harping on for months, and what Cherny wrote from a position INSIDE the campaign tent—is that no clear overriding vision or POV was articulated by the Kerry campaign. It was a lot of little pieces, but never got put together into a coherent whole, other than Bush SUCKS, a position with which I happen to agree, but it took Kerry a while to even get to that, and that’s hardly a vision. Marc’s right. Reinvention is needed, not another faux Republican pull to the center, or a knee-jerk lurch to the left, not the old left anyway…and not a surface re-tooling.
I believe the vision’s out there to be found—yet I frankly don’t see it coming out of the Democratic leadership. They need to stop talking to each other, and start talking to the grassroots. (It was true before the primaries kicked in, and it’s even more urgently true now.) In the course of the campaign, the DNC started picking up the STYLE of the grassroots—i.e. after watching Howard Dean they figured out how to use the Internet. Whoopeee!
In order to become impassioned about Kerry beyond the simple ABB urge, many of us out here did our best to supply the necessary vision from our own heads, realizing we could move a thoughtful Dem candidate in the direction a progressive perspective, certainly more easily than the closed-logic, outside-influence-free SOBs who’ve just garnered 58 million some odd votes.
To me the most heartbreaking part of this whole election is the fact that so many people in the grassroots DID attempt the work that the DEM leadership did not. They organized lectures, town hall meetings, formed brand new activist groups, pioneered new campaign methodologies, blogged, networked, and—all the while—worked over and over to isolate what was most important.
People discussed endlessly how to learn to play political hardball well enough to outplay Rove and company—and how to do so without becoming the thing you loath.
I don’t think what I’ve listed above was seen all that much by the punditocracy. But I’m here to tell you, it occurred out here in the Blue State heartland. And I hope to God it doesn’t stop.
I also count things like the Springsteen-organized Vote for Change tour as part of the grassroots. For those of you who never saw the televised part of that tour, I recommend it. The thing was damned inspiring, more so, sadly, than any of the candidates’ speeches.
(Note to Republicans: You don’t get to dismiss all entertainers who took a stand in this election, just because they’re entertainers. They’re also citizens. When they raise their voices it does not automatically mean they’re throwing their Immoral Hollywood Non-Heartland weight around. It might POSSIBLY mean they’re behaving as good, decent patriotic Americans should—i.e. getting involved in the democratic process.)
My non-political 18 year old, first time voting son made sure EVERY SINGLE ONE of his friends were registered—and he was not unique, since young people came out in record numbers.
Then on November 3 it felt like it had all come to nothing.
But the truth was, without leadership, it wasn’t enough.
Reg mentioned Eminem. In thinking back on his “Mosh” video—a wonderful piece of work—it epitomizes much of the problem. It’s power was that it articulated the deep feelings of disenfranchisement, sorrow and rage that so many people feel with regard to the Bush administration…and at the end urged the viewer to focus that all that emotion on one thing: participation in the process. Voting. What the video did NOT do is articulate exactly what we were voting FOR.
Of course, that wasn’t Marshall Mathers’ job, was it?
That responsibility lies elsewhere. Now I guess we need to find—or create—democratic leaders who will take on that responsibility.
How exactly to go about that, I’m sorry to say, presently eludes me.
November 6th, 2004 at 12:56 pm
And while we’re on the subject of such persons as Eminem and/or The Boss—Springsteen’s website sent this out yesterday without comment. Just click on whatever link is right for your computer….and listen.
xo: Celeste aka rosedog
(Windows Media –
Broadband:
http://www.sonymusic.com/clips/selection/fu/BruceSpringsteen/BruceSpringsteen_StarSpangledBanner_full_100.asx
Dial-up:
http://www.sonymusic.com/clips/selection/fu/BruceSpringsteen/BruceSpringsteen_StarSpangledBanner_full_56.asx
QuickTime –
http://www.sonymusic.com/clips/selection/fu/BruceSpringsteen/BruceSpringsteen_StarSpangledBanner_full_ref.mov
RealAudio –
http://www.sonymusic.com/clips/selection/fu/BruceSpringsteen/BruceSpringsteen_StarSpangledBanner_full.ram
* * * * *
November 6th, 2004 at 1:44 pm
“(Note to Republicans: You don’t get to dismiss all entertainers who took a stand in this election, just because they’re entertainers. They’re also citizens.”
Here’s the rich irony in that tactic (and it is a tactic alone, since it doesn’t apply to the numerous rightwing celebrities who give time and $$ to rightwing causes): The primary reason why liberal or left celebrities are so prominent in the media is because the “liberal” media won’t let actual experts who espouse similiar positions access to the media. Thus, it is much easier for a Jeanie Garafolo to get her perspective on Iraq into the discourse than a Phyllis Bennis, Michael Klare, Dilip Hiro,…Everyone knows this is why antiwar march organizers strive to find celebrities to speak at rallies, march, etc. They know that they are far more likely to get any extended attention from a media that is otherwise too busy looking to official government/think tank sources for commentary when they’re not busy finding some “violent” incident at protests to highlight because they make for more exciting coverage…
The “liberal” media strikes again!
November 6th, 2004 at 6:44 pm
The great European thinkers have decided that instead of doing another four years of lame Bush-is-a-moron cracks they’re going to do four years of lame Americans-are-morons cracks. Inaugurating the new second-term outreach was Brian Reade in the Daily Mirror, who attributed the President’s victory to: “The self-righteous, gun-totin’, military-lovin’, sister-marryin’, abortion-hatin’, gay-loathin’, foreigner-despisin’, non-passport-ownin’ rednecks, who believe God gave America the biggest dick in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land ‘free and strong’.â€
Well, that’s certainly why I supported Bush, but I’m not sure it entirely accounts for the other 59,459,765.
– Mark Steyn -
Yep, the discourse from the left is intelligent and enlightening.
Rosedog, thanks for the link from The Boss, it was a great piece of music and seems to say, post election, we are all americans.
And, regardless of what anyone on the left says, to me, Krugman is an idiot. You may differ, that is your privilege as thinking him one is mine.
November 6th, 2004 at 6:46 pm
The above Steyn quote came from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/11/07/do0704.xml
as they say, read the whole thing.
November 6th, 2004 at 7:23 pm
GM, I regret to inform you, The Daily Mirror is a right wing tabloid.
November 6th, 2004 at 7:35 pm
Steve, you persist in using labels. Why? Labels are so judgmental and trite. Besides, the Left Wing Tabloid (NYTimes) employs Brooks, why can’t the Daily Mirror employ a left wing bigot?
November 6th, 2004 at 7:51 pm
I would say the NYTimes is a corporate liberal newspaper, somewhere along the lines of a State Department broadsheet. The Daily Mirror is right-wing because, well, it’s rightwing. There are only 2 left oriented newspapers in Britain, The Guardian and The Independent. There’s nothing wrong with labels when used appropriately, is there?
The rightwing John Fund has some interesting insights into the election, which he hardly sees as all positive or a major mandate. Given the pro-gay workplace rights referendum that passed in Ohio, the 2 minimum wage referendums that passed in Florida and Nevada…and the rest of what he mentions…maybe he’s right. Why though do I suspect the Dems will try the move it to the tepid center strategy again?
http://dailykos.com/story/2004/11/6/14247/4067
November 7th, 2004 at 10:12 am
Roper, for you to lecture us on (exaggerated) Bush-hating and then call Paul Krugman an idiot pretty much negates anything you say. Heal thyself or shut up.
November 7th, 2004 at 10:15 am
I have a lot of respect for your work Mr. Cooper but on this one, you are WRONG! This election was stolen!
November 7th, 2004 at 10:36 am
Am I being biased to see the connection between Palast’s article and the overall sense one gets from the left that they are so right, there has to be some other logical reason it appears they were wrong, like……..fraud.
It ties in with how they lost this election to begin with. Attitude!
November 7th, 2004 at 10:37 am
THOUGHTS ON ELITIST HUBRIS FROM MICHAEL KINSLEY:
It’s true that people on my side of the divide want to live in a society where women are free to choose and where gay relationships have civil equality with straight ones. And you want to live in a society where the opposite is true. These are some of those conflicting values everyone is talking about. But at least my values…don’t involve any direct imposition on you. We don’t want to force you to have an abortion or to marry someone of the same sex, whereas you do want to close out those possibilities for us. Which is more arrogant?
We on my side of the great divide don’t, for the most part, believe that our values are direct orders from God. We don’t claim that they are immutable and beyond argument. We are, if anything, crippled by reason and open-mindedness, by a desire to persuade rather than insist. Which philosophy is more elitist? Which is more contemptuous of people who disagree?
November 7th, 2004 at 10:58 am
rosedog – I have to say regarding the letter from a sad american, that there is so much bogus information and repetition of Republican talking points that I question whether it is even authentic. Anyone who listened to Air America radio all day long because they thought it was the Democrat’s “most important media project” and that Kerry thought terrorism should be dealt with “like any other crime” is not just ill-informed but the architect of their own ignorance.
I’m just not going to swallow some anecdotal, very confused email and tell myself that it means I need to beat up on my side. We need to learn from the GOP, but the only real lesson and message they have is dirty, dishonest tactics and divide and conquer. If that’s what it takes, so be it. (Oh, yeah – exploit religioin, but let’s not go there.)
There was nothing that came from the Kerry camp as low, dishonest, craven and morally unhinged as the Swift Boats, the preposterous embrace of anti-gay marriage amendments or the cynical pimping of 911.
I look across this country and ask myself who among us wouldn’t revoke the tragedy of 911 if we could. An impossible hope, but one any decent American would share. Unfortunately I seriously doubt that the likes of Karl Rove or Richard Perle would agree. They’ve gained legitimacy from tragedy that they couldn’t have reaped any other way, they’ve exploited it opportunistically for pre-existing agendas and for that I despise them
Just calling spades “spades”. To be lied to is one thing, but let’s not lie to ourselves about who and what we’re dealing with. Let’s at least get that straight before we decide who to reach out to and how….
November 7th, 2004 at 12:18 pm
“Am I being biased to see the connection between Palast’s article and the overall sense one gets from the left that they are so right, there has to be some other logical reason it appears they were wrong, like……..fraud.”
Now, that is really wierd, generalizing to the entire left from one particular investigative journalist’s article. I could see if such articles were the focus of left journals in the US, but I don’t see that in In These Times, The Nation, The Progressive. Sure there are articles on lousy machines, scare tactics against Black voters, fake felon lists, etc., but to equate that with ‘the election was stolen’ is a really big leap, unless of course one doesn’t actually read left magazines and makes assumptions based on what their hearing from Bill Oreilly?
November 7th, 2004 at 12:33 pm
I’d like to thank GM for pointing out the sad american.
At first I reacted emotionally to it when I realized where it was linked through: Instapundit. Figures, I thought.
In the comments I saw SA’s points countered much better than I could. Yay for our team!
But then I realized that SA couldn’t help herself. Her decision was finally an emotional one. She didn’t have the information or the skills to break through the reality distortion field and it is partially our fault for not reaching out to her in a way that’s not alienating.
In this dark hour, let’s learn from SA and not make the same mistake. I still believe we should devote some of our efforts to exposing and fixing the flaws of the voting system but shouldn’t be overly obssesive about it. It should take no more than 10 percent of our future effort. The effort should hum in the background and have an unstoppable momentum.
I call for an “open source” voting system. One that is fully transparent and intensely resistant if not impervious to fraud. One that is in the public domain and free of corporate ties. It should be based on fully verifiable procedures and technology. ISO 9001 certified. Open source software like Linux and encryption protocols like SSL are a must.
The integrity of the vote is fundamental to democracy.
Can you folks on the other side of the aisle support that?
November 7th, 2004 at 1:19 pm
John, you bet. How about this. Register to vote and get your photo taken along with a finger print. You could do it at the county clerks office, the driver’s license office, any large grocery store willing to participate and perhaps at kisoks in local malls. The info is sent via modem to a central registrar who then prints out an electronic card used to swipe when you vote. The vote is recorded electronically and your name is ticked off of the eligible voter list. The card would not be a national ID Card as you don’t need to carry it and can’t use it for anything EXCEPT Voting. The voting records print out a receipt for you, the information is modemed to the central registry using SSL incription.
The only major problem is how to get Chicago Dead Folk to the Registrar.
AS to SA’s link coming from InstaPundit, why does it “figure.” as I also read Daily Kos, Kausfiles, Marc Cooper and others as well. I have also linked in the past to leftish sites. And your point is?
November 7th, 2004 at 1:36 pm
GM, you sound pretty emotional. My point is, Instie like Madonna is pretty good at pushing people’s buttons just as I was apparently successful at pushing yours. As popular as he is, it’s an undeniable temptation. It doesn’t help at all does it?
Now was your proposal serious? Off the bat, I’ll confess I haven’t thought through much about a uniform voting system. If you have thought it through let’s have a serious discussion if indeed we have common ground here.
November 7th, 2004 at 3:12 pm
Anyone who gives it a fair reading will immediately see on his or her own that beyond the authoritative-sounding “statistics” Palast lays out, he, in fact, has no substantive evidence for his assertion that Kerry actually won the majority in Ohio.
Marc, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here because you’re not a statistician, but are you aware that the statistical argument Palast is pushing here is as near as dammit the same argument as that of the Rigobon & Haussman paper on the Venezuelan referendum, that you endorsed on this page? It looks really bad to operate a double standard as blatant as this.
November 7th, 2004 at 4:01 pm
Reg and John…. I don’t disagree with either of you at all
RE: Sad American. It isn’t that I see her view as accurate from a factual perspective, just heartfelt and instructive. It suggested the confusion that she—and millions like her—were feeling, and showed that our side didn’t communicate well enough to counter the virulent and relentless misinformation on the part of the Bush administration and the RNC.
This isn’t to suggest that the Dems should go into some sort of crazed, leg-gnawing orgy of My Bad. By the same token, I REFUSE to let the DNC and DLC leadership off the hook. The fact that it’s all about the focus groups, not about the vision, has been evident for a long, long time. One has only to listen to how clear and forceful Al Gore has become now that he’s free of any DNC handlers.
One thing that struck me as particularly ironic about SA’s essay, however: She talked about feeling assaulted by listening to Air America. Hey, I believed her. But here’s the deal: Air America is undeniably having some mean-spirited, over-the-top, shout-radio moments. But those of us who stand anywhere at all left of center have been dealing with the most vicious and venomous of media assaults now for YEARS, from—not one—but scores of outlets. I’ve long felt that listening to the noxious rancor spewed on Fox or virtually any AM talk show feels like it might actually CAUSE cancer. Some of those folks sound like they don’t just want to beat us in an election, one gets the feeling they’d like to see us dead. (But I’m sure they mean it in the nicest, most moral, most value-fraught possible way. WWJV – Who Would Jesus Vilify?)
Good OpEd from Kinsley. I’m sick to the point of nausea of the highjacking by the right of concepts like “patriotismâ€â€¦.and now “values†and “morals.†I believe we’ve managed to yank “patriotism†out of their sticky, little fingers in order to place it back in the public domain where it belongs. Now, it looks like we need to launch a rescue mission to free “values†and “morals.â€
November 7th, 2004 at 5:14 pm
rosedog – I don’t want to let the DLC, McCauliffe or even people in the party I feel more kinship with such as yourself (or myself) “off the hook” in terms of working hard on better definition of core values, articulating a clearer message and better policy that reflects our values, and working on both strategy and tactics – including taking them on in the gutter when necessary. But I’m not going to fall for some of the “hooks” being offered up as GOP talking points that make the mass of Democrats seem like some hopelessly out of touch crackpots who represent nothing but trial lawyers and Hollywood.
As for Air America, I can’t stand anything I’ve heard on it except Al Franken – who is super smart, very fair and mostly funny. He’s not an ideological freak and his anger is generally directed at the people who deseve it. He’s friends with Norman Orenstein of the AEI and regularly has him on his show, for christ sake. You can’t compare Franken to the fanatics who populate Fright-Wing talk radio, or even to Michael Moore for that matter.
I think that a lot of silly, over-the-top stuff comes out of “both sides”, but the Right-Wing crazies have had far more influence and airtime. So long as Uberbigot Michael Savage, the meatheaded Hannity and the Lying Dope Addict Limbaugh are on the airwaves, for anyone to say they voted against the Democrats because Air America is too shrill is just plain idiotic.
I think we agree on this. It’s just that a lot of the GOP crowing right not isn’t driving me to look deeper “inside myself” – it’s just confirming the negative view I’ve had of these characters all along. Plenty of time for reflection, but I’m not about to respond to much of this nonsense I hear coming from the right other than to tell them that they’ve got plenty of mess in their own house. Frankly, the GOP coalition right now is a Frankenstein’s monster of special interests and patchwork ideology. For starters, anyone who thinks that more unbridled capitalism is going to increase the dominance of “conservative values” is profoundly ignorant of history. We saw the cracks in the coalition even before the election was over. And there’s very little in the way of policy that any one of their factions actually have to offer over the long term that a majority of Americans are actually going to buy when it really gets laid on the table. The SS privatization scheme is one of the biggest scams ever to hit Washington, for example. And Iraq is obviously going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Triumphalism is great when you’ve actually triumphed – winning an election isn’t a great triumph. It’s a responsiblity that one then needs to accept with grace, competence and concern for the broader interests of the country. The likelihood that this gang are going to “triumph” in the areas that really count for Americans is miniscule. They were given a second chance, although clearly a significant majority of Americans have been disappointed by the Bush administration and nearly half consider it a total failure. If they blow this second chance as badly as their first one, the GOP is toast.
November 7th, 2004 at 5:41 pm
“…a lot of the GOP crowing right now isn’t driving me to look deeper “inside myself” –
I’m there with you on that one.
November 7th, 2004 at 8:17 pm
“ou can’t compare Franken to the fanatics who populate Fright-Wing talk radio, or even to Michael Moore for that matter.”
In a sense you’re right, in that Moore has no organic ties to the most corrupt elements of the Democratic Party as Franken does. Moore, however, is not comparable to the fright-wing radio talk types either. If you compare his demeanor to Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, or Oreilly…Moore is far more calm, careful, and willing to let another party speak their mind. Moore is not that much different from Jim Hightower, only since he’s more successful in terms of fame *and* he’s on the left–even if ABB, he’s attacked more harshly.
November 7th, 2004 at 9:00 pm
I wasn’t equating Moore with Coulter, et. al. I was making the point, as you did in what I consider a negative overstatement, that Franken’s politics are more those of a traditional Democrat, with a Wellstone streak. I think that Moore has some opportunistic tendencies as a critic that weaken his arguments, but no way is he simply a hatemongering, totally dishonest vomit machine like Coulter, Hannity, et. al. Moore can act the clown and Franken is a skillful comic, but in my opinion Coulter is like a minstrel – billed as The GOP Feminazi but really just a cross between Don Rickles, Britney Spears and Phyllis Schlafly – concocted as a form of entertainment with no regard for the boundaries of good taste, integrity or authenticity. And of course Hannity & Colmes is as cleverly contrived a couple as Abbot and Costello or Laurel and Hardy. Limbaugh is what Joseph Goebbels would have been like if he’d had a sense of humor, the broadcasting skills of a great AM Jock and a very high tolerance for hard drugs.
November 7th, 2004 at 10:39 pm
I see, ok, we’re not that far off. I enjoy Franken lots of the time and he’s grown a lot sharper and knows how to deal with media talking heads a lot better now than in the past. I just don’t care much for his ties to the DLC…ugh.
November 8th, 2004 at 3:52 am
Very interesting exit poll statistic from Kevin Drum. While Bush increased his support among most voter segments by a few points, with the most notable gains among Latinos and old people, Bush’s support in small towns actually decreased by a whopping 9%. That steep decline among a group who are at the core of “red state” mythos throws a definite kink into certain aspects of the “why Bush won” narrative. While “red-staters” like to claim a certain “American authenticity” over blue-state “elitists”, I have a feeling what we’re mostly looking at is a preponderance of smug suburbanites rolling around in their SUVs (Saudi Arabia’s vehicle of choice for Americans). Their numbers are obviously growing rapidly, but if suburbia and it’s attendant mall culture is the model exemplar of authentic American values, Bush is a cowboy and McDonald’s sells great hamburgers.
November 8th, 2004 at 8:05 am
Just one more piece of evidence CNN/Fox/MSNBC (the so-called ‘liberal’ media) are getting it all wrong, thanks silent cal
November 8th, 2004 at 3:23 pm
I can understand how those on the left dislike right wing talk radio (the only successful kind except in dark blue metropolitan areas). What I can’t understand is why they listen to it.
But Fox News? I watch it all the time – it is my wallpaper while I am working at home. The idea that it is strongly right wing surprises me. Sure, the opinion shows have opinions. But the only opinion show I am aware of that doesn’t have balance is O’Reilly, and he is erratic in his political views, an ignorant and rude loud mouth that I turn off when he comes on, and probably more conservative than anything else. There is a recent Yale study on media bias. It used an interesting methodology, but I’m trying to avoid an overlong post (try google). It shows the main Fox news show as dead center. It shows the other shows as to the right. It shows all other mainstream media just as far to the left.
BTW, I used to be cohost on a 100 station syndicated show, and I have no idea why anyone listened to us, but they did.
Is Hannity not far enough left on Hannity and Colmes?
The general thesis of liberal mainstream media (except Fox) is proven by the financial failure of left wing radio. Basically, conservative radio is servicing an unserved market, while leftish radio is in a market already served by the MSM.
November 8th, 2004 at 3:33 pm
I liked the comparison of FOX News to wallpaper. It certainly has the same predictability.
November 8th, 2004 at 5:38 pm
“The general thesis of liberal mainstream media (except Fox) is proven by the financial failure of left wing radio.”
Liberal radio like Radio America hasn’t failed and Jim Hightower was doing well with ratings, but advertisers didn’t like his criticims of corporations, had little to do with financial failure as much as actually being populist. Then of course, likewise, MSNBC fired the only anti-war talkshow host, Phil Donahue, who had better ratings than his MSNBC colleague’s shout shows…It’s hardly the case that there’s no market out there for more than panels with very right wing shouters matched against tepid centrist ‘liberals’.
November 8th, 2004 at 8:52 pm
WARNING: LIVING IN A “RED STATE” IS HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH: The three healthiest states are Minnesota, New Hampshire and Vermont. Among other things, their high rankings reflect low rates of poverty and premature death, safer-than-average drivers and generous spending on public health. Minnesota has ranked No. 1 for nine of the past 15 years and has never been out of the top two.
At the other end of the list are Tennessee, Mississippi and, as in 14 of the past 15 years, Louisiana in last place.
November 8th, 2004 at 11:13 pm
John Moore,
Fox Dead Center? I’m shocked! It is too liberal for my tastes. Besides, it’s kind of repetitious with words like “flip-flop” and “oui” being constantly bandied about.
But then my soundtrack is Michael “Savage” Weiner.
November 9th, 2004 at 3:31 pm
I don’t know…guys who’ve been skinny-dipping with Allen Ginsberg and selling health food out of Marin County just strike me as half-baked pussies. I like Gordon Liddy because he’s capable of backing it up when he decides somebody oughta be dead.
November 9th, 2004 at 7:08 pm
The other one:
Rush, Dr. Laura and Michael “Savage” Weiner are the three most popular hosts on talk radio. They are the soundtrack of my life.
Between them all my worldview is soundly encapsulated.
Mr Liddy’s voice is indeed unique and I trust he does not reside in the state of Florida whose laws concerning convicted felons may preclude him from participating in our democracy. However my concern may not be justified considering the color of his skin.
And, by the way I believe Mr. Liddy is too liberal despite his formidable skills as a trained killer.
Please do not cast aspersions on Michael “Savage” Weiner. His life is a journey that has culminated in his current status. Anything in his past you can chalk up to mere research.
November 9th, 2004 at 8:03 pm
You choose the guy with a “past you can chalk up to mere research” over one with “formidable skills as a trained killer.” Are you serious about expunging liberalism from the planet or do you just want to waste your life listening to the radio ?
November 9th, 2004 at 9:10 pm
I indeed choose Michael “Savage” Weiner as the Exterminator uber Alles of liberalism no disrespect to the most highly esteemed exterminator from Texas, Mr. Tom DeLay.
All citizens will indeed expunge liberalism from the planet once they properly adhere to the recommended daily regime of Rush, Dr. Laura and Michael “Savage” Weiner.
Now if you’ll excuse, I have prepared myself a plate of Freedom Fries. I bid you adie… Goodbye!
November 10th, 2004 at 9:36 am
To all possible Johns. Just so you know somebody is listening. (and laughing.)
November 10th, 2004 at 12:17 pm
I just had a thought:
Rush, Dr. Laura and Michael “Savage” Weiner: a sort of AIDS “cocktail” therapy for liberalism as prescribed by physicians of the highest moral clarity.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I must take my youngest to the clinic for Freedom Measles vaccination.
November 11th, 2004 at 10:13 am
Actually Steve, I think Bill O’Rile_ly and Rush Limbrain are hypocritical embarrassments to conservatives. Do you think the left has any crazy people like these rocking on their front porch?
I wasn’t saying Palast’s claims of voting fraud was ‘the’ indicator of the left’s ‘right’ attitude. I was saying it was just another sign.
November 13th, 2004 at 7:12 pm
“Do you think the left has any crazy people like these rocking on their front porch?”
Sure, around somewhere. But no, Palast is not the equivalent of Oreilly or Limbaugh. Palast makes mistakes and a tad full of himself in my book, but he doesn’t make the kind of outlandish, ugly, or false statements that those two do. It’s not even close actually.
Palast’s claims, some are on target, others are probably not, though who knows which ones are right now. I thought his reporting on Florida 2000 was pretty good, at a time when the mainstream media was just parroting Bush’s line of “Al Gore should concede”.
I was initially inclined to poopoo the calls for investigation of the election, but in the last week or so I’ve read some persuasive arguments that there was certainly stuff that should be looked into and fixed.
But I mean heck, we can gripe about Palast all we want to, but my sense is we’re missing out on something that I’ve seen only reported on by left journalists, namely the bogus claims of ‘morals’ as the big issue in the election. I’m glad to see the left criticising that nonsense.
July 14th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
Very nice work. I wish you the best for the future.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:28 am
[...] fraud in countries like Venezuela and Cuba and being, in the words of lefty journalist Marc Cooper, a "conspiracy theorist" when the Democratic Party loses. One more time, here’s what I wrote: "Those who gasped [...]
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:01 pm
This seems to have worked for me, anyway. ,
December 29th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
hey, your post