It's kind of fitting that the Dawn of the Dead DVD came out right in time for the election. Every time I see that county-by-county map, I think of the fake DotD newscast, and the map with the zombie outbreaks spreading by the hour. Within a day, the whole country is overrun except for a few pockets of resistance, and the newscasters are reeling. Sound familiar?

If this election has you in mourning, folks, pick up that DVD and be comforted. Go, Blue States! You are the only thing saving humanity from the mindless zombie hordes. They're ugly, they dress horribly, they can't be reasoned with, and they eat everything in their path. Head shots! It's the only way.

I also need to make a macro about the homophobes for every post where you claim it's only Pat Robertson and Michael Savage and they're just the GOP Michael Moore. As if there are a dozen Michael Moores running around the Senate and god knows how many in the House. There's not even one. But you have Jim Bunning. James DeMint. Tom Coburn. Wayne Allard. Rick Santorum. John Cornyn. Tom DeLay. Marilyn Musgrave. Dennis Hastert. James Inhofe. I could do this all day.

Please also look into the push polls, fliers, and radio ads Bush used. Please also look into his alliance with the Family Research Council, the organization that said upon Matthew Shepard's death, "don't blame AA because a drunk got beat up". They've also done some groundbreaking scientific work on the link between Last year Bush signed a proclamation declaring Marriage Protection Week at the FRC's suggestion. It happened to fall on the anniversary of Shepard's death. What a coincidence.

It's more complicated than just gay marriage, but you are absolutely kidding yourself that it didn't play a role. Once again, you cannot admit whose side you are on.

You cannot explain DeMint's and Coburn's and Bunning's victories without gay marriage. 5% of Michigan said they turned up to vote because of that issue. There is no reason to believe it was less than that in Ohio, which I think is more socially conservative. It wasn't sufficient, but it was probably necessary in Ohio. It is certainly a big part of the explanation of the popular vote margin.

And the terrorism issue is as much cultural as anything too. I remember seeing an anti-antiwar rally in Georgia in March of 2003, that was mainly a denunciation of lesbians and hippies. "Hollywood thought they surrounded us, but today we show we surround them!" And John Kerry looks French and is from Massachusetts. Euro-bashing is as common, though much less harmful and more justified, as gay bashing.

Because really, what has Bush done that Kerry wouldn't do? What has he done that is more hawkish than Kerry? Invade Iraq, and suspend the Geneva conventions and try to argue out of the torture conventions. That's it. Kerry would've done the same in Afghanistan, done a bit better at the end, gone after bin Laden more aggressively, done more about homeland security, done more about nuclear proliferation.

Well, people are evenly split on whether the war was a good idea, and people who cite Iraq as the number one issue vote against Bush. So that's not what they like. I hope it's not the attempts to weasel out of the laws against mistreatment of prisoners that they like. Too many of them like Bush's soundbites and speeches, and they hate the hippies and the French.

Katherine,

John Kerry won my state in a landslide. So did the ban on gay marriage.

I voted against the ban on gay marriage. Tens of thousands of your fellow Democrats voted for it.

Tell them to go fuck themselves and leave me alone.

I supported George W. Bush and I’m a non-Church going theological modernist. The Jesus people do not turn me off, but they are also not my cup of tea. The Republican Party has essentially marginalized its nut balls. This is definitely not the case regarding the Democrats. Let’s get real, Al Sharpton gave a speech at their convention while Michael Moore sat next to Jimmy Carter. What more does one need to know?

Joseph Libermann should have been the Democratic Party’s standard bearer---but the far left made sure that this would not occur. He was my preferred candidate. George W. Bush may not be a perfect man, but he’s was by far the lesser of evils this time around.

The most recent statistical breakdown I saw (sorry, don't have a link) had the voters split this way:

37% each to Democrats and Republicans
26% Independent/Unenrolled/Green/Whatever

With Bush getting 51% of the national vote total that means he took 14% of the Independent vote to Kerry's 11% and Nader's 1%. I know I've oversimplified, but I think you get my drift.

To write off Kerry's loss as the result of some sort of vast religious or homophobic zealotry is just foolish and, for the Democrats, counterproductive to their future efforts to re-assert their relevancy.

Had Lieberman been the candidate, Nader would have gotten 5-10% of the vote, the Deaniacs and a big part of the anti-war vote. And Bush would have won like Nixon in 72 in the EC. But Michael would have been happy to vote Dem.

80% of Bush voters said they voted for their candidate, rather than against the other one. Barely a third of Kerry voters said the same.

I like Bush. 5.4% unemployment is GREAT -- better than Clinton in 96. Those who think the economy is "bad" are pining for the irrational exuberance of the dot.com bubble years. Not in the cards.

The anti-war folk are also in denial about supporting Saddam. In the election, there actually ARE other choices to be FOR, like Nader or the Lib guy (who cares what his name is).

In foreign affairs, there's Invasion, or some form of cooperation. Like what the US does, and will do, with Commie China; and did with Commie USSR. Sanctions & Inspections are about the minimum of cooperation. Like US had against Saddam, and has against No. Korea.

Booting Saddam was good, AND extremely important. The Dems have to decide whether their party thinks it was good, or not. Now they're out of power, now they have time to consider the criteria to use for deciding whether it was good, or not.

And I am SO glad that Pres. Bush will be talking to the Iranians. I think they're about to cave on very intrusive inspections; but push "peaceful use" as far as the NPT allows.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-zarif5nov05.story

I also think an important point Coyne makes is that the exit poll he cites splits "Terrorism" and "Iraq" into two separate categories. Many of the people who voted for Bush (like myself) view them as one big topic.

As Coyne notes: Thus "Iraq" and "Terrorism" are treated as separate issues, though grouped together as, say, "national security" they would have claimed the top spot, with 34% of the total.

34% is more than the 22% who gave the nod to "moral issues."

The religious whackos are the base. Those folks, and the super-rich, are the only people Bush is gonna be working for for the next four years. Anyone who put their social beliefs on the side and voted for Bush because they thought he'd fight harder in the War on Terror is, in the eyes of the Administration, what used to be called a "useful idiot."

Wanna buy a T-shirt?

Note to the Democrats: When one finds oneself in a hole it's a good idea to stop digging instead of looking around for a bigger shovel...

MJT-

I think you're getting close to the core reason that Zombie Hordes of Theo-Cons is being foisted upon you by the Progressive/Leftist Establishment, but you are overlooking an integral component. That would be intellectual helplessness.

You see, you need to have a certain amount of intelligence, maturity, common sense and honesty if you're going to be able to look at the results and process the information that is there. Hispanics, African-Americans, Jews, Catholics and Women all voted in greater numbers, and as a greater proportion for the Republican Party in 2004 than in 2000. When you look at those facts, the narrative coming from KOS, Marshall, Sullivan, Cooper, Ygelsias and the rest of the genus Leftus Dimwitus simply doesn't play.

And you know what? For those guys, the tank is empty. They don't possess the intelligence, maturity common sense or intellectual honesty to look at the numbers, then look in the mirror, and come to the understanding that the problem is them and the spin they utilize as a substitute for considered thought.

I'm sitting here in Ohio. I won this fucking election for George Bush. And you know what? If I'd voted for John Kerry, he'd have won. And you want to know one of the big reasons I didn't vote for John Kerry? Because of a horde of dishonest assholes berating me...from Michael Moore to George Soros...was supported by a even large horde of disingenuous assholes who thought they were clever enough to foist Michael Moore and George Soros upon me without my being able to figure that out.

The bottom line is that the center of gravity in American politics has shifted from the coasts to the heartland: OH, PA, MI, MN, WI, IA. And morons like KOS, sitting in Berkley, CA, just can't come to grips with that fact. It means loss of power...because if KOS, Cooper and Willis came to Central Ohio and started spouting what they have offered to date, odds are they'd be picking up teeth off the floor. They certainly would have if they'd tried that shit out to my face.

If these guys are serious about restoring the Democratic Party as a relevant political force in American politics, they need to come to the understanding that it is they who must accomodate me, not the other way around. To the extent that they have the balls and brains to do that, they have a chance. To the extent that they refuse to do that, they remain losers. It is that simple.

(And Roger thought Dennis DID win the election for Bush!)

I think intellectual honesty is the big thing Dems lost, and do not now have.
Take an issue; define alternative possible policies; review the likely outcomes of the alternatives; value those outcomes.

There MUST be a way to compare costs and benefits. In lives, in money, in something. While both Dems and Reps are failing to do this in Iraq, such a failure doesn't matter much if the result is "good". If booting Saddam was good, the cost/benefit calculation is less important.

The Left implicitly believes that booting Saddam, the way Bush did it, is good.

There are no "ends". It's all means, and means to further means. But the means of fighting evil is death; and the means of appeasing evil is also death, though possibly in a more uncertain time.

Interesting how bigoted Libs have become in their hatred. If someone accused the Dems of scaring up niggers and jooos to try to win an election the way the Dems are scaring up a christian boogeyman, do you have any doubt whatsoever that they'd be called out on their bigotry? What are they going to do now? bomb our churches and turn us into Pakistan?

So many people are still deluded about their own righteousness, and unwilling to seriously consider the merits of the arguments on the other side.
Good example, see the Slate series of posts currently running on the topic "why the country hates the Democrats". So many of the writers are bitter and incredulous that ignorant and hate-filled people predominate in the country, the only way the Democrats could possibly have lost, etc.
Not the best way to analyze and learn from the results, one could argue....

Katherine writes:

As if there are a dozen Michael Moores running around the Senate and god knows how many in the House. There's not even one

Not even one?

How about Cynthia McKinney?
Or Dennis Kucinich?
Or Patty Murray?
Or Sheila Jackson-Lee?
Or Maxine Waters?
Or Jim McDermott?
Or Jim Moran?

The list is longer.

Personally, I think there are less elected Democratic wingnuts than Republican ones, but there are still plenty of nuts who scream Fascism at George Bush and not, for example, Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden.

And I've said it a lot on MJT's blog since the election, but I'm a Dem who voted for Kerry. However, ignoring our own wingnuts and calling out theirs is pretty silly.

I honestly think that many Dems don't even know about our own wingnuts, because they're so fringy that the media tends to ignore them.

Michael, go read this analysis of the numbers: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/001708.html

If you look at the percentages of who voted for whom and why, the so-called moral values majority disappears. MSM is spinning these numbers and getting away with it. (Both sides of the aisle are guilty: Hannity and Buchanan as well as the left.)

Michael,

Coyne still hasn't "blown away" the argument. You continue to pretend as if the electoral college didn't exist. The popular vote is not the issue. It did not matter in 2004 if Bush picked up a lot of liberals in NY, NJ, CT and Oregon. If Kerry lost Ohio & Florida because of "values", and that's still what the polls and turnout show, than values is what got Bush the White House.

And to all the other commenters - can we stop pretending it's just the liberal media that's driving the values meme? The conservative media seems to be buying into this same meme whole heartedly. Go check out NRO for example. Last night I was listening to Laura Ingraham and her whole spiel was about how this elections has validated the Republican positions on abortion and gays and that Bush better be listening when he appoints judges or there will be hell to pay from his base. So Michael, even if you and Coyne are 100% right about the War vote, there is a large and influential section of the Republican party who is quite happy to believe that "values" put Bush in the White House, and, perhaps more importantly, that "values" are what has given the Repubs the dominance in Congress.

So is this how we will squander the technology that lies in our hands? Are we going to sit here and argue over who voted for who and why, based on nothing more than exit polls? Pathetic.

The battle is over, Mr. Bush and his supporters won. It doesn't matter how many ballots are left uncounted, it doesn't matter which dogma drove the mindless hoardes to vote for or against him. Its over and we must move on, or else start talking about turning this into multiple countries.

Here we are with some of the most thoughtful political citizens I've met and we're arguing about the evangelicals and their homophobic ways.

Why don't we start discussing things that actually matter, or at least that we can actually have an educated guess on.

The longer we draw out the post-election, the more it will scar. Like my Mommy used to say *Smack, don't scratch it, it'll just get worse!"

Of course she was referring to a 'dead fish' scratch-n-sniff sticker.

Your Loving Chaos Rodent

Well, I am a religious conservative (who, by the way, was not supportive of Pat Robertson's, Gary Bauer's, or Alan Keyes' candidacies) and I do think churchgoers did turnout in force this year. But, you're right, they are not the only constituency that mattered. With the race being so close this year, I heard every angle in the book from pundits across the board who said this minority or that faction was going to "swing" the election...security moms, Jews, Cubans, NASCAR dads, blah blah blah. The case can be made, I'm sure, that swing Democrats turned it. So, who knows really? What happened happened and I happen to be glad with the results.

Dick Morris makes a case that Bush won the election by finally breaking the Dem monopoly on the HISPANIC vote. Hispanics gave Bush an additional 2.4 percentage points since the last time he ran.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/33315.htm

To revisit, I wrote: I honestly think that many Dems don't even know about our own wingnuts, because they're so fringy that the media tends to ignore them.

Of course, the sadder/scarier possibility is that most Dems do know who our wingnuts are and just don't think they're wingnuts.

I know that's what my more conservative and Republican friends think.

Vanya,

of course the social conservatives, or the "eeeevangelicals", are going to claim credit. What do you expect.

Vanya,

of course the social conservatives, or the "eeeevangelicals", are going to claim credit. What do you expect.

Katherine
There is actually an argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on religion.

Hetro marriage is the best thing for the continuation of society. That is where you get procreation and stable homes. These can be done individually in many ways, but the combination comes from hetro marriage. Government and corporations allow benefits for hetro marriage to promote it, and therefore promote the continuation of society.

If gay marriage receives these benefits, then there is no logical reason not to extend them to co-habitants and singles. Which removes the benefits of hetro marriage, and hetro marriage is in enough trouble already.

This is my argument, and I'm not sure it even convinces me; so I'm not in a position to defend it rigorously. But I don't see that people who oppose gay marriage are necessarily doing so entirely for religious reasons.

Katherine: you say:

Because really, what has Bush done that Kerry wouldn't do? What has he done that is more hawkish than Kerry? Invade Iraq, and suspend the Geneva conventions and try to argue out of the torture conventions. That's it. Kerry would've done the same in Afghanistan, done a bit better at the end, gone after bin Laden more aggressively, done more about homeland security, done more about nuclear proliferation.

Kerry would have gone after bin Laden more aggressively? How would he have done that, while meeting the standards of the Geneva convention, gaining the approval of the French and the hippies AND passing the Global test?

How could he have done more about homeland security while protecting the civil rights of all Americans and passing the ACLU test?

You say he would have done ‘more’ about nuclear proliferation? I’m not sure if you mean it that way, but when I see how chummy he was with the millionaire Mullahs of Iran, maybe you do.

You also say:

I also need to make a macro about the homophobes for every post where you claim it's only Pat Robertson and Michael Savage and they're just the GOP Michael Moore.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of ‘macro’ are you talking about? Is it specific to MT, and is it used to add comments without having to manually input them? Is this something you use often in your line of work? Please tell us more.

As I said elsewhere, the thing that "getting out the base" forgets is that moderate votes count double, in much the same way that, in a pennant race, games against the the other teams in the race count double.

Theocons were highly likely to either vote for Bush, or stay home. Moderates were highly likely to either vote for Bush, or for Kerry.

Say the final difference in Ohio is 150,000 votes.

If Bush loses 100,000 theocon votes in Ohio, he still wins, because 90% of them don't vote for Kerry (either staying home, voting 3rd party, or not voting for President at all).

If Bush loses 100,000 moderate votes, he likely loses the election, because over half those moderates will not only be subtracted from the Bush total, they'd also be added to the Kerry total.

That's the calculus that folks need to remember.

David,

"of course the social conservatives, or the "eeeevangelicals", are going to claim credit. What do you expect."

So why are you going around claiming the Democrats are being intolerant and scaring up a bogeyman? If prominent Republicans and conservative opinion makers, i.e. WSJ, NRO, Fox News,every talk radio host, the Weekly Standard, etc. etc. is going to go around claiming Bush has a mandate on values, than why would you expect a) the MSM to do the actual work required to examine the facts and b) Democrats to deny a conservative meme that may scare moderates back to the Democratic party?

Maybe conservatives should welcome this meme, all I see today on the liberal blogs and journals - Salon, Kevin Drum, Slate, etc, - are commentators wondering if perhaps they have been too condescending, and that maybe it is time to revist liberal intolerance on social issues.

>>>"So why are you going around claiming the Democrats are being intolerant and scaring up a bogeyman?"

Vanya,

because they are.

Conservatives aren't resorting to bigotry when they claim credit for this election; but when Liberals bait "eeeeevangelical christians" they are clearly engaging in religious bigotry. Evangelicals are the new "joooos", and Liberal intolerance and soft racism is now spilling over into their hatred of christians.

But David, what we're seeing right now is Democrats realizing that they will never come to power unless they show more tolerance towards evangelicals, and that they won't be able to take the Latino and Black votes for granted in the future if they don't show more respect for Christian values. It's also a stretch to call intolerance of evangelicals "racism" since you can't really be born an evangelical. Indeed one of the tenents of evangelical Christianity is that you have to consciously accept Christ into your life to be a real Christian.

Here's something different to talk about instead of peeing on trees and growling at each other:

A few weeks ago, an Iraqi blogger made a side comment that a number of 'insurgents' had been recently captured. He mentions that a quantity of 'a type of hashish' was found on them.

Typical Muslim Fundamentalists do not approve of drug use. Why would people willing to die for their theocracy doom themselves with hash?

Osama bin Laden, we think, is hiding in cave systems in some subset of Middle Eastern Countries, possibly Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, Jordan or elsewhere. What sort of cave system could support a group for 3 years without being captured, or at least harried by US troops?

Keep those questions in mind, and read the following bit of history. Keep in mind that some of this may be hyperbole, but the basic information is truthful.
-------

The legend of Hassan-ibn-Sabbah

The legendary Old Man of the Mountain was Hassan-ibn-Sabbah, the founder and grand master of a radical Islamic sect in the 11th century. His followers were viewed as heretics by other Muslims; according to the hostile reports of their contemporaries, they ate pork and held all their women in common.

Hassan's devoted followers were prepared to follow his orders unquestioningly, even when this would result in their own certain deaths. He frequently sent them on missions to kill hostile princes, the generals of armies sent to oppose him, and anyone else of whom he disapproved. His fanatical, highly-trained and highly-disciplined killers would blend with the enemy population disguished as merchants or soldiers, awaiting their opportunity. They would then sneak into their target's encampment or palace, and dispatch him with their long daggers. They were known as Hashishin from their habit of smoking hashish, either to generate visions of paradise or to give themselves courage before their (usually fatal) missions. This is the origin of the English word "assassin".

After earning the undying enmity of most of the rulers of central Asia, Hassan-ibn-Sabbah was forced to retreat with his followers to the inaccessible mountain fortress of Alamout, which was reputed to be impregnable. There he lived to the enormous age of ninety, dying in 1124.

Hassan was succeeded by other grand masters who, like him, used assassination as a political weapon in an attempt to impose their ideas upon Islam. In the 13th century they made the mistake of tangling with Genghis Khan, who in 1255 sent a vast army to capture Alamout, finally stamping out the sect of the Assassins.
-----------------

This is the cult that, when a visiting dignitary tried to cut a deal with the cult leader, he called forth two men and told them to jump from the top of Alamout. They immediately jumped to their deaths, an example of their rabid fanatisim and willingness to die.

One of the keys that the Hashishin used to protect their people on the road, was a system od decentralized mountain fortresses. These were hidden from common sight and most of them have never been found. These streched (according to oral history) from Alamout (now in Iran) through what is now, Iraq, Afganistan, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and beyond. According to Marco Polo who first wrote of the 'Old Man of The Mountain', these assisans could travel from fortresss to fortress with absolute secrecy.

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

Of course, I may be a nutty squirrel... but I find the possible comparisons interesting. Is it possible that modern day Al-Queda is a legacy of the old Hashishin? Is it possible that the Hashishin were never completely destroyed, due to their decentralized nature? Or, is it possible that bin Laden and friends have stumbled on the long disused mountain fortresses, still stocked with Sabbah's old drug of choice?

Have we awakened an old and dangerous enemy by mistake? Perhaps getting too close to what remmnents are left?

Or perhaps,does Bush actually know the enemy and is using the War on Terror as a cover to try to exterminate a powerful group of dangerous men?

And just for equality of paranoia:

Could the Hashishin have returned to fight against the Illuminati, of which Bush is a puppet? ;-)

Of course, there are no answers, but it seems very interesting to me.

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord

Vanya,

I don't call it "racism", I call it bigotry, just as anti-semitism is bigotry, just as racism is bigotry.

I don't see Dem attacks on eeevangelicals as merely an acknowledgment that Dems should show more tolerance towards them in the future if they want to win the White House back (although they should); Dems are talking about evangelicals in a far less dispassionate way. They're saying, "see, the Bush administration has no credibility because it relied on eeevangelicals (the new jooos) to win this election! The GOP is subservient to evangelicals (jooos) and is taking America down the path to fascist theocracy!"

That's what the Dems are saying. It's vile.

Ratatosk,

You're reaching. The most plausible explanation of Bin Laden's whereabout is that he's hiding out somewhere in Pakistan, unfortunately probably in relative comfort, being protected by fundamentalist elements in the Pakistani security organs. We can't get to him because if we grab him we'll destabilize Musharraff and open up a worse can of worms. Bin Laden's funding and movement are severely restricted and the amount of harm he can do to us directly is probably minimal at this point.

You're also conflating Iraqi insurgents with Al Qaeda. These may be overlapping sets, but they are not identical. Not every Iraqi insurgent is a die-hard Muslim fanatic either. Iraq is a tribal culture - if someone insults you or your family you have the right to take blood vengeance. Unfortunately there are a number of young Sunni men who feel that the USA has insulted their tribe.

David,

I think that the concern that some (but not all) people have, is that ANY religious group that trends heavily toward one party, will possibly lead that party down a less tolerant line of politics.

While I don't personally think that the evangelicals, single-handedly turned the election, I do think that they will try to spin it that way in order to cash in on Mr. Bush's 'political capital'. If Mr. Bush goes with them, we could see extremely conservative Judges appointed to the Supreme Court, we could see very conservative laws passed and I think it scares some people.

It may be bigotry, but it may also be simple fear (mixed with sour grapes).

I hope that Bush trends center and spends that political capital on swing voters and liberals that went to Bush (a much more influential group in this election, I think). But, he has 'more' conservative leanings than the centrists and he could possibly head further right. Only time will tell.

Tosk

I agree with David: it is vile the way the left attacks Evangelicals (and BTW I am in no way born again; I'm strictly a lapsed Catholic) and I found it appalling to listen yesterday to callers to the local indy media radio station damn Bush voters as people of lower IQ, operating on misinformation (meaning they did not have the benefit of the wisdom of Michael Moore or Greg Palast) and motivated by fear (this from people whose fear and loathing of all things Republican is monumental). I voted for Bush on the rational basis that he has strongly held belief and will act on them (whether that is the WOT, tort reform, reform of civil service and the tax code); Kerry seems to me to have neither strongly held beliefs nor the propensity to act. I believe all the "tales out of school"now starting to leak out about the chaos of the Kerry campaign will bear this out.

vanya,

We believe Al-Queda and the Iraqi Insurgents to be seperate. But the possibility exists that one or both of them 'may' be associated with, or have stumbled upon the old Hashishin. It's equally possible that they're not the same... but they have very similar theologies and ideologies. It may be a seperate group using age old tectics, but the possibiltiy exists that it may be more.

Toskie

I remember being surprised when, durring the civil rights movement, my father explained to me that black people dispised white northern liberals much more than than white southern racists. Boy, do I get it now.

1 I AM NOT DEMANDING A RECOUNT

2 I AM NOT CLAIMING FRAUD

3 I AM NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION

However, these numbers in from the Gahanna precient here in Columbus,they show some obvious errors:

Franklin County, OH: Gahanna 1-B Precinct
638 TOTAL BALLOTS CAST

US Senator:
Fingerhut (D) - 167 votes
Voinovich ® - 300 votes

US President:
Kerry (D) - 260 votes
Bush ® - 4,258 votes

638 TOTAL BALLOTS and 4,258 votes for Bush.

Obviously, this is a prime example of why any computer system we use for voting MUST be reviewed by a third party Quality Assurance group. I think this was probably a bug, not an evil plot, but either way we need audit trails so errors like this can be dealt with.

I love technology, I hate bad technology.

D Clyde the hacker

David,

Sorry, you're being ridiculous.

"They're saying, "see, the Bush administration has no credibility because it relied on eeevangelicals (the new jooos) to win this election! The GOP is subservient to evangelicals (jooos) and is taking America down the path to fascist theocracy!"

That's what the Dems are saying. It's vile."

What Dems are saying this? For every Tom Tomorrow and Katha Pollit you drag out I'll raise you a Michael Savage and an Adam Yoshida. You cannot make a coherent argument if you're going to continue to claim the fringes dominate the debate. That's partisan spin not reason.

vanya,

tell me which Democrats, when speaking of evangelicals, AREN'T saying that? It's everywhere.

I'm not being ridiculous; you're being willfuly blind, or disingenous.

Tosk,

bigotry IS mostly about simple fear. Re Liberal fear of intolerance:

Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States, especially in the red states. There used to be a kind of hand-to-hand fight on the frontier called a "knock-down-drag-out," where any kind of gouging, biting, or maiming was considered fair. The ancestors of today's red-state voters used to stand around cheering and betting on these fights.

for more Liberal "tolerance", click here:

The Unteachable Ignorance Of The Red States.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109218/

If the Democrats accept any other reason for defeat BUT Evangelical political gangsters manipulating brain dead obese psychopathic rednecks, the only option left to them is they got beat because their ideas don't work in a free market.

Which is exactly what happened.

The benefits of democracy transcend any individuals creed, color, or even economic state of the moment.

The MSM gets a lot of mileage out of stereotypes. If you print 'black youth' on a page, it's almost given that somewhere there will be 'violent', 'drugs', or 'single parent' somewhere on the same page. The same thing with 'middle aged white guy from Utah' and 'guns', 'LDS', or 'angry'...

Unfortunately for media, both informative and entertainment, and for politicians who seek every advantage in managing electorates, the nature of American democracy rejects castes and classes.

As long as government is not the arbiter of individual achievement there will be individuals who transcend their place as defined by conventional wisdom. There's nothing inherent in wealth or happiness or success that places those conditions out of the reach of any individual in this grand experiment...and liberalized (the RIGHT definition of liberal, BTW) economic policies that allow more individuals to realize the rewards of the economic risks they take instead of siphoning off punitive taxes on entrepneurial success have put more people in a position to be aware of exactly what kind of leadership is in their interest.

I cannot speak for anyone but myself for what drove me to vote. The sixties generation remembered the marches and rhetoric. I remembered the seventies of defeat, retraction, and malaise.

Oh, and the sixties folks savored losing a war. That mindset is NOT an option in these times.

The choice was easy here.

I found a poll on Democratic Underground which asks what's more depressing: 9/11 or 11/3?

Guess which one is winning?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×1321959

We believe Al-Queda and the Iraqi Insurgents to be seperate. But the possibility exists that one or both of them 'may' be associated with, or have stumbled upon the old Hashishin. It's equally possible that they're not the same... but they have very similar theologies and ideologies.

Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents, for the most part, follow the teachings of a cult, but all evidence points to the Wahhabi cult, not the Hashishin.

Every member of al Qaeda, and a large percentage of the insurgents, believe that Muslims should be ruled by pre-medieval Shariah law. They all believe that they have the right, and the duty, to kill anyone who disagrees with them, and that belief is also based on their laws. These groups are also heavily financed by Wahhabis.

While Muslims have prohibitions against using drugs, I’m not sure if they have prohibitions against selling them, especially to infidels. In contrast, what percentage of these ‘fighters’ have been captured with large quantities of hash in their possession?

Tosk,

You're not the first to bring up the Hashishin analogy (den Beste did it last year). While I'm certainly not going to venture into Illuminati territory, the evidence is clear that OBL certainly wants to be seen as the modern-day Old Man of the Mountain. Turning yourself into a legend is a good PR strategy. Saddam liked to call himself the modern-day Saladin, after all.

We can still learn a lesson from the Khans--though it was Genghis's grandson Hulagu who actually took on the assassins. His strategy was simple: wipe them the f*** out. He went to a stronghold, killed everybody, went to the next stronghold with heads from the last one on pikes and said, "Surrender. Now." By the time the Mongols reached Alamout, the Old Man was pleading for mercy. No such luck. Such was the Michael Corleone of Mongolia.

Hulagu was a ruthless sumbitch, but he knew the world was better off without the Old Man and his cult. And when the British Empire exterminated the Thuggees, I doubt that "why do they hate us?" was on their minds.

Ted,

Indeed. I myself am not convienced that the Cult still exists, but that the ideology, mindset and mode of operation seem similar. Bin Laden may want ot be seen as the New "I Sabbah", or he may be the current 'I Sabbah'. He may have found hiding places once used by the Hashisin, or he may have inherited them, I don't think there is evidence to support either idea though.

The point Mary made about Muslims being against any form of drug, is exactly what started me thinking along these lines. Hassan I Sabbah was Islamic (Shiite in fact) and was the only Islamic cult to approve of drug use (his famed Alamout Black Hash, which was apparently hash + something (some historians say that it included atropine, scopolamine, and hyoscamine from ther belladonna and datura family of plants). From my experience, these three compounds create a euphoric, somewhat hallucinigenic high. Everything is bright, shiny and surreal.

If these so-called 'Insurgents' that were captured were in fact high on something, they were either breaking Islamic law (and condeming themsleves to death) or they had some 'permission' to use this drug. Perhaps a nod to the old legends of the reigon? Maybe thinking that if they claimed that this wasz a ressurection of the Hashisian, perhaps people would be more willing to join up?

I don't know, but I think Bin Laden, or some subset of the Insurgents, or both may at least be trying to emulate the Old Man In the Mountains.

Ted,

The Mongels didn't kill the Old Man, they killed his succesor 4 times removed (the third guy after Hassan to leadBy that time, the group had become a much easier target, as their leader was not nearly as Charismatic as Hassan and his immediate succesor Hassan Ummid (grandson of Buzurg Ummid).

remember too, that the only evidence that we have of the destruction of the guild is in Mongel histories and in the stories that Marco Polo recorded (post the destruction of the cult).

As Hassan I Sabbah is credited with saying: "Nothing is True, Everything is Permissible".

I think this is much more interesting than banter of which subset of which group put Bush over the edge for reelection.

But thats just me.

I hve to say that this piece by Jane Smiley is the most self-congradulatory bunch of BS I've ever read. Apparently the left simply can't accept that their ideas make less sense to thinking Americans than those of the Right, and therefore have to delude themselves into thinking that the 60 some million Americans who voted for Bush are simply stupid and ignorant. It's that kind of hubris that will continue to be their undoing.

Leathan,

I agree.

We may make fun of the Evangelical, NACAR watching, gun toting hicks (I can say that because I was born and raised with a red neck ;-) ). However, they are a HUGE percentage of the American electorate. Democracy is about the majority and the Intellectual Left is not a majority. They can bitch and whine, but democracy apparently worked. The Majority stated their opinion and it carried.

Just because many may not agree with their worldview doesn't mean that worldview is any less valid than the most extreme leftists.

In fact, since more people apparently subscribe to that worldview, one might argue that its more valid.

In fact, since more people apparently subscribe to that worldview, one might argue that its more valid.

Tosk,

slightly off topic, that is no standard by which to judge something right or wrong. I expected more of you.

Why, oh why, do Bush supporters always seem so enraged when they win something? It seems like the first thing that happens after a win is that they start looking around to see if everyone else is being sufficiently overjoyed or patriotic, or what have you, and then going into a rage when everyone's not celebrating. Or celebrating enough.

And why are they so obsessed with what the liberals are thinking or doing or saying? Of course liberals are going to be depressed after a loss like this. Of course they're going to be looking around for reasons why it happened, or rationalizing. It's how people cope with a loss like this, and exactly how Bush supporters would be coping if they had lost. Give everyone a week of moping, then things will be back to normal.

C'mon, you guys, you won. Cheer up already.

David,

I don't think that the evangelicals/rednecks/hillbillys are right or wrong, when compared to the centrists or leftists. They are simply different, they hold different values and voted to support those values. That's how democracy works.

There are many views that people subscribe to in politics. Some are valid, some are invalid and most are somewhere in-between.

In this case, I think that the Republican and Democratic platforms are 'somewhere in-between'. Therefore, in a democracy the most valid political view is the majority's political view.

Obviously, at least on Nov 2, 2004, the more conservative, christian ideology was 'more valid' than the more liberal, smoewhat agnostic ideology.

Neither are perfectly right or perfectly wrong.

I'm not sure why you disagree with me.

Tosk

double,

I've said it before, I wasn't "enraged" that Bush won, nor did I feel like gloating. Rather, I was relieved, and peaceful about it. It was a beautiful, sunny, calm morning when I woke on 11/3. I even found it within my heart to feel some empathy for the poor dispirited loser Democrates. Really, I did.

But the pure hateful rage that continues unabated in it's intensity from the Left has caused me to feel gloatful despite my better wishes. I've decided I'm going to enjoy it and rub it in at every opportunity.

Arnold was right. Why should we listen to LOSERS.

David,

Because those losers are Americans and part of this crazy experiment we call democracy?

We can fight and win and lose and vote and campaign... but at the end of the day, we are all Americans. You can either let a few of the loudmouthed lefties piss you off enough to act like them, or you can act like an American (not a Partisan).

But, I suppose thats too ideological for most people.

By the way, if anyone is interested, Gahanna (the place where 4258 votes went to Bush, out of a possible 638 total ballots) is also the home of multiple sightings of ...

a lion.

Yes, this small suburb of Columbus has been plagued with consistant and numerous sightings of a lion.

I think perhaps Gahanna is a portal to the Twilight Zone.

I know we're sick of the discussing the clueless insularity of many on the left, and I thought I couldn't be any more suprised by the things they're saying, but I was wrong: Beverly Camhe, quoted in the NYT (via Opinion Journal's Best of the Web):

New Yorkers know more than anyone - they're enlightened, holy beings:

"What's different about New York City is it tends to bring people together and so we can't ignore each others' dreams and values and it creates a much more inclusive consciousness," she said. "When you're in a more isolated environment, you're more susceptible to some ideology that's imposed on you."

And besides, none of us in the heartland even know any gay people:

"We live in this marvelous diversity where we actually have gay neighbors," she said. "They're not some vilified unknown. They're our neighbors."

Got that? All the gays are in NYC and on the West Coast. The rest of us don't know any gay people and we certainly couldn't possibly have any gay neighbors. That's why we voted to surround their lofts and pied a terres with pitchforks and torches.

But fear not - the Angels in New York are going to rescue all benighted 59 million of us:

"If the heartland feels so alienated from us, then it behooves us to wrap our arms around the heartland," she said. "We need to bring our way of life, which is honoring diversity and having compassion for people with different lifestyles, on a trip around the country."

That's right. New York missionaries to the heathens of the heartland. That's gonna win em the next election.

Ms. Camhe, I must assume, has never set foot off the island of Manhattan. But I'm the parochial one?

TOSK, is Gahanna an alternate spelling of Gehenna? And have there been any Mothman sightings there? If not Mothman, any confused men who look like Richard Gere and plant Tibetan Buddhist prayerwheels?

That's right. New York missionaries to the heathens of the heartland. That's gonna win em the next election.

My first thought was a Gay Pride Day parade, complete with leather and bondage, or some other Liberal phreak show, rolling down mainstreet.

And the fascination with the left continues...

Kind of like "Men's Groups" in the 1970s that did nothing but discuss women.

Zacek,

That's a regular joke in Columbus. ;-)

"I'm gonna go over to Gehenna for dinner..."

heheh

No Mothmen, just the big lion... which leaves no trace of having been there.

Maybe the Lion is an etheric body for operatives of the Hashishin ;-)

Tosk

I'm getting fed up with the chatterers desperate attempt to pin the Bush win on the Jesus freaks doing what the preacher tells them, and not on well-thinking and well-thought decisions.

There seems to be a need for some people who like something to remake everyone else who likes something into their own image and vice versa to the contrary. It's an all or nothing deal for them. Like Kerry and you are brilliant. Like Bush and you are scum of the earth and definitely aren't a think like me.

When MST3K was all the rage, one of the posters to the alt.tv.mst3k (or whatever) group posted something to "prove" that MSTies were liberal. The central thesis to summarize: "MSTers are just like me, they're educated, smart and well read. so they have to be liberals. Conservatives would just not get it. They're not cultured enough." The joke would likely be on him since the show featured a number of Sturgis, SD, jokes and using that logic, only Republicans ride Harleys. Suffice it to say, he got a bipartisan pasting but in the end, he never really got it. He was just too smart for the rest of us. I'm not sure if he stopped watching the show when he found out that those Clinton Haters also liked it. (You get the same with wingnut Republicans who can't fathom why a democrat could go to church and believe in morals.)

Now we have this election (not to mention the 2000 one) and the same thing comes true. People who voted for Kerry are smart articulated and, above all "educated" because that is how the head chatterers for the Kerry camp often envision themselves. Therefore, Michael, Glenn Reynolds, Roger Simon and all rest of us who have fancy schoolhousin' behind us but still voted for Bush are ignorant grit-spewing bible thumpin' white trash (cause we sure as hell ain't millionaires). Because they have to keep that high-end image of themselves at all cost, and they have to keep that image to themselves and no one else. That's all they have left. Thus the quality of cars, clothes, takehome pay, and neighborhoods of the Trash demographic has risen to never-before-seen standards -- who said that Bush's economic plan was a failure?

And as long as the left licks their wounds from this election while still living in their high society (but not so worldly) bubble, they're not going to learn a thing. Like I said elswhere, if you're too "smart" to study, you aren't going to pass the next exam im 2008 either. And they'll continue to be the insufferable arrogant wankers that helped push Bush over the top to begin with.

Off Topic

I'm sure you've all heard about "Homo floresiensis", the new (now extinct, they think) species of tiny people found on an island in Indonesia. If not, there's a nice article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3948165.stm

Here we have proof of a branch of humans that were only 3 feet tall. These (and possibly races similar) may be where legends of dwarves, leprechauns and other assorted 'little people' came from.

It's just one more reason why I feel comfortable saying that 'The only thing I know is that the Universe is more complex than I'll ever understand'.

After all, a year ago if I had talked about a race of humans that were only 3 ft tall, you would all have assumed that I was stoned or tripping.

I thought this was pretty cool.

Bill,

Well said!

Now this is an example of an insane christian. He's in the severe minority, no matter how much some liberals would like to think otherwise.

David: I suspect you and Michael have false consciousness based on religion and our capitalist-consumerist culture. That is why you vote against progress. All you can do is hate like a zombie. It is a symptom of a low IQ and hatred.

That is why you fascist-types shouldn't be allowed to vote. You destroy democracy.

I fear for America. This election shows that is too sick to survive.

Educated One,

That was a terribly pathetic troll, or a badly done piece of satire.

Come on folks, the election is over, quit bitching at each other like 70 year old grandmas or 5 year old children.

There are so many more interesting things going on now that the election is over... quit ranting and DISCUSS SOMETHING!!!

DPU: And why are they so obsessed with what the liberals are thinking or doing or saying?

Because I want them to be able to compete for my vote. I don't want to be effectively forced to vote Republican again next time. I'd like to have two reasonable options, and that requires two sane political parties.

It's a sign of severe shallowness of political thought to define one's political leanings by expressing what you are not. The tendency to harp on and on about what the other side is up to, or what you imagine they're up to, is a symptom of that condition, as is blind hatred or stereotyping of the political foe. Both sides of the political fence certainly suffer from it.

I agree with tree rat. Time to get over it.

That is why you fascist-types shouldn't be allowed to vote. You destroy democracy.

nobody does Leftist satire like Leftist does.

"I will be your president regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me necessarily on religion," Bush said. "As a matter of fact, no president should ever try to impose religion on our society. ... The great thing that unites is the fact you can worship freely if you choose, and if you — you don't have to worship."

Bush on Yahoo news.

Sound like a theocrat?

Dave:

Unfortunately looking the response to Glenn Reynold's column in the Guardian, that mindset isn't exactly satire....

Bloody Yamaha-riders, the whole lot of them. I bet they wear helmets, too.

Unfortunately looking the response to Glenn Reynold's column in the Guardian, that mindset isn't exactly satire....

I know it's not. It's unintentional self-parody; they do it all the time.

MJT: Because I want them to be able to compete for my vote. I don't want to be effectively forced to vote Republican again next time. I'd like to have two reasonable options, and that requires two sane political parties.

Political Parties offer a platform in order to condense what they stand for. It sounds like you're asking the Democrats to become Republicans. Personally, I don't think that either platform is insane, I think I know where both sides were coming from. I just agreed with one side more than the other. That doesn't make the other side insane.

very intersting.

'I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1344943,00.html

When the Democratic party stops thinking that religion is bad unless you agree with them on social issues, I might give them some voting consideration.

When the Democratic party stops sucking up to the Useless Nations (the REAL coalition of the bribed and the coerced) on every foreign policy question, I might give them some voting consideration.

When the Democratic party rids itself of the neo-communists and socialists, I might give them some voting consideration.

When the Democratic party stops thinking that insulting me is the key to winning my vote, I might give them some voting consideration.

When the Democratic party stops its endless condescension and arrogant pronouncements to me, I might give them some voting consideration.

When the Democratic MSM (redundancy alert) quits showing that they are willing to MAKE SHIT UP against Bush, but to never press Kerry on the form 180, I might give their party some voting consideration.

Until then, I'm avoiding candidates with a D after their name.

DPU: It sounds like you're asking the Democrats to become Republicans.

Why would I do that? I am not a Republican. I want the Democrats to get serious about national security and quit screaming quagmire and Halliburton.

Why would I do that? I am not a Republican. I want the Democrats to get serious about national security and quit screaming quagmire and Halliburton.

The Democrats were serious about national security, just not in a way that you agreed with. Personally, I'm at a loss to explain how anyone could think that Bush is serious about it, as every day the situation worsens. Maybe you're using a different measuring stick than I am.

Is there anything short of adopting the Bush campaign's foreign policy that would have earned them your vote?

I AM NOT ADVOCATING A RECOUNT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT!!!!

OK, here's a poser.

Ohio has announced that there are 250,000 uncounted ballots still outstanding (provvisional and absentee). We also have at least one example where a computer glitch http://columbusdispatch.com/election/election-president.php?story=dispatch/2004/11/05/20041105-A6-01.html caused a Bush overcount of 3000+ votes.

Blackwell has still not called this state for either cannidate.

Now, here's my question:

If at the end of the tally, Kerry is ahead in the ballot count, what happens?

Does Kerry's concession mean that he IS out, or would the final count change who gets sent to the electoral college?

Any thoughts?

D Clyde

David ... here's how to do a link in HTML:

<A HREF="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1344943,00.html">Times Article</A>

And it ends up like looking like this:

Times Article

Saves everyone else a bunch of copying and pasting.

Tosk:

So is this how we will squander the technology that lies in our hands? Are we going to sit here and argue over who voted for who and why, based on nothing more than exit polls?

YES!! You know why??? Because exit polls are accurate and reliable!

Just kidding- for once I think I agree with you.

But here's a fair question (perhaps a bit off topic, but maybe not)- What about all those apathetic non-voters out there? Sure, it's easy to say "screw them, they didn't vote so let 'em rot." But just out of curiosity, I was wondering about them the other day.

Based on that now-famous map that shows the entire country as a huge red blob with little blue spots on it, I'm inclined to think that most of those apathetic people were probably in line with the red. They probably figured Bush would win, but weren't really passionate about it either way. Why do I think this? I'm just convinced that the the lefties came out in DROVES on Tuesday. They brought every swingin' Richard and Marry Poppins they had to the playground in an effort to bring the Revolution. It still wasn't enough, and I happen to think it's because the righties anticipated this all-out assault on the polls and launched an effort to scare the crap out of the apathetic right-leaning masses.

Ross Perot screwed them by splitting the vote for the Clintonians, and Al Gore came dangerously close to "stealing" it in 2000. I think that was a wake up call for the righties- that the left will come with everything they've got each and every time. The right can't afford to be apathetic anymore. I think that message is out there now. My guess is that if every US citizen of voting age had voted, it would have been a landslide the likes of which have never been seen. I see a very downward trend for the Dems for the next few decades at least...

"Ohio has announced that there are 250,000 uncounted ballots still outstanding (provisional and absentee)."

Well the likely hood that the 133,000 provisional are all legitimate is highly unlikely, lets say 65% are deemed legit, so 86,450. Additionally, 95% of the some 120,000 absentee's are legit, so 114,000. Total of 200,450 outstanding. (65% and 95% are very liberal estimates)

Kerry would have to pull out 167,400 of those votes or 83.5% in a state that broke 51/48, given that most absentee ballots are from military troops overseas as well as the fact that a contingent of the provisionals are evangelicals I'd have to believe it would be impossible to pull it off.

'I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot'

And that is Mistake #0 (the one that comes before all the others). Never assume that you are smarter or wilier or more clever than your adversary. But then again, we all know that Republicans are as thick as 3-hr-old paint -- because Kerry supporters view themselves the only ones having IQs above room temperature.

'I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot'

I'd take that particular article with a heavy dose of salt. That line came from a comedy routine about the debates on Mad TV, and was based on a similar line from a 1988 Saturday Night Live routine about the Dukakis/Bush Sr. debate, and I can find no other reference to it on the web. I think it's bogus.

Bill,

but that just doubles the pleasure when they lose! Zero empathy for smug self-righteous elitists. And my oh my, are they nasty!!!

double,

you can find no other reference to it on the web? It's ALL over the web. That's how I found it.

gibs,

why do you think that only 65% are legit? Is that the usual number of provisional ballots that are legit, or is that based on an educated guess about this year only?

Historically, provisional ballots have been legitimate less than 50% of the time, in Detriot last year for example less than 10% were actually legitimate. Ohio has historically had a higher turnout of legitimate provisional ballots in presidental elections, I made an educated guess as to how high that number would be for the entire state.

Regardless, lets arc the numbers towards the high end, 85%. Your still looking at 75%+ of the outstanding ballots. Additionally, it would be reasonable to assume that not all voter miscalcuation in the state, that is if it's a widespread problem, would all go in Kerry's favor.

To answer your question about the outcome, well if JFK has more votes his wins. I don't see how a concession speech would change this if the offical ECV have not been submitted.

David - you don't find the similarity to a line used in two comedy routines to be at all suspicious?

Then there's this (Michael, your comment thingie won't let me post links to Gooogle searches for some reason, says it's questionable content). Try searching Gooogle for this exact phrase (including quotes) - "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot". Zero results. Then search for "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy". 399 matches.

If Kerry had said this in April, I think it might have made it onto the web around then.

The comment thingie barfs if the word "g.o.o.g.l.e." is included in the body of the comment. (hence the three "o"s in the post above, and the dots in this one).

PS - last election 100,000 out of a possible 120,000 provisional ballots were legit that's 83%. If we use 83% again, we get 186,746 legit provisional ballots and an outstanding 50,000+ absentee (236,746 uncounted votes). We know of at least one error on a system that gave Bush 3000+ votes.

I personally think that since he won the popul;ar vote, this shouldn't matter (my opinion in 2000 too). However, if the final numbers support Kerry, how does the election process handle this?

Do the votes trump concession?

Anyone?

Gibs,

Thank you. I thought the same, but was unsure since this is my first election season ;-)

I thought the provisionals were around 135,000 not the number your suggesting.

Again, were assuming a lot here. As I've said whos to say that all miscalculations will favor JFK?

Again, absentee are military and the military has favored GWB by a 7 to 1 margin.

Votes will always trump concession, but the models the party stat guys run on both sides have suggested that given the outstanding balances the probability is 300:1. I don't see how a few thousand votes change this drastically.

David - you don't find the similarity to a line used in two comedy routines to be at all suspicious?

double,

I would be suspicious if it were on Fox News or Drudge, or any right-leaning source. It comes from Newsweek, so no, I'm inclined to believe it.

ps. double, I regard statements that are inherently "against interest" to be credible. That's a fairly sound legal principle applied in questions of evidence.

Coming from Fox, that statement would not be "against interest; coming from Newsweek, it definitely is.

I can't find any reference to it on Newsweek. Do you have a link?

Nevermind, found the Newsweek piece. Still have to wonder about its accuracy though (I thought those CBS memos were fake as well).

David,

I g.oo.gled for just( "I can't believe I'm losing" Kerry)

All that turns up are references to:

LATE 1988. "Saturday Night Live" is doing skit on presidential debate. Jon Lovitz plays Mike Dukakis; Dana Carvey is George Bush senior. Bit is, we hear what they're thinking. Bush gives goofy, fractured answer ("thousand points of light . . . not gonna do it"). Exasperated Dukakis rolls his eyes and thinks aloud, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy."

There are also a number of parody 'news stories' (including one about Bush eating a baby on TV) which reuses the quote, but, I haven't found an attributable reference for an actual quote.

It looks fake to me.

Tosk (who apparently has way too much time on his hands)

Tosk,

I'm curious, I've seen you write about the "Democracy Experiment" a couple of times now. At what point do you feel that the experiment is over? Is 200+ years enough? Just because the constitution is a living document doesn't necessarily make it an experiment. Plus, democracy has its roots in Greece, so we can up the ante a bit for how long the "experiment" has been around. Given that information, I think it is safe to say that you would call all of civilization an experiment. With this trivialization of the word "experiment", I think it is safe to drop the "experiment" from the "democracy experiment". By the way, please don't take this as a personal attack. I actually find it amusing.

Michael -- as we sit down and continue to think, chill out, read articles like Andrew Coyne's and others, it is clear that the question of who would be better on security and terrorism was vitally important, in addition to the social issues. Yesterday, I underestimated this. (Part of it was that I found Kerry credible on this issue myself, and wouldn't have voted for him if I didn't. I thought more others felt the same way.)

Today, you continue to underestimate the importance of social conservatives to Bush's winning coalition. He owes his election, and his vote margin to both you AND to the nuts who voted for Tom Coburn in Oklahoma.

You also may not appreciate the extent to which Bush will have to take a stand on social issues, and other controversal issues: In addition to the Supreme Court nominations, Senate Democrats are going to be much more judicious in deciding when to filibuster bills, I think and hope. This will force the Lincoln Chaffee, and Maine girls, and whatever other Senators there are from blue states to take stands on controversal/divisive House passed bills that ordinarily they don't have to vote on. And if those bills do pass the Senate, Bush will have to take a stand on them himself.

Hey, interesting article. Turns out that the Swiftboat guys were lying.

double,

"I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6415030/site/newsweek/

Which reminds me, Carter was some kind of a "genius" too, and Reagan was a moron as I recall.

gibs,

Those are the numbers I pulled from the official Sec. of State site. I think that the 130000+ number was before all precients were accounted for.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/results/11-02-04.htm

Sorry Gibs, I meant to include the link

There are so many more interesting things going on now that the election is over... quit ranting and DISCUSS SOMETHING!!!

I've been feeling the same thing. I hate to make a shameless plug, but here goes:

I've started something I call the Carnival of Solutions. We are just getting started but the idea is that instead of just bitching, we offer up solutions to problems. Sure, it's unlikely any will be taken up, but it's a start. The current one is related to your talk about ballots in Ohio.

Check
it out.

http://www.miniluv.com/archives/2004/10/31/carnival-of-solutions-restoring-confidence/

Joe Ignorant,

Democracy, in the American sense will be an experiment for centuries. Any government can do well for a couple hundred years, this democracy 'experiment' was to see if a system of government, in the hands of the people could grow and change over the centuries to keep it valid. We're only 2 centuries into this.

Calling democracy an experiment isn't a slam, its a grand idea. Think about it, no matter what we do, for good or bad, success or failure, our society, culture and political system will be studied for 1000 years after it's gone. That's why this is and will be an experiment, it's the first of its kind and the only government of its size that is a democratically elected, representative republic.

Greece had a democracy on a smaller scale and instead of elected representatives, they had lottery chosen reps.

A number of City-States in Italy during the renaissance also had democracies, but they were also smaller and not a representative republic.

Too, we haven't achieved all the goals of the original 'experiment'. States are more controlled by the federal government than intended, making it difficult for states to tailor their laws to their citizens. Remember, according to the experiment, the federal government should only affect interstate/international commerce and national defense. Everything else has been added, modified and changed as the experiment progressed.

Tosk, the history buff squirrel

double,

Do you have a link for the story you mentioned about the Swift Boat Guys?

The Michael Mooronification of the Democratic Party proved a fatal error. Moore is the chief promoter of what's now the received opinion of Bush among the condescending Left -- Chimpy Bushitler the World's Dumbest Fascist. There are some takers for this view, but not enough. By running a campaign fuelled by Moore's caricature of Bush, the Democrats were doomed to defeat.

Steyn Article

I tried double.

Steyn article:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11288119%5E7583,00.html

Markus,

The fundies were going to vote for Bush no matter what, just as Michael Moore's clapping seals were going to vote for Kerry no matter what. Such people do not decide elections. The center decides elections.

Do you have a link for the story you mentioned about the Swift Boat Guys?

By August, the attack of the Swift Boat veterans was getting to Kerry. He called adviser Tad Devine, who was prepping to appear on "Meet The Press" the next day: "It's a pack of f---ing lies, what they're saying about me," he fairly shouted over the phone. Kerry blamed his advisers for his predicament. (Cahill and Shrum argued responding to the ads would only dignify them.) He had wanted to fight back; they had counseled caution. Even Kerry's ex-wife, Julia Thorne, was very upset about the ads, she told daughter Vanessa. She could remember how Kerry had suffered in Vietnam; she had seen the scars on his body, heard him cry out at night in his nightmares. She was so agitated about the unfairness of the Swift Boat assault that she told Vanessa she was ready to break her silence, to speak out and personally answer the Swift Boat charges. She changed her mind only when she was reassured that the campaign was about to start fighting back hard.

David - that's weird. Your link looks like this:

<a>Steyn Article</a>

And it should look like this:

<a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11288119%5E7583,00.html">Steyn Article</a>

Oh, I know what happened. Make sure there are no breaks in the line. The example makes it look like they're on seperate lines, but that's because of the word-wrap setting on the comment thingie. Make sure you enter the whole thing without pressing "Enter".

You know, the media got the "hatred of gays disguised as "values" won Bush the election" meme out early and now there's no way to stop it. And since it fits in perfectly with the Left's own insular worldview, confirming what they already knew and, most importantly, not requiring them to accept any new ideas or listen to any other peoples' viewpoints, they've grabbed on to it for dear life and will not let go. So in two years, when they get drubbed again in the midterms, another round of anguish and fury. And two years after that, unless they put up a new generation of politician, Obama or somone like that - and they probably won't, they'll probably put up another Boomer fossil from the Left or Right Coasts - it'll happen again, and basically we're going to watch them self-destruct over and over every few years. I'm not enjoying it now, and I won't enjoy it then.

Michael -- c'mon, I've just admitted that moderates like you and the security moms were a part of the winning package. But so was the INCREASED turnout among the fundies who you insist were always going to be with Bush anyway. Are you saying the turnout increase among fundies in Ohio didn't happen, made no difference, or that some of the same people animated by the security/terrorism issue weren't ALSO galvinized by the social issues?

In any case, you would do better to argue this issue not with irrelevant Democrats like me but with people with real influence: the non-fundamentalist Republicans making the same claims that you are excoriating us for. For starters, there are three or four articles in the victory edition of the Weekly Standard that have an "it's the values, stupid" theme. Who do you think Karl Rove thinks won the election?

Zeroing in on only one of those factions and blowing it all out proportion will get the Democrats nowhere.

Uh, except it's not just the Democrats doing it. You didn't read William Bennett's take?

If Kerry won the election I wouldn’t say it was because of Michael Moore and his stupid-ass movie

All due respect, I can't help but think you'd bemoaning how the "far-leftists" had defeated the visionary forces of good.

I want the Democrats to get serious about national security and quit screaming quagmire and Halliburton.

You know, this quote in a nutshell shows why you cannot be taken seriously. It's crap. You REEK of bad faith.

Your act is laughably transparent.

Markus,

Of course there was increased turnout among the fundies. So what? There was a huge increase in turnout in general, everywhere, among all factions. It would have been downright bizarre if fundamentalists didn't turn out in greater numbers this time than last time.

KC,

No, I am well aware that elections are won in the center. Michael Moore damaged your side. I said it before and I'll say it again.

My wife voted for Kerry and she hates Michael Moore. He pushed her somewhat toward the right, but not far enough that she was willing to vote for Bush. There are others who comment here who would say the same thing. I am very well aware such people exist. Maybe you're one of them, too, I don't really know. Almost every single one of my friends can be described that way.

So, yeah, if Kerry won it would have been despite nutjobs like Moore, not because of him. I was tempted to vote for Kerry myself, and it certainly would not have been because of the likes of Moore, nor would I have tolerated anyone who said I stood with the far-leftists. It's okay to vote the same way as some lunatic. It can't be avoided because there are lunatics on both sides. We're all trapped by this.

If you aren't one of Moore's clapping seals then I will defend you from anyone who says that you are.

Yeah, I know William Bennett is "doing it," too. He's still an ass. If he thinks the GOP has a mandate for a culture war he can watch them dig themselves out of a crater in 2008. It's all the same to me, really. I'm not a Republican. If the Republicans want to tear themselves to pieces I will be more than willing to help speed 'em along.

Rat,

Interesting, although I still hold that the DNC must have run their models over and over again and determined that given the level of provisionals and absentees they wouldn't have a shot. With what was at stake and the furor they persued the Florida count last prez. election, rightfully so, I don't think they'd let something like this slide unless they thought no chance.

Either way they will be counted and I'm 99.9% confident they will proven, probably by a higher margin, that in fact GWB carried the state.

Thanks for the link, I've been looking for it since Wednesday. I guess I can't search effectively.

Markus,

Bush benefitted from an increased turnout of demographics across the board, not just evangelicals. Hispanics gave Bush almost 50% of their vote, something UNPRECEDENTED for a GOP candidate. That boosted him 2.4 points. The Dems got out their rank and file in record numbers, and the GOP responded by coopting some of them, that's all.

You're a christophobe bigot. You pick on the evangelicals because you losers have already begun your 2008 campaign. Hilary will be running in 2008, and we already know it will be about more hate and fear from your side. This election it was "the draft", ooooh! and about "social security" oooh! In 4 years your boogeyman will be the "American Taliban"!

It won't work.

Ron:

"Hetro marriage is the best thing for the continuation of society. That is where you get procreation and stable homes."

Do we live in the same world? "Hetero marriage" also produces child abuse, domestic violence, and a whole host of other problems. Your argument is weak.

The issue is whether gays should be allowed to make their relationships legal under the eyes of the law. They don't want to live in sin--they want to share their life with a person. Never mind the religious argument because church and state must be separate according to your constitution.

All I can say to the much-oppressed gay minority from USA is to move to Canada. Saskatchewan, one of our prairie provinces not far from your heartland, just legalized gay marriage. We'd be glad to have productive members of society like you living among us. Forget the conservative Bible belt and live in the True North (Strong and Free). :)

Peace,
JB.

P.S. Liberals are not whackos. They're cultivated, educated people who don't think that war is the solution to everything. They also see the fear in the eyes of their fellow citizens and want to improve the state of the world. You don't have to agree with them (freedom of speech is lovely, ain't it?) but don't call them crazy. If they're crazy, so are the entire populations of Spain, Canada, France, Germany, much of the EU, and the list goes on.

Liberals Flock to Canada's Immigration Website:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=616225

oh please lord! let it be true.

If they're crazy, so are the entire populations of Spain, Canada, France, Germany, much of the EU, and the list goes on.

Yup, they are. Seriously, Americans are different from the rest of the world. Most of us like it that way.

Jeremy Brendan: Liberals are not whackos. They're cultivated, educated people who don't think that war is the solution to everything.

You just described me, Jeremy. Of course war isn't the solution to everything. But it is the solution to a very small number of things. And when someone declares war on you you're at war whether you like it or not. It doesn't take two sides to create a state of war. It only takes one.

Bush just won Iowa. It's all the evangelicals living there I suppose.

saddam declared war on us? (ok we all know the arguments. so spare me. please. especially tonight when american soldiers will be dying in fallujah. not to mention the civilians. of course they deserve their fate. they're crazy enough to cling on to their homes. hey they're a-rabs. they understand only force. so say the warnuts. hey i guess palestianians who get their homes destroyed because some relative decided to strap on dynamite to their bodies deserve the same fate. the world looks on in disgust as the planet's most powerful nation bombs the hell out of a third world backwater in the name of self-defense. i'm an american and i feel sick. my stomach churns. i don't think i've ever been so ashamed of being an american. god help us.)

Andrew,

Go cry somewhere else or move to Canada, they'd love to have you.

I will ask you, where you as ashamed when hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan were being raped and slaughtered merely for being kurdish or gay or disabled?

gibs,

I'm ashamed that there are people like Andrew that call themselves Americans.

Andrew,

your primary motivator is approval. Europe doesn't approve of you. That hurts. I know, I used to be a Liberal. It's ok Andrew, you're a "good guy".

"Yeah, we rocked the vote all right. Those little bastards betrayed us again."

http://www.aspendailynews.com/Search_Articles/view_search_article.cfm?OrderNumber=9156

it sucks to be you.

'Go cry somewhere else or move to Canada, they'd love to have you' --gibs

OK,I have tried to be a good sport about this ,but enough is enough.I want to assure everyone that Canada already has more than its fair share of the free floating,native,loon population,and we REALLY don't need any of the imported variety.

MERCY !!!

"45 percent of the people who voted for Bush are self-described liberals or moderates... Only 55 percent of the people who voted for Bush are conservatives."

WTF kind of analysis is this lumping self-described moderates and liberals together? On the face of it is idiotic.

More conservatives voted for Kerry (15%) in this election than liberals voted for Bush (13%), but fewer conservatives than voted for Gore (-2%): so first of all Kerry lost Gore's conservative vote, Bush kept his liberal vote. This is exactly the opposite of what Totten/Coyne argue. I wonder why?

Since 2000 Kerry gained more support from the moderate vote (54% to Gore's 52%) than Bush did (45% to 2000's 44%). The total 3% difference was made up by the lack of moderate Nader/3rd party voters.

The biggest difference since 2000 was that fewer moderates overall made up the electorate (-5%, down to 45%), most of the difference going to conservatives (+4% to 34%). What Kerry lost according to the CNN's exit polls, the same used by this superduo, was moderate voter turnout and conservative votes. What Bush gained was conservative voter turnout. There's what lost the election for Kerry, so far as people's self-descriptions mean anything.

For all you deluded twits who think the American electorate wanted Bush to have a second term (Hell, they didn't even want him to have a first term), check out gregpalast.com if you want the truth about how democracy is being hijacked and how blacks are being turned into second-class citizens at the ballot box again like in the good old, pre-Civil Rights Movement days.

P.S. Liberals are not whackos.

It's kind of hard not to laugh at this sort of statement when it follows remarks like this:

"Hetero marriage" also produces child abuse, domestic violence, and a whole host of other problems.

Child abuse exists in married and unmarried households. Domestic violence exists in married and unmarried households, including homosexual ones. Marriage does not cause any of these things to occur.

Hey, interesting article. Turns out that the Swiftboat guys were lying.

Not sure how you come up with that one, double. Because John Kerry's ex-wife said the attacks were unfair? That means they were lying? I'm not drawing that correlation. Since when does John Kerry's ex-wife become a more reliable authority than 280 politically-diverse and highly-decorated veterans? Would you call them liars to their faces?

There IS one way for John Kerry to prove that they were lying. Just sign that Form 180. Funny- he never did that, did he?

I agree completely that Bush didn't win b/c he turned out a conservative base that outnumbered the entire moderate and liberal population in this country. Not for a second. But I do think that the liberals and the moderates who voted for Bush, undoubtably for foreign policy issues, must now be prepared to face a very conservative social agenda. This is the alliance you've pulled together: a combination of rabidly anti-liberal social conservatives in the U.S. and a hopeful and progressive foreign policy front.

It is, I believe, a combination destine for disallusionment. The radical right-wing composition of the legislature, made apparent today by the reaction to Sen. Specter's comments on abortion, is one that will tolerate only a radical domestic agenda. Our Supreme Court is poised for a change of monumental proportion. It will be barely felt with the replacement of Renhquist and O'Connor but will be made terribly lasting when Stephens steps down.

This is the compromise liberal hawks and the christian right have wrought. It is a trade off: an eviceration of women's, gay's, and minority rights in return for a progressive and decisive anti-facist rhetoric. I suspect the fallout, four years hence, will not be what both sides expect. I suspect the trade-off doesn't balance.

I want the liberals who voted for Bush to be starkly aware of the values they traded when they cast their vote.

It is a trade off: an eviceration of women's, gay's, and minority rights in return for a progressive and decisive anti-facist rhetoric.

-harry

All the gay guys, all my friends, all my gay friends, you guys you have got to vote, alright? Because it would only be a matter of time before you guys would be so screwed, I cannot tell you. Because, you know, the people, like, in the very right wing of this party, of these Republicans, the very very right wing, the Jerry Falwell element, if they get any more power, you guys are going to be living in some state by yourselves. So, I hate scare tactics, but I really believe that that's true.

-Cher

Just thought I'd let you know who you sound like. Thank God most Americans are too smart to believe such stupid crap...

So, the truth about this election is that all sorts of people voted for Bush, for all sorts of reasons. The evangelicals voted for Bush, but they didn't decide things in his favour.

sam,

yes, but to Libs the eeevangelicals are the new niggers and jooos. Mark my words, the Dems will run on an anti-christianity platform in 2008 and receive and even bigger walloping than they did this year.

Last time it was the "angry white males"; this time it's the eeevangelicals.

"Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html

Dems, keep deluding yourselves, and keep losing elections. It suits me just fine. You're bankrupt across the board on issues.

Why do I suddenly feel the desire to stumble around, muttering "brains... brains..."

you must be a zombie

Hey, interesting article. Turns out that the Swiftboat guys were lying.

Not sure how you come up with that one, double. Because John Kerry's ex-wife said the attacks were unfair? That means they were lying?

Wait. You mean the Kerry quotes in the article that make him look bad are accurate, while the ones that make the Swiftboat Vets look bad are inaccurate?

Okay, now to a more serious comment:

Tim Blair has some excellent observations on the election. Among them is a list of gains/losses for Bush, compared to his performance in 2000. Here's a subset that stood out for me:

Bush 2000/Bush 2004

Protestants: 63%/59%
Jewish: 19%/25%
Catholics: 45%/52%

Now which one of those groups do you think of when you think "evangelicals"?

"Reality-based community" my overly-large keister.

It doesn't matter how Bush won, or appears to have won.
It matters very much what he does with his power now.

The exercise of power is the point of having power. Does anyone doubt that Bush/Cheney II will choose to exert theirs in ways congenial to the religious base?

Adam, who's the first Administration Cabinet figure to go?

John Ashcroft, the Left's favorite religious zealot.

What I have no doubt about is that the Administration will do what Bush believe to be in the best interest of the country. Bush doesn't have to appease a base at all now; Cheney apparently has no interest in running for President in 2008. If anything, I expect the coming Administration to be less accomodating to the fundamentalists than before. Why?

Because immediately after 9/11, the religious figure Bush literally stood beside was an Islamic Imam. That's what was in the country's best interest at the time, and that's what Bush did.

Peddle your fear of those with religious faith somewhere else.

Wait. You mean the Kerry quotes in the article that make him look bad are accurate, while the ones that make the Swiftboat Vets look bad are inaccurate?

Nice try, dude. When did I ever say anything about the quotes that make Kerry look bad?

You claimed that the Swift Vets were liars based on some seriously faulty logic, and I called you out on it.

Instead of defending your argument, you accuse me of making claims that I never made, and you completely dodge the subject.

And you guys wonder why you lose elections....

Slick,

double, like the Dems, relies on rhetorical tricks of hand to score points; but it doesn't win elections, and it doesn't win arguments.

Wait. You mean the Kerry quotes in the article that make him look bad are accurate, while the ones that make the Swiftboat Vets look bad are inaccurate?

Well, duh.

If someone says something bad about himself, I can assume it to be true. Why would he lie?

If he says something bad about his enemy, I want evidence.

Stll waitng, in vain I suppose, for someone to explain how dienfranchising likely opposition voters and using voting machines owned by right-wingers that leave no paper trail in order to get 51% of the vote amounts to a "mandate". It's kind of like those phony wrestling matches where the referee is a friend of one of the wrestlers and he refuses to count when his buddy is being pinned but then slaps the mat three times really fast when the other guy is down.

I think that Bush is a pretty smart politican who understands the nature of coalitions and the use of political capital. No doubt he took a leap of faith with the terror war because he felt it was the right thing to do. I am sure he wants to continue the terror war and I am certain he knows he needs better bi-partisan support if we are to win. I suspect he will concentrate on this and certain reforms that have the possibility of bi-partisan support such as tort reform and social security reform and tax reform. As for the religious right base, whatever that means, I remain convinced that liberals are generalizing and stereotyping them. Sure a number place their social agenda above all else. But they are a small minority. If Bush does not use all his capital to overturn Roe will a number of his supporters be disillusioned? Of course. But most people, even those who are pro-life acknowledge the reality that an outright end to abortion is not in the cars. They will settle for the promotion of what they cal "a culture of life." Moderate legislation designed to curb the practice. A ban on late term abortions. A president who acknowledges the moral complexity of these issues will go a long way. Clinton was pretty good at this whether he meant it or not. Kerry and the voices of today's Democrats are NOT good at it. Even these people make up an important but not majority part of Bush's base. Larger still are the fiscal conservatives and small gov. conservatives many of whom are actually quite disillusioned with Bush's free spending. Ultimately what has glued them together and brought in a large number of moderates like me is the terror war, and I include Iraq as part of this. And values comes into this as well. I personally don't give a crap what Europe thinks of us. And if Kofi thinks its bad I think its good. I trust Americans more than Eurpopeans and I believe in American Exceptionalism. (not perfectionism or superiority, they are not the same) When people seeking my vote place the word of the execrable Jacque Chirac over the President of the United States I am not inclined to support them. I suspect this and all it implies is the single largest reason for Bush's tremendous red state support as well as his tremendous increase in support in virtually every state in the Union which increased his overall percentage of the vote by 3-5 percent.

Hey Doug,

Take a reality pill, buddy. There was no increase in support around the nation. There was only an increase in cheating.

flipster,

true on dat about voter fraud. ACORN busted, again.

"Law-enforcement authorities in Florida have begun a statewide investigation into suspected voter fraud, focusing on accusations that a liberal activist group used a statewide petition drive for a constitutional amendment to raise the minimum wage to improperly register anti-President Bush voters."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041022-115919-9286r.htm

David,

Let me answer for flipster:

"Allegations of voter fraud that implicate Democrats are innacurate.

Allegations of voter fraud that implicate Republicans are accurate."

Man, an argument like that is just tough to beat...

Slick,

not to mention that alleged "voter fraud" by Republicans isn't even serious enough to merit offi