Wed, November 3, 2004
On The Plus Side—12:42 AM
...I think there's a lot of money to be made with bushreelectionsuicidepact.com. Bringing people together: that always was his specialty.
Ironically, if I were a gun owner I probably would've voted for Bush, so I wouldn't have any reason to blow my brains out. Ah, those Catch-22s! The spice of life, they are!
As annoyed as I am that the smug smirk will remain firmly planted on our president's puss for another four years, I'm fully aware that the actual effect felt by me – the regular citizen – will be minimal. I don't think the draft is that likely. The continued escalation of health care costs as he hands out favors to the pharmaceutical and HMO industries will make it harder for me to find a fun new job, but in that regard I'll feel a significantly smaller impact than the rabid, misguided red-staters will. No, I think the greatest disappointment is that the majority of Americans are stupid, stupid people. Can't save them from themselves. These people love The Swan and they love their George W.
Ah, well. I'll just have to cling to the coasts and ride it out until he plunges us into nuclear holocaust. Shouldn't be more than eight months or so.
Worst of all is the shameful indignity with which Tom Brokaw was ushered out of his post at NBC News. He staked this election as the deadline for his departure, and they've got him at "Democracy Plaza" with a red-state/blue-state map on the ice rink and competing window washers creating a bar graph up the front of 30 Rock. Just awful.
"michwagn" — Wed, 11/3/04 8:17am
I do think Bush has won, but I don't agree that there won't be consequences on regular individuals. William Rehnquist is about to die, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, and Anthony Kennedy may all retire in the next four years (the only justice under 65 is Clarence Thomas at 56). Roe v. Wade is up for grabs. Internet privacy, medical record privacy, gay marriage, campaign finance and a host of other constitutional issues will be dealt with over the next 10-15 years and President Bush will likely be given the opportunity to strongly shape the court in the way he sees fit with a nice majority (though not 60) in the Senate.
As far as most Americans being stupid, I am really torn. The alternatives to The Swan and George W. Bush do not make compelling cases for themselves. The next few years will be a time of fighting for the soul of the Democratic Party. Will it be proudly liberal or frightened and even more moderate? I think the last two elections have shown that Dems don't know how to win as cultural moderates. CLinton did, but remember, both of his races were legitimate 3-way affairs.
Bee Boy — Wed, 11/3/04 10:06am
Everyone said this in 2000, also. I think the last three elections (don't forget '02) show that the Dems don't have the "strategist" in them that they need. They still view politics as a noble pursuit in which you try your best to help people and fix things, and the best man wins. Look at me: I get depressed and sarcastic in defeat. Rove would scowl, swagger, and cheat. For the Democrats to succeed in the current landscape, they'll need to realize that it's now a game.
And I agree, Kerry (like Gore) didn't make a compelling case for himself. That's why I railed against him as the nominee. But when exit polls have people disapproving of the president, disagreeing with his war, frustrated by his economic policies, and voting for him anyway, they're stupid. They shouldn't need someone to make a compelling case to them that their best interests on all of those fronts should eclipse their agreement with Bush on social issues. It's just disheartening that he continues to be so successful with a platform of fear: fear of blacks, fear of gays, fear of al Qaeda.
I still remember 2000, driving home from The Lion King in shock as NPR told us that Bush was going to win it. I said then, "On the plus side, the Democrats will be able to get a gay, black woman elected in 2004." And they probably could've: every pollster will tell you that Not Bush would've defeated both candidates handily.
"AC" — Wed, 11/3/04 11:02am
Was at work till 2:30am waiting for Bush to give his damn speech, which he never did. Lost precious hours of sleep. Now am speaking like caveman. Liked what you said.
"AC" — Wed, 11/3/04 11:22am
Okay, my brain is finally starting to come online.
It occurred to me that perhaps this isn't altogether a bad thing– looking at the news sites this morning, all of them have simple headlines: "Bush Wins", "Bush Takes Election After Kerry Concedes", etc. It's clear that the media is stunned by this. And I'm not drawing that just from the headlines. Hearing stories from the inside indicates that as well. Judy Woodruff had to be taken off the air at CNN last night for several hours because she was showing too much disappointment in the returns. In the wee hours, all of the networks had a very subdued and almost solemn tone to them– a far cry from the bombastic excited orgy of hyperbole that has been dominating their coverage for the past week.
I think, more than anyone else, this election is a gigantic blow to the media as they realize the part they played in getting this man reelected. I think it was a huge slap and a huge wakeup call for them to realize that they're largely responsible for this outcome. So perhaps now things will finally change in terms of how the president is covered. Perhaps today's journalists will take a good hard look at how "being totally objective" can work in a politician's favor. We'll see. I may be overly optimistic again, but frankly, that's where the problem started and where it can begin to be solved. Let's hope!
Bee Boy — Wed, 11/3/04 11:36am
Wouldn't that be nice! Although, isn't it typical: "Ohhhh, man. We didn't realiz– Wow, that's... Hm. What a shame." Meanwhile the rest of us have to wait another four years to fix the problem! (Or at least until ABC launches "Who Wants to Take a Shot at the President?") It was the same thing after it became clear that Iraq had been justified with bad information and wasn't going to wrap up as tidily as promised: they acted all sorry that they'd shirked their journalistic duty and promised to do better. I'm through with them.
Besides, when the man controls all three branches of the federal government, exactly how is a little bad press going to slow him down?
Joe Mulder — Wed, 11/3/04 12:19pm
"(Or at least until ABC launches "Who Wants to Take a Shot at the President?")"
I'm telling the Secret Service on you.
"michwagn" — Wed, 11/3/04 12:36pm
I still do want to defend "the people" a little. And lord, I hate to take from a movie to justify my argument, but I will. I remember in "The American President" when Michael J. Fox's character said that people wanted leadership and that they wanted to be inspired and that without true leadership the people'll eat sand. Of course Andy Shepard said the people don't know the difference between the real deal and sand, but I disagree and he ultimately did too by the end of the movie.
Unless John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Barack Obama, or whoever can say, "Look. In America, we are free and equal. That means that gay people have the right to get married and I support that and you should too for the simple reason that it is American to support it," or "helping the nation maintain good health is good for the economy, the health care system and the soul of the nation and it is time the federal government acted as an instrument of good on this issue" and so forth can give the people a real choice.
Strong cultural conservatives can say, "Look. In America we value traditional marriage and do not want to denegrate it by allowing homosexuals to marry. This is something that reasonable people who take the bible seriously can be against and still be nice people," or "the government has no business trying to take a leadership role in health care. The market should take the lead with the government's role being that it should make it easier for the market to do its business, so we should toughen regulations regardnig frivolous lawsuits and the like"
Then, the people can choose and if they choose the Republican candidate then...then I agree, the people are stupid.
But the Democratic candidate has to put up a fight of liberal ideas before just being pissed that "But he's so dumb!" isn't enough to win. The thing about elections is that even when they hate the other guy, you still have to give them a reason to vote for you.
Brandon — Wed, 11/3/04 1:10pm
I'd like to change my vote from Kerry to Mike's last post! Nicely said.
To my mind, the blame and finger-pointing has to start with the Democratic Party. They have blown the last two elections. First they were given the vice president of a rather popular two-term president and they botched the hand-off. This time, they had an incumbent opponent with poor approval ratings and a large section of the country looking for an alternative, and they still failed to capture the imagination of the Not Bush vote.
If you gave the Republicans both of those scenarios, they would have turned them into a hearty victory and a mandate in each case. They have mastered the art of campaigning in modern politics, and for as much as I despise that current state, I have to tip my hat to the GOP - they know how to win. Whatever ideological differences exist within the party - and there's plenty - they do a good job of keeping the focus on doing what's best for the overall win.
The Democrats are in danger of turning into the Atlanta Braves/Buffalo Bills of politics, and it frustrates and depresses me. Hard lessons need to be learned here, and I think this...
Unless John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Barack Obama, or whoever can say, "Look. In America, we are free and equal. That means that gay people have the right to get married and I support that and you should too for the simple reason that it is American to support it," or "helping the nation maintain good health is good for the economy, the health care system and the soul of the nation and it is time the federal government acted as an instrument of good on this issue" and so forth can give the people a real choice.
...would be a pretty good start.
Bee Boy — Wed, 11/3/04 1:16pm
I agree completely. If I've said or implied otherwise on this site, I hereby apologize and retract. I certainly never thought "But he's dumb" was enough (certainly not in this country), nor should it be. ("But he's grossly irresponsible" is at least a start.) I'm just frustrated (and, for one day, allow me to be) that people are so easily swayed by fear and misdirection and a docile media. I understand that our candidates must do a better job articulating their plan, but does the playing field have to make it so hard?
"michwagn" — Wed, 11/3/04 1:32pm
Amen. I didn't mean to imply I thought you that you thought ""But he's dumb" etc...I am just starting to formulate what I think will be the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party.
And I think you and Brandon made great points in those last posts...especially the ones praising me (just kidding), especially the one about the playing field being hard.
I do think that the playing field is malleable. Reporters can only report what sources tell them. Dems need to start telling them why their liberal ideas are good ones.
Bee Boy — Wed, 11/3/04 1:36pm
Very, very true. (Especially the parts praising you.)
In happier news, Letterman's kid turns 1 today!
Joe Mulder — Wed, 11/3/04 1:44pm
"In happier news, Letterman's kid turns 1 today!"
Now I'm DEFINITELY telling the Secret Service on you.
"michwagn" — Wed, 11/3/04 2:30pm
Mulder is on fire today! Must be the victorious after-glow.
Anonymous Coward — Wed, 11/3/04 2:33pm
Bush was supposed to be a unifier, and I've never felt more divided. No matter how you feel about the candidate the Democrats came up with, and I don't think he was as bad as you all seem to, this is a very bad day for our country. I am now truly scared and sad for our future. It's full steam ahead for an administration that has already been unfettered, but, with no need to worry about re-election...yikes!
"kotc" — Wed, 11/3/04 3:22pm
I don't think the sky is falling... but I can relate... During the clinton administration my feelings were very much the same as AC. However, I think beeboy's comments - "I'm fully aware that the actual effect felt by me – the regular citizen – will be minimal." - may be the most accurate. Also worth noting, many feel that this is a positive move for Hillary's run at the presidency in 4 years... Talk about Yikes...
Bee Boy — Wed, 11/3/04 3:42pm
There he is! This is the comment I've been waiting for all day. And to my astonishment, KOTC actually agrees with something I said! (Good thing I forced myself to say it.)
I don't think Hillary's running. I like her fine (although I'm not crazy about her), but the Democrats know that they have to make a strong play for the middle if they want to become a national party in time for '08, and she rubs a lot of people the wrong way. A lot. No way they'll risk it. Plus, most red-staters don't even want women voting, much less leading. No, our best chance is that the Republican landslide victory in '08 is with someone like McCain or Schwarzenegger (with the compulsory amendment), who unites the country under a more moderate and reasonable conservatism, allowing us to run someone more liberal in the '12 or '16 election without having such a big ideological spread between the candidates that it freaks out the moderate voters.
At this point, I'm reasonably confident that Bush will pass an amendment to extend presidencies to four terms, or just make him Supreme Divinely Ordained Leader for Life. So this could all be, as Joey would say, " a moo point."
Joe Mulder — Wed, 11/3/04 5:52pm
"Mulder is on fire today! Must be the victorious after-glow."
Eh. I follow this stuff like I follow sports. I was a little more invested in this election than in previous ones, but, no matter who wins, I've got a nice wife, a fridge full of "Beers of the World" that my in-laws gave me for my birthday, and a continuing supply of free avocados; I'm cool.
What did you guys (and by "you guys," obvously, I mean "dirty longhairs") think about Kerry conceding today? I read stuff from some people who were outraged at him, some people who thought it was his only move at this point, some people who thought it was very classy. . . just wondering.
Bee Boy — Wed, 11/3/04 6:20pm
I personally didn't watch the concession. I've already forgotten who Kerry is. I just read the Wonkette rundown and went on with my day. By the time I went to bed last night, the math didn't add up for him to take back Ohio, so I'd say conceding was his only move, and classier than dragging it out in court and looking like a Sore Loserman. I have to believe that if KE04 saw any chance of the tally going their way, they'd have delayed the concession. Mom asked whether the concession means they stop counting Ohio (since technically Bush now runs unopposed) – I don't know the specifics on that, but even if they do count it, I don't think the numbers will change enough to give it back to Kerry. If I still cared, I'd have said that he should've used the speech to say more about the dangers of the Bush administration, and say "I'm headed back to the Senate where I'll do my very best to fight for you, get healthcare right, and hold this president accountable for his decisions overseas." But at this point, it's hard to muster that much enthusiasm. Avocados are, after all, still plentiful.
Which is I guess a long way of saying, "Meh. Whatever."
Meh. Whatever.
Brandon — Wed, 11/3/04 8:33pm
I don't think it was his only move; I mean, technically, he could have been like "Avast ye scurvy dogs, I will not give up this ship 'til the last Ohio vote has been counted! Arrrrrrr!" Preferably while wearing a pirate eyepatch (which, as mentioned in a previous comments section, is how I read onebee).
My point is that he could have continued to fight it, which to me means that accepting the reality of the math and conceding was the classy (or at least the stand-up) way to go.
But outraged? No. The math just wasn't there. And I was never really in it for Kerry, my vote was more for President Not W. Bush (aka President Anyone B. Bush, aka Senor No Mas Bush, aka Dr. Nguyen Van Thock). So I'll have to second the meh.
"michwagn" — Thu, 11/4/04 11:11am
I think he had to concede. It was clear the numbers weren't going to work out for him. I thought his concession was nice, a bit too long, but nice. I commented to my colleagues that watched it with me that the first thing pundits would say is, "What an emotional speech, if only he'd connected that way with voters during the campaign" and sure enough: "With emotion seldom displayed to undecided voters on the campaign trail, John Kerry conceded the 2004 presidential election to George W. Bush" from the NYT and similar stuff on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX. Sigh.
While Kerry had to concede, I think the larger issue of voting machines needs to be addressed. No paper record of votes? This is insanity. Why does voting technology need to advance beyond the scantron system?
Also, I disagree at present, though could be convinced otherwise, that the Dems should move further to the center to win. I think that's a huge mistake. Republican candidates are good at making the case that Dems are really more liberal and don't have their hearts in centrist campaigns.
While the same might be true of Republicans, they are better at campaigning in the center.
In my opinion, Democrats need to reframe liberalism. They have 4 years to send the word liberal to rehab and come back and make their case to the middle that they are actually pretty damn liberal too.
Bee Boy — Thu, 11/4/04 11:42am
Good point; instead of "the middle" I should have said "moderate Republicans, and Democrats who don't just vote along party lines." In any case, it's a group that – by and large – hates Hillary Clinton.
You're absolutely right that people are more liberal than they realize. I like the idea of sending the word to rehab.
The voting machine thing is insane. Tuesday night, I watched Wolf Blitzer put both sides on the spot, asking McAuliffe and Gillespie (and, later, the top recount lawyers for both sides) if they would pursue a bipartisan campaign to unify, simplify, and error-proof the country's voting methodology over the next four years. On CNN, everybody said, "Sure! Yes! Let's do it!" I hope they follow through, or are held accountable if they don't.
Brandon — Thu, 11/4/04 12:28pm
Seriously, Mike, can I vote for you?
"michwagn" — Thu, 11/4/04 1:14pm
...maybe in 10 years. But then again, I don't want old cable acccess comedy shows I was a part of becoming part of the national consciousness...
For now, I would be proud to receive your vote as Mayor of Chili-Cheese Dogville or Commission of He Makes a Mean Paella County
"michwagn" — Thu, 11/4/04 1:15pm
"I like the idea of sending the word to rehab."
Maybe we could get Sandra Bullock to star in "28 Days II: The Wrath of John"
Brandon — Thu, 11/4/04 1:34pm
Okay, well if you do decide to run, here's a list of Cabinet positions I will happily accept:
Bee Boy — Thu, 11/4/04 1:52pm
Excellent! And I'll take:
-Secretary of Having Breakfast In Bed With Natalie Portman Every Morning
Joe Mulder — Thu, 11/4/04 2:50pm
"...maybe in 10 years. But then again, I don't want old cable acccess comedy shows I was a part of becoming part of the national consciousness..."
Just thank the Good Lord that the King Papaya tape mysteriously vanished 15 years ago.
"You're absolutely right that people are more liberal than they realize."
I know same-sex marriage is just one issue, but, the voters in two states (Michigan and Oregon) that haven't gone Republican since 1988 and 1984 (respectively) just voted by 58% to uphold the traditional definition. That's a landslide. I don't know where this idea comes from that people are really liberal, but just don't vote that way.
I'm not going to say that most people conservative (though I think socially that's true to a small extent, even though I'm something of a social libertarian, if not a libertine); put it this way: my brother Matt told me that if he were voting for which candidate he'd want to be his uncle, he'd vote for Bush, but since he was voting for president, he went with Kerry.
There are solid Democrats, and solid Republicans; that's 40% each. A pile of burlap sacks with a donkey or elephant sticker on it would get 40% (the two biggest presidential losers in the last 20 years, Mondale and Dole, each got just a shade over 40% of the popular vote). The rest of the country DOES vote, I think, according to which candidate they'd prefer to be their uncle. A lot of people just plain vote for the guy they like more.
And, by the way, I call dibs on Secretary of Naked Boobs.
Anonymous Coward — Thu, 11/4/04 7:01pm
Liberal - Free to excess; regardless of law or moral restraint; licentious.
or... liberal - Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Joe Mulder — Thu, 11/4/04 7:47pm
Dude; whatever. "Liberal," as in "what most people tend to think of as typically politically liberal in early 21st century America."
"KOTC" — Fri, 11/5/04 8:45pm
Joe, Don't let the cowards get to you and, for the record, I like your definition. Oh, and your cabinet position.
Bee Boy — Tue, 1/20/09 10:41am
I just realized that I missed a huge opportunity in straighttothehague.org, which would've been an online petition to take Bush and Cheney direct from today's swearing-in, cuff them, throw them in a paddy wagon, and ship them off to the International Criminal Court to stand trial for war crimes.
It wouldn't have accomplished anything, of course, but I might have gotten laid by a few hippie chicks.