November 15, 2004
If You Haven't Read This
. . . you should. It's
Iowahawk's take on how the Blue Staters are coping with the "Dollywood" values that ooze into their lives.
"It was one day last spring," says Ellen McCormack. "My life partner Carol and I were in the garage, working on a giant Donald Rumsfeld papier mache head for the Bay Area March Against the War, when Rain walked by. I thought he looked kind of strange, so I stopped him and looked closely into his eyes. Then I realized the truth -- he was wearing a mullet. I was shocked, but he swore to me that it was only ironic."
"After a few months, it was clear Rain had lied to us -- that hideous Kentucky waterfall was completely earnest," she adds, choking back sobs.
Her 18-year old son would soon exhibit other signs of disturbing changes.
"I was driving past a McDonalds one day last summer, and I thought I saw Rain's bike outside. He had told me earlier that he was going to a friend's house to stuff envelopes for the Dennis Kucinich campaign. I pulled a U-turn and headed back," she recalls. "When I confronted him in the parking lot, he started giving me a lame story about how he was only there to protest globalization, but I could smell the french fries on his breath."
McCormack says that Rain's erratic behavior would also come to include excessive politeness and deference.
"Everytime I tried to talk to him it was 'yes Momma,' and 'no Momma,' when he knows damn well my name is Ellen," she says, anger rising in her voice. "It was like I didn't even know him anymore."
Via Mikal, the selective, eclectic bookseller. And several other fine blogs.
Posted by: Attila at
12:03 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.
November 06, 2004
More on Those Rascally Homophobes
James Joyner
rejects the notion that gay marriage (or other religous issues) decided the election, and runs a small roundup of articles/entries that have disputed the idea—including pieces by David Brooks, Paul Freedman, Kevin Drum and Sully.
Freedman has the statistical goods:
The evidence that having a gay-marriage ban on the ballot increased voter turnout is spotty. Marriage-ban states did see higher turnout than states without such measures. They also saw higher increases in turnout compared with four years ago. But these differences are relatively small. Based on preliminary turnout estimates, 59.5 percent of the eligible voting population turned out in marriage-ban states, whereas 59.1 percent turned out elsewhere. This is a microscopic gap when compared to other factors. For example, turnout in battleground states was more than 7.5 points higher than it was in less-competitive states, and it increased much more over 2000 as well.
Brooks sums it up:
Every election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them. In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top. This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.
The only thing I have to add is that the story line is also being pushed within the religious and evangelical right, because it flatters them as well. "See what happens when you push us too hard in the culture wars? Behold our power." But in reality, it was Bush's gains among women, black people, Jews and Catholics that pushed him over the top, and the biggest "moral value" in this campaign was the idea that people who kidnap others and decapitate them should be put out of business.
(Head over to Outside the Beltway [link at the top of this article] to access the links to the original pieces; I'm way too busy to sling the code in here myself. Besides, Dr. Joyner has written on this topic before, and it's worth scrolling around to find his other thoughts on the subject. There's a nice entry yesterday, IIRC.)
Posted by: Attila at
12:15 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.
1
First, spiffy checkerboard background. Tres chic.
"the biggest 'moral value' in this campaign was the idea that people who kidnap others and decapitate them should be put out of business."
But this of course only after we put them in business in the first place by preemptively and unnecessarily invading an Arab nation, an action counterterrorism experts assured us would increase terrorism worldwide. Sure enough, the State Department tells us worldwide terrorism has spiked since the war began. The subject of beheadings, once limited to goth circles, is now a wonderful topic of conversation for all to enjoy, God bless America. State tells us that anti-American anger in the Middle East has reached "shocking levels," as luck would have it, and even 40% of Canadian teenagers now think America is a force for evil. You have to hand it to us; we are REALLY GOOD at creating terrorists.
Then of course we catch a few of the ones we create. Not too good at catching the big guys. Anyone remember bin Laden? Didn't think so. Right, he didn't behead people (well, maybe he did but if so I never saw the tape), but he IS the top guy in an organization that flew planes into a few of our favorite civilian-filled buildings. (Ayman al-Zawahiri, the former leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, who has helped him run the organization, also alive and well somewhere).
A few months after 9/11, Bush told us, "I don't know where [bin Laden] is. I have no idea and I really don't care."
See, this is where Mr. Bush and I disagree. For some odd reason, I think it's somewhat important to go after the guy who commits the greatest terrorist attack in the history of mankind, rather than pursuing a stale old foreign policy project from the 90's that we could have undertaken anytime. No, Saddam DIDN'T have any nukes. Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA told us this before the invasion.
So the State Department tells us that on 9/11 there were 45 countries in which al-Qaeda was operating. The USA, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, etc. Iraq wasn't one of them. Today al-Qaeda has expanded its reach to at least 60 countries, and Iraq has happily joined the fray. How wonderful for those of us who so enjoy watching videos of people being beheaded.
Mr. Bush, circa a few months after 9/11:
"I'm not that concerned about [bin Laden]."
"I don't know where he is. No, you know, I just don't spend that much time on him to be honest with you."
Well, f**k you very much, Mr. President.
p.s. "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them," said our commander-in-chief. True to his word, Mullah Omar of the Taliban, still at-large. Saddam Hussein, however, who'd been sitting quietly in the Middle East for over a decade, a man of whom Colin Powell described in 2001 as having "not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction" and whom terrorism experts said was not collaborating with al-Qaeda, is now on trial before the world, so we can all forget about that 9/11 ugliness. "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad," Bush said. True enough, true enough. Again, f**k you very much, a**hole.
Posted by: hrs at November 13, 2004 06:46 AM (rfoJk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Homophobes Are Coming!
It appears that all is forgiven, and
The Wall Street Journal is taking Peggy Noonan back agian [/joke]. This ran, as I recall, circa Thursday:
Let us get our heads around the size and scope of what happened Tuesday. George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States, became the first incumbent president to increase his majority in both the Senate and the House and to increase his own vote (by over 3.5 million) since Franklin D. Roosevelt, political genius of the 20th century, in 1936. This is huge.
George W. Bush is the first president to win more than 50% of the popular vote since 1988. (Bill Clinton failed to twice; Mr. Bush failed to last time and fell short of a plurality by half a million.) The president received more than 59 million votes, breaking Ronald Reagan's old record of 54.5 million. Mr. Bush increased his personal percentages in almost every state in the union. He carried the Catholic vote and won 42% of the Hispanic vote and 24% of the Jewish vote (up from 19% in 2000.)
She is just so good. The leitmotif on this essay is the word "savor," which somehow annoyed me, either despite or because I knew it wasn't a synonym for "gloat." But in between the "choruses," the verses are still so damned good: vintage Peggy. Read the whole thing, if you haven't already.
There is a tendancy to try to find one cause for Bush's victory, to place this all on evengelical voters without seeing that Bush could not have won without increasing the percentages of Jews, Black people, and Catholics who voted for him. Or to link this election more strongly to the issue of gay marriage than to that of Kerry's own personal integrity, simply because "moral values" were mentioned in some exit polls. (Not lying in front of Congress could be perceived to be a moral value, no? Or not exacerbating the suffering of American POWs during the Vietnam war . . . ?)
Michele of ASV recommends that the left chill the hell out:
If you don't mind, I'd like to address the throngs of Chicken Littles who seem to be out in full force on the net today. I just want to clear up a few things, as you all seem to be pretty misguided in more than one area today.
I voted for George Bush.
I am not a redneck.
I do not spend my days watching cars race around a track, drinking cheap beer and slapping my woman on the ass.
I am not a bible thumper. In fact, I am an atheist.
I am not a homophobe.
I am educated beyond the fifth grade. In fact, I am college educated.
I am not stupid. Not by any stretch of facts.
I do not bomb abortion clinics.
You will not be thrown in jail for the sole reason of being a liberal.
Your child's public school will not suddenly turn into a center for Christian brainwashing.
Your favorite bookstore will not turn into puritan central.
This is not Nazi Germany in any way.
You will not be forced into concentration camps.
You will not be burned in human-sized ovens because of your religion.
We will not be forced to wear uniforms and march in line every day.
You will not live in fear.
If you think this is a country in which you have to live in fear, I have some friends in Iran who would like to have a little talk with you.
Finally, Micheal J. Totten has been discussing this a lot lately—the myth of the Christian Takeover. In one entry, "An Exodus of Women," he points out that females abandoned the Democratic Party in droves this last election. Lively discussion ensues on his comments board: one commenter points out that the 2004 results simply reflected a liberal-conservative coalition against the left. I think that's about right.
IÂ’m not buying the now-popular theory that says Bush won because he whipped up an evangelical frenzy against gay marriage. John Kerry also opposes gay marriage. Both Bush and Kerry are in favor of civil unions. Kerry bragged that his position on gay marriage is exactly the same as the presidentÂ’s. (I think theyÂ’re both wrong, for whatever thatÂ’s worth. IÂ’m to the left of both of them on this question.) Besides, my state of Oregon voted to ban gay marriage and also chose Kerry in a landslide. The gay marriage debate was barely whispered here. It didn't help Bush at all. Lots of people around here saw no contradiction voting against gay marriage and also for Kerry.
And in a follow-up piece, "Zombie Hordes of Theo-Cons," he links to an Andrew Coyne essay and shares his own thoughts:
The Republican Party has a nut-job wing. Pat Robertson is real. James Dobson is real. Michael Savage is real. These guys have fans, and they voted. ThereÂ’s no denying it. But thereÂ’s also no denying that if John Kerry faced Pat Robertson in an election the Republican Party would have to dig itself out of a smouldering crater.
45 percent of the people who voted for Bush are self-described liberals or moderates. (Earth to Democrats: ThatÂ’s why he beat you.) Only 55 percent of the people who voted for Bush are conservatives. (See AndrewÂ’s piece for the details.) And, as most of us know, there are many different kinds of conservatives. There are neocons and paleocons, Wall Street conservatives and religious conservatives. Not to mention plain old run-of-the-mill conservatives. ItÂ’s a fractious group of people who have little in common but, oddly enough, happen to wear the same useless label.
Zeroing in on only one of those factions and blowing it all out proportion will get the Democrats nowhere. It makes as much sense as Ann Coulter accusing every leftie in the land of being pro-terrorist. ItÂ’s not only dumb but exceptionally counterproductive.
(My emphasis.)
So enough with the stereotypes, okay? And enough with picking one strand out of the tapestry and suggesting it represents the whole thing.
The Democratic Party has to dig itself out of the "victim mindset" it uses to foster dependency within its various client groups, and do a little soul-searching.
Posted by: Attila at
05:36 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1047 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Well, having lived in NC for so long, I qualify as a redneck. I love when the left refers to me as such, and thinks that that means that I am an "igit". I always ask them if they realize how much food is grown by us "rednecks," and how many tech companies have moved south of the Mason Dixon line. Never get an answer from them
Then I ask them why they are moving down south from NJ, NY, etc, where all us rednecks live, in droves. No answer to that one, either.
But then, I guess all us RWers are just sheeple and lemmings. PFFFTTTT!
Posted by: William Teach at November 06, 2004 11:11 AM (TFSHk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 05, 2004
Levity
Spoons has some
funny election "predictions" that I suspect were made circa Wednesday evening.
And a few of the comments that follow are actually from their "authors."
Via Patterico.
Posted by: Attila at
12:05 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.
November 04, 2004
Attention, Would-Be Emigres!
Kate McMillan has a
red/blue map of Canada, so that when you move up there to escape Bushitler you don't settle in a "red" area by mistake.
Although that would be amusing to the rest of us.
Via James.
Posted by: Attila at
09:51 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.
Lileks After the Election
“Who is the father of George W. Bush?” Gnat asked on the way to school today. Oh boy.
“You’re not going to believe this, but his name is George Bush, too.”
“Oh, daddee.”
“True.” Pause. Should I? Might as well. “And he was the president once, too.”
“George Bush’s daddy was president too? You’re joking me. That’s silly.”
And so it begins. But if all goes as it usually does, in 14 years sheÂ’ll vote for someone I donÂ’t like; heÂ’ll win, and sheÂ’ll and remind me: you taught me to respect the President.
If I can give her that much, IÂ’ve done my job.
Read the whole thing; and check out his new book, now being promoted on his site. Looks like good stuff.
Posted by: Attila at
06:17 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.
No, Not a Landslide,
particularly in terms of the Electoral College, which we've all been focused on (for obvious reasons). But the President got 51% of the popular vote (first time since 1988 that anyone has pulled that off [it was his father]). And he got an unprecedented raw number of votes.
Turnout helped both guys, but Bush more than Kerry.
And, furthermore, Bush had coattails: Republicans down the ticket benefited from the association with him.
Not a landslide. But a mandate.
He also benefitted from all the pro-gay-marriage initatives, which energized the "devout Christian" vote—to the point that I think advocates of gay marriage (and I am one, though I don't breathe fire on this issue) should regroup and start pushing for civil unions, and finding a way to assure full federal benefits for these types of partnerships. If there's a way to get the legal and financial protections that gays and lesbians need without forcing people to place the label "marriage" on it, it would get us through the next 10-20 years while we work this thing out. (Ultimately, I believe the state should only grant civil unions to any couple, and then the specific church/religious group would be responsible for pronouncing it a marriage.
The average person doesn't feel ready yet to go up to a man and discuss his husband. They can say "boyfriend," or "partner," but they're hung up on "husband," and need a few years to get used to that idea. Provided we can get all the necessary legal and financial protections in place, why does it hurt us to wait on that semantic issue?
Also, ixnay on the hate rhetoric. That Michael Moore stuff did you guys no good whatsoever, unless your goal was to make money for terrorists in the Middle East through distribution rights—or to savage the morale of American troops. Cut Moore loose, and thank me later.
And grab yourselves an electable candidate next time.
End of advice-giving.
Posted by: Attila at
05:57 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Great! Four more years of the condescending Republican "We have all the answers" attitude.
"Also, ixnay on the hate rhetoric." Really?!? Such as Cheney and his "A vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism" implications, the nasty Swifties, and the hate films that just didn't do so well as Moores... The Republicans are masters of underhanded politics - plain and simple - which is likely why you-all won. Most Americans are plain and simple, and they like the violent bad guy image.
"And grab yourselves an electable candidate next time." meaning what? We should have someone comparable to Bush. Sorry, Goofy is a trademarked cartoon character...
Posted by: littlemrmahatma at November 04, 2004 07:50 AM (BZ0tI)
2
^^^^If they can't figure out what an "electable candidate" is, it does not bode well for them.
Count me in as one who is would begrudgingly grant equal rights to same sex civil unions, but who refused to call such unions "marriages." To me that is a well defined term that's been around for ages and doesn't cover same sex anything. "Husband"...that one's tough. I'm still working on moving up to using "partner," as "roommate" is all I can muster right now.
Posted by: Don at November 04, 2004 09:41 AM (FsGoB)
3
I don't think the Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth were fighting dirty; I think they really felt betrayed by this man who called Vietnam Vets war criminials.
I think the Bush Administration is really sincere in its belief that their proactive approach to fighting terror is the way to go, and that going back to the "law enforcement model" of the Clinton Administration would take us back to where we were before, and cost thousands of American lives.
And I've seen three out of the four "responses" to Michael Moore's films--all of which were respectful and balanced in a way that F9/11 is not.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 04, 2004 09:54 AM (SuJa4)
4
"Bush Administration is really sincere in its belief that their proactive approach to fighting terror is the way to go" Sincerity doesn't mean it's the right action as witnessed by the incredible mess in Iraq, which is costing billions of American dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives...
What I can't stand about the Bush Admin and the Bushies is for all the talk of personal responsibility they refuse to admit mistakes. It's always someone elses fault. Excuse after excuse after excuse.
And worse if you disgree with Bush then - black and white - you must be one of THEM - the enemy. Well, half of America must be the enemy. What now? How can we reach out to Bush who has repeatedly implied that we - half of America - is the enemy because of our disagreement with his Administration? We will not blindly follow him like little red sheep nor will we kowtow to his self-serving policies.
Why should we trust Bush when his actions have repeatedly shown he's not trustworthy? Sincerity just isn't enough. You can be sincere and WRONG but Bush has shown he doesn't have the brains or the maturity to admit mistakes!!!
Try taking a critical look at the Bush Administration instead of baa-baa keeping in line.
Posted by: littlemrmahatma at November 04, 2004 10:32 AM (BZ0tI)
5
"Bush Administration is really sincere in its belief that their proactive approach to fighting terror is the way to go" Sincerity doesn't mean it's the right action as witnessed by the incredible mess in Iraq, which is costing billions of American dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives...
The situation in Iraq is certainly mixed right now, though I think it's a good deal better there than the media would like us to believe.
In Europe, after WWII, the infrastructure was destroyed and people continued to die from hunger and disease for years afterward. Should we therefore have refused to fight the Nazis? After all, there were terrible civilian casulties in that war, and we had to occupy Germany for half a century afterward. The Germans didn't have a working government for five years. Remember the Marshall Plan? We had to carry the entire continent of Europe (as well as Japan) for years.
And I don't believe there were 100,000 Iraqi deaths in our invasion: the methodology of that study struck me as flawed.
Also, remember that Bin Laden was hoping that the WTC towers would fall *over*, rather than imploding. That would have meant tens of thousands of deaths. We were essentially lucky that 9/11 was as "mild" as it was. And: if flight 93 hadn't left the airport so late (enabling the passengers to find out what was going on, via their cell phones) it would have been flown into the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. and there would be a lot of dead senators, congressmen, and aides.
Better we fight this war elsewhere, rather than here. And the Iraqi people are ultimately going to have much better lives because of it.
What I can't stand about the Bush Admin and the Bushies is for all the talk of personal responsibility they refuse to admit mistakes. It's always someone elses fault. Excuse after excuse after excuse.
It could be that from the point of view of someone like Condoleeza Rice, less is going wrong than it is from your viewpoint.
And I've been hearing this for months, from people who never thought to ask Senator Kerry for an apology for accusing soldiers and sailors in Vietnam of horrible atrocities--in front of Congress, no less. So there seems to be a bit of a double standard at work.
And worse if you disgree with Bush then - black and white - you must be one of THEM - the enemy.
You say that. But when I see that attitude, it's mostly on the left side of the spectrum. And I think it's worth noting that the President speficically spoke out to Kerry voters in his speech yesterday: he said he would work to earn yout trust. He did try to reach out.
Well, half of America must be the enemy. What now? How can we reach out to Bush who has repeatedly implied that we - half of America - is the enemy because of our disagreement with his Administration?
When did he say this, Mahatma? When?
We will not blindly follow him like little red sheep nor will we kowtow to his self-serving policies.
Fine. But you can be the loyal opposition, and behave the way I would have if Kerry had won: support the President, and loudly do everything possible to keep him on the straight and narrow, as you see it. Keep your dissent as coherent and specific as possible.
Why should we trust Bush when his actions have repeatedly shown he's not trustworthy? Sincerity just isn't enough. You can be sincere and WRONG but Bush has shown he doesn't have the brains or the maturity to admit mistakes!!!
He--he's smarter than Kerry. By five points, if you believe in I.Q. tests. And, again--the mistakes he's made will be debated by historians. You and I are going to have very different lists of Bush's "mistakes." Careful you don't sound like you're saying, "above all, I don't respect him because he doesn't agree with me about how incompetent he is."
Try taking a critical look at the Bush Administration instead of baa-baa keeping in line.
Oh, for crying out loud. Bye.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 04, 2004 12:43 PM (SuJa4)
6
Such as Cheney and his "A vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism" implications
Simply not true. Even the deceptively edited version of what he said, as spread by the MSM, didn't say that Cheney's warning was very simply of the risk that if Kerry were elected, and there were to be another major attack, that Kerry would fail to respond effectively to it. Nothing hateful in that.
Posted by: triticale at November 04, 2004 07:10 PM (DXPhi)
7
I appreciated your insight that the Republican party is in fact a coalition of people with widely varied agendas (agendae?).
It seems to me that some of the weakness that the Democratic party has shown in recent years owes itself to a similar but more advanced case of the same symptoms.
The politics of polarization that has become so prevalent hits the Democrats harder than the Republicans just now. Since the 70's they have become a coalition of splintered interest groups that really only make common cause at election time. A Democratic candidate has a real job trying not to offend any of that motley constituency. In this election, some of them even jumped ship.
The Bush mandate is real, but slim, and it is oddly mixed. There were frustrated Conservatives voting for Kerry, and disaffected Liberals voting for Bush. I know that I'm blathering here, because I don't know what this is going to mean in the long term. I do get a strong sense that a lot of people did not feel completely represented by either party, but felt that it was terribly important to choose in spite of that. Is there a platform that can be distilled from the common concerns of both? Beats me.
Posted by: douglas brown at November 06, 2004 04:47 PM (L/ezL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 02, 2004
Slime
Edwards just came to the podium to tell the country that the concept of democracy is shit.
Posted by: Attila at
11:30 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I didn't hear this. What exactly did he say?
Posted by: David Foster at November 03, 2004 07:20 AM (XUtCY)
2
"We will have the votes to win as soon as Ter-AY-zaH gets back from Kinkos."
Posted by: The Pirate at November 03, 2004 08:19 AM (0ZKi5)
3
Is it any wonder why those of us who live in North Carolina weren't going to relect edwards? The guy is scum. Might have to drive by his house and TP it
Posted by: William Teach at November 03, 2004 01:35 PM (KCG7N)
4
David, he said essentially that they weren't going to concede, and muttered some nonsense about making sure every vote counted and was counted.
I figured they were setting the stage for a long series of court challenges on an unambiguous result, and I lost my temper.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 03, 2004 05:00 PM (SuJa4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Happy Election Day
Heading out to vote in a few minutes. I'm really sleep-deprived, but I promise to
concentrate, so I don't vote for JFK by mistake. Then I'm off to my local Bush-Cheney party headquarters, so I can make some "get out the vote" phone calls. Not that it matters at the Presidential Level in the Golden State, but there are some important local issues here. I also want the statewide gap between Kerry and the President to be as narrow as possible, in order to embarass the Democrats and to give W. the strongest possible popular vote numbers.
One piece of advice, less for my blogger friends than for their mothers and brothers and aunts: don't watch (or listen to) any mainstream media sources until after you vote. Remember what happened in 2000: there would have been no dispute about the results in Florida if the panhandle had shown up at the polls. And the panhandle voters didn't bother, because the MSM had already called the state for Gore. There will be attempts by our friends in the MSM to manipulate the data so that things appear as hopeless for W. as possible. Vote, and then turn on the TV—if you must. (By the way, the advice works for Democratic voters as well: voting is a civic duty, and we can all be swayed by last-minute data or a hard day at work: vote as early as you can—before work, if possible—and don't tune in until you've done it.)
Apparently, the fraud has already begun: Vodkapundit has a few examples (hop over there and scroll around). I anticipate there will be many today, and I just hope the poll-watchers stay on their toes.
Posted by: Attila at
10:18 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.
First Predictions
I went back to the old Blogspot site, to see when I first predicted a strong showing for Bush in this election. Turns out the first ones predated Kerry's nomination.
Here's what appears to be the very first:
HAPPY NEW YEAR
Welcome to 2004, the year that:
1. George W. Bush will be re-elected in a landslide election;
2. There will be another successful terrorist attack on the U.S., though not on the scale of 9/11;
3. The economy will take off, and employment will go through the roof;
4. My freelance copyediting income will, likewise, increase dramatically;
5. My husband will get another union job, thereby preserving our health care benefits--or he'll sell his screenplay, and we'll be able to afford to buy insurance through his company;
6. We'll be approved to adopt a baby;
7. I'll finally finish a draft on one of my backburnered writing projects.
I pray I'm right about everything but the second prediction.
And then there was this one, a bit later in January:
OKAY, I KNOW I'M LATE
But I'll say one thing about the Democratic primaries: the dems are acting less like lemmings lately, and more like folks who want to win. They appear to be leaning toward guys who have a chance, like Kerry and Edwards, and away from Angry Young Men Without a Prayer, like Dean and Clark.
But it'll all be for naught, and I'll give you two reasons why: 1) the war on terror/national security, and 2) the economy. The only thing that could really un-seat W. is a large-scale, successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil. And even that might backfire, since a lot of people feel he's being very aggressive in pursuing terrorists. As far as the economy is concerned, he's sitting in the catbird seat.
Bush by a landslide. And you know it, deep down.
Those were written 10-11 months ago. And now we'll see how I do. As at least one friend has pointed out, I've been "waaaay out on a limb" for many months—and not always when things looked good for the President.
If Kerry is elected, the Republic will survive, but hundreds or thousands will die here that wouldn't otherwise have to, and thousands of Iraqis will as well. In fact, the future of the Iraqi experiment will be in doubt if Kerry wins. And we need a democracy in that region other than Israel; we really do.
I'm no longer hoping for a landslide; I'd just like a lawyer-proof victory.
Goodnight, now. I'm voting first thing in the morning so I can go to Bush-Cheney headquarters around noon, have a couple of friendly arguments with the social cons there, and do a little get-out-the-vote phone calling.
Then it's out to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Interocitor for a little gathering with the Angeleno Chapter of the Bear-Flag Leaguers. It'll be the first time they'll be meeting Attila the Hub. I'll bring the laptop, but I'm not committing to live-blogging, particularly since this will partially be a social event. After all, I'm a nerd, but I do try not to let that show.
Posted by: Attila at
12:56 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 525 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Adopting, such a good thing, my uncle just adpoted their 2nd child this year they are both absolute darlings.
See you tonight at Mr. & Mrs. Intercocitor's home, when ever I get there after class.
Posted by: The Pirate at November 02, 2004 08:11 AM (0ZKi5)
2
Oh my, how you have reached right into me as a Mother.
There is a child waiting for you. If you ever have questions on this desire of your heart I will be more than happy to help you and guide you through some outstanding resources.
I will be here.
Blessings A Bounty Full,
Posted by: Janelle at November 02, 2004 03:43 PM (Yjkrq)
3
You could always contact Dean and he will gentley carress and help to unfold things that he is personally familiar with, due to his Mother.
Posted by: Janelle at November 02, 2004 03:47 PM (Yjkrq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 01, 2004
Conventional Wisdom
Most bloggers, pundits and poll-collectors give it to Bush 286-252. That assumes Hawaii doesn't flip, New Hampshire goes to Kerry, and Kerry takes the West Coast, New England, and Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Illinois. Pennsylvania to Kerry, Florida to Bush, New Mexico to Bush and Ohio to Bush.
I'm going to say that we get at least four more EVs than that, for a minimum of 290 Bush votes: Hawaii will come over, and maybe New Hampshire as well (which would bring us to 294). And I think it's likely we'll get one more of the Great Lakes states, in light of the bin Ladin threats. Americans do not like to be threatened.
But what do I know?—I'm a middle-aged gal with a computer.
Posted by: Attila at
12:54 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.
1
middle-aged gal with a computer?
the perfect Bush voter!
soccer moms never knew what hit 'em.
Posted by: chris muir at November 01, 2004 01:59 PM (g/gbg)
2
Oooh, a celebrity at my own site! Chris Muir dropped by . . . !
Thanks for your vote of confidence, Chris.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 01, 2004 05:09 PM (SuJa4)
3
You have a lot to say and you sound very level headed and your words are heard.
Middle Age? Me too, isn't it great!?!
Posted by: Janelle at November 01, 2004 10:14 PM (Yjkrq)
4
Hi there. This is actually in response to the letter posted at Dean Esmay's site.
I'm Canadian, so pass over this if you want to spend today working on getting out the vote.
I just found your arguments fascinating, because in some cases they had the *complete opposite effect* on me that you intended. And I know you meant it sincerely. It really illustrates the Red/Blue divide.
The opener about 'wardrobe'... it was very patronizing. I think I know what you were getting at, but you seemed to dismiss your targets as having frivolous minds.
Your argument about Iraq is basically that, even if you believe that the war was a big mistake, we can't switch leaders at a time of crisis. I've seen a lot of Bush supporters say this. The thing is, the average liberal believes that when the leader screws up that badly, you MUST replace him or her, even if you have your doubts about the other guy.
I've noticed that when Bush stumbles, his base rallies around him. When Kerry stumbles, you immediately see articles in the Village Voice asking how did we get saddled with this loser, and is it too late to dump him? I think it's a fundamental divide between how liberals and conservatives view power structures.
Posted by: Neil K at November 01, 2004 10:36 PM (iRNZW)
5
Hi there. This is actually in response to the letter posted at Dean Esmay's site.
Readers will find that essay
here.
I'm Canadian, so pass over this if you want to spend today working on getting out the vote.
My presidential vote is of purely symbolic value, since I live in California. So I have a few minutes.
I just found your arguments fascinating, because in some cases they had the *complete opposite effect* on me that you intended. And I know you meant it sincerely. It really illustrates the Red/Blue divide.
The opener about 'wardrobe'... it was very patronizing. I think I know what you were getting at, but you seemed to dismiss your targets as having frivolous minds.
Only to the degree that I do, and it's quite possible I'm more shallow than most. I live in L.A. I'm surrounded by people from the entertainment and media industries. And I myself, as my politics drifted "rightward," have had to deal with a lot of identity issues over it.
There's a huge stereotype to the effect that anyone right-of-center is more rigid in his/her thinking, and less likely to be creative. I just wanted the reader to know that he/she could hold onto whatever symbols of his/her identity were pleasing, and wouldn't be required to sport a George Will bow tie just for voting Bush.
Your argument about Iraq is basically that, even if you believe that the war was a big mistake, we can't switch leaders at a time of crisis. I've seen a lot of Bush supporters say this. The thing is, the average liberal believes that when the leader screws up that badly, you MUST replace him or her, even if you have your doubts about the other guy.
It's basically a carbon-copy of the argument that was used during America's Civil War, which at times appeared to be going disasterously. Lincoln said we shouldn't switch horses in mid-stream; the people agreed.
I suspect you and I have some disagreements about how "screwed up" things really
are in Iraq. I have some schools, hospitals, roads and impending elections that say you might be mistaken.
And there is no doubt that the terrorists there will be emboldened by a Kerry victory here. None at all.
I've noticed that when Bush stumbles, his base rallies around him. When Kerry stumbles, you immediately see articles in the Village Voice asking how did we get saddled with this loser, and is it too late to dump him? I think it's a fundamental divide between how liberals and conservatives view power structures.
We may be reading different sources. I do believe it's possible that criticism on the right has been a bit more muted this year than it is usually, in order to keep our collective morale up during an election season. But there are a lot of conservatives out there who are simply appalled at Bush's domestic agenda. There are people who are infuriated at what they view as a sub rosa amnesty for illegal immigrants, and there are a whole lot of conservatives who are mightily pissed off at the ham-handed attempt to "Federalize" an issue (gay marriage) that should have been left to the states. Libertarians like me aren't pleased with that one, either. Not at all.
And the deficit hawks are eating more shit here than anyone.
But most of us have decided that the security of this nation, and the defeat of Islamo-fascism is more important than anything else, and that Bush is the guy who is throwing the largest possible monkey wrenches into the terrorists' plans (including both terrorist-sponsoring states and non-state actors).
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 02, 2004 01:53 AM (SuJa4)
6
I have some schools, hospitals, roads and impending elections that say you might be mistaken.
I wasn't actually referring to the state of Iraq, but the justification(s) for the war.
But even on the state of Iraq, it's a mixed bag. I briefly met Iraqi blogger Salam Pax at a showing of his film in Vancouver. The picture he painted wasn't so pretty. While he was not a fan of the war, he had high hopes for the occupation, which are now all but gone.
I don't know if I can get into a fruitful debate here, since neither of us have primary information. I read what I can.
And there is no doubt that the terrorists there will be emboldened by a Kerry victory here. None at all.
Really? The sense I get from Iraqis is that they don't care who wins the election. The shape of the occupation is pretty much set in stone now, and they don't expect anything different from the next president.
Anyway, the issue is not how the terrorists feel, but who is the actually the most competent at combating them. You think it's Bush, but I hope you will forgive me if I have some doubts on this score.
Re: circling the wagons. I do not mean to say conservatives do not question the man, what I find interesting is that they continue to support him. This is not criticism, just an observation. The liberal ethos is all about rebelling against authority, even to a suicidal degree. If the parties were reversed I think Nader would be polling 25% right now.
Posted by: Neil K at November 02, 2004 12:55 PM (iRNZW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bin Laden Threatens Individual States
Yigal Carmon, President of The Middle East Media Research Institute, wrote an
article on the MEMRI web site that corrects an early mis-translation from Osama bin Ladin's recent video:
The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to "each U.S. state," designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" (which means "each U.S. state") to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state. This suggests some knowledge by bin Laden of the U.S. electoral college system. In a section of his speech in which he harshly criticized George W. Bush, bin Laden stated: "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."
The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: "This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy. By this characterization, Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people itself between enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and those who fight for us, so that he doesn't treat all American people as if they're the same. This letter will have great implications inside the American society, part of which are connected to the American elections, and part of which are connected to what will come after the elections."
Another interesting aspect of the speech is the fact that while bin Laden made his specific threat to each U.S. state, he also offered an election deal to the American voters, attempting to influence the election by these means rather than influencing it through terrorist attacks.
The short version?—Binny says, vote Kerry if you know what's good for you.
Adds Jeff of Protein Wisdom:
Reached for comment, California pulled two enormous bong hits, opened a bag of Doritos, and fired up the Playstation 2.
Protein Wisdom also has a pretty good roundup of blogger reactions, so follow the link right above this if you want to read more.
Posted by: Attila at
12:34 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.
Words of Cheer
Hawaii is in play (Bush slightly ahead), and so is Michigan (Kerry still ahead there). If Kerry loses either of those states it's going to be embarrassing. As it is, he lost Nevada and New Mexico. But I guess he'll be hanging on to New Jersey by his fingernails. Maybe even Pennsylvania and Minnesota.
Hell--California's looking like Kerry is only ahead of Bush in the single digits. Is there any state that's still rock-solid for JFK?--Oh, right. New York. And Illinois.
This could be a bloodbath—or at least, a strong enough result to save us from the lawsuits.
I suspect we'll all be pretty cheerful Tuesday night: expect lots of toasts.
Posted by: Attila at
02:40 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I do not understand somethings and I hope you can help me. I do not understand the majority of journalists that seem to think Israel is evil and Palestine is the poor underdog who should be championed by the rest of the world. What justification do they have for this way of thinking?
Also, I am baffled by a majority of Jews in this country that are voting for Kerry...even after that criminal Arrafat endorsed him?
Can you help me with these questions please? More and more these days I just want to cry at the path the world and this country is taking. I just want to cry...
Posted by: ferretbait at November 01, 2004 12:27 PM (HRHWe)
2
The short answer is that a lot of lefties (and most journalists are lefties) look at the living conditions of the Palestinians and feel compassion, without seeing that the situation is being manipulated by Arab states that use "Palestine" (a made-up name for Arabs from real Arab states) as a stick to beat Israel with.
The Arabs attempted to subdue Israel by force. They were unsuccessful, so now they use public opinion. And, unfortunately, many on the left see success (Israel, the U.S.) and assume it comes because someone has taken something that rightly belongs to someone else.
I'm trying to remember where I read the point that after all these years, and billions of dollars in foreign aid, the Palestinians don't even have medical facilities to treat Arafat; he had to be taken to Paris. The Arab world is, in a lot of cases, underdeveloped because of poor leadership. A tremendous amount of effort goes into destruction and the idolization of death, rather than creative ways to solve problems and generate revenue.
Being anti-Capitalist (except, of course, as regards themselves), many American and West European journalists don't see this.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 01, 2004 12:43 PM (SuJa4)
3
ferretbait -
look at the casualty numbers on both sides of the conflict. If that's all you look at, it appears that Israel is beating the crap out of the so-called Palestinians.
Between 2000 and 2003, about 700 Israelis were killed, and about 2,000 Palestinians were killed.
If that's all you see, it's easy to feel sympathy for the Palestinians.
But there's more to it than that. (not all of the dead were killed by the other side. Not all of the dead were combatants, etc...)
Take a look at the larger story:
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=439
Posted by: bb at November 02, 2004 06:14 AM (uCa9x)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
81kb generated in CPU 0.0651, elapsed 0.1345 seconds.
214 queries taking 0.1227 seconds, 458 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
