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

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
28kb generated in CPU 0.0173, elapsed 0.1439 seconds.
209 queries taking 0.1364 seconds, 458 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.