WAS ANYONE SURPRISED?

Posted By: Glenn HaumanPosted On:

Now that everyone’s done whomping on Glenn, I’m going to ask if anyone is really surprised over the election results. I mean, really.

To me, it was pretty much in the bag the moment Congress gave Bush war power even though we’re not at war.

Never underestimate the magician’s trick of misdirection. Look. Look, over here. This country’s riddled with problems, the type of which would cause any electorate to shift control, but hey! Over there! There’s this very, very bad man, and we have to do something about him, because he’s a very bad man. So quick, let’s assemble our allies–you know, the country that turns tanks on its protestors, and the country that supplied almost all of the 9/11 hijackers, and the country bordering Afghanistan where the new terrorist camps have been set up–those allies, and do something about this very bad man, because unlike the very bad man, they embrace human rights and the American way and puppies.

And while that’s happening, the Democrats won’t be able to pull the attention of the 1-in-3 people who vote over towards those annoying domestic problems because they’ll be too worried about war, and–as I said ages ago–people don’t like to switch horses in mid-war stream. In a political environment where criticism of the administration is tantamount to being unpatriotic, naturally the electorate is going to give a more clear mandate to a man who, two years ago, it did not give the majority of the popular votes to and likely would be heading for defeat in 2004 if two airplanes hadn’t been flown into the World Trade Center.

So as I said, I wasn’t surprised. The only surprising thing would be if anyone else was.

PAD

108 comments on “WAS ANYONE SURPRISED?”

  1. Peter, this one’s for you Pally.

    Lyrics:

    Here’s to those who love not too wisely, know not wisely, but too well

    To the girl who sighs with envy when she hears that wedding bell

    To the guy who’d throw a party if he knew someone to call

    Here’s to the losers, bless them all

    Here’s to those who drink their dinners when that lady doesn’t show

    To the girl who’ll wait for kisses underneath that mistletoe

    To the lonely summer lovers when the leaves begin to fall

    Here’s to the losers, a-bless them all

    Hey, Tom, Ðìçk and Harry, come in out of the rain

    Those torches you carry must be drowned in champagne

    Here’s the last toast of the evening, here’s to those who still believe

    All the losers will be winners, all the givers shall receive

    Here’s to trouble-free tomorrows, may your sorrows all be small

    Here’s to the losers, bless them all

    Hey, Tom, Ðìçk and Harry, come in out of that rain

    Those torches you carry must be drowned in champagne

    Here’s the last toast of the evening, here’s to those who still believe

    All the losers will be winners, all the givers shall receive

    Here’s to trouble-free tomorrows, may your sorrows all be small

    Here’s to the losers, here’s to the losers, here’s to the losers

    Bless them all!

  2. And it’s simply impossible that Americans honsetly and truly wanted to elect Republicans; that they preferred the Republican candidates to the Democratic ones in most races; that they decided they liked how the Republicans said they wanted to do things better than how the Democrats did.

    No, no, call it a “magician’s trick;” fulminate against the war with Iraq that’s not being fought yet; anything, anything but admit there’s even a possibility the American voters knew perfectly well for whom they wanted to vote and did so.

    What a condescending, elitist load of bûllšhìŧ.

  3. Mr. David, I have to say that I am actually a bit surprized, I have been living in Bordeaux, France for the last year and, well the view I get of America at the moment is absolutely terrifying. Luckily, my wife, who has a better head on her soldiers has assured me that George Bush isn’t the Anti-christ, but geez, at times I really have to wonder what he has in store for America na dthe rest of the world. At the beginning, when he began to step on our civil rights, he acted as though he had a mandate, even though he was really only voted in by the “Supreme Court,” now nothing will keep him from doing whatever he deems necessary to remake America in his vision because now, voters have given him a mandate, given him control of both houses. I for one am very scared. Spike dating Buffy has nothing on what is happening in the world today.

    I keep thinking that if this was a movie (and not just an Aaron Sorkin film) but, maybe a submarine film and George Bush was the skipper, or some such, that the crew would have long since cried mutiny and taken over the sub. Why isn’t something like this happening in America? Tell me, PAD, since at the moment I’m not there and can’t gauge the public opinion–do most Americans like what is going on? Aren’t they afraid of what a double-digit I.Q. President can do if he is left unchecked? I just really don’t understand.

    Gremlin–from the DC Message boards

  4. Bah, let’s start the doomsyaing, and let me preface this by saying that I’d still be reacting the exact same way if it were the Democrats in control of both houses of Congress (the opposite of PROgress) AND the Presidency.

    A single party holds 2/3 of the government (the Legislative and Executive branches). The country is in for really bad times. The two branches should always have the opposition in control to better maintain the state of checks and balances.

    I fear more for this country now than ever…

  5. I have to agree with Elwood, PAD, this is really sounding like nothing more than sour grapes. Sure, Bush was voted in with less than 50% of the popular vote, but that’s the way our system has worked for centuries. He also got more actual votes than Bill Clinton did in 1996. And though it took months, all the news institutions that did the hand re-count declared Bush the “real” winner after all. I think it’s time for you and others to get over it.

    There are lots of reasons why the economy is the tank, and I think that to point it at any one thing or any one person is foolish. More scholarship seems to be pointing at Greenspan and Robert Rubin than at anywhere else. History is not going to be kind to Mr. Greenspan.

    Finally, this “Stupid Idiot in office” managed to sweep a mid-term election — a rarity — and has seen to it that less of my money is going to useless programs. If that’s your definition of a bad job, then keep it coming.

    You can keep all the political rallies during funerals of state, all the governors who say “vote for me because I’m a woman,” and all the people that say they are on the side of labor that haven’t a clue how to create a private-sector job in the first place. I’ll take the guys we just voted in.

  6. You forgot the ally that actively shoots children in illegal settlements, flaunts more UN resolutions than any other nation, and has just put into power one of the most reactionary governments to date. Hmm, who could that be?

  7. No, no, call it a “magician’s trick;” fulminate against the war with Iraq that’s not being fought yet; anything, anything but admit there’s even a possibility the American voters knew perfectly well for whom they wanted to vote and did so.

    Actually, I’d be inclined to agree with PAD. Speaking as an Australian, and therefore a non-American citizen, I can’t help but notice the near-lack of attention given to the American domestic economy, which is currently slipping. I’m not going to say I have an encyclopaedic knowledge of President Bush’s last few speeches, but the general gist of them has been noticeably biased towards gathering support for the war effort. If it happens, of course. *cough*

    Words cannot express the level of shame I felt during the last Australian federal election. In case you weren’t aware, the party in power almost completely ignored all issues pertaining to the state of the economy, choosing to focus instead on the sinking of a boatload of illegal immigrants and Australia’s ‘need’ to safeguard its borders against a ‘flood’ of immigrants, who were frequently labelled as terrorists and the like. It’s a period in which I was genuinely ashamed at the lack of tolerance I saw in the government and, sadly, the people of Australia. A classic case of governmental sleight-of-hand if there’s ever been one.

    Perhaps it is an elitist point of view when one does see these occurances and is angered by them. I personally don’t think so. If I see a case of my government misleading Australians and stirring up racial and cultural tension, I’m entitled to cast my vote appropriately. I was just as dismayed as PAD seems to be when the election results came in last year. That’s my right as an Australian citizen and a voter.

  8. What amazes me is the fanatic zealousness on which democreats will stake their belief that their macroeconomic policy is more sainted than republican macroeconomic policy. There is no hard data that democratic policies in and of themselves gave Clinton better economic times than the bushes. Clinton came in on an upswing and left on a downswing. I really think Democrats must think everyone else idiots to believe that the giant beast called the US economy is so easily manipulated by either party or President even to be immediatelt visible in the short term.

    Foreign policy however is more readily apparent. And a more interesting referendum for people US or otherwise to take notice regarding these elections.

  9. I’m not surprised, but I’m still disappointed.

    I think the main reason this Republican coup isn’t surprising, besides low voter turnout (fewer votes inevitably seam to mean more Repub victories), is that the Democrats are no longer acting as an OPPOSITION party, and haven’t been since well before 11 September 2001. When a Democrats falls all over herself to out-Republican a Republican, a voter’s reaction is likely to be “heck, I might as well vote for the real thing.”

  10. Elayne seems to be the closest here to what I’m believing — the Democrats didn’t stand for a dámņ thing in this election. It’s tough to get anyone excited for you when that happens.

    Look at what happened to Doug Forrester: His entire compaign was run against Bob Torricelli. When the Democrats pulled their extra-legal (I’ll be charitable) move and flaunted the rules of election to put in another guy since they knew the Torch had no chance of winning, Forrester had no campaign left. He had to switch to the issues and it was too late, with less than a month to go. He lost.

    -Augie

  12. Despite what some of you seem to think, the American voters are not idiots. They know full well the state of the economy, but several exit polls showed that a majority did not blame Bush and the Republicans for it. Anyone with knowledge of economics knows that ups and downs are going to happen. The stockmarket was artificialy high, its going to stay low for a while once the bubble bursts. As far as the war on terror goes, most people seem to realize that peace at any cost only postpones greater war in the future. Just look at the political events preceding World War II.

  13. I think the reason the Republicans won was because more of the people who turned out to vote selected Republican candidates.

    To answer Gremlin’s question the reason the people didn’t vote the Republicans out and hand Bush a defeat like the one they handed Clinton in 94 was because most people like Bush and see him as a solution whereas they saw the Democrats as a problem. The Democrats had no agenda other than to stop the advance of any Republican agenda, whether that meant the war, the courts, the schools, or the economy. That’s why the two most prominent faces in the media were the spineless Tom Daschle and Robert Byrd, the KKK member from West Virginia. America doesn’t like wimps or bullies, and they selected accordingly. Plus no one had seen a memorial service like Wellstone’s since the Ayatollah Khomeini died and the crowd used his corpse as a beach ball. Looking down from Heaven Jack Kennedy was watching and shook his head, saying simply, “No Class”. Which is what most of America thought as well.

    And Gremlin, if Bush is so darn dumb how does he keep out thinking, out fighting, and beating your guys no matter how dirty they fight? Check your premises.

  14. I have to agree with Elayne about the Democrats. It seems to me that the Republicans sweeped this one not only because they got more votes, but because Democrats have lost faith in their elected officials. The Dems fell all over themselves to support Bush and his war on Iraq. They increacingly float to the right of liberralism, even moderate liberalism. So now the Democrat voters either choose not to vote, or choose third party candidates, but the outcome is the same. Republican victory.

    Which was the point of Glenn’s post yesterday. It’s fine that Dems are sick of our senators and congresspeople. But that doesn’t mean we should just stay home. Vote, at least.

    (btw – GWB didn’t get more actual votes than Clinton in 1996 because, heyheyhey, he wasn’t running.)

    I knew the world was coming to an end last night when they announced that Elizabeth Dole won her Senate seat. Lord help us, we’re all going to hëll.

  15. Just so we’re all clear: I’m not one of the folks complaining about Florida in 2000, for the simple reason that that ship has sailed.

    Look…the Democrats know the whole thing, from the voting impediments all the way up to the Supreme Court ruling, was a travesty. The GOP knows it was a travesty. And they know the Democrats know, which is kind of embarrassing, which is why they get real exercised about it.

    But the fact is that if Gore had run a good campaign, and if Bill Clinton hadn’t had sex with a White House intern, Florida would have been irrelevant to the proceedings. But Gore felt the need to distance himself from the previous eight years even though they’d been successful, so he wouldn’t be tainted with the same brush of moral terpitude. Which left an unfocused campaign in disarray.

    Gore blew it because Clinton got it blown, and that’s why he’s not president, Florida be dámņëd.

    The statement that the Democrats have been at a loss as to how to proceed since 9/11 is absolutely true. How does one go forward with one’s own agenda when one is easily painted as borderline treasonous if one doesn’t fall into lockstep with the opposition party?

    The concept of having or voicing opposing views is now considered so inappropriate, so vomitous, that “Politically Incorrect” was driven off the air because of it. We have a GOP president. The Democrats voice opposing views. Therefore, the Democrats are out. That simple.

    Losers, Vic? We’re all losers. It’s just that the winners haven’t figured that out yet.

    PAD

  16. The Democrats didn’t come close to articulating any sort of message or reaching the majority of voters. End of discussion.

    Did the Democrats suggest how to fix the economy other than that they needed to be in power in order to fix it and that the GOP was responsible for the shaky economy. Voters see through this sort of nonsense.

    The Democrats lost me about ten years ago (though I voted for Clinton both times, as well as Gore — call me a glutton for punishment). It seemed obvious to me that their sole concern was staying in power no matter what. They compromised most of what they stood for in order to gain the White House (Compare Clinton with Dukakis for about five seconds and you’ll see a drastic and desperate shift to the right). Meanwhile, the GOP gained the House on its own terms (Gingrich was certainly not the Clinton of his party, passing himself off as a “New Republican” to get elected).

    Gore was pretty much more of the same.

    PAD asks how one goes forward with his own agenda? What agenda do the Democrats have other than not being Republicans? In name, at least.

  17. I want to make a few more points on the 2000 election. Sorry. 🙂

    1) Gore carries Tennessee OR Arkansas (you know, his and Bill’s HOME states), Florida’s irrelevant.

    2) Everyone still bìŧçhìņg about Florida does understand that if it went the other way, the right-wingers would be the ones complaining about how Gore “stole” the election, right?

    3) Wasn’t it really the fault of the (Democrat) volunteers who helped shuttle all the old the folks to the polls and told them how to vote for Gore, when in fact those directions led to Buchanan votes?

  18. Not 2 out of 3 branches…3 branches. For the most part it is a conservative Supreme Court. It teeters, with lots of 5-4 votes, but if one of the remaining liberals leaves, it will be decidedly conservative for years to come.

    Yeah, I know there are other courts in the judicial system. But everything that really matters ends up with Supremes.

  19. I thought Politically Incorrect was cancelled because it was a money loser for ABC? Bill’s remarks after 9-11 just resulted in a further ratings slide. In many major markets the show wasn’t even aired, local programmers made the decision that repeats of Manimal would garner higher ratings and bring in more advertising revenue. Maher’s small audience continued to shrink, maybe in part due to his remarks leaving a bad taste in viewers mouths, but also because his mindless frivolity couldn’t carry on in a world that was no longer quite so frivolous. The world is tired of people who have only anger and insults to offer. People are extremely tolerant of opposing views. But if you want people to respect those views they need substance. If the Democrats want to gain power again they will need ideas, not petty and empty insults.

  20. >>If the Democrats want to gain power again they will need ideas, not petty and empty insults.<<

    Oh, please.

    The GOP gained power because they spent eight years tearing Clinton down, capitalized on his genuine screw ups, and then built upon a foundation of national fear generated by terrorist attacks. It had jack all to do with ideas. As someone else said, End of story.

    PAD

  21. How is the cancellation of the low-rated, unfunny “Politically Incorrect” evidence of a opposing views being considered “vomitous”? Does the right to free speech now include the right to a network talk show, and if so, where do I get in line?

    Bill Maher was interviewed by “Larry King” last night during CNN’s election coverage and has a book, which is likely to do extremely, coming out. Gee, he’s sure being oppressed. Gee, his voice sure has been silenced.

    So how long do you plan on having this little tantrum of yours?

  22. “So how long do you plan on having this little tantrum of yours?“

    You know, if you don’t like the tone or content found in this blog or in the responses made to it, feel free to head to a site more in line with your political leaning.

    I happen to have a similar political leaning to PAD’s views, and enjoy reading what he’s got to say. He’s an intelligent man expressing his opinion.

    I also like what Elayne had to say, because there’s a lot there too. Unfortunately I think it was a combination of fearing to voice the Democratic agenda and not presenting a united front that killed any hopes of gaining the House or keeping the Senate.

    The next two years should be…interesting.

    Eschel, reminded of the curse, “may you live in interesting times.“

  23. Lotta words here, lotta words… and some of it is actually pretty intelligent… (!)

    Augie, from one former NJ resident to a current one, you’re dead-on about Forrester – without Toricelli to point at and go “him bad! me not!” he was rather left in the lurch, remarkably illegal (hëll, I’ll say it) maneuvers by the Democratic party aside. I live in Philadelphia, and as such get bombarded with all the Jersey ads on TV, and even at the end of the election I still had no idea what, if anything, Doug Forrester was about. I think at least part of the reason Lautenberg ended up winning was because he was a known quantity, as opposed to Forrester, who merely was not Bob Toricelli.

    [I wonder if the same justices who let Lautenberg on the ballot commuted to Texas last week to uphold Jesus Castillo’s conviction…?]

    In re: low turnout, it is political dogma that mid-term elections are always sparsely populated at best. I don’t know how anyone can see that as a surprise.

    In re: the “coup” comment, I doubt it was meant literally. Much of the pre-election prognosticating held that the Democratic party stood an excellent shot of turning over the house and retaining the Senate, so the overall Republican victory comes as a slight surprise, just maybe, PAD. Of course, a lot of that prognostication came from CNN Head Circus Clown Bill Schneider, so take from it what you will.

    [God, Schneider is such a nitwit.]

    Also, PAD, I would not take credit for the “switching horses in mid-stream” bit, as that was FDR’s re-election slogan in… uh… 1940? 1944? One of the 26 times he was elected, at least, I’m not sure.

    Those who have spoken to Democratic lack of “initiative” (for lack of a better word) are, to my mind, half-right and half-wrong. Whether you agree with his politics or not, and whether you agree that Bush is a “wartime” president or not (a touchy definition at best) there’s no easy way to run against a party with a popular (he is at least that) president and a strong, clearly defined agenda. Like it or not (and I personally don’t), Republican candidates could get up there and say “I’m for this, that, and the other thing,” and a lot of Democrats were forced into saying “uh, er, so am I, kinda.” Those who didn’t had trouble enough getting people to listen when they weren’t being branded as traitors by the Republican party (which, we must admit, was done with alarming regularity).

    Disagreeing with the president isn’t treason, folks, and let’s not demean ourselves by saying these kinds of accusations didn’t happen. They did. We know they did. Let’s move past it.

    As to the election results in general, well… I’ve said before that I was a Republican (although I’m reregistering independent soon), but even though I’m a conservative on a lot of matters I’m honestly less than thrilled about Republican control of both the Executive and the Congress, mainly because the Republican agenda is SO far right these days it frightens me.

    I’m anti-abortion, but do I want to see Roe overturned? Hëll no.

    I don’t like Hussein, I’m all for increased defense spending, but do we need a war with Iraq RIGHT NOW? Hëll no.

    And don’t even get me started on upper-class tax cuts, campaign finance reform, corporate oversight, and worst of all fûçkìņg guns.

    After previewing, I notice the appalling overuse of parenthetical comments in this post, and I apologize.

    I suppose, though, in the end, it’s like Sideshow Bob said – deep down, you WANT a Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a KING!

    JLK

  24. You know, it’s funny. It would never occur to me to go to the website of someone with conservative views and start making snide comments. Call them losers, make cracks about temper tantrums and such.

    Also wouldn’t occur to me to proclaim that I would stop supporting their work in the marketplace because I didn’t like their politics. For instance, I thought it was asinine when people were howling Vanessa Redgrave shouldn’t be Oscar nominated because she was Pro-Palestinian. That kind of thing.

    If I were going to make one vast, sweeping generalization between the extreme left and right, it’s that the latter is far less tolerant than the former. That the former, by nature, questions everything, and the latter, by nature, questions nothing…least of all themselves.

    But that’s probably just me.

    PAD

  25. Peter said:

    But the fact is that if Gore had run a good campaign, and if Bill Clinton hadn’t had sex with a White House intern, Florida would have been irrelevant to the proceedings. But Gore felt the need to distance himself from the previous eight years even though they’d been successful, so he wouldn’t be tainted with the same brush of moral terpitude. Which left an unfocused campaign in disarray.

    I have to disagree here. What did we know about Gore’s campaign? We knew what clothes he wore and that he was a big liar. I still blame the liberal press for the 2000 election. Check out the Borking of Gore at the Daily Howler for a great rundown of how the press sold the Gore campaign to the public since the primaries.

    http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh080102.shtml starting here and for several days following. Great site.

    They hated him, because of Clinton I guess, and the result was that Dubya (and Bradley) could do no wrong. I agree that he could have run a better campaign, but I really don’t think it would have mattered. When he talked about issues, all you got to hear was “He’s re-inventing himself again” and when Dubya lied about something he got away with it.

    -Joe (who agrees with most everything else PAD has said today, especially his post at 12:55)

  26. The GOP gained power because they spent eight years tearing Clinton down, capitalized on his genuine screw ups, and then built upon a foundation of national fear generated by terrorist attacks. It had jack all to do with ideas.

    I’ll have to disagree with you here PAD. I voted for Gore, I don’t like Bush’s Iraq strategy, and I generally think he’s an idiot and beholden to corporate interests.

    However, I know where the Republicans as a party stand. On just about any given issue, I can tell you what their position is, despite the fact that I don’t like many of those positions.

    But with the Democrats today, you really can’t say the same. Nobody with great accuracy can identify their positions as a party, a national platform beyond “We want to make things good/better.”

    This amorphousness is deadly to a party in a election year. They absolutely must develop a clear national platform if they ever intend to win back control of the government.

  27. As far as the war on terror goes, most people seem to realize that peace at any cost only postpones greater war in the future. Just look at the political events preceding World War II.

    How wrong you are. The years preceding WWII were years in which Hitler aggressively pursued his expansionist policies, all the while voicing extremely loudly that was anti-semitic. He annexed other countries, murdered anyone that got in his way, while the rest of the world said, “Alright, Adolph, don’t make us count to ten…”

    Saddam is a moron, who fakes the results of “elections” and is hardly a threat at all, more of a nuisance really. Yet N. Korea can blatantly violate nuclear weapons treaties and the US will only cut off economic support, going no further. But nope, Saddam has got to go right now. Nevermind the fact that some of our closest allies and the UN think it is wrong to invade Iraq. The USA doesn’t care what other countries think, we are the biggest, the strongest, and we are always right, so we do what we like.

    If you are comparing the present world we live in to pre-WWII conditions, I’d be more concerned about the direction the US seems to be stepping in.

  29. Yes, you’re so tolerant that you can’t even begin to admit that MAYBE people voted for Republicans for reasons other than that they were duped…

  30. Hey PAD –>

    >> If I were going to make one vast, sweeping generalization between the extreme left and right, it’s that the latter is far less tolerant than the former. <<

    I should forward you the volumes of e-mail I got from the left saying they’d never read my column again after I made one minor pro-Bush statement in the column a couple of years ago. It works both ways.

    I’ve known for the better part of a decade that your politics don’t mesh with mine, but I leave that aside when I read your stories and judge them on their own merits. And, occasionally, when one of your stories is a political parable of some sort, I just grit my teeth and wait for the next one.

    -Augie

  31. Am I disappointed? Sure. I voted for Jean Carnahan here in Missouri because I despise everything Jim Talent claims to stand for, but I knew she was dead meat the minute she started complaining that Talent was calling her ‘unpatriotic’.

    The nation will survive. The one thing Bush and the GOP must understand is that they’ve got two years to improve the economic situation, because all the “amber alerts” and “we’ve got to take down Saddam” messages in the world are going to make a dámņ bit of difference when people are losing their jobs and retirement benefits. When people keep getting hit in their pocketbook, the focus inevitably returns to the immediate situation, and Bush’s record is less than stellar in that area.

    JSM

  32. A few points:

    Something no one’s mentioned is that this election was actually pretty much decided back in 2000. No, not because Bush beat Gore, but because of the census. The vast majority of states redistricted in a quid pro quo manner so as to boost the electability of incumbants, whether Democrat or Republican. Doesn’t affect the Senate, but definitely affects the House in a big way.

    Re: Peter’s comment about the “extreme left” being more tolerant than the “extreme right”. Um, don’t think so. At least when the word “extreme” is added. I’m apparently one of few people who think the original use of “politically correct” was, well, correct, in refering to the extreme left or the extreme right. Of course, PC got redefined to refer to anyone to the left of Bush Sr., which isn’t in tune with its original meaning.

    As for Elizabeth Dole being a Senator, well, as someone who’s lived in North Carolina more recently than she has (1981 in my case), on the one hand pretty much anyone’s an improvement over Jesse Helms. On the other hand, I think neither she nor Hillary Clinton should’ve been elected as they carpetbagged their way into the state. Yes, Dole grew up in NC, same as I did, but it’s been so long since she lived there that she’s doing the same carpetbag stunt that Hillary did. Heck, I don’t think I should be a North Carolina Senator, and as noted I’ve lived there more recently than she has.

  33. I heard a Republican senator-elect (can’t remember which state he was from) say he thought Bush’s temporary tax cuts from two years ago should become permanent. Somebody want to explain to me how we’re going to pay for the “war on terror” and the war with Irag by decreasing the government’s income. I also find it funny how “liberal” has become a dirty word in the last decade. I guess we’ve come to believe that “conservative” is the only way to do things. That’s why I’m an independent: I’m liberal on some issues and conservative on others.

  34. Somebody want to explain to me how we’re going to pay for the “war on terror” and the war with Irag by decreasing the government’s income.

    Sure. By decreasing the amounts given to other programs. I’m not saying it’s right but that’s how you could do it.

  35. I don’t think that Bill Maher’s comments after September 11 were the only reason his show was cancelled, but I think they would have been enough anyway. After his statements, advertisers bailed out on the show, on the apparent theory that freedom of speech is restricted to what the people in charge want to hear, which as it turns out is one of the things we find so contemptible about the Taliban. In actual practice, it’s more a case of public relations taking precedence over common sense. What, they thought that the host of a show called Politically Incorrect would never say anything controversial?

    For the record, Maher’s comments didn’t draw a single gasp when they were said, and barely even showed up on my own radar (I watched the show the night the comments were made), because I knew exactly what he meant, and so did everyone else. A lot of people talk about the strength of their convictions, but few have the courage of their convictions. Cowards are fearful and timid, and such people don’t die for causes, however valid or woefully misguided they may be.

    Maher said the United States has (or have) “been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly.” Now honestly, I don’t think I could shoot a gun at someone and kill them and compliment myself on my marksmanship, but I could launch missiles from two thousand miles away. When you do that, you don’t see the other guy looking at you, you don’t know that you killed him, and you don’t see the results of your action firsthand. You fire a missile, it disappears into the sky, and then you go home (so to speak) and watch the reports come in, and when you see the damage and casualties, it’s a level removed from reality by a television screen, and besides, which missile caused it? One you fired personally? One fired by someone else? There’s a dissociation between cause and effect, between action and responsibility. And it’s one I could handle. It’s not even a remotely original idea. There was an episode of M*A*S*H about a pilot who was able to participate in the war only because he dropped bombs and never had to see the damage done. Once he was exposed to it, he wasn’t able to bring himself to run bombing missions anymore. None of that makes a difference to the targets, of course. One minute they’re going about their business, and the next a huge chunk of metal drops out of the sky and explodes. Now, I’m not saying that’s not a valid way to do battle, and I’m not saying there’s no merit in it. But can it be seen as cowardly in comparison to people who are willing to die for what they believe in? Absolutely. Even if you don’t agree that it is, even if you believe the choice of target is cowardly, you can see where the comment comes from.

    Out of context, of course, it’s merely a statement that the terrorists were courageous and the United States Military is cowardly.

    Ari Fleischer’s response to Bill Maher’s comments, as taken from the official transcript:

    “I’m aware of the press reports about what he said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it’s a terrible thing to say, and it unfortunate. And that’s why there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to the people in his own party. There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.”

    That’s awfully Orwellian, as far as I’m concerned. Far more Orwellian, and far more ominous, is that the official statement listed above is incorrect. The actual quote was:

    “…There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.”

    Watch what we say? We need to watch what we say? In other words, criticism of the current administration will not be tolerated under any circumstances. That’s pretty rich coming from a guy who is paid to lie to the American people on a daily basis on behalf of the White House. In defense of liberty, we are going to do everything we can to restrict the exercise of liberty in America. I don’t trust Ari Fleischer’s word any further than I trust Jerry Falwell (who took a LOT less crap than Maher for far more inflammatory comment) to give a rational view of Christianity.

    But even today, over a year later, this is what anyone who tries to disagree with the current administration on anything is up against. Disagree with the President? Now is not the time for partisan bickering; all true Americans will stand together against the threats this country is faced with. Don’t like the idea of going into Iraq? Well, we have to keep safe from terrorists–what, you don’t care if September 11 happens again? Upset about the economy or the environment? There are far more important things to worry about. Want to know what good the Department of Homeland Security is for keeping the homeland safe when it can’t even protect the DC area from a serial sniper? Shut up, rah rah rah, let’s get Saddam.

    This is America. Watch what you say.

  36. Varjak,

    Bill Maher has been on Larry King five times since 9/11. He’s got a book coming out. How exactly has he been silenced? I’d love an answer on this from anyone…

  37. Actually, Christopher, if there’s one thing that the Reagan adminstration taught us, it’s that a cut in taxes can mean a rise in tax revenues.

    When the government isn’t busy confiscated the wealth of its people, its people tend to spend or invest that money. Thus, jobs are created and goods are bought and sold (with sales taxes) and more people pay taxes and tax revenue goes up.

    The numbers are there.

    The inheritance tax is a good example. The government gets a nice fat one time hit, but tax-paying citizens who just inherited a bunch of money now don’t have half that money to save or invest. Thus, they can’t pay as much in taxes anymore. Tax revenues drop.

    -Augie

  38. Why is this election considered such an affirment in the opinion of the Republican Party? The races were closeand the balance of power is so tight. If the Republicans were able to get all or a strong majority of the elections by wide margins, then they could have a mandate. In Missouri the winner of the Senate election did not even get a majority.

  39. My wife said it the best last night, “Elections are more like Football than anything else, people root for their party like it’s their hometown football team playing in the SuperBowl.”

    It’s true, people don’t even bother looking into what stands on issues the local politician has… they vote for colors or animals…

    It’s sad. And i’m sure i have alot of views that are opposites from PAD’s but that doesn’t affect the fact that he’s a good writter.

    I have a question, how were the donkey and elephant chosen for the political parties ?

    Remember, i’m a canuck so i don’t know.

  40. >>I have a question, how were the donkey and elephant chosen for the political parties ?

    Remember, i’m a canuck so i don’t know.<<

    That’s okay; I’m an American and I didn’t know ’til I looked it up just now.

    Anyhow, this is from the Republican National Committee’s website:

    “During the mid term elections way back in 1874, Democrats tried to scare voters into thinking President Grant would seek to run for an unprecedented third term. Thomas Nast, a cartoonist for Harper’s Weekly, depicted a Democratic jáçkášš trying to scare a Republican elephant – and both symbols stuck.”

  41. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!

    You’ve gotta be kidding me, Pete. I thought you were at least above this level of pouting. But speaking of surprises, I’m not surprised that you don’t give the American people the benefit of the doubt. Liberals rarely do — because the common man needs Democrats and their welfare programs to “take care of them”.

    I am SO gloating over the results of yesterday. It makes all the times I’ve been frustrated by the smallness of your political views and your Socialist fanboy posts here worth the while.

    Now I’m gonna go read YJ #51.

    “Right” as usual,

    Davey

  42. Comment to Jeff Morris:

    I voted for Jim Talent because, aside from being the widow of a dead Senator, I have no idea who Jean Carnahan is or what she stands for.

    I don’t claim to be a Republican, but I voted for Bush in 2000 because I couldn’t stomach having Gore as President (as a former Tennessee resident).

    I voted for Talent because I didn’t want the corpse of Mel Carnahan in the Senate any more.

    Try as I might, I couldn’t find a more compelling reason to vote either way than those. And that’s what I find sad about the whole thing.

    Mike

  43. Not to throw fuel on the fire, but…

    Ever notice how Democrats never use the word “conservative” as a pejorative the way Republicans use the word “liberal,” as though the very act of disagreeing with them is not only treasonous, but evil?

    [Realizing of course that there are probably examples outstanding of the latter, but it’s exceedingly more rare. There are multiple examples of the former just on this page.]

    I enjoy reading spirited and well-written political commentary – even of the partisan, Republican type sometimes – but nothing screams “nitwit” louder or faster than a writer/speaker using the word “liberal” as an insult.

    They’re not wrong. They aren’t evil. They just disagree with you, perish the thought.

    Of course I realize now that somewhere Ann Coulter is writing a book calling me a “dirty liberal.” And my feelings will be suitably hurt, you can be sure.

    JLK

  44. I think the counterpart to the pejorative “liberal” is the pejorative “right-wing”.

    davidh

  45. “Politically Incorrect” lost the airways after Mahrer maid his comment about the US being “cowards” when a talk radio DJ in Houston told his listeners about it. He started a campaign to get the listeners to call corporations that advertised on the show to pull their ads. Proof that the voice of the people matters.

    I couldn’t see one reason at all to vote democratic — there wasn’t a reason given by too many of them.

    For some senators it was very easy to see who to vote for (if I could vote in other states) once the senator said they would roll back the Bush tax cuts (which affect everyone), and apply targeted tax cuts for people who only pay 4% of the tax crunch, AND as a “bonus”, apply “one-time” tax rebates to those same people in the 4% “because they didn’t get a tax rebate last time.”

    On taxes alone, (and the records of politicians on how they voted), you could easily determine who to vote for. All you would need to do is compare how much in taxes is pulled out of your paycheck, and what the senator said they would do to the tax cuts.

    And Augie, I will read your column anytime over Steven Grant’s, who some how every week has one complaint or another about the Bush administration.

  46. >>Yes, you’re so tolerant that you can’t even begin to admit that MAYBE people voted for Republicans for reasons other than that they were duped…<<

    No, I’m so tolerant that I wouldn’t go to the website of a known conservative and bìŧçh at him.

    I’m sure many people voted GOP for reasons they considered perfectly valid. And many were duped. There’s no more shame in it than being bamboozled by Penn and Teller. It was a masterful trick and worked like a charm. So, y’know, hats off and all that.

    But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

    PAD

  47. I think the counterpart to the pejorative “liberal” is the pejorative “right-wing”.

    I’ll give you that. However, you must admit the usage is FAR less frequent.

    JLK

  48. Obviously, Elwood, Bill Maher hasn’t been completely “silenced.” He hasn’t been banned from the airwaves or forbidden to talk. I never claimed he was “silenced.” But Bill Maher’s show was cancelled largely because a statement he made was taken out of context to mean something unpopular. His opinion was beaten down in a White House press conference, for cryin’ out loud. The point is that freedom of speech still officially exists, but if you exercise it to say something with merit but unpopular, there’s going to be a big price to pay. Bill Maher hasn’t been “silenced” as in becoming an Unperson, but he voiced an opinion that didn’t fall in with the general consensus, and one of the most open and intelligent shows on television got cancelled as a direct result.

    The issue here isn’t Bill Maher and his show. That’s just a symptom of a larger and much more ominous issue.

  49. Some day, I hope that I can be so absolutely right in what I believe that I KNOW that elections that don’t go my way are because the voters are stupid, and that elections that do go my way are because people got smart all of a sudden.

    Until then, I’ll stay here on Planet Earth.

  50. You know, I may not agree with your politics, but I’m sure glad you are informed enough to speak logically, rationally, and sometimes sarcastically. Because I’d rather have intellegent discourse with a wise man that an amibical talk with an imbecile.

    And, as the great-granddaughter of a suffergette who installed in all her great-grandchildren a healthy respect of the act of voting, it says to me that you take the responsablities of citizenship seriously.

Comments are closed.