Here’s what I don’t understand

134 comments on “Here’s what I don’t understand”

1. Maryland feels your pain.

2. Voted Bush because I thought Kerry was a bit worse, though Bush does need a kick in the pants likemost of Washington…..

3. That’s what I don’t get… how in the world could Kerry be worse? Who did he bomb? Did his vice presidential choice head up death corp. or shoot someone in the face? After four years of experiencing hëll under GWB people still thought Kerry could be worse? WTF?

4. I think that it wasn’t so much that Bush inspired so much confidence in people, but that people were less inspired by John Kerry. GWB’s campaign did a masterful job of inspiring fear of changing adminsistrations in the middle of a “war”–one that has no end in sight. I voted for Kerry, but it wasn’t because that I knew a lot of great things that made me confident in him, but because GWB was a known quantity and I couldn’t think of three things he’d done that I didn’t disagree with.

   More directly related to your comments, I’ve read that about 40% of people vote Democrat regardless of who the canidate is and about 40% of the people vote Republican regardless of who the canidate is. The key to national elections is to swing the other 20%. That is where the politics of fear and the attack ads paid off so well. Making people afraid of changing in the middle of a “war,” maintaining a constant perceived state of “emergency”…these are some of things that the current administration has used to keep itself in power and it will be the same politics of fear that the Republican Party will use in 2008 to argue that it is too dangerous to allow for changes in the Party Power structure in Washington.

5. All I can say is that after reading this post, I desperately want to hear someone telling Bush that the London Underground is not a political movement.

   “Those are facts, George. I looked them up.”

   TWL

6. They were thinking about a constituional amendment banning gay marriage.

7. Our choices of leaders are more limited than in many other nations. We are locked into a two-party structure, baked in by single-member districts and an archiac presidential electoral vote system (not representative, but winner takes all, state by state). Ironically, when we go around the world promoting democracy, it’s for parliamentary-type systems — no one talks about setting up an Electoral College-type system.

8. That’s why only in America can the candidate with fewer votes win the election! What a country….

9. “That’s why only in America can the candidate with fewer votes win the election! What a country….”

   That’s not true at all — recall John Major, who took over as PM after Thatcher lost an internal party battle. No one voted for Major as PM in the previous election, and yet, there he was.

10. Between purged voter rolls, thrown away voter registrations of democratic voters, rigged and/or hackable voting machines with deliberately unverifible results, how many people believe that bush’s election this time is any more legitimate than it was in 2000?

11. None of the above was not an option.

    As for how it’s impossible to believe that John Kerry would have been worse…It’s not that hard if you use your imagination. Kerry said he would not pull out of Iraq so I see no change there (one could argue that Al qaeda would have been emboldened by Bush’s defeat and increased the attacks; one could equally argue that Bush’s loss would have forced the legitimate factions to work harder for a solution out of fear of impending USA pullout. We’ll never know). I seriously doubt that Kerry planned to spend less on entitlements than Bush does and Bush is plenty bad already.

    I saw Kerry as a potential Carter II. With one major exception; Carter was smart enough to run a good campaign. I know that Kerry uses big words and has the sonorous voice of one’s least favorite college professor but I don’t think there is a whole lot of there there and the campaign gave me no reason to reconsider.

    And there is one additional factor that doesn’t seem to get much play–after 9/11 the one thing that virtually every person agreed on was that this was just the beginning, that we had entered a new era where terror would become a constant part of our life. We waited for the next shoe to drop. And it never did.

    Did Bush have anything to do with that? Probably not, my theory is that while we ignore the terrorists at our peril, they are still too few in number and too god dámņëd stupid to actually do more than occasionally get lucky. But just as Bush would probably have been badly hurt by a constant stream of steady incidents, he was helped by their absence. The world of 2004 was way better than I had expected it to be September 12, 2001. I expect many felt the same way.

12. Ya know, I voted for Kerry, but that election cost the Democrats my membership.
    No, I didn’t switch parties. I dropped them. I’m independant.
    It was a very very inept way to run a campaign, and it pìššëd me off to no end.

    Travis

13. None of the above was not an option.

    True — which means it’s time once again for me to plug instant runoff voting (third-party voting, preference voting … whatever the hëll you want to call it). The first national candidate who proposes that (and has enough clout that there’s at least a chance they’d get it done) will have substantial support from me.

    (The issue of voting machines that Michael Brunner raises is another elephant in the room. When the Democratic party asks me for money, at this point I respond “get election reform done first, and we’ll talk — until then, I don’t see the point.”)

    As for how it’s impossible to believe that John Kerry would have been worse…It’s not that hard if you use your imagination.

    With all due respect to my apparent lack of imagination … yeah, it is. Your two examples, Iraq and entitlements, are making arguments for reasons why he might not have been any better — but even those aren’t really arguments for how he’d have been worse.

    And you’re ignoring an awful lot of other areas in which Kerry would (IMO, of course) have been clearly better. The environment. Civil liberties (at least, I hope so — I’m not sure there’s any chance he’d have gotten to be worse). Dealing with global warming. Corporate corruption. Not sending professional áššhølëš to the UN.

    Now, given the events of ’04 Kerry will never see a dime from me again (whenever his group sends me something, I basically write “you took a dive and I’m not giving you a chance to f**k us over again, so leave me alone”) — but yes, it’s extraordinarily difficult to envision a world in which his presidency would have been worse than what we’ve got at the moment.

    The world of 2004 was way better than I had expected it to be September 12, 2001. I expect many felt the same way.

    I’d agree with that, and you’re right that Bush probably benefited from that feeling. So far as I can tell, the world of ’04 was better despite Bush’s actions and not because of them, but that’s certainly a legitimate point of debate.

    TWL

14. Hey, Slobodan Milosevic just died. Wouldn’t it be nice if the deaths of people like him came in threes, the way it does for people I like?

15. The scary thing is that people seem to be more upset about Crash defeating Brokeback Mountain than they were about Bush defeating Kerry.

16. And you’re ignoring an awful lot of other areas in which Kerry would (IMO, of course) have been clearly better. The environment. Civil liberties (at least, I hope so — I’m not sure there’s any chance he’d have gotten to be worse). Dealing with global warming. Corporate corruption. Not sending professional áššhølëš to the UN.

    Environment–agreed.

    Civil Liberties- I don’t see any significant differences. He did vote for the Patriot Act, again, just the other day, right?

    In fact, given the risk of what would happen to him if another attack WERE to occur, I wonder if he would not have been even MORE aggressive in surveillance and such. But this is pure speculation on my part.

    Dealing with global warming–I don’t see anyone really doing anything about this and I’m not entirely sure there is much that can be done. No congress will pass Kyoto or anything like it. Maybe he would have aggressively spent money on the technology that might free us from gasoline powered cars, the only thing I can see that might be helpful but I don’t remember that being a big campaign issue.

    Corporate corruption.– Probably, though I can’t say that they’ve been getting away with murder during the last 6 years–seems like more than a few of them are going to jail (in fairness, much of the investigations of these crimes probably started during Clinton’s administration). Now if you’d said political corruption…

    Not sending professional áššhølëš to the UN– See, I like John Bolton. And he IS an áššhølë. I just think that’s exactly what the UN needs, or, at least, deserves.

    Normally I think that the Democratic Party’s tendency to shun losing candidates is a mean spirited one but in Kerry’s case I’m right with you, brother. To me, the final nail would be the fact that he is reported to have still had millions in the bank unspent on election day. For what? FOR WHAT?? Was he saving it for the inaugural ball? WTF?

17. Don’t blame me… I didn’t vote for him. My *State* didn’t vote for him!

    Thank God.

18. I don’t mind the right-wingers still having faith in the chimp; he’s Their Man and is still on the right side of the issues as far as they’re concerned.

    It’s the aforementioned 20% that I want to punch in the face and scream “I F***ING TOLD YOU SO!” to while they lie on the sidewalk bleeding. Not very enlightened of me but what the hëll.

19. I don’t think anyone can honestly say that Kerry was the better choice. When you have to choose between two evils, what wins?

20. That’s why only in America can the candidate with fewer votes win the election! What a country….

    That used to happen in New Zealand as well, most notably in the 1978 and 1981 elections. The result was a groundswell of support for a replacement electoral system (similar to the German system). It was introduced in 1996 and after some initial bedding in seems to be working satisfactorarily.

    The politicians don’t like it, probably because it’s been known to take up to three months to form a government and they’re scared the public will notice that the country functions perfectly well without one.

21. My one relief is that the words “President Cheney” are not likely to ever happen, which gives the Dems a big leg up in the next election.

    My big fear is that in the next six months, Cheney will find a reason to step out of office (heart attack, Libby drops a dime on him, whatever), and Bush’s spinmeisters will groom his new VP for the 2008 elections.

    It would be a masterful stroke.

22. I wish we could hold our heads high, but as I have commented in the past, in 1988, Canadians voted back in (with a majority, yet!) the most inept, corruption-ridden, scandal-plagued, RCMP (sort of like your FBI) investigated administration in this country’s history. Then somehow woke un in the next few years and all but wiped out that party, driving it from 177 seats down to 2. So why in perdition didn’t they react that way after the FIRST term?

    And the next administration wound up with over ten years of high approval ratings for … well, mostly just continuing on with the same policies the defeated one had brought in.

    Voters need to have their heads examined.

23. In the case of civil liberties … frankly, even if he were in favor of it I think a still-GOP Congress would have taken great pains to make sure the executive branch didn’t have the powers it’s currently claiming to have. The outcome would likely have meant no Patriot Act or a far-watered-down version. That, to me, would be a good thing, even if it was happening for doltish reasons.

    Normally I think that the Democratic Party’s tendency to shun losing candidates is a mean spirited one but in Kerry’s case I’m right with you, brother.

    The party does have a distinct tendency to eat its own, yes … but in a case where the victory was clearly X’s to lose and, sure enough, X went ahead and did everything possible to lose it, I’m not shedding any tears over any subsequent shunning.

    Oddly, however, I’d still support a Gore candidacy in a heartbeat. Possibly because I think he’s become a far better individual in the last 5 years.

    TWL

24. I voted Constitution Party.

25. None of the above was not an option.

    Which is why, on this issue, Nevada is the best state in the nation.

    I wish every state had the “None of the above” option on their ballot.

26. I think Lewis Black said it best:

    “Republicans, which are a party of bad ideas, and Democrats, which are a party of no ideas.”

    I think that accurately describes Bush and Kerry, and I guess some people were more inspired by a guy who was boldly dedicated to fûçkìņg up than a guy who wasn’t boldly dedicated to anything.

27. I wish every state had the “None of the above” option on their ballot.

    Taken to that conclusion in 2004, then the House of Representatives would have decided the election. Bush still wins.

    I think the only plus for Kerry over Bush that we would have seen at this point is a deadlock between the Legislative and Executive branches. Kerry’s Iraq policy was basically identical to Bush’s. Domestically, maybe deficit spending would come down, but that’s about it. The economy would likely still be humming along at a decent clip, but perhaps slowed somewhat since Kerry likely would have let the Bush tax cuts expire.

    Think about the Dubai deal as another example. Since it’s primarily a bureaucratic decision, it would have gone down the same way: Kerry would have warned that we shouldn’t dismiss an Arab purchase out of hand, and the opposition party would scream bloody murder over a security risk.

    I would expect that a Kerry presidency would be at about a 40-45% approval rating right now. Republicans wouldn’t be supportive, and Independents would be grumbling about Iraq.

28. I think my favorite part of the Bush/Kerry debates was when Bush was telling us not to fall for Kerry’s “rhetoric.” The way he used (or misused) the word implied that Bush wasn’t using rhetoric himself. Never mind the fact that campaigns by their very nature must involve rhetoric, because the whole point is to be “persuasive.”

    When Bush used the word “rhetoric,” he was referring to deception and/or lies. It’s ironic that he uses rhetoric in order to accuse his opponent of using rhetoric.

    That’s been bothering me for over a year now.

29. Fear and uncertainty surely had roles to play in Trifectaboy’s re-election. They somehow managed to convince fence-sitters to fear the alternatives, while somehow convincing the same voters that they *weren’t* using fear as a campaign tool.

    The swiftboat fabricators were also effective. I recall a conversation with another fellow, who considers himself an independent — he bought their argument, and felt Kerry was somehow worse than Trifectaboy.

    It’s unfortunate how emotion and bad information can trump simple logic and facts. 😛

    Wildcat

30. Retired Supreme Court Justice O’Connor has also torn into republicans for their assult on civil rights

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12281.htm

31. I think a still-GOP Congress would have taken great pains to make sure the executive branch didn’t have the powers it’s currently claiming to have. The outcome would likely have meant no Patriot Act or a far-watered-down version. That, to me, would be a good thing, even if it was happening for doltish reasons.

    that’s a reasonable analysis, though I doubt that Republicans would let Democrats get to the right of them on fighting terror. There would have been a few cosmetic changes (as was done in the recent vote) but at the first glimmer of terror activities I think Kerry would put the hammer down. He’d have little choice.

    Domestically, maybe deficit spending would come down, but that’s about it.

    I don’t think spending would go down but the tax cuts would be tinkered with so revenue would presumably go up–lowering the deficit. So you’re correct. Now if rescinding the cuts hurt the growth of the economy it would be a long term negative…but my Mom is an economist so I know just how impossible it is to make good predictions on things like this.

    Think about the Dubai deal as another example. Since it’s primarily a bureaucratic decision, it would have gone down the same way: Kerry would have warned that we shouldn’t dismiss an Arab purchase out of hand, and the opposition party would scream bloody murder over a security risk.

    Absolutely right–I suspect (and it’s only that) the Democrats would be a bit more supportive of the idea than Republicans would be (or for that matter, have been). The deal would probably go down in flames in this reality as well (unless the media was far more interested in exploring both sides than they were in ours).

    I would expect that a Kerry presidency would be at about a 40-45% approval rating right now.

    Agreed. One problem Kerry had was that he had no reason to expect any loyalty from his own party. The Republicans would have been after him and more than a few Democrats would be right there with them. Jimmy Carter all over again. It was no fun having a president who was everyone’s butt-boy.

32. Re: Gore. Can’t make a well-informed comparison since I didn’t have the opportunity to interact with him pre-2000, but in the last couple of years I’ve both had a relatively small (8-ish person with me sitting right next to him) lunch and a couple of other small group 10-15 minute conversations with him and my opinion of him has gone up significantly. I think he’s a lot more relaxed than he was during the 2000 campaign, and if he kept that aspect in another campaign I think he’d do significantly better.

    Oh, and he’s definitely one-upped Bush in one aspect. He arranged/paid for several evacuation/supply flights into New Orleans immediately post-Katrina…and didn’t make any effort to get publicity for such (the only reason I know about it is that one of those conversations happened shortly afterwards and what the state of NO was came up in the conversation..and was initially raised by someone other than him and not in his circle). Far as I can tell, that’s more than Bush has done.

33. Bill Mulligan: As for how it’s impossible to believe that John Kerry would have been worse…It’s not that hard if you use your imagination. Kerry said he would not pull out of Iraq so I see no change there (one could argue that Al qaeda would have been emboldened by Bush’s defeat and increased the attacks; one could equally argue that Bush’s loss would have forced the legitimate factions to work harder for a solution out of fear of impending USA pullout. We’ll never know).
    Luigi Novi: As far as the notion that Al Quaeda gives a rat’s ášš as to which party is in power, I think that anyone who would argue this is imprinting their own political (and quite American) political biases on our enemy. Al Quaeda doesn’t give a šhìŧ who’s president. Fanatic mass murderers like them will do what they will regardless. They attacked us under Clinton. They attacked us under Dubya. They’ll not be dissuaded because of whoever the current occupant of the Oval Office is.

34. Oh, and he’s definitely one-upped Bush in one aspect. He arranged/paid for several evacuation/supply flights into New Orleans immediately post-Katrina…and didn’t make any effort to get publicity for such (the only reason I know about it is that one of those conversations happened shortly afterwards and what the state of NO was came up in the conversation..and was initially raised by someone other than him and not in his circle). Far as I can tell, that’s more than Bush has done.

    That’s because Gore can do it on a small scale. Small scale relief is much easier to organize than trying to deal with the entire region.

    I still find it ironic that Homeland Security Director Ridge was once derided for telling people that they should have at least three days worth of supplies on hand in their homes in the event of a catastrophe, because it would likely take that long for the government to get in major relief supplies. In Katrina, it took four.

35. I still find it ironic that Homeland Security Director Ridge was once derided for telling people that they should have at least three days worth of supplies on hand in their homes in the event of a catastrophe, because it would likely take that long for the government to get in major relief supplies. In Katrina, it took four.

    Yes, it is indeed ironic that he underestimated how incompetent the government really is….

36. Firstly – Bill, thanks for the news of Milosovic’s death (hadn’t gotten to reading the paper yet, just dumping the ads). If there actually was a person who could be compared to Hitler with near-validity, he may very well have been it. It’s good to know that there’s now NO chance of him being loosed on the world again.

    As far as the “why” of the election… Setting aside the die-hard party loyalists, and those who are predisposed to think the worst of any Democrat barring a preponderance of proof to the contrary, just as some of us are with any Republican… Between this election result, TV ratings for some stupid shows versus some very quality shows, the low attendance for Serenity and other high-quality films, the anti-evolution movements, and other indicators which pop up regularly, I’ve come to believe that we may have a pretty large amount of stupid people in this country….

37. You actually believe all these poll numbers?

    Sucker!

38. I’ve come to believe that we may have a pretty large amount of stupid people in this country….

    As the old joke goes (and I’d credit it if I remembered who popularized it) …

    “Think about how dumb the average person is. Now realize that by definition, half the country is even dumber.”

    TWL

39. >I wish every state had the “None of the above” option on their ballot.

    I’ve had endless debates as to whether things are better now than fourty or fifty years ago. I just need look at how many people are praying for this option, something unthinkable half a century ago because we seemed to have viable choices for leaders, and I KNOW a wheel’s come off somewhere along the way. And that can’t be good.

40. Peter, I could not have said it better myself. As an American I have never felt so tricked and slighted in my life. I voted for Kerry because he had a better plan on dealing with the war. But oh well. 2008 is coming soon.

41. As regards the Dubai port deal, I don’t recall where I read the analysis (might have even been around here somewhere!), but really, Bush & Co. have only themselves to blame for the hysteria.

    After all, they’ve spent the past five years telling us that Arabs are terrorists, and that’s why Iraq was a greater threat than North Korea (and never mind the fact that Iraqis are not ethnically Arab). Why should they be surprised when so many Americans react as if they had bought into the bûllšhìŧ already? Wasn’t that what the administration had been counting on right along?

42. Peter, it’s the ports deal. All sorts of Republicans near me abandoned W on that deal. I suspect that’s why the approval numbers are dropping further. That’s such a dumb deal.

43. What I don’t get is why the Democrats fielded two stiff, cold, virtually UNLIKEABLE candidates.

    Is it that hard to find a likable personable Democrat that can tow the party line? Are all Democrats unfeeling robots who can’t connect with other human beings in ways any dipshit actor can?

    Gore was a boring, tight ášš policy wonk, Kerry was picked soley because he was in Vietnam, and people refused to get that his reaction to his experiences turned many people off, coming home from a war and denouncing your supposed brothers in arms as war criminals isn’t exactly…y’know liked by most people.

    In the end it’s the Democrats fault. Both of Bush’s races were practically too close to call.

    Any half decent candidate from the other party would have won. But two abyssmal candidates couldn’t muster the enthusiasm of enough people to beat a guy who most people voted against the first time out, and who barely was re-elected the second time.

    And if the Democrats hand it off to Hillary we’re GOING to have another Republican President. Anyone would beat her.

    And if None Of The Above had been an option more people would have voted, and it probably would have won.

    If we gave people the people a way to voice their disdain for the current two parties, I bet the turnout would be 80% of eligable voters.

    Everyone I know is put off by the lack of choice, the lack of nuance, and let’s not even get into the Dems and Republicans support for projects no rational American wants anymore(The Drug War, for example).

44. Tim, that “dumb & dumber” quip was originally dreamed up by George Carlin. I saw the HBO special he said it in when he was originally aired.

45. Lets see….. what was I thinking. I was thinking that the alternative would Really suck. Even though I do not approve of some of the things that Bush is doing now, is there anyone out there really stupid enough to think that Kerry would be better, I mean Really?????

46. Even though I do not approve of some of the things that Bush is doing now, is there anyone out there really stupid enough to think that Kerry would be better, I mean Really?????

    Yes, there are quite a few of us who believe that Kerry would’ve been better. You might want to read the whole discussion.

    And David … thanks for the info. I should have pegged as Carlin in the first place — it’s certainly his style.

    TWL

47. Oh, and he’s definitely one-upped Bush in one aspect. He arranged/paid for several evacuation/supply flights into New Orleans immediately post-Katrina…and didn’t make any effort to get publicity for such (the only reason I know about it is that one of those conversations happened shortly afterwards and what the state of NO was came up in the conversation..and was initially raised by someone other than him and not in his circle). Far as I can tell, that’s more than Bush has done.

    I knew about it as well, from reading press accounts. It took less than a week for the story to come out.

    Of course, there is no way of knowing if Gore never intended it to come out…and it doesn’t really matter. He deserves credit for his generosity. I would hesitate to set up a “us vs them” kind of thing here since Bush supporters could start giving credit to Bush for every successful rescue that was done by the government in New Orleans and such an argument does little to advance the real issue–what do we do now? Because, in case nobody has noticed, hurricane season is coming up soon. New Orleans is still below sea level. If we started building new levies last year we would still be a decade away from completion. Suggestions?

48. Suggestions?

    Well, as I’ve said from the start: level the city and get it back to sea level.

    Then build the dámņ levees to the best strength, regardless of cost.

    And don’t let people live there again until the above two things happen.

    It just isn’t worth the risk of having another Katrina come along, because the way the last couple of hurricane seasons have been, there WILL be another Katrina sooner rather than later.

49. If you wanna hear about someone who isn’t the “brightest penny in the box,” here’s a direct quote from my sister, which was immediately echoed by my idiot brother in-law:

    “I’m voting for Bush, because we’re already getting screwed, so at least I know what I’m getting myself into.”

    Ugh. I still shudder when I think about it, and the probability the rest of the other people who voted for Bush shared this same mindset.

    P.S. Just got done reading “Missing In Action.” Fantastic!

50. Reminds me back during the Election hearing my Granpa and Granma arguing over the Democratic Party. My Grandpa was sick of the Democratic Party and told my Granma refused to vote for Bush. My Granpa then said “God Dammit Wanda! Do you think Truman would have put up with their Shìŧ!”

Comments are closed.