November 01, 2004

What Victory on Tuesday Will Mean

Unlike the pundits who love to look back and rewrite history on Nov 3 like the excellent if not disturbing article illustrates, understanding ahead of time what the outcome of an election will mean can be very useful. Sticking oneís neck out a bit also lends credibility in the event oneís predictions turn out to be true.

A Bush victory Tuesday, or whenever the dust settles, will primarily be an indication that the Republican strategy of discouraging large numbers of voters from participating in the political process is working for them (more on this later). It will also mean that most of the states that Bush carried experienced bad weather, since Republicans are traditionally the more tenacious voters, or at least can arrange to get the time off they need to go vote. A Bush victory will coincide with the Republicans retaining both houses of Congress. Even though a Bush victory would probably be settled in court weeks later, as in 2000, the Administration will call it a mandate. It will not, however be an endorsement of Bushís policies as much as an indication of his success in creating an atmosphere of fear and controlling what we see and hear in the media. A Bush victory will also be a serious danger sign that our democracy is rapidly eroding.

A Kerry victory may or may not involve a change in the majority in Congress. I say this because the Kerry campaign aimed low, trying to eek out a marginal victory. They went Right, courting the Mythical Middle (practically non-existent this year) instead of learning the lesson that has handed Republicans victory so many times, and going towards their base. Had Kerry clearly defined what it meant to be liberal, or progressive since along with conservative, liberal has lost itís meaning, he would have tapped into the populist grass roots that Howard Dean discovered last year. By going Left, he would have won back the 20 million Democrats who opted out between 1992 and 2000. He would have also won to the Democratic cause another 20 million or voters who are just looking for leadership. They see G.W. going through the motions, looking like a leader, saying the kinds of things that a leader might say and they vote for the cowboy because Kerry is unwilling to give them a clearly-defined alternative. This is why I say Kerry will win, by a large margin, but wonít have any coattails because he hasnít given the nation a reason to go all D. I sincerely hope Iím wrong about the coattails. Tuesday may very well mean that Democrats would be well served to fire the cadre of pols that have been leading this party into the minority in Congress since the 80ís.

Posted by Norman at November 1, 2004 12:33 AM | US Politics | Technorati links |
Comments

It's your last chance people, ditch Kerry now if you've got any sense. Bush may not be the greatest president in history, but the administration he's got behind him, know how to protect America much better than Kerry. I am British, I have nothing to gain from Bush winning, it's just that I will feel safer knowing that an administration dedicated to the security of the west, rather than a weakling like Kerry is holding the ropes of the worlds most powerful country. I get more worried about the global terror threat every day, and believe the current offensive strategy is the only way to combat it, It must be fought head on; not the "by-the-book" soft approach that Kerry proposes to fight it, WILL NOT WORK these are ruthless, hate-filled people focused on the destruction of western society. The islamic terror regimes would just look at america under Kerry and think, "at last; another niave democrat president, time to start milking the US for all it's worth again,piling over their borders, setting up networks on their own soil (which will not be stopped because of the PC fear of westerners frightened to death of appearing "racist", when in actual fact it is something that essentially needs to be focused on) , while in the Middle East, everything will be handled with talks, and UN inspections, letting corrupt regimes take the piss and laugh at us, knowing that they will be able to push us much further with Kerry at the helm.In the meantime the terrorist recruits will grow and grow, and not be fought. They don't hate the west because of Bush, Iraq , or Palestine, the hate us because we are the biggest threat to their fantasy of the global caliphate.

The US media are biased towards the democrats a reason in it's starkest form why you shouldn't vote for them, they (media) undermine the current War On Terror because they have something to gain by the democrats being in power, without realising they are pulling the wool over so many dissillusioned voters eyes, gullible citizens who know little of terror and it's causes, while fueling the hardcore democrats critisisms and accusations ,determining the direction they wish them to go, as the ones who can actually see what is happening in the world, the huge disaster that looms are guffawed at, and accused of being paranoid, "right-wing lunatics...blah...blah...blah. How can you be so foolish, you are being played for puppets, BY THE MEDIA OF ALL PEOPLE (the most obviously canniving, backstabbing, propaganda organization in the world today....sometimes I wonder if it is they who have been payed off by the House of Saud).

If you value your national security, you will vote for Bush, this is coming from an outsider who knows what fuels islamic terrorism , and the roots of it very well, as well muslims in general view the west, and how their media and religious leaders keep the hatred alive with anti-western propaganda, exadgerations, outright lies, and religious blather, suckering the poorly educated easily.

Kerry will tell you whatever you want to hear to get your vote, he has no intentions of fighting an effective war on terrorism, and after all that is the single most important issue in this election (well it should be, because it is the one thing that threatens the very civilization that you all hold so dear, and everything in it).

Vote Bush

Posted by: Rick at November 1, 2004 04:04 AM

It's pointless, of course, to respond to such misguided wingnuttiness but I can't let it stand -- there are too many complete falsehoods. To address a few of the larger ones:

(1) Excuse me, Kerry weak?? He's the man who put his life on the line in Vietnam in the last misguided US war and turned his boat into the oncoming fire. Not a single person in the Bush administration save Colin Powell has served (and no, I don't count partying hardy in TANG and failing to complete your required service as the equivalent); Cheney had multiple deferments. So stuff it on that one Rick. Kerry has balls and conviction -- and the courage to come home and tell people AFTER walking the walk how wrong it all was. ENORMOUS moral courage -- most people came home and did nothing. Bush is truly all hat and no cattle. Rove and the swift boat liars attacked Kerry on his military service because they KNEW it was an awesome strength and their boy was a weeny.

(2) FACTS: No connection between Saddam Hussein and 911 or Al Queda. No WMDs found. Intelligence distorted on possible nuclear threats (aluminum tubes) and the Bushies retaliate against criticism by exposing an undercover CIA agent (heard of Valerie Plame?).
Percolating espionage scandal involving Doug Feith and Larry Franklin in which our government has been usurped to serve the ends of foreign interests (treason of the highest order). Not enough troops to do the job of winning the peace; negligance in securing known sites of munitions when purported rationale was to find [gasp] WMDs!! Ignoring a memo entitled "Al Queda plans to attack in US". We could go on. Arrogant Incompetence thy name is Bush.


Saddam was a contained threat and the Bushies ignored any evidence that didn't support their pre-planned assault on Iraq -- planned well before 911 which was just an excuse to manipulate the fear and goodwill of the public to their pre-calculated end. Now instead of a SECULAR dictatorial regime (corrupt and evil granted but toothless and contained as far as a threat to the west), we have an installed puppet regime in a US occupied country that views us as worse than Saddam ever was. After a likely civil war, an Islamic state is most likely to emerge, one that will hate us for generations (this is why GHW Bush, old 41, didn't remove Saddam -- obviously the W missed the commandment about honoring one's father and mother). It's actions like these that make the world despise us and leads to more terrorism, often the only TACTIC left to the otherwise powerless. We all have blood on our hands due to the actions of this administration; they have to go.

(3) The "media is biased toward the democrats". Oh please -- I'm so sick of whining wingnuts pushing this drivel. The right is just so powerless -- they only control the presidency, house, senate, and the corporate rightwing press. And they are still screaming and crying about how persecuted they are. Even NPR in a recent survey was shown to feature conservative commentators (damn think tanks) 61% of the time. Most Americans don't read a paper, let alone even one book in a year, so get "soundbite news and views" from TV. With such a poorly informed electorate and a press that doesn't do its job informing the public (ratings are the real bias-maker -- Jon Stewart is so right that the "trainwreck journalism" that characterizes CNN and most of the media is hurting the country), we get the government we deserve. As the NY Observer states in its endorsement of Kerry: The Bush Presidency has been more than a disaster: It has been an assault on the integrity of American life. Amen.

And BTW, I don't buy the "I'm British" and have no stake in the election BS for a second. The diatribe above is filled with right-wing talking points torn straight from the script.

So stuff it Rick and calm your hysterical fears, stoked to the point of boil-over by the rightest propaganda you've obviously bought to the point where you're selling itself yourself. You're in for a rude awakening when we actually have an adult in the whitehouse again. Kerry WILL win and be the next President after November 2nd because republican efforts to suppress the vote are failing and will continue to fail..but then the REAL work begins. What a disastrous mess we have to clean up...

Posted by: JB at November 1, 2004 05:30 AM

Oh, and apropos Kerry missing an opportunity to play to his "base" on the left. I humbly disagree. Witness Howard Dean, the antiwar candidate (talk about playing to the base) -- vilified by the media and taken down with a manufactured sound snipped and electronically manipulated and played 700 times in 3 days -- of course, if you had been in the room, you wouldn't have heard Gov. Dean "scream" because the roaring of his "base" drowned it out. (Some networks apologized, a fact that paled compared to the original onslaught and one that no one seems to recall.)

I offer the media as the first reason Kerry couldn't follow the "rovian" rule of playing to the base. Number two is a more hopeful one -- left-leaning, liberal minded (read open minded and capable of independent thought) types will not follow lockstep down the path like the fundies and right-to-lifers who focus on only one or two issues (and those not even clearly -- witness the hypocrisy about capital punishment).
It might work to appeal to the leftward base if the world was fair, but Kerry's been in politics long enough to know better...

Posted by: JB at November 1, 2004 05:57 AM

A) It's a commonly known fact that most US media outlets are biased to left-wing opinion in a cheap ploy to swing voters , I don't care what you say.

B) Saddam was planning on building WMD whether he had them or not ( which I believe he did, Syria would have been happy to stash them for him). He was a threat a corrupt bastard, and needed taking down, not that I was a big fan of the Iraq war , because I'd much rather have seen Saudi Arabia, or Iran cop it, but at least it was better than a Kerry style "dialogue" approach, with a load of empty threats to boot.

C) I am British, my I live in Tupton near Chesterfield in Derbyshire, I couldn't care less if you believe me or not.
Finally you should check this out.

Vote Bush, get that pussy Kerry's cowardly face off the TV, he's so devoid of anything resembling a presidential aura.

Posted by: Rick at November 1, 2004 07:17 AM

Fascinating how Rick learned to type, but not how to think.

Posted by: kamajii at November 1, 2004 07:37 AM

or spell. or, when they claim to be british, keep mistakes that are typical of native writers of US english out of their post.

Posted by: Magpie at November 1, 2004 08:31 AM

In general terms - I agree completely with Rick...

The only way Bush will not win is if the Dems perpetrate their fraud on elections (like Missouri in 2000 by keeping only certain precincts open after the proper time) like they have been known to do in the past (see LBJ, Al Gore). Bush has the right vision for the country - keeping sovereignty at home versus one world government that is not accountable to anyone (the path that Kerry wants to go down).

If Kerry wins, the only solace I have is that he will bring about Armageddon by allowing Isreal to be destroyed, thus putting us all of our misery.

Posted by: Jeffrey at November 1, 2004 02:30 PM

Pacific Views has hit the "Big Time", you now have mindless wingnut trolls.

Posted by: Ron In Portland at November 1, 2004 03:19 PM

Good grief. The proximity of election day is really bringing out the trolls and wingnuts.

"It's a commonly known fact that most US media outlets are biased to left-wing opinion in a cheap ploy to swing voters , I don't care what you say."

It's a commonly known fact that Bush supporters tend to have their facts wrong, as verified by a Pew Research poll. Even the 'most liberal' outlets in the country all have right wing talking heads, or columnists, depending on the venue. The 'liberal' New York Times has had to apologize publicly twice for sensational front page stories based on Ahmed Chalabi's propaganda, stories which strongly supported the case for Bush's disastrous war.

"If Kerry wins, the only solace I have is that he will bring about Armageddon by allowing Isreal to be destroyed, thus putting us all of our misery."

Sorry Jeffrey, it's Bush and the fundamentalist Christian sects of people like Pat Robertson who support bringing on Armageddon by unifying Jerusalem under sole Israeli control only to have it be ground zero of the apocalypse. Even certain rabbis in Israel have wised up to this, so look it up.

But more importantly, what kind of whiny, miserable crap is that? If you can't have the government you want, you're looking forward to the death of everyone on the planet, all 6 billion of us? What. A. Sick. Bastard.

Posted by: natasha at November 1, 2004 03:26 PM

I do not take solace in the end of the world. I hope everyone is saved - even you. It will just take a cataclysmic event like this to show you the error of your ways. We are going down the abyss of immorality that hastens the end.

We have a major perception problem in the country. Each side cannot fathom how the other side can be so wrong. I don't see how this can be rectified as neither side will give in.

What it would take for me to vote for Kerry? 1. Oppose Abortion. 2. Stop the one world government (i.e., the UN). That's it... Other than my abortion view, I take libertarian postitions and would like the government to stay out of my life...

Posted by: Jeffrey at November 1, 2004 04:31 PM

JB makes some good points, about the ease with which the Right-biased media took Dean down and the fact of the fundamental difference in the way Left- and Right-wingers react to political stimuli. I don't know what can be done about the media influence, though I have some ideas. As to the latter, I would believe that even open-minded people would react positively to a more clearly-defined vision. If Kerry said unequivocally that Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time, that he categorically supports a woman's right to choose, that Bush's anti-Muslim Crusade has made us far more vulnerable to future acts of terrorism, that sovereign nations cannot act unilaterally in the nuclear age and expect to survive, a lesson the Europeans had to learn the hard way, yet learned it 60 years ago, that the real conservatives in the US are liberals, that mining the wilderness and spending our great great grandchildren's life savings is not fiscally responsible ... I could go on, but this non-nuanced type of speech is what many people are waiting for. Thanks for posting.

Posted by: Norman at November 2, 2004 12:14 AM

Ron - We must have started writing at about the same time. Not only a troll, but a UN conspiracy nut troll. A troll who talks about personal freedom with what I can only assume is a straight face, except for women's reproductive systems.

This is, like, troll premium.

Jeffrey - Make too much of a pest of yourself, and I will ban you, this is a personal site and I get to make the rules. Consider this your only warning.

Posted by: natasha at November 2, 2004 09:33 AM

Thanks Norman for the followup. I too wish Kerry could be more direct and unequivocal but I understand -- even without him saying these things explicitly (though in some cases he has)-- that he has said them implicitly. The language is "guarded" if you will because his goal was to speak to and convince those quavering, much sought "undecideds" and moderate republicans (yes, they still exist). I liked Dean (if that wasn't clear) because he was so refreshingly direct and pointed. I've come around, however, to geniune respect and support of Kerry (soon to be President Kerry -- voter turnout here in the Philly suburbs is very high, and in Philly itself also).

Anyway, I think what's most important is to continue active support for the man once he's in office. I feel like I've invested in him more than any other candidate I've ever supported (this is the first election where I've donated money and time in terms of GOTV efforts).

Hey, Dumbledore's Army won, didn't it (with apologies to JK Rowling) -- I think we need a "Kerry's Army" to hone and spread the message and central themes of the left/democratic party as well as counter the inevitable onslaught (as suffered by President Clinton) from the corrupted press and bitter/vicious rightwing.

Posted by: JB at November 2, 2004 09:37 AM