November 19, 2004
Friends of Iraq
Roger L. Simon has pointed me to Friends of Iraq:
Please consider that your $10, $20, or $50 donation will help ensure that the Iraqis and their new government have every chance of success. The button to the left will take you directly to a donation page where you can pay by Paypal or credit card.
November 17, 2004
November 15, 2004
November 11, 2004
Veterans Day
To every airman, sailor, soldier, and marine who has fought or is fighting now, so that we civilians can continue to live and prosper in the great United States of America, thank you and God bless you.
Please take a moment to read about the remarkable 1st Lt Joshua Palmer, USMC over at Hugh Hewitt:
His contributions have only begun. Semper Fidelis.
November 08, 2004
God Bless Jose Maria Aznar
In the Sunday November 7, 2004 Wall Street Journal:
Hope has triumphed, and with it the confidence of the American people in the values and principles on which our shared civilization on both sides of the Atlantic is based. George W. Bush decided to respond to totalitarian terrorist attacks with a return to basic principles. He could have chosen appeasement. He could have opted for mere rhetoric. He decided not to do so. He decided to oppose brutality with steadfast conviction. Now a wide majority of his people has backed this policy. It has confirmed that there is hope in our way of life, a form of hope that derives its strength from its essential convictions, a hope that is manifested in the desire to defend freedom above all else.
November 06, 2004
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
Real Clear Politics on November 6, 2004:
Terry Eastland's article in the Weekly Standard entitled "The Moral Majority":
TUESDAY'S EXIT POLLS showed that voters identified "moral values" ahead of jobs and the economy--and even terrorism--as the matter most on their minds. Some 80 percent of those most concerned about values voted for George W. Bush. Obviously, "value voters" helped President Bush win a second term. Bush had a lot to do with that, of course, in the positions he took and the rhetoric he used. But so did John Kerry.
Eleanor Clift's article in Newsweek entitled "Nader Was Right":
Kerry’s advisers told themselves that with war, terrorism and an uncertain economy dominating the news, the cultural issues would fade. But when the exit polls were analyzed, 78 percent of those who voted for Bush cited moral values as a top concern. Democrats knew for months that amendments to ban gay marriage would be on state ballots, yet they did nothing to create a counterweight. David Bositis at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington think tank, observed that the U.S. Supreme Court gave George W. Bush the presidency in 2000, while the Massachusetts Supreme Court handed it to him in this election.
Never mind that Eleanor Clift's figure is 78%. I'm willing to believe that she was citing exit poll data that was not yet completely compiled. CNN has the exit poll on its site (below is the relevant screen-capture):
There is an 80% figure in the 2004 Bush column which corresponds to the row "Moral Values" (which does in fact have the highest percentage at 22% under the "Most Important Issue" column heading). Again, Terry Eastland: "Some 80 percent of those most concerned about values voted for George W. Bush"; and Eleanor Clift: "[assume she said 80] percent of those who voted for Bush cited moral values as a top concern".
Are Terry Eastland and Eleanor Clift saying the same thing semantically? Not in the least. Look again at the exit poll data above. The 80% is not 80% of all Bush voters, it is 80% of the 22% of all voters whose most important issue is "Moral Values". This translates into only 17.6% (80% of 22%) of actual Bush voters. Interestingly, 19% of all voters rated "Terrorism" as the most important issue, of which 86% voted for Bush. This translates into 16.34% (86% of 19%) of actual Bush voters, nearly as many Bush voters whose most important issue is "Moral Values".
The Lie: Terry Eastland is strictly correct: "Some 80 percent of those most concerned about values voted for George W. Bush". I tend to believe that Terry Eastland understood the exit poll properly, however, he entitled his piece "The Moral Majority" and plunked a pig down on the sofa (the not-untrue-in-his-context 80% figure rather than the much more accurate 17.6% figure). As one traverses his article, what conclusions might one draw as to this seeming superbloc of moral majoritarians?
The Damn Lie: Eleanor Clift is flat-out wrong. 80% (or 78%) of Bush voters did not walk into the polling place with "Moral Values" as their most important issue. Not even close. The truly reprehensible next step she took though is to translate "Moral Values" into the intolerance of red state bible-thumping fag-bashers. Go read the article! "Gay marriage" appears in the very next sentence. One of my moral values is, if you are going to cite statistics, cite them accurately!
Statistics: Actually, statistics are cool.
November 05, 2004
Krugman vs. Krugman
Let's compare and contrast two different mainstream media pundits' points of view. It is clear that America is viciously divided. How can we as concerned Americans ever expect to bridge this divide?
First, the system works:
"I always get a little choked up when I go to the local school to cast my vote. The humbleness of the surroundings only emphasizes the majesty of the process: This is democracy, America's great gift to the world, in action.
"But during the last few days before Election Day I saw pictures from Florida that were even more majestic. They showed long lines of voters, snaking through buildings and on down the sidewalk: citizens patiently waiting to do their civic duty. Those people still believe in American democracy; and because they do, so do I.
"In truth, I wasn't sure what would happen in Florida this year. After all that has gone wrong with voting in that state, it seemed all too possible that many people would simply give up and stay home."
Second, the system is broken:
"President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda.
"Democrats are now, understandably, engaged in self-examination. But while it's O.K. to think things over, those who abhor the direction Mr. Bush is taking the country must maintain their intensity; they must not succumb to defeatism.
"This election did not prove the Republicans unbeatable. Mr. Bush did not win in a landslide. Without the fading but still potent aura of 9/11, when the nation was ready to rally around any leader, he wouldn't have won at all. And future events will almost surely offer opportunities for a Democratic comeback."
I have to admit that I am surprised that I agree with the first pundit - I rarely do. The second pundit of course is exhibiting his usual pandering vitriol - something I have grown to expect with more regularity than my bowel movements. How do we get people so polarized together? It seems beyond even a Herculean task. Perhaps we just give up and realize that some folks were never meant to inhabit the same room (let alone the same country). This is America after all.
For the curious, the first pundit is Paul Krugman, patriot extraordinaire, writing in the New York Times on November 2, 2004. The second pundit is (he really needs no introduction!) Paul Krugman, bipolar paranoid enemy of everything Bush, writing in the New York Times on November 5, 2004.
It's amazing that the New York Times is able to keep two surely sworn blood enemies on the same payroll! Boy, would I like to be the fly on the wall when those two meet at the water cooler!
Regions of Mind Comment
Left as a comment at Regions of Mind:
I voted for Bush for one reason: to continue to successfully prosecute the war on terror. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and I suspect I am not alone. There are many among us (Americans) that view having to choose or show allegience to the two party choices as an unresolvable cognitive dissonance.
Is it too simplistic to state the platforms of the two main parties thus?:
Rep = hawk/social conservative/fiscal conservative
Dem = dove/social liberal/fiscal liberal
While historically, Democrats had many hawks, that just doesn't appear to be the case today. Zell Miller and Ed Koch are two who touched on this. To me the choice above puts me on the horns of a dilemma. My ideal party is:
Me = hawk/social liberal/fiscal conservative
To me this is a consistent position as in each case my individual freedoms are expanded. Social liberalism connotes freedom to choose in religion, relationships, "bad" behavior such as electing to smoke pot, pay for sex, gamble, etc (please spare me the canard of: oh, just another dope smoker); simply being left alone so long as you don't trespass on another's freedom. [Update 11/7/2004: Maintream social liberalism traditionally advocates gun control. This is completely anathema to my view of what is (and should be viewed as) a freedom of choice issue. Keeping and bearing arms is ensconced in our Constitution as an inalienable right, and should be treated as such at all levels of government. That the ACLU chooses not to aggressively defend gun rights (inexplicable in my opinion) makes them the inevitable whipping boy of mainstream conservatives.] Fiscal conservative is also a "freedom to choose" avenue for me insofar as I am a small federal government/lower taxes/free market/minimal regulation/end to indefinite welfare and entitlements (as opposed to true emergency relief) kind of guy. And I am a hawk insofar as I see the WTC attacks (and the many before) as trespasses against Americans living the way they choose (influencing the "market behavior" of everyday life). I don't for a moment buy that our warring is driven because of enrichment or imperialism. Americans must choose to defend our sovereignty or lose everything that makes this country great.
It appears to me that Democrats (especially, but not solely) continue to lose ground precisely because they choose to view "them" as stupid, easily cowtowed, genuflecting morons. To even choose the term "them" underscores this adversarial problem. I suggest to Democrats that they rethink their positions not as being superior or obviously correct but as being just that: positions. I'll gladly join in the dialogue when that time comes.
November 04, 2004
Dewey Defeats Truman. No, Really.
Via new (to me) blogger Circulation Dropping (via Roger Simon):
Jimmy Breslin's last column in Newsday filed November 2, 2004.
Nancy Pelosi et al
Nancy Pelosi on cnn.com (via CQ):
"The Republicans did not have an election about jobs, health care, education, environment, national security. They had an election about wedge issues in our country, and you know what they are," she said.
"They exploited the loveliness of the American people, the devoutness of people of faith for a political end."
This quote doesn't make me angry, it makes me laugh. See also Michael Totten's roundup over at Instapundit. Some losers are gracious. Most are not.
What do I hear? That the Democratic leaders view voters as their subjects rather than sovereign individuals. That the Democratic leaders view themselves as the American people's masters, not their servants. That the Democratic leaders view the Republican leaders as having mainpulated the simplemindedness of the masses. Karl Rove, how can you live with yourself. My God.
Nancy Pelosi is articulating quite clearly that she views herself as royalty, looking down into her personal warren of pet rabbits. They're "lovely", aren't they?
You know what's so funny about this, to me anyway? I VOTED FOR BUSH AND I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN! Had they nominated Joe Lieberman, Bush would have had a real contest for my vote.
I am an independent who believes quite strongly that both major parties are whacked out on growing the federal government as fast as possible. But there's that little thing called survival. We can argue tomorrow over who deserves a slice of pie and who doesn't. We just gotta make sure that tomorrow comes.
Icing on the cake from Eric Alterman at Slate:
"Let’s face it. It’s not Kerry’s fault. [Bold in original] It’s not Nader’s fault (this time). It’s not the media’s fault (though they do bear a heavy responsibility for much of what ails our political system). It’s not “our” fault either. The problem is just this: Slightly more than half of the citizens of this country simply do not care about what those of us in the “reality-based community” say or believe about anything."
Eric, there is help. I feel your victimhood. Perhaps you should open the phonebook and look under "Codependents Anonymous". Remember, recovery is a one-day-at-a-time process. I wouldn't look under the bed just yet, though.
November 03, 2004
Off With My Pajamas ...
... and to bed.
Some thoughts:
1. Would John Kerry be president had the Guardian not pissed Ohioans off so much with their letter-writing campaign? That one state swings and Kerry (it appears at 12:30am central time) is the electoral college winner, Bush the popular vote winner.
2. If you had betting money and were watching tradesports.com, you coulda made some dough. The total electoral vote betting lines swung upwards of 70% in several hours.
3. The winners are the new media and voters (11/3/2004 and the military!). It was a tough battle (a battle which I thought was not even going to be this close, as I predicted a landslide). Without blogs, Kerry would surely have won. The voters also win for two reasons: one, our turnout is by every read phenomenal; and I believe that the right candidate won.
4. The losers are the mainstream media and the exit pollers (nb: I don't regard the Democrats as losers even though they lost; they fought the battle as they should have, albeit perhaps with some overzealous or possibly illegal tactics). The shilling for Kerry was deafening. Well, the voters and America win, and it wasn't easy.
5. If you think 2004 was a hard battle, you ain't seen nothing yet. 2008 will make 2004 look like a playground argument. We better get ready.
God bless America.