38 Comments

1. Lola:

Y’all can breathe now easier . . . Kerry’s given up, speech at 1pm.

Nov 3, 2004 - 8:17 am 2. TedM:

RELIEF

Just a warm feeling of relief.

Nov 3, 2004 - 8:21 am 3. PeterArgus:

Give the man credit. He waited long enough to see the numbers of provisional ballots and made the wrong decision. By waiting 12 h to concede he shows respect for his supporters. Most important he saves our country the abject misery of a drawn out post-election legal turmoil. Thanks John.

Nov 3, 2004 - 8:28 am 4. richard mcenroe:

Amazing, it took him i over 12 hours, but he finally showed as much class as Richard Nixon in 1960. Typical.

Nov 3, 2004 - 8:28 am 5. PeterArgus:

Oops! That should be right NOT wrong decision. MUST PREVIEW

Nov 3, 2004 - 8:29 am 6. bkw:

I have the last 18 hours of FNC on video tape. I’m going to have to digitize for posterity.

I also have 6 hours of election night 2000 on tape. Haven’t even rewound that one. Think I’m going to pop it in the VCR and marvel.

Nov 3, 2004 - 8:33 am 7. Peter G.:

So it’s official then: Truman defeats McClellan.

Nov 3, 2004 - 8:40 am 8. RogerA:

I honestly didnt think Senator Kerry had it in him. A good move for the country and the man actually showed some class.

The next step in the process will be assembling the democratic circular firing squad where the will miss what I think is the most important piece of this election; to wit: what the pollsters called “moral values.” The factoid I heard was the 80 percent of those voters citing moral values as their primary issue voted for the President. This tells me, more than anything, just how out of step the democratic party is with the American Electorate.

This was a great defeat as well for the MSM who continued their decline into irrelevance. Assuming Evan Thomas of newsweek was correct in his assessment how many points the media would bring to Kerry, Bush would have have closer to a 10 point lead–I do not suppose the MSM will have the courage or the cojones to examine their tawdry performance.

Finally, I couldnt resist checking in on the moonbats of DU–their server is overloaded, but with anyluck, most of them will follow Alec Baldwin off shore.

Nov 3, 2004 - 8:40 am 9. vegetius:

Roger,

I live in North Carolina and agree with your assessment. Bush easily carried NC and a Republican(Burr) has won Edward’s senate seat. How Saletan sees him as a future national candidate is baffling. He couldn’t even win a state office in NC. Maybe a change in residence is in order….but where????

Nov 3, 2004 - 8:40 am 10. JJay:

I’m making a list of who Bush beat to win: The angry, paranoid left, epitomized by the Michael Moore-Howard Dean -Moveon.org wing which now dominates the Democratic party and is bankrolled by George Soros and the limousine liberals on both coasts. The major news media — NY Times, the networks (Rather, Brokow, Jennings, Brown-Blitzer, the egregious blowhard Chris Mathews), NPR, MTV and the “youth vote,” Jon Stewart, Al Franken and all the other smart-aleck comedians and commentators. Hollywood, including Barbra, Sean Penn, Warren Beatty, Susan Sarandon, Rosie, Cher, Ben, and a cast of thousands. Feminists. The gays and their agenda. The professoriat. The secular humanists. The greedy trial lawyers. Bill and Hillary. Jesse, Rev. Al, Julian Bond and the other race hustlers. The UN. Old Europe — Chirac, Schroeder and the Belgium bureaucracy. Our own Foggy Bottom. New York, Boston and San Francisco and lesser elitist groupings such as Berkeley and Madison. What am I leaving out?

Nov 3, 2004 - 8:41 am 11. mrp:

Hmmm… I wonder what the Iranian government thinks about the election results.

Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin wants the world to know that he was squarely in President Bush’s corner from the get-go. To be fair, his actions seemed pretty supportive during the election campaign.

Lucianne.com has a wide range of post-election links to international sources.

Excerpt:

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday that a victory for George W. Bush in the U.S. presidential race would mean the United States had not allowed itself to be cowed by terrorists, the Interfax news agency reports.

“If Bush wins, then I can only feel joy that the American people did not allow itself to be intimidated, and made the most sensible decision,” Interfax quoted Putin as saying.

Nov 3, 2004 - 8:43 am 12. Hovig:

Speaking of Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, and simplicity, something tells me Fallujah is scheduled to be “simplified” right about now.

Nov 3, 2004 - 8:46 am 13. mark percich:

Re: John Edwards.

This is sheer Monday morning quarterbacking – so fuss at me at will. I don’t think that he added much to the democratic ticket. Imagine the fits that VP candidate Richard Gephardt would have given Bush-Cheney during the last four weeks of the campaign in the industrial heartland.

Also, props to Joseph Lieberman. I think I understand what he did for Gore in Florida during the 2000 campaign.

Thank God this is over.

Mark Percich

Nov 3, 2004 - 8:51 am 14. ambisinistral:

It’s extremely early to ask the Democrats to morph into a party that really stands for, rather an against, something.

Roger,

I think the Democrats have a problem because there are two strands of radically different liberalism entwined in their thinking. One is the old Populist/Union coallition, the other are the collectivists that look to European liberals for inspiration.

I think it is the Europhile liberals — the ones who embrace that strange mix of group identity at a subnational level with governing at a transnational/NGO level — that are causing such problems for the Democrats.

Those concepts do not resonate with Americans. We don’t want to empower groups over individuals, nor do we want to subordinate the Constitution to the UN Charter. Yet in Kerry’s Global Test, or Hillary’s It takes a Village to Raise a Child, Political Correctness and in a myriard of other statements the concepts of Liberal Democracy and individual rights are sniped at and eroded.

My ideal solution, which I don’t see happening any time soon, is that the far left wing of the democratic Party break away and find its more natural home among the Greens. Then the Party could return to its roots as supporting populist and secular democracy.

Nov 3, 2004 - 8:53 am 15. Silicon valley Jim:

As little as I like John Kerry as a politician and, to the extent I can tell, as a person, I applaud the fact that he has done the right thing for the country, and I’m not going to carp about any of the details.

Nov 3, 2004 - 8:56 am 16. notthisgirl:

JJay: Al Baredai(sp); Kofi Annan; UBL ….

The Kozites are having their little Moonbat melt-down … but there are a few faithfuls who are beginning to question their affiliation with such a crowd.

Lets see, who else, oh – The Guardian, Al Zakarwi(sp), Al Jazeera, Syria … …. ….

Nov 3, 2004 - 8:57 am 17. Kevin P:

Roger:

The MSM still doesn’t get it. The WaPo is calling the vote was based on “fantasy” issues. Some schmuck on the Today show is saying that people just didn’t like the “debate” champ and voted for the “jock”. I bet you had no idea that the fact that you voted for Bush was not based on a well thought out decision that Sen. Kerry’s foreign policy was going to put this country in serious danger and was going to allow the terrorists to strike us again. I bet you didn’t realize that your concern for Israel being abandoned by a radical Democratic Party was just a fantasy. You further didn’t make the brave and patriotic stance that even though you are very oppossed to President Bush’s social views you made the logical decision that we are at war and those battles must be put aside for the moment and that the security of the country was just too important. I bet you didn’t know that even though you have been a lifelong Democrat and that you would be termed by most people to be smart and sophisticated and a man of the world your vote was based on your inner need to be liked by the dumb high school jock and because you voted on who you would like to have a beer with.Roger, you must follow the MSM and learn the real reasons you voted for President Bush, you frustrated jock you.

PS, Tavis Smilley is still calling President Bush Mr. Bush.

PPS- Even though President Bush is the first President to win a majority of the vote since 1988 Chris Matthews is saying that President Bush does not have any mandate and his win was based on the dumb America that believes there are WMD in Iraq and believes in the literal interpratation of Genesis. Roger , I didn’t know you were a born again Christian

PPS- Who will be the first journalist to ask President Bush to list his biggest mistakes of the first term?

Nov 3, 2004 - 9:10 am 18. JeremyR:

Should have picked Gephardt. While he’s not as charismatic or as pretty, he likely would have helped swing Iowa and maybe even Missouri (doubtful, since Gephardt’s base in Missouri is St. Louis, which already votes Democratic, but you never know)

Nov 3, 2004 - 9:18 am 19. BigFire:

re: vegetius

One major reason Edwards went for the Presidential race is that he knew perfectly well that he cannot get re-elected as Senator from North Carolina. He also failed to deliever the state to the ticket.

Nov 3, 2004 - 9:22 am 20. Fresh Air:

RogerA—

You should take a look at this. (I put this up on the other thread.)

See this link and scroll down if you want a huge laugh at the Democratic Underground’s expense. These guys are melting like the Wicked Witch. ROFLMAO!

Nov 3, 2004 - 9:26 am 21. scott1798:

To understand the Left in this country, read David Horowitz’s Radical Son and Left Illusions. If you really want to understand the Left however, you need to understand the following. Plato’s Republic, in which philosopher kings are at the top of the pyramid. Machiavelli, in which every king must beget a Prince, whose only concern is preservation of power and to whom it is better to be feared than loved. Goebels, in which the Big Lie takes precedence over the Truth. Orwell, in which Newspeak governs the media and Big Brother rules the day.

In order to understand the American people, all you need to know is that they have resoundingly rejected all of the above.

Nov 3, 2004 - 9:26 am 22. nopundit:

Simple men rarely speak plainly, and plain spoken men are rarely simple.

Kenneth Greenlee

Nov 3, 2004 - 9:27 am 23. Percy Dovetonsils:

The WaPo is calling the vote was based on “fantasy” issues. Some schmuck on the Today show is saying that people just didn’t like the “debate” champ and voted for the “jock”.

Again with the sweet talk.

Rule #1, if you consider the audience you are trying to reach to be a bunch of subliterate primates, your audience may just catch on and – wonder of wonders – be insulted.

These smartypants just never catch on, do they?

Nov 3, 2004 - 9:32 am 24. Pablo:

Roger:

I am reminded of the comment of some talking head (I think maybe it was Judy Woodruff) reacting to the outpouring of gratitude and genuine emotion expressed by the American public upon the death of Ronald Reagan: Did we miss this? Was it there and we just didn’t see it?

This is an analogous moment: Do the American people really embrace George W. Bush – “simplemindedness” and all? Or is there something beyond our faux intellectual superiority that explains this phenomenon? What are we missing at this point in history?

They have an opportunity to do a service to themselves and this country by asking themselves such questions – and not falling for the “simpletons are likable” garbage with which Saletan is consoling himself . A strong two-party system is good for this nation, but not when one of the two only trucks in caricatures of the opposition party.

Nov 3, 2004 - 9:39 am 25. Dishman:

Looking at the poll numbers, the national vote swung by about 2.5% from 2000, while NC didn’t swing at all. That says to me that John Edwards was worth about 2.5% more in NC than nationally. In other words, just about nothing.

Nov 3, 2004 - 9:59 am 26. Terrye:

They need to look in a mirror and say: Hey you, what are you doing wrong? Why do people reject you?

If the answer is that you are smarter and slicker than those dumbasses so eff them, do not be surprised if you find you don’t have a crowd around you.

Nov 3, 2004 - 10:22 am 27. Bostonian:

Something really struck me last night: Geraldine Ferraro expressed great surprise that the active military is so supportive of GWB.

It’s election day and she didn’t already know this?!

Nov 3, 2004 - 10:26 am 28. Old Grouch:

I would extend the argument in ambisinstral’s post above and say that because the “Europhile-liberal” (can we call it “transnational-socialist”) ideas don’t resonate among the American electorate, the Democratic party has to avoid these ideas in order to get elected.

Which explains why John Kerry ran a poll-driven flip-flop campaign. He, his party, and/or his handlers must have concluded that if the party’s core beliefs became an issue the party would lose. The solution was to avoid specifics and be as vague as possible. No wonder it was difficult to pin down Kerry’s position: The vagueness was intentional. No wonder so much of the campaign was based on “not George Bush.”

But that kind of campaigning only works against other poll-driven politicians. A large part of the “moral values” issue has to concern the integrity of the candidate: Does he really believe what he says? Can we trust him to do the right thing? IMO, when judged on these questions, John Kerry came up short compared to George Bush. Is that a fair judgement? There was no way to tell.

And until the Democrats choose positions that the electorate is comfortable with, they will continue to have problems.

Nov 3, 2004 - 11:11 am 29. Catherine:

Just watched the concession speeches.

Kerry’s was terrific; Edwards, awful. Still peddling the two-Americas, Republicans are racist theme.

The Dems have to ditch this guy.

Nov 3, 2004 - 11:25 am 30. Catherine:

Judy Woodruff looks stricken.

Jeff Greenfield, however, had a great line, a concession speech a friend of his supposedly actually gave:

The people have spoken, the bastards.

Nov 3, 2004 - 11:26 am 31. Catherine:

ambisinistral

I think it is the Europhile liberals — the ones who embrace that strange mix of group identity at a subnational level with governing at a transnational/NGO level — that are causing such problems for the Democrats.

Agree, absolutely. I see this in my circles.

It is a strange mix, isn’t it, when you think about it? I don’t quite follow why group identity tracks with a belief in international law, international governance, and a softening of sovereignty.

The tremendous problem for the Dems is, as you say, the fact that this vision does not attract more than a stubborn minority of Americans–and probably never will, given American exceptionalism.

Amity Shlaes, my favorite columnist at the FT, had a terrific column on another fact of this problem. I’ll post the link, but it’s probably subscription only.

She argues that Republicans can run on a platform of their core values and beliefs, while Democrats have to run against some of their core values and beliefs. This leads logically to a Kerry campaign focused on bashing George Bush instead of offering a vision for the future.

Here are some excerpts:

If George W. Bush wins the election, his victory will come in part because his party has a strong domestic agenda. If John Kerry loses, it will be because of his party’s lack of one.

[snip]

. . . the Republicans’ rehearsal of the American success story [at the convention] reflected a consistent policy message. We are microeconomists, they were saying, we focus on property ownership and shareholding and our model is Ronald Reagan. “Faith in the free market,” rumbled Arnold Schwarzenegger. “The key to a richer culture is a strong family,” intoned Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania senator. Democrats accuse Republicans of using conventions to hide their radical agendas. Madison Square Garden belied that accusation. After all, Mr Schwarzenegger did not gently peddle compassionate conservatism. He commanded: “Don’t be economic girlie-men!”

Boston: the Democratic Convention by contrast offered – what? The rebuttal to reliance on the private sector is to stress the importance of the public sector. The reply to the argument for individual ownership and control is the argument for the good of the collective. But Democrats instead nervously advocated the free market. At times they were indistinguishable from Republicans. “We believe the private sector, not government, is the engine of economic growth and job creation” – the phrase comes not from Mr Schwarzenegger but from the Democrats’ 2004 platform. “We can strengthen and lift up your families” – the line is from John Edwards, the vice-presidential candidate, in Boston, not Mr Santorum in New York. . . . The policy conclusion: Republican inconsistencies exist but Democrats’ inconsistencies are greater.

[snip]

But while “triangulating”, as it is known, may be good for the individual candidate, it is not good for the party in the longer run unless both leadership and base are committed to a philosophical change. And many Democrats – indeed many Americans – still believe that rights are about entitlement, not the chance to compete. The result is that the party comes off as cynical and loses support. The Democrats can probably resolve this, but they have not yet.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/781aa5cc-fd46-11d8-ab9f-00000e2511c8.html

Nov 3, 2004 - 11:41 am 32. Catherine:

Remember how I keep telling you guys liberals complain about the press as much as conservatives do?

Here’s a comment on Kevin Drum’s blog:

I find myself wondering if, in fact, the “liberal media” didn’t, actually, defeat Kerry. After the third debate, all the TV & radio sound bites I heard, and most of the newspaper coverage I read, focused on Kerry’s criticisms of Bush’s leadership in Iraq. The audio made him sound harsh and not nearly as presidential as he did in the debates. Nothing (much) empahsized the positive–what Kerry would do–aspects of his message. The Bush soun bites made hom sound more positive, more presidential. I wonder if, finally, people hear that, and react to it. Regardless of the merits of what either man was saying.

Nov 3, 2004 - 11:49 am 33. Catherine:

Remember how I keep telling you guys liberals complain about the press as much as conservatives do?

Here’s a comment on Kevin Drum’s blog:

I find myself wondering if, in fact, the “liberal media” didn’t, actually, defeat Kerry. After the third debate, all the TV & radio sound bites I heard, and most of the newspaper coverage I read, focused on Kerry’s criticisms of Bush’s leadership in Iraq. The audio made him sound harsh and not nearly as presidential as he did in the debates. Nothing (much) empahsized the positive–what Kerry would do–aspects of his message. The Bush soun bites made hom sound more positive, more presidential. I wonder if, finally, people hear that, and react to it. Regardless of the merits of what either man was saying.

Nov 3, 2004 - 11:49 am 34. AlanC:

Hi Catherine;

You said

“It is a strange mix, isn’t it, when you think about it? I don’t quite follow why group identity tracks with a belief in international law, international governance, and a softening of sovereignty.”

Actually, I don’t think that it is strange at all. The transnational socialists (tranazis?)

Want to break down national sovereignty so they can in effect “rule the world”. They are sort of the ultimate elitist utopians.

To break down the national identity you have to have something to substitute, voila group identity!! This is especially helpful if you can concentrate on groups that span nations. Such things as race and religion are perfectly suited to that. The Soviets tried the alternative with their “new Soviet Man”. That was an attempt to give the individual a new group to identify with that would cement the power of the state.

Tranazis are trying to use existing group identities to breakdown the nation state, and it wouldn’t surprise me that they have something in mind to then break down the group identities. At that point all hell will break loose because, as the USSR proved so pointedly, that just ain’t gonna work.

Nov 3, 2004 - 12:37 pm 35. Dilys:

Manoman, what a great forum. Thanks for the e-mail address for the Swift Vets. I wrote them as follows:

Hey you guys,

I was your age when you went off to war in the 60’s, guess I still am. Thanks for stepping up and keeping this country & world at least 51% sane, at great cost to yourselves and loved ones.

I echo this comment from the Beldar Blog.

Bush seems to have made it. Congratulations to my countrymen on {y}our good sense. And, in my strong opinion, the protection of Divine Providence.

By the way, Viet Vets, welcome home. And thank you.

Good work, warriors! You saved our bacon again.

There’s more I want to comment on, but “later,” you good guys, you. We will have our policy and culture differences, but from a ground of national integrity and security better than it might have been.

Nov 3, 2004 - 1:13 pm 36. Syl:

I watched Greenfield and Woodruff and Blitzer too. (The sound went off on Fox, came on for Cheney and Bush, then went off again…all the commentary before and after was silent. If I were as paranoid as a DUer I might make a remark about that.)

Greenfield was saying the Dems don’t stand FOR anything, only against Bush. Oh, if you ask what they stand for they’ll recite a list of supposed ‘issues’.

Woodruff responded in disbelief: ‘Environment!!?’

Nope, Bush doesn’t care at all for our environment, Judy. Go back to your broom closet and weep. (Do the grim witches weep?)

Which reminds me of Andrea Mitchell the other night. Basically she believes Bush has a character flaw because he doesn’t agree with her. Sweet Andrea (who is as grim as Judy) complained that Bush is incapable of admitting he was wrong about Iraq.

Andrea, my dear, you have a difference of OPINION with Bush. Accept that that is all it is.

Oh, we here know we know this about folks like Judy and Andrea, but for me to recognize it when I see it is a new experience. I’ve learned a lot (maybe too much) in the last two years.

I can’t go back.

Nov 3, 2004 - 1:40 pm 37. PeterUK:

You haven’t heard the last of him,”November the second two thousand and four is seared,seared in my mind as the night I was robbed of my rightful office of President by an unholy alliance of….fill in as appropriate”

Are you not glad that he isn’t reliving the Watch scene played by Christopher Walken in Pulp Fiction?

Nov 3, 2004 - 2:10 pm 38. Neo:

When I think of Edwards, I keep going back to a quote from the Wall Street Journal from some years ago. Quoting some old Southern statesman saying ..

“That boy’s thin .. he’s thinner than piss on a rock.”

Nov 3, 2004 - 4:37 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: