120 Comments

1. Zak braverman:

I sincerely wish I could believe you in that Kerry could have won with that, Roger, but unfortunately I can’t. I know many people who voted for Kerry who were so strongly anti-war that they either would have not voted for him, not given him money, or not manned his phone banks.

Sure Kerry would have gotten your vote and those of people reading this blog, but he would have lost many, many others, it saddens me to say.

Nov 7, 2004 - 8:17 am 2. Buddy Larsen:

Si, falta cojones, pero con una cabeza suave y vacÌa tambien.

Nov 7, 2004 - 8:22 am 3. Roger:

Well, this is all hindsight, but KErry obviously did not choose the right tack. He lost pretty badly. And I actually disagree with you on two fronts. I’m not sure I would have voted for KErry had he done that – he would have had to have done it pretty emphatically and more than once. But I am also doubtful he would have been deserted by the Dean crowd any more than Clinton was deserted after the original ‘Sister Souljah’ moment. Clinton won – as you will recall.

Nov 7, 2004 - 8:23 am 4. Buddy Larsen:

Roger, that may be where Nader really hurt him. But, he always had the choice of just being honest. Chips fall where they may, anyway, by and large.

Nov 7, 2004 - 8:42 am 5. Terrye:

I looked at the county by county map on real clear politcs and Kerry did not really win the states he won…he carried the cities. If you look at California and Oregon for instance they are more red than blue.

The point is urbanites may like to think they are reality based but in truth the folks in small town and the country side that do not have the money or clout or celebs know more about the real world than guys like Moore ever will and if you are standing around with a sign that says fuck middle America you will lose the next election too.

I think Kerry lost because he has no balls. As for the anti war crowd, there is a difference between wanting the war to end and cheering on the guys that kill our people. Kerry had far too many of them following his campaign around. They are like poison and he did not have the guts to tell them to get lost.

Nov 7, 2004 - 8:42 am 6. Charlie (Colorado):

Roger, why are you sure Kerry didn’t believe it? Other than an admirable desire to think the best of him? Just thinking about it, I can’t recall any time he said anything that really suggested he thought that democracy in Iraq was particularly desirable, or that the provisional government had any legitimacy.

Nov 7, 2004 - 9:00 am 7. Roger:

I didn’t say, Charlie, that Kerry cared about democracy in Iraq. I don’t know the answer to that. Probably not a lot. But he is not an idiot, and knew perfectly well the difference between the American Minutemen and the Iraqi Insurgents.

Nov 7, 2004 - 9:07 am 8. ahem:

Yeah, and he didn’t have any balls, either.

Nov 7, 2004 - 9:12 am 9. Dave:

Roger,I think your assessment of Kerry was damned close. He doesn’t really care about democracy in Iraq, or here, for that matter.

I do think he agreed with Michael Moore in principle, a damned sad statement, really.

Nov 7, 2004 - 9:17 am 10. Buddy Larsen:

The more I think about it, what with Lexington Green and Concord and the Tea Party and all, Massachusetts John Kerry could have in fact made a groundbreaking statement off Moore’s American Minutemen statement. I’d've written it from the point of view that “The problem is not that we Democrats love the terrorists, it’s that we no longer love the Minutemen”.

Nov 7, 2004 - 9:19 am 11. Rick Ballard:

Kerry brought a knife to a gun fight. He had never, ever done the preliminary work that Bubetta is assiduously pursuing at this moment. He never raised money for others nor has he ever engaged in collaborative effort with others to achieve common political objectives. He doesn’t even have a statewide organization let alone a national one. He had to borrow Uncle Teddy’s car to get him to the dance and Uncle Teddy’s car is a ‘59 Edsel. He did help Mr. Rolodex and Bob Shrum maintain their unblemished records and he most certainly helped the Clinton operatives rake in enough loot to hold them until Bubetta needs them. The only senatorial candidate that appeared with him was Salazar and it was Salazar giving Kerry a hand not vice versa.

Leaving aside his cleaving to excremental ideologues, his political skills were well below the minimum required to be a nominee let alone a candidate. The Democrat party is not just running on empty, it’s sitting on cinder blocks in front of a decrepit doublewide. The fatcats successfully raided the treasury once again but counting on the continuing stupidity of citizens outside the traditional blocs is not a “plan”, it’s a wish.

Nov 7, 2004 - 9:32 am 12. Charlie (Colorado):

Roger, I certainly don’t think Kerry is an idiot — a fool and a poltroon, perhaps, but not an idiot. And I’m sure that if you pressed him he’d say that he didn’t think the Iraqi insurgency is really that much like the Minutemen — although it’d be academically interesting to see him then try to draw a sharp distinction rationally.

But I don’t recall him ever saying anything to suggest that, upon sober reflection, the “killing fields” and the Vietnamese “re-education camps” might suggest the US was more or less on the side of the angels in Southeast Asia. I do recall that he seemed perfectly happy with the Ortega faction in Nicaragua, and don’t recall him ever suggesting that the elections that put Ortega et al out of power was a good thing. He certainly didn’t think that acting against Saddam in Kuwait was appropriate, even with UN approval. And I don’t recall him ever saying anything to suggest that the current government in Iraq, and the progress toward democracy there, were in any way morally, ethically, or pragmatically preferable to the previous Ba’ath regime or the insurgents.

I won’t go as far as saying that I think he’s “objectively pro-fascist”, as someone put it, but I also don’t see a lot to suggest that he grasps the moral distinction between the current Iraqi government and the previous one.

If I’m right, why would he renounce Moore? Given that he didn’t renounce Moore, what do we have to suggest that I’m not right?

Nov 7, 2004 - 9:38 am 13. Charlie (Colorado):

I guess the point is that I don’t think the fault lies in his huevos, it lies in Kerry himself.

Nov 7, 2004 - 9:41 am 14. David Thomson:

ìBut I am also doubtful he would have been deserted by the Dean crowd any more than Clinton was deserted after the original ‘Sister Souljah’ moment.î

One should not underestimate the increased radicalism of todayís Democrat Party. Howard Deanís people are far more influential than their counterparts in 1992. Iím convinced that they would have abandoned John Kerry if he tried to run to the right of George W. Bush concerning the war on terror and Iraq. The Massachusetts senator was indeed trapped in a proverbial Catch 22 predicament.

Does John Kerry lack cojones? It may be much worse than that. Think instead of Woody Allenís 1983 film ìZelig.î Kerry fails to possess any well thought out beliefs. This is a man who is always inclined to place his wet finger into the air to see where the wind blows. Kerry would have lived and died by the results of the very next poll. Thank God, he will not be our commander-in-chief.

Nov 7, 2004 - 9:42 am 15. Charlie (Colorado):

He had to borrow Uncle Teddy’s car to get him to the dance and Uncle Teddy’s car is a ‘59 Edsel.

Besides, it’s never been the same since they dragged it out of the bay.

Nov 7, 2004 - 9:43 am 16. PeterUK:

Viewing this from afar,it appears to me that there is no centre to the man,his core beliefs are as a chameleons skin,changing to suit his surroundings.

The reason he did not check Moore is because that is the way he thought the wind was blowing and that support his candidacy.

The true weakness of the man is that he cannot stand outside himself and make altruistic decisions,everything is measured on whether or not it is to his advantage.

Well fielded America.

Nov 7, 2004 - 10:08 am 17. Rick Ballard:

“Bush did a better job of maintaining a thin wall of separation between him and the 527 nutjobs on his side.”

Jarvis just can’t help himself. Just gotta get a smear in on the more than 250 Swifties whose assertions could have been disproven easily had Senor Falta Cojones released the total record. Unless, of course, they were absolutely true.

“Mr. Moore meet Mr. Jarvis, he has precisely the same understanding of morality and ethics as you do and you compliment each other.”

Nov 7, 2004 - 10:13 am 18. OldManRick:

Some interesting data points show how badly Kerry needed Michael Moore. The full numbers for the election can be found at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html .

A strong element of Kerry’s support was the “31% Strongly disapprove of DECISION TO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ”. They voted 94% for Kerry and, at a total of 29%, include over 60% his votes. Add to that another 75% Kerry voters of the 15% Disapprove, you get a 39% of the voters and 80% of Kerryís vote is in this category. Given that 15% said Iraq was the most important issue and 75% of them voted for Kerry, a full 11.25% voted for him on this issue. The disapprove of Iraq Invasion (39%) is a stronger componet of the Kerry vote than abortion (35% Legal/Most Legal), and Gay rights (35% Civil Unions/Marriage), and just under Economy (41% Not good or Poor). Anyway you figure it, with 35% percent of the voters identified as Democrat, this is a major theme of that party and one of the strongest for Kerry against Bush indicators.

Compare Iraq to the bogey man of the left, Evangelicals. Bush got 78% of the 23% of WHITE EVANGELICAL/BORN-AGAIN? or 18% of the total. At best, they can only be 36% of the republication base.

So the question is, ìDo you want to be in a party where over 90% thinks going to war in Iraq was wrong or in a party where 36% are Evangelical?î

Nov 7, 2004 - 10:14 am 19. David:

Roger, Jeff and you are both right. Moore did lose the election for Kerry, and Kerry let him. If the Democrates would simply open their eyes to what the President did with his friends (like the Swift Vets) the election might have been much closer if not a Kerry win. He said that Kerry served honorably in Nam and encouraged Kerry to denounce ALL 527 ads. So the swift vets got their run and those who didn’t like it and were moderate wouldn’t fault the president. They can denounce the swift vets and still vote for Bush. You’re right, Kerry lacks cojones, but between us he is just nuts.

Oh by the way, Kerry’s harder task would have been to get Jimmy Carter to shut up, he was of no help what so ever.

Nov 7, 2004 - 10:20 am 20. kynna:

The anti-war faction was more anti-Bush than anti-war. Recall that they didn’t seem to mind Kosovo or the ‘98 bombing of Baghdad.

They would have stuck with him and he’d have gained votes from the more hawkish dems.

Nov 7, 2004 - 10:28 am 21. charlotte:

I think some of us here are forgetting that Cannes awarded our mockumentarian the coveted Palme d’Or prize. Who is Kerry to quibble with the French?

Nov 7, 2004 - 10:36 am 22. David Thomson:

ìThe reason he did not check Moore is because that is the way he thought the wind was blowing and that support his candidacy.î

The reason why Iím still very angry with Mickey Kaus, Daniel Drezner, Andrew Sullivan, and other so-called level headed supporters of John Kerry is that they should have been well aware of his failings. Why did they look the other way? This is because they are elitist snobs and Kerry was perceived to be one of their own. On top of that, they felt that they could essentially control him. There was also too much Bishop Thomas Beckett type wishful thinking. Kerry would supposedly change for the better merely because the new demands placed upon him. Jane Galt agreed with me. This is the way she insightfully saw the matter:

ìUltimately, I’ve decided to take the advice of a friend’s grandmother, who told me, on her wedding day, that I should never, ever marry a man thinking he’d change. “If you can’t live with him exactly the way he is,” she told me, “then don’t marry him, because he’ll say he’s going to change, and he might even try to change, but it’s one in a million that he actually will.”

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004974.html

Nov 7, 2004 - 10:42 am 23. Old Dad:

Roger,

I think that you’re right about the Mooreons. It might have taklen a little more political savvy than Kerry possessed to diss his far left without driving them to Nader, but it’s hard to see how. The ABBers were always his for the plucking.

Your post points to a political phenomena that has always mystified me. It’s apparently quite easy to make statements that are idiotic and demonstrably untrue and to get large numbers of presumably sentient beings to agree with you. The list in the last election is long, but let’s just take the Bush is dumb meme as an example.

I’m pretty sure that most people in the middle rejected this little jewel. Bush might be inarticulate at times, but he’s rich, well educated, possessed of an advanced degree from Harvard, a successful two term governor, and now twice elected to the Presidency. That’t the kind of dumb that I aspire to.

I think that most people in the middle need better than gibberish as a reason to vote for or against someone.

Nov 7, 2004 - 10:47 am 24. ex-democrat:

maybe the southpark guys nailed it and an influential number of voters decided it was far better right now to have a d@#k in the white house than a p*%%y.

Nov 7, 2004 - 11:14 am 25. Neo:

The truth be said, Roger, that we still don’t know what John Kerry believes. That is why he lost. Jonah Goldberg over at NRO would still like to know exactly what his “scret” plan for Iraq was, as would the rest of us in both the ‘red” and “blue” states.

It’s real scary when I keep hearing that drivel about Unocal’s pipeline in Afghanistan come up in conversations. Moore has poluted the political landscape with his “prevarications” that the “political EPA” should fine him. I just can’t wait for the Oscars, so Hollywood can find a way to shoot themselves in the foot as they suck up to Moore one more time.

Nov 7, 2004 - 11:25 am 26. Catherine:

IMO Michael Moore was a big part of it. Both Terrye and I, independently, have said we won’t vote Democratic as long as Michael Moore has an honored seat at the table, and if Terrye and I not only feel this way, but are conscious of feeling this way to the point that we’ve repeatedly gone to the trouble of posting the sentiment on this blog, that means there are a zillion folks out there who feel the same and voted accordingly.

A Sister Souljah moment would have a good thing. I have no idea whether it would have been enough to bring 3% of voters over to Kerry. It certainly would have helped, IMO.

However, my sense of Kerry is that he didn’t really disagree with Michael Moore.

The flip-flop campaign obscured the fact that Kerry, I think, has been ideologically consistent throughout his career. He has invariably been anti-war and anti-military, in his “soft” Senatorial way, as opposed to the hard, ranting way of Michael Moore.

Fifty-one percent of America voted against Michael Moore. I know I did. (I’m sure there are lots of Kerry voters who would like to see the guy gone, too.)

I agree with Hugh Hewitt that this election marks the formal end–and the repudiation–of the 1960s.

In voting against Michael Moore, I was voting against the 60s. Michael Moore is the elected representative of the year 1970. The shlubby clothes, the cap, the disrespect, the long hair, the anti-war, anti-Republican, anti-government, anti-authority stance: Michael Moore is your walking, talking blast from the past.

I voted against the John Kerry who testified before the Senate in 1971 and never apologized. More broadly, I voted against the anti-war, anti-military left that emerged from the 1960s.

One of the themes of left-liberal Vietnam war protesters was and is that real patriotism means “criticizing your country.”

This is a core value. “Dissent is patriotic.” One of our babysitters has a Dissent Is Patriotic button on her hat. Her sister owns a “F*** Bush” t-shirt. Their parents are Baby Boom era Vietnam war protesters (at least, I think they are).

Left-liberal Vietnam war protesters, for a number of reasons, I think, ended up putting themselves into the role of critic and judge, and that’s where they stayed.

They pulled back from America; they pulled back from experiencing themselves, first and foremost and without question, as Americans.

This isn’t the same thing as being anti-American, though it can look that way. What it really is, is a distancing, a pulling back. It makes sense to me that the “heartland” would be voting Bush, because Bush has an American heart; he has an uncomplicated emotional relationship to his country.

Kerry’s relationship to America seems complicated and sad. (No Retreat, No Surrender? That’s not Happy Days Are Here Again.)

A few years ago, before I knew much about any of this (and before 9/11) I asked my husband how elite-liberal-professor types see themselves. Do they define themselves as Americans? Is I’m-an-American their core identity?

He said no, not really; they see themselves “more as members of the international community.” (Samuel Huntington’s “America’s Dead Souls” in Spring 2004 NATIONAL INTEREST is about this phenomenon.)

At the time, I was stunned. I’d never heard of such a thing; I had no idea there even was an international community. I just thought there were countries. (Of course, now I know I was right; there isn’t any international community. You’re an American, or a French person or a Brit or a Spaniard or you’re nothing. No one’s core identity is Member Of The International Community.)

This is the John Kerry problem in a nutshell. (OK, there are a lot of nutshells; we’re going to be thinking about this for a long time to come).

He’s not an American through-and-through the way Red-Staters are. He is an America-watcher, and to watch you must position yourself outside the thing you are watching. He has spent his career investigating America, not building and and creating and making America.

He is a critic.

I’ll admit I don’t like America-watchers much. I’m not a big fan of critics in general.

But maybe there’s a good reason to have a liberal elite watching and criticizing from the sidelines. I don’t know.

However, I don’t think the American public will elect a critic to lead.

And I think this is why it didn’t occur to Kerry to repudiate Michael Moore. Kerry isn’t a nasty, conspiracy-mongering, fat putz like Michael Moore, but he is a critic, first and foremost. I don’t think he could have understood, in any deep way, what was so wrong with what Moore was doing.

Nov 7, 2004 - 11:30 am 27. ms anne:

i like the phrase, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them.” both kerry and carter showed the nation who they are, busily and passionately kissing michael moore’s bounteous avoirdupoir. kerry is a poseur who doesn’t know his lines or his part until it’s written and costumed for him. he sees politics as entertainment, as a show, where different scenes require different sets and scripts–from whoopie goldberg to bruce springsteen. he is an empty suit, a hollow man, almost a pixar animation of what a candidate should look like with no substance involved. Moore’s film cuts the heart and soul out of the american experience. kerry cheered him and went along. he’s a loser. no balls. no brains. no love for his country. no inauguration.

Nov 7, 2004 - 11:30 am 28. Catherine:

David Thomson

I love the Jane Galt quote!

No kidding.

Never, EVER, marry a man thinking he’s gonna change.

Sheesh.

Since you’ve quoted Jane Galt, I’m going to re-quote Dave Schuler: The Dems need to get their crazy folks off the front porch.

Nov 7, 2004 - 11:32 am 29. Thom:

To David Thompson:

Don’t link Kaus, Drezner and Sullivan together, they supported Kerry for completely different reaseons.

Kaus is a party guy, he identifies more strongly with Dems on a host of issues, therefore voted for Kerry as a Democrat, forgiving, but not overlooking the serious flaws in the man.

Drezner’s an academic, with an academic’s fetish for planning. He doesn’t believe that, by historical measures, our efforts in the war on terror have been about as good as they could have been. Instead, better “planning” by academics such as himself, and adopted by the “intellectual” Kerry — would make everything better.

Sullivan bailed on President Bush because of gay marriage.

Nov 7, 2004 - 11:39 am 30. Catherine:

Things The Democrats Need To Do To Get Back In The Game

I’ve started a list.

Apart from lose Michael Moore, lose No Retreat, No Surrender, and lose the LiveSTRONG bracelets, I’ve come up with this:

Stop talking about faith. Cross-over Dems like me talk about religion, or, alternatively, going to church. We never talk about faith, and we think people who do sound snotty. When a Democratic Party operative tells a reporter that Democratic candidates “should not be afraid to talk about their faith,” they are using ‘faith’ as a euphemism for ‘religion,’ which defeats the whole purpose of having them talk about their faith in the first place.

_________________________________________________________

Other items, anyone?

Nov 7, 2004 - 11:40 am 31. OldManRick:

kynna,

“The anti-war faction was more anti-Bush than anti-war.”

You may be right but continuing my post from above http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2004/11/whose_lost_moor.php#c27710 The issue that correlated strongest with Kerry Bush split was Iraq.

IS IRAQ WAR PART OF WAR ON TERRORISM?

Yes 55%- 81% Bush 18% Kerry

No 45% – 11% Bush 88% Kerry

DECISION TO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ

Strong Approve 29% – 94% Bush 6% Kerry

Strong Disappv 31% – 5% Bush 94% Kerry

HOW ARE THINGS GOING FOR U.S. IN IRAQ?

Well 44% – 90% Bush 9% Kerry

Badly 52% – 17% Bush 82% Kerry

Of the issues listed in the CNN report, none – not economy, healthcare, gay rights, abortion, or even trust to handle terrorism – shows a higer coorelation to a Bush Kerry vote.

If the numbers would have been different if Clinton invaded Iraq, the democrats have no credibility. If the democrats only support a war run by a democrat, then they are hypocrites. All that demonstrates is that they have no over-riding principles except for power.

Nov 7, 2004 - 11:44 am 32. IceCold:

The “souljah” moments weren’t limited to Moore’s excrescences, or the last 6 months, and they were passed on by all Democrats. The “Baghdad Boys” in Iraq stating their greater trust in Saddam than Bush on the eve of war, the “what did he know?” outrage from the Hildebeast and others, Teddy’s “under new management” slur about Abu Ghraib, the various cheap shots arising from the 9/11 Circus, Dean looking thoughtful and saying “I’ve heard that” when asked by a moonbat supporter about the insane idea that Bush had foreknowledge of 9/11 — and on and on and on. Moore on-stage with Gen. Clarke talking about Bush being “AWOL” (and DNC Chmn. McAwful’s unbelievable embrace of that offensive idiocy from the outset). It was hard to believe what one was seeing and hearing the last two years. The Democratic Party was demeaned in a way never seen in the modern era, by its own “leadership”.

It’s troubling that as their party veered off the rails at warp speed, the Liebermans and Bayhs of the party emitted barely a peep. Not encouraging.

Jarvis in this case shows the insight to which I have become accustomed (admit I haven’t much ever read his stuff, and not at all for a long time).

“Idiot” in the strictest sense, no. Kerry — and most of the self-seekers clustered around him — are however nearly all lightweights, at least in the critical area of national security. His Senate record (and up-close observations, for those who were there), and those of his advisers, speak for themselves. In short, wildly wrong on all the big questions of their time. Kerry only “surprised” in one respect: how completely talentless he was as a politician. He was well-known as a small-timer, but his campaign performance was impossibly bad. Without the dementia gripping a chunk of the electorate, and the herculean efforts of the MSM to drag Kerry towards the finish line while trashing the prez, it’s hard to believe he wouldn’t have put up the worst numbers in decades (above only Carter and Mondale).

Rick Ballard: “The Democrat party is not just running on empty, it’s sitting on cinder blocks in front of a decrepit doublewide.” Spectacular.

Nov 7, 2004 - 12:02 pm 33. chuck:

Hey,

I thought with the election and all, we could let Kerry slip back into well deserved obscurity. The Moore faction of the Democratic party will remain, and it will be interesting to see what developes there. Kerry was a compromise between the security and anti-American wings of the party, the compromise failed to deliver, and now the fight is on. I look forward to the midterm elections as the next marker on the course of the Democrats and wonder who, besides Hilary, they can run in ‘08.

Catherine

Well said. I too have discovered that I am an American, not a bystander. Academia has a long ways to go before they reach that point. Perhaps developments in Europe over the next several years will push them in that direction. The legacy of the sixties may be dead but, like Arafat, it is not yet buried.

Nov 7, 2004 - 12:05 pm 34. David Thomson:

ìDon’t link Kaus, Drezner and Sullivan together, they supported Kerry for completely different reasons.î

Baloney. Iím utterly convinced that elitist snobbery had everything to do with it. One merely needed to scratch the surface of their superficial rationalizations and the truth came out. They perceive George W. Bush as an outsider. John Kerry might be something of a flip flopping jerk—but heís one of us. Every last one of these naive gentleman also embrace the bizarre notion that the Massachusetts senator could be persuaded to do the right thing concerning the war on terror. This is absurd. And to think that they were willing to risk our countryís safety on such silliness. We should be enraged at their lack of responsibility. Mickey Kaus, for instance, is a nice guy, but he still needs to be taken to task.

Nov 7, 2004 - 12:06 pm 35. heather:

one way to look at this is: do the Democrats LIKE America?

Canada had, as its Prime Minister, one Pierre Elliot Trudeau. This man disapproved of Canada and its history and its laws and its values, and set about – very successfully – to destroy its history, change its laws, and denigrate its values. And, some 35 years later, Canada is a weak country without a soul – although it has GREAT SCENERY!!

And then there is my favorite woman, Elizabeth 1st of England: she LOVED England, she could not imagine anything nicer than being Queen of England (when England was a third rate country off in the Atlantic). Her great competitor was Mary, Queen of Scots – who spent all of her life trying to escape Edinburgh for London.

In other words, if the Democrats want to succeed, they must LOVE their country first, and go from there. Otherwise, they will disappear, and another Political Party will appear – probably hiving off from the Republicans…

Nov 7, 2004 - 12:08 pm 36. Rick Ballard:

OldManRick,

Good analysis. One might wish to give consideration to the fact that the majority rejected the DNC/MSM spin that Iraq was a mistake gone horribly wrong. In a certain sense the election can be viewed as a confirmation of the strength of drive time radio and blogs. The brain dead babbling of the MSM notwithstanding, the majority of voters in the US proved capable of discerning that waging war has always been an enterprise fraught with the potential for errors. One might also consider what public sentiment might be like if the MSM were on the side of the US rather than on the side of that “international community” that Catherine referenced above. As the curtain is stripped away from the UN and other tranzi institutions and the depth of the corruption and depravity which are their true “core values” are exposed one might expect a continued rejection of the party which aids and abets them.

This was a watershed election. The Democrats now have no claim whatsoever to represent the majority of the American people. There hasn’t been a victory like this since 1936 with gains in both houses as well as the retention of the Presidency. It will be a very, very long time before the Democrats will have hope of regaining power and their main focus now should be in how to behave as a constructive minority.

Nov 7, 2004 - 12:10 pm 37. richard mcenroe:

Roger ó Kerry certainly didn’t make that distinction in ‘71-’72, and he has never repudiated his odious actions and statements back then, simply tried to pretend they never happened.

OldManRick ó On those terms, gimme the biblethumpers. Speaking of which, the Bush camp is looking for a more moderate replacement for Ashcroft. Southern Boy nammed Connor, Bill or Bull or something like that…

Nov 7, 2004 - 12:15 pm 38. lindenen:

“But maybe there’s a good reason to have a liberal elite watching and criticizing from the sidelines. I don’t know.”

Given that the liberal elite seems to live in a fantasy world, what we need is an America that watches the watchers. I suppose this is where the bloggers come in and FoxNews, etc but we need more. They still completely dominate.

Nov 7, 2004 - 12:17 pm 39. richard mcenroe:

John Forbes Kerry, the Peer Gynt for the new century…

Nov 7, 2004 - 12:25 pm 40. Catherine:

lindenen

Given that the liberal elite seems to live in a fantasy world, what we need is an America that watches the watchers

Wow!

You know——that’s what’s happening, isn’t it???

How often does something like this occur?

Since the 1960s we have had a particular cohort of self-created, unregulated, altogether untrammeled Watchers . . . and now we have Watchers for the Watchers. As you say.

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Does anyone know the history of this sort of thing?

In the era of mass media, do Western countries always have a ‘Hostile Watcher’ group?

Does one side of the political spectrum dominate these groups (i.e. conservative Watchers would be dominant in one era, liberal Watchers in another . . . )

Hmm.

Have to pick up the kids, but when I get back I’m Chiming In on Dave Thomson’s side, omitting only Kaus . . .

Nov 7, 2004 - 12:37 pm 41. RogerA:

I think it was more than Moore. Catherine has started her list, to which I would add: Never nominate a Senator for the office of President. The organizational culture of the senate militates against taking principled stands. (2) Avoid the hollywood elite like the plague: does washed up “stars” like whoopi goldberg talking about her private parts impress anybody? I think not. Kerry didnt have the cojones to reject that. (3) the dems really really need to look at their nominating process: the moonbats nominate which is why the electorate rejects.

Also think Rick Ballard had a good point–unlike Senator Clinton who understands the role of political capital, Kerry was too much a vain idiot to do any leg work for the party–which IMHO is why many in the party stiffed him.

What I am enjoying is Newsweek starting their feeding frenzy on the Kerry campaign and Teresa–If that doesnt tell the dems about the role of the media in America, that are totally unconscious.

Nov 7, 2004 - 12:39 pm 42. Terrye:

Moore, the idiot that he is, has helped bring political discourse in this country to a new low and now the Democrats are stuck with that. I guess we all are.

Kerry should have told Moore to get lost when F911 came out. The propaganda film has done far more to spread anti Americanism than Bush has.

Heather touches on the problem: by useing Moore the Dems made it ok to hate America, as long as you blame it on Bush.

This has also brought conspiracy and duplicity into the conversation to such a degree that it is almost useless to talk to a significant number of the ABB crowd. The fact that the Dems sought to use this mindless hatred rather than deal with it like grownups left me disillusioned with the party.

And considering some of the stupid stuff that is coming out after the election it seems I was right to bail ship. We have moved on from hating Bush to hating red staters.

I see reeducation camps and gulags in the desert and mountains for those of us who fail to grasp that Bush is Hitler.

Kerry sould have distanced the party and himself from the crazies but chose not to. And blaming all on the war is not fair either. There were a lot of Republicans that thought bombing Kosovo was not a good idea but they did not hope and pray our jets would crash.

Nov 7, 2004 - 12:49 pm 43. TmjUtah:

The Democrats attempt to wrap up the populist spirit by “looking out for the little people”…but it fails to resonate unless they are talking to victims.

We’re citizens, Whoopi, Michael, and Bruce.

At what point of punitivie taxation are the rich to be exonerrated for the crime of being successful?

Where is the line between “evil capitalist corporate robber baron” and “a guy running a business to provide goods, services, and jobs and make a buck” while doing it?

Why are Republicans automatically “Redneck Evangelical Fundamentalists” when John Kerry won’t even appear in front of black people unless he’s in a pulpit, and plain out of a “g” to go on the end of his verbs?

I love the “Watchers” paradigm suggested back up the thread here. It certainly makes a lot of sense to characterize the Dem/Pop culture elite as groups that percieve themselves as above the system they are attempting to exploit, doesn’t it?

I have previously made the assertion that the top tier of Dem officeholders and powerbrokers are incapable of competing in national elections because each individual (surviving) member of that class has built narrow constituencies that are bought, not led. They survive in mostly-urban enclaves with long histories of heavy entitlement dependencies or dynastic political machines…but the challenge facing one candidate to weave all the different agendas together is almost insurmountable.

Kerry never invested himself in forming political relationships beyond Massachussets. He lacks the Clinton experience of developing political alliances at the courthouse level; for two decades all he really needed was Kennedy’s good word and the machine returned him to the trough. Yes, he was absolutely dependent on Kennedy and later Clinton to even approach the national stage but in the end he remained what he has always been – an east coast liberal anachronism on a national political stage that has moved right for over thirty years.

I am interested to see what if anything the national Democrat party can do in the next two years to begin to become nationally viable. I don’t know how to weight the spate of articles like Ms. Smiley’s will mean to people who were on the fence this last time around. Michael Moore is a bufoon but he’s got a market that buys his product – the Democrats will have to deal with his influence as long as he can keep cashing checks. Harold Ickes as Chairman and making sure Hillary is called ‘centrist’ every time she’s mentioned on print or video doesn’t really seem to be a winner from where I stand.

All in all, it’s a fine time to be a conservative. I don’t agree with Bush nearly as much as I wish I did – but I trust him to work for what’s best for the country and to adhere to the constitution. I cannot say the same about any Democrat individual outside of Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller…and they are for all intents and purposes no longer the least bit representative of their party.

Nov 7, 2004 - 1:05 pm 44. Kevin P:

Roger:

I will echo what many have posted already.I think the prime reason that Kerry never dissed Moore was because the dems had the misguided strategy to go with the ABB scenario and anyone who helped rev up the groundtroops and increase turnout was not goimng to be insulted. he could have given Moore the high sign and put out a muted critique of Moore’s form or language but Moore is too big of an egomaniac to have stood for that.

I also think Moore’s attitude about American foreign policy is not that far away from Kerry’s in essense. Kerry would never be that crude but he basically agree’s that American foreign policy has been imperialistic and that we need to submit ourselves to a UN led world movement. His support of Kyoto and the World Court and his “world test” gives more insight to his true feelings then his occasional hawkish stances that have been more geared for his presidential campaign then his true feelings. He would be more vebose and couch in the terms that fit better into an issue of “Foreign Policy” then “Ramparts” but in the end they are not that different.

Nov 7, 2004 - 1:06 pm 45. Frederick:

Terrye:

“I see reeducation camps and gulags in the desert and mountains for those of us who fail to grasp that Bush is Hitler.”

They already have reeducation camps. They’re called universities. Sometimes they don’t work because, as Jane Smiley pointed out, red state people are just uneducateable. They thought they had a gulag, which they called “flyover country.” They just didn’t realize that they were the ones in the gulags. As you pointed out, a map showing the vote by counties rather than states shows a vast continent of red, with small blue interruptions.

Nov 7, 2004 - 1:10 pm 46. JeremyR:

Well, Kerry can’t tell the difference between our soldiers and those of “Jengis Khan”, so no, I am not convinced he knows the difference between minutemen and Iraqi insurgents.

Anyway, like the earlier posted pointed out, if you look at the exit polling data, Kerry and Bush got similiar percentages of people who were opposed to the Iraq war and those who were in favor of it. Bush won because more people thought the Iraq war was right than they thought it was wrong.

Nov 7, 2004 - 1:14 pm 47. lindenen:

“They already have reeducation camps.”

I thought they were called Sensitivity Training Seminars and Diversity Workshops.

Nov 7, 2004 - 1:20 pm 48. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Since the election, it has become clear that many of Kerry’s voters were not real Americans at all.

Nov 7, 2004 - 1:29 pm 49. Hylas:

The “treason of the intellectuals” has happened before. It seems to be a permanent bug in the mental software of post-Enlightenment civilization. Let’s learn from history so that we don’t repeat it.

Nov 7, 2004 - 1:32 pm 50. Frederick:

lindenen:

“I thought they were called Sensitivity Training Seminars and Diversity Workshops.”

The real camps are the residential ones. I kind of like the “watchers” meme. Maybe we need new camp sports team names that reflect an appropriate team spirit. The Ohio State Observers. The University of Colorado Considerers. The Stanford Scrutinizers. The University of Arizona Analyzers. The University of Indiana Introspectives.

Nov 7, 2004 - 1:55 pm 51. Caroline:

One additional thought about Kerry’s failure to repudiate Michael Moore as well as the rabid anti-Bush sentiment among the coastal elites, including Hollywood and New York – I have to think that the fact that these people regularly wine and dine with Europeans socially has something to do with this. These folks generally flit back and forth between here and Europe – many of them own homes there. If I recall Bush was someone who had rarely travelled prior to his presidency – he is just quintessentially American. It must have been difficult for so many of these folks to attend their fancy dinner parties and hear all the condescension from their European friends and not succumb to the social pressure of it. So much of Kerry’s campaign centered on the importance of getting the world (mainly Europe) to like us again. That may have had little effect on heartland America but presumably mattered deeply to the elites who have to deal regularly with Europeans. They created their own little echo chamber where Michael Moore’s condescension would hardly have been noticed. He won a Palm D’Or after all.

Nov 7, 2004 - 2:06 pm 52. Frederick:

Catherine:

A very perceptive point. This has been going on now for thirty or so years. Someone could write a fascinating book about the growth of the interaction between American and European (mostly UK) elite groups. Innocents Abroad v. Mrs. Trollope. That, I think, is where much of the class-based irrationality has come from. People from Maryland or New Jersey who want to be just like people who went to Winchester and Balliol, and learn as part of their acculturalization that people from Missouri must be just like the declasse peasants from Lancashire or Yorkshire. Yet another European disease. Like smallpox.

Nov 7, 2004 - 2:40 pm 53. Charlie (Colorado):

I hate to put myself into the position of defending Kerry — and I reserve the right to go back to calling him a poltroon shortly — but I do think a little of this is a tad over the top. There’s no question in my mind that there is a good bit of the authoritarian impulse at work in a lot of these people, but even while people are still trashing Republican Party offices post-election, I don’t think that the Democrats really want to set up re-education camps.

At the same time, there is no question ni my mind that there is an authoritarian impulse at work in things like Jane Smiley’s, E. J. Dionne’s, and Paul Krugman’s recent reactions to the election.

The question in my mind is how to deal with that authoritarian impulse without going over the top.

Nov 7, 2004 - 3:13 pm 54. Terrye:

Caroline:

I also think Europeans had a part in this. They love Moore and they love to trash Americans, especially the provincial ones that live in places like Indiana. Well I live in Indiana and all I have to say is they can kiss my red and white and blue ass. [figure of speech]

I think mouthy Eruopeans making cracks about how we had 9/11 coming and burning flags etc helped put Bush over the top. I know it is a drag for the celebs when they go to Cannes but that is their problem.

Before 9/11 I thought Kyoto and the ICC were good ideas, after all the Europeans were our friends. Hard to believe I was ever that naive. When I saw the flag in flames in Europe and anti Americanism on parade I knew that they would use Kyoto to bankrupt us they would drag our soldiers off to trial for spite.

I also thought it was very telling that when a European wants to insult and American the worse person he con come up with to campare him to is another European. No wonder Arnold left.

Maybe Moore could move there, I am sure they would love to have him.

Nov 7, 2004 - 3:16 pm 55. Terrye:

Charlie:

I was just assing around about the reeducation camps.

I am not that parnoid. I leave that disorder to my Dem friends.

Nov 7, 2004 - 3:18 pm 56. Rick Ballard:

Charlie (C),

A time may come when hyperbolic discourse should be discarded. I would argue that now is not that time. Jarvis can’t make it through 500 words without besmirching both Bush and the Swiftvets. He will not look at the fact that his party nominated a man who, while still holding a commission, met with highly placed representatives of our enemy more than once and did their bidding upon his return to the US. That act alone, without reference to his extraordinary fantasy life, make Kerry unfit for elective office of any kind. If Jarvis wants to know why the Dems lost (and will continue to lose) he has only to look in a mirror. Perhaps Kerry’s mother whispered those three famous words to him, too. But the reality of what she said was “Integrity, fake integrity.” Jarvis is following her advice to the letter.

The hyperbole should stop when the lying stops, not before.

Nov 7, 2004 - 3:51 pm 57. OldManRick:

Rick Ballard,

The analysis gets more interesting when you compare the 2004 numbers on Economy http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

to the 1996 numbers http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html

.

The key stats:

FAMILY’S FINANCIAL SITUATION

1996 2004

Better 33% 32%

Same 23% 20%

Worse 45% 49%

NATIONAL ECONOMY

1996 2004

Excellent 4% 4%

Good 51% 43%

Not good 36% 35%

Poor 7% 17%

Despite nearly identical numbers in unemployment, growth, etc, and ,with only a 5% shift in people who thought they were worse off, there is a 10% shift from Good to Poor in the perception. the voting is even more split. This and the Iraq issue are the MSM contributions to Kerry. This is were they provide the “Evan Thomas 15%” to Kerry. And in this comparsion it is almost directly measurable.

Neither the Economy or Iraq are as bad as the polling would suggest. I wish they would have polled Afghanistan. Then I would have a posssible head to head comparsion to Iraq.

Nov 7, 2004 - 3:52 pm 58. TmjUtah:

Terrye and Charlie -

With all due respect, when is the last time either one of you took or audited a public high school or college/post grad history or sociology course?

My oldest daughter is participating in “Mock U.N.” right now, and I have been to the websites and read the text that she has been provided.

It’s not pretty. No, it’s not brainwashing – but it is a canned introduction to the concept of multiculturalism writ large. The U.N. Charter is a majestic document. Pity it is printed on the toilet rolls at U.N. headquarters these days.

Front Page Magazine, David Horowitzs’ outfit, is deeply involved in documenting and countering institutional leftism nationwide. There are usually links from the homepage to let you know the latest news from the trenches.

I witness college and post-grad students posting about having to tell their professors what they want to hear politically in order to pass classes. Our public schools and universities are the closest thing to the camps of an American Gulag.

It’s not just Union power that resists education reform. We do so poorly by our kids – have done poorly for decades. I hope the next four years contributes to knocking back the flood of under-challenged kids that are currently walking out of our schools by the thousands. If we refuse to teach, we shoudln’t be surprised that they walk.

Nov 7, 2004 - 4:21 pm 59. Samuel:

I have thought about this election and I am convinced that this election was just simply the public defending a good man (George Bush) from an egregious assault on all fronts from all enemies. Bush could have lost had the opposition behaved and played fair. Instead they got way out of hand blaming Bush for things he couldn’t come close to credibly being blamed for. Michael Moore is nothing more then a symbol in that battle there are many. The left became the ridiculous caricature they were trying to pin on this President, out of control, incompetent liars and worse. I am convinced that is why it became a “values” based election.

Contrary to what many people in the MSM are saying, values in reality is a substitute for “principles”. This of course means different things to different people, but with accountability and trust coalitions are ok with such commitments. I heard Ron Silver say, “I don’t agree with this President on some things but I know what they are, he has put me on notice, I have made my decision and respect the differences, there will be no surprises.” Watching The Democrats side with “Old Europe” while they piled on this President was probably the most offensive political display in my lifetime. Watching them try to hold Republicans accountable is probably the most frustratingly ironic thing for an ex-liberal like me witness, especially after Clinton. I said 6 months ago that once I saw myself fairly split on many issues between the Republicans and Democrats the question was very simple, was I going to allow prejudice and emotion to direct my reasoning or was I going to set old feelings against the Republicans aside and tally the pros and cons of the issues for both Political Parties? Once I was over the hard prejudice in fact it was very simple and even a no-brainer. I am free to support whoever but only one party has the discipline and responsibility to police themselves (Republicans).

I will add that if Democrats think parading the Clintons around will be their salvation then they are in for a rude shock. Clinton is a walking example of the “I will say anything and rule by polls” crowd, very pre-911 in my opinion. Yes Clinton is the epitome of a man has answered so little for doing so much. As I said, values is about being principled, while most Americans are pretty centrist on the whole, integrity, values and the lack thereof in a dangerous world is starting to creep Americans out and rightfully so, I know it does me. Rooting for failure is extremely disturbing when one considers the stakes involved. We live in times where up front responsibility is critical, this will persist until we get past some big problems.

What is going to really drive the Democrats crazy is that since this President did not wage an ambiguous campaign and hid nothing from the Americans on what to expect from him, he takes that as them accepting his policy. For others 51% would not mean a mandate but for this plain spoken man it does, especially since they voted on the man for his principles. By increasing his support in Congress the public basically said, “We trust you to be honest so go do it”. Nope there were no smoke and mirrors going on in the Presidents part. What does that mean? Social Security, Tax Overhaul, Small Buisiness Insurance groups, Energy Policy, Judges, and not the least the WOT. You name it this Cowboy President of ours has a meeting with all these things and even more in the OK Corral of politics, in our hearts we all know it both friend and foe, brace yourselves, we are ready.

Nov 7, 2004 - 4:34 pm 60. legion:

Thank goodness for bloggers and people who pay attention to them. Blogging will only grow more influential.

Soros paid bloggers on the left, to make noise in favor of Kerry. Karl Rove didn’t have to do that. Centrist bloggers and those on the right, donated their time and resources to keeping the MSM propaganda from going unchallenged.

A lot of lefty bloggers are going to be missing those big paychecks.

But the bloggers who keep an eye on the left’s shenanigans are just going to keep on blogging. And I expect there will be a lot more of them.

Nov 7, 2004 - 4:40 pm 61. Catherine:

OK, here’s where we stand.

Things The Democrats Need To Do To Get Back In The Game

ÔøΩLose Michael Moore. [consensus]

ÔøΩLose No retreat, No Surrender; restore Happy Days Are Here Again. Music and lyrics available http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/happydays.htm. [Catherine]

ÔøΩNo more senators from Massachusetts. Strong form: no more senators, period. [RogerA]

ÔøΩLose Whoopie Goldberg. [RogerA]

ÔøΩStop talking about faith. Cross-over Dems talk about religion, or, alternatively, going to church. We never talk about faith, and we think people who do sound snotty. When a Democratic Party operative tells a reporter that Democratic candidates ÔøΩ”shouldn’t be afraid to talk about their faith,ÔøΩ” they are using “faith” as a euphemism for “religion,” which defeats the whole purpose of having them talk about their faith in the first place. [Catherine]

ÔøΩLose the Iowa primary. [RogerA]

ÔøΩLike your country. Strong form: Love your country. [Heather]

ÔøΩGet off your high horse. [consensus]

ÔøΩApologize to the Swift Boat veterans. Weak formDon’t apologize, but figure out why cross-over Dems think you should. [Catherine]

Nov 7, 2004 - 4:43 pm 62. richard mcenroe:

John Moore ó I’m feeling cranky today, so I’m of the opinion that we could probably replace any Kerry voter who wants to emigrate from the contents of a New York subway car… running late at night…

Nov 7, 2004 - 4:43 pm 63. Catherine:

I hate TypeKey.

Nov 7, 2004 - 4:43 pm 64. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

The dangerous ideas of multiculturalism and just plain anti-Americanism are at their preigee now in American educational institutions, from Kindergarten on.

I have read that conservatives are advised not to even start graduate study in history, because they will get nowhere as conservatives. This advice is given by leftist professors.

Think about it! The academic doctrine of history is simply owned by the people who don’t even believe in objective truth; who see the world through the fractured lenses of multiculturalism and deconstructionism.

To major in the humanities is to be indocrinated thoroughly in this rot. The professors seem to know nothing else. Students are expected to parrot it.

OF course, these ideas are full of attacks on the status quo of society, derived from Marxism.

Those who succumb to this indoctrination (which is a lot fewer that the professors would like) emerge ready to denounce almost anything Americans hold dear, and unable to understand the world, even though they are sure they do. Left wing blogs are full of these people.

Nov 7, 2004 - 4:43 pm 65. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

big typo – I’m going to have to go back to previews.

In the first sentence, the word was supposed to be perigee.

Nov 7, 2004 - 4:44 pm 66. Catherine:

Rick B

Agreed on Rick Jarvis.

The Swift Boat veterans were the moral equivalent of the “Jersey Girls,” and then some.

We didn’t see our “conservative elite” trashing the Jersey Girls.

I’m fairly certain that if we had, many of us would have slammed them hard. I know I would have, and the Jersey Girls ticked me off as much as the Swift Boat veterans ticked off the Dems. But I would not have written or published a slam against them, and I would not have thought well of anyone who did.

These people need to get over themselves.

Nov 7, 2004 - 4:49 pm 67. Catherine:

Samuel——I’m still working my way through your thoughts about principles.

I agree, of course, but I’m still chewing them over!

Nov 7, 2004 - 4:51 pm 68. Barry Dauphin:

I think that Jeff Jarvis’ question is itself the answer to his question, or at least points to the answer. His very question assumes that Kerry was ordained or supposed to win. Perhaps the entitlement mentality behind Jeff’s question is the real culprit.

I have just returned from a conference that is supposed to be for professional education, and half of the time it sounded like a Moveon.org election post mortem. Many extremely intelligent people actually believe wholeheartedly that the US is about to become a fascist country. This is very depressing, because these folks have to get a grip. We need a strong two party system, but when too many on the other side take Michael Moore seriously, it’s less Michael Moore’s fault than Jeff Jarvis believes. If most of the Dems conduct themselves this way, they will be relegating themselves to irrelevancy and continue whining that it’s everyone else’s fault.

Nov 7, 2004 - 4:55 pm 69. Samuel:

Rick

Jeff Jarvis is the typical partisan that can’t keep prejudice, partisanship and pet issues from getting in the way of sound reason. For Andrew Sullivan it is Gay Marraige, for Jarvis Jarvis it is Howard Stern & the FCC. Mickey Kaus was my biggest dissappointment because outside of Roger he was one who most influenced me to look at the issues outside my politics. In the end these people couln’t bear up againts those emotions. I am sure they could give you their reasoning but none of it adds up when you consider they spent 2 full years talking about nothing but the WOT. But suddenly just months out of the election they turned like a “dog to its vomit” to their old ways. In a certain sense DennisThePeasant is right, while these people blame such turn of support on the Presidents failures, the evidence is opposite, they feel safe enough to return to their old political selves.

Nov 7, 2004 - 4:58 pm 70. Catherine:

Europe

As far as I can tell, based on the FT & The Economist, both of which endorsed Kerry, Europe is taking the Bush re-election in stride.

Neither of those publications are ABB. I tend to doubt that many European elites are, in truth. To really loathe George Bush, I think you have to be from here.

(I could be wrong.)

I was shocked to learn what the situation in Europe really was: Europeans thought the Bush presidency was a fluke. Because he lost the popular vote, and because the Supreme Court made the final call, Europeans universally thought Al Gore really was supposed to be president (assuming the FT is to be trusted on this, and I think they are).

In short, George Bush had zero legitimacy in European eyes, because they thought he had zero legitimacy in our eyes.

I can see how this happened. Even the very knowledgeable reporters of publications like FT, ECONOMIST & LE MONDE apparently aren’t quite “fluent” enough in American culture to realize that, under the circumstances, for George Bush even to get close enough to win election without winning the popular vote should have been read as a sign that the U.S. is very conservative compared to any European country.

The authors of THE RIGHT NATION are probably in huge demand right about now, or they should be. They are youngish writers for THE ECONOMIST who argue that America is a uniquely conservative country, that it always has been, that the conservative movement has won, and that even if Kerry were to win the election he would have to govern from center-right.

The tone in FT & THE ECONOMIST is ‘realist,’ I would say, not remotely hysterical.

They’re a bit dismayed, but all of them are saying: We got it wrong; George Bush does speak for a majority of American citizens.

The major lesson I’ve learned from the past four years is: never, ever, ever win the election while losing the popular vote.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:02 pm 71. DennisThePeasant:

I’m sure Kerry agrees with those sentiments, yet he did not express them, instead allowing Moore to be seated prominently at the Democratic Convention. What is the reason for this? All I can think of are those two Spanish words – falta cojones.

Nonsense.

Why should we suppose John F. Kerry is at one with your sentiments? I look at the John Kerry of Winter Winter and the John Kerry of the Democratic Convention and can demolish that supposition simply by asking the following question:

Why, given John Kerry has never explained himself, should I be predisposed to assume that in either falsely testifying against his fellow soldiers during wartime or in seating the most prominent Anti-American American in the world next to a former United States President at his nominating convention, John Kerry somehow “didn’t really mean it”?

These are not minor matters. John Kerry did what he did because in both instances he meant it. In both cases he had clear and obvious choices. And in both instances John Kerry made his choice…He knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it.

It has nothing to do with balls. It has everything to do with intellectual honesty, moral clarity, personal humility, responsibility, maturity and least of all, in Kerry’s case, courage. Foregoing Winter Soldier and denouncing Michael Moore would have cost John Kerry little if anything. Balls don’t enter into the equation here, beliefs do.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:07 pm 72. Samuel:

Catherine

I think I have sent you one more response since the last, maybe not. Anyway I have not had much time lately and am going to review the comments, rare moment of late.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:08 pm 73. richard mcenroe:

Catherine ó if you want to waste the time, read the Guardian and the Daily Mirror from the UK. They loathe rather well.

US forces just captured a hospital and two bridges in western Fallujah.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:20 pm 74. Rick Ballard:

Catherine,

Access is oxygen for the MSM. You can expect a flood of “Bush isn’t really so bad” stories in the immediate future as well as a slew of more positive reporting on the situation in Iraq. All the little hard news press puppies are going to be lying on their backs hoping to get their tummies rubbed. It is my fervent hope that the WH exercises great care in whom is allowed access. There are a great many “journalists” on the Washington beat who deserve life assignments to following every word and gesture of the undersecretary for crop policy in the Department of Agriculture.

Wrt Samuel’s assessment on principles, it is my belief that the best way for all of you Democrats to serve your party is to change your registration to independent and send copies of the change of registration along with a letter stating the reasons to the DNC. I believe that if the DNC made a pledge to return to the policies and principles of the real JFK they could begin to rebuild. They will be in the wilderness until such time.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:20 pm 75. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Does ANYONE know democrats (other than the neo-demo-pubs here) that are not possessed of this post-election psychosis? Catherine, is there anyone in your neighborhood who is not currently bananas?

There sure is a lot of whining and thrashing and rationalizing, and there is one hell of a lot of anger.

Is it possible that the Democratic Party is an oxymoron – that its members no longer truly believe in Democracy, which includes accepting the results when you lose?

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:24 pm 76. Terrye:

Barry:

If [after the next four years] we have not turned into a fascist state will these people come to their senses? Will they feel kinds dumb I wonder?

I have read and heard enough about fascist nations to know the difference and I find it hard to take people who say America is such a state seriously.

On what do they base this? The Patriot Act?

I can remember a time when the FBI could bug a phone and follow you and all kinds of stuff and then the government came along and created a bunch of rules limiting the scope of law enforcement. We have far more rights today than people had years ago.

So much of the fear that people feel regarding Bush is silly. I know he is conservative and I don’t agree with all of his policies but he is not Mussolini.

And while we are talking about things the Dems could change they could stop talking stupid. I know people who voted for Bush because [in the words of one lifelong Democrat], the Democrats have gone around the bend and are clean out of sight. Too far gone to ever come back, he said.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:26 pm 77. DennisThePeasant:

This whole “Kerry Didn’t Really Mean It” thingee is similar in all essential respects to the whole “Gee, The Democrats Would Be O.K. If They Only Lost [Insert Name Here]” thingee. Not so strange, I guess, because in both cases, the desire to deny the reality of the situation seems to trump all.

Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, Matt Damon, Bruce Springsteen, the Dixie Chicks and Susan Saradon didn’t end up in the Democratic Party because it offered free Starbucks. They ended up at the Democratic Party because it represented their political beliefs. That is why they are there…If you start “throwing away” every wingnut entertainer, academic, MSM drone and idiot Deaniac then at some point you come the necessity of asking just what and who does the Democratic Party actually represent? And that is when things get really ugly. Just who gets seated next to Jimmy Carter, if not Michael Moore?

Answer me that one.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:30 pm 78. Catherine:

DpT

John Kerry did what he did because in both instances he meant it

I agree.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:32 pm 79. Terrye:

John:

In this area once the election was over, it was over. A little pouting but that is about it.

But this is Indiana so I guess it doesn’t count. Folks around here would not stand in front of a camera smirking and holding a sign that said fuck middle America.

Nope, don’t see much of that. No doubt folks around here would tell him he was acting like a dumbass.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:35 pm 80. Terrye:

Dennis:

Who sits next to Jimmy? that is an interedsting question.

The first thought is of course Rosalyn, but that will not work.

How about the folks that gave him the Nobel Prize?

You see the problem is finding Americans who can sit there. It would be ncie if it was some old guy like Ed Koch. Least they could do after all the years he has been in the Party, but in the end he can not even vote for them,

I dunno.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:42 pm 81. Catherine:

Rick B

Access is oxygen for the MSM

Reporters have no access to Bush whatsoever, and won’t in the second administration, either.

Terrific article in NEW REPUBLIC on this—-too tired to get into it now, but I will sometime soon. I think it resolves the contradiction I’ve always seen between the supposed power & supremacy of the MSM and the fact that their guys keep losing.

Richard M

I loved the Mirror cover!

“How can 59,000,000 people be so stupid!”

And: “Doh! 4 more years of Bush!”

My husband sent it to me, because he “thought you’d be horrified.”

But I loved it.

I don’t mind being called stupid.

I am stupid!

And proud of it, too.

Voting for George Bush might be stupid!

I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.

What I can’t stand is being called racist, homophobic, creationist, fascist, ignorant, ill-informed, and all the rest of it.

I’m not going to spend my time perusing THE GUARDIAN, but I’d have to be able to compare its Bush coverage in the next four years to its Bush coverage of the last four years, and maybe to its Clinton coverage when Kyoto got voted down, etc.

I think it’s entirely possible we’ll see a much calmer relationship with Europe in the second term. Clarity is always helpful, and now we have clarity. ‘The people have spoken.’ Europe believes this, and said so immediately.

The word ‘mandate’ is everywhere.

There’s a terrific article on European reaction here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6409053/site/newsweek/

Actually, it starts out terrific, then deteriorates into the usual Bush-bashing (this is NEWSWEEK).

pull quote:

Nov. 4 – At the top of a letter congratulating the president of the United States on his re-election, French President Jacques Chirac wrote in fountain pen the simple phrase, ÔøΩCher GeorgeÔøΩ: ÔøΩDear George.ÔøΩ At the end, this Frenchman who has so often postured as George W. BushÔøΩs most dedicated adversary among AmericaÔøΩs traditional allies, scrawled a promise of his ÔøΩmost cordial friendship.ÔøΩ

Throughout Europe and the Middle East, politicians and statesmen whoÔøΩd hoped fervently, if privately, for a change in the White House are now striving to come to terms with the mandate Bush received this week from the American public. Thus Chirac downplayed his old claims that Europe could offer an alternative pole to U.S. power and called instead for ÔøΩa tight transatlantic partnership.ÔøΩ Karsten Voigt, a close advisor to German Chancellor Gerhard SchrÔøΩder, talked about the need for Bush and Europe to pull closer together ÔøΩin rhetoric, in gestures, but also in substance.ÔøΩ

Longtime Bush-backers like British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and Russian President Vladimir Putin rejoiced, as expected. Others seemed to appear out of nowhere, rushing to show their colors as true-blue friends of the U.S.A. ÔøΩWe have to wake up and stop this simplistic anti-Americanism!ÔøΩ veteran French politician Alain Madelin told a conference sponsored by ChiracÔøΩs own party yesterday. Going a step further, party official Pierre Lellouche likened BushÔøΩs determination and independence to the notoriously stubborn Charles de Gaulle himself. Columnist Alexandre Adler told the same group that anti-Bush diatribes like Michael MooreÔøΩs film ÔøΩFahrenheit 9/11ÔøΩÔøΩwhich won the grand prize at the Cannes Film FestivalÔøΩactually mobilized conservatives to vote for Bush. Shouts of ÔøΩBravo!ÔøΩ erupted in the pro-Bush crowd.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:50 pm 82. Charlie (Colorado):

With all due respect, when is the last time either one of you took or audited a public high school or college/post grad history or sociology course?

Tjm, with all due respect, recently enough to know the difference between that and a re-education camp. And I teach in one of the university systems that Horowitz is dealing with.

For that matter, I used to have Stan Fish over to my house socially when he was chairing the Duke English Department.

Is there an attempt at indoctrination going on? You bet. Calling it a Gulag is overstating things radically — and sort of an insult to the people who actually survived the Gulag.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:51 pm 83. Silicon valley Jim:

This is perhaps not perfectly on topic, but it does have to do with several comments that I’ve seen here on Roger’s site, having to do with the desirability of gloating, rubbing the Democrats’ noses in their defeat, etc.

Let’s not gloat. The more important reason is that it’s simply wrong. It’s football season, so I’m going to use some illustrations from the NFL. Paul Brown is generally credited with saying “When you get to the end zone, act as if you’ve been there before.” Now, I’ve been a Chicago Bears fan since 1960, and I’ve lived in Silicon Valley most of the time since 1972, so I’ve watched a whole lot of Bears and 49ers football. Walter Payton, after scoring one of his many touchdowns, would simply hand the ball to an official, or perhaps to one of his teammates. Terrell Owens, on the other hand, has found it necessary to perform all sorts of antics. Think about the opinion that you have of each of them. Disclaimer: this is a statement only about those two players, not about the Bears and 49ers in general.

The less important reason is that it’s likely to lose us (I’m a staunch Bush supporter) votes. It’s likely that millions of voters voted Republican for President for the first time last Tuesday. Some of them turned eighteen since the last Presidential election. Some of them were eligible to vote in previous Presidential elections, but hadn’t bothered to vote. Some of them had voted Democratic in every previous Presidential election in which they voted. Having voted Republican for President once, they are more likely to do it again. I think that gloating is going to make it less likely, particularly for those who have voted Democratic in the past. By making fun of the Democratic party, we are effectively telling them that they were stupid to have voted Democratic in the past. One of the things that the glitterati did to help John Kerry lose the election was tell us that anybody who wasn’t going to vote for John Kerry was stupid. Jane Smiley has, I think, helped us immensely by writing two days after the election that anybody who voted for the President is stupid. Let’s not return the favor.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:53 pm 84. Catherine:

John Moore

My neighbor told me, going into the election, that part of her would be relieved if Bush won. “He’s been the president,” she said, “we know he can do it.”

She was still quite disappointed (I sent her the Mirror cover, which helped).

My husband is the real study here.

He’s an unbelievably Left Brain kind of guy, so he’s sitting around pouring over the NYTIMES stats, saying things like, “Blacks didn’t move over to Bush.” And: “Kerry got 56% of Hispanics.” And “Asians are getting more Democratic every election.”

I finally said, “Yup, it’s the emerging Democratic Majority.”

That wasn’t nice. YET ANOTHER BLACK MARK ON MY PERMANENT RECORD, G-DAMNIT.

He drives me to it. I swear.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:54 pm 85. Catherine:

The day after the election he was telling me how great things look for Hillary now that the Dems don’t have to try to win any votes from the South.

He doesn’t even like Hillary.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:56 pm 86. Charlie (Colorado):

Access is oxygen for the MSM. You can expect a flood of “Bush isn’t really so bad” stories in the immediate future as well as a slew of more positive reporting on the situation in Iraq.

Good call, Rick. Just before reading this, I listened to Andy Rooney’s commentary which was “losing an election is bummer, but now it’s time to admit we lost the election, admit Bush is the President, and get on with life.”

We’ll see how long it lasts, but right now I’m pretty proud of the US.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:58 pm 87. Charlie (Colorado):

Does ANYONE know democrats (other than the neo-demo-pubs here) that are not possessed of this post-election psychosis? Catherine, is there anyone in your neighborhood who is not currently bananas?

Just had lunch with a bunch of them. Pretty partisan, too.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:00 pm 88. Catherine:

Will you guys stop picking on Mickey Kaus!?

I love the guy!

He’s a Democrat. He has always been a Democrat; he is going to carry on being a Democrat.

He is a Democrat because he believes in affirmative government which, until George Bush came along, was a concept conservatives specifically rejected (and, with the exception of George Bush, still do).

He thought the war in Iraq was a bad idea.

It may be a bad idea. I supported it going in, I support it now.

But it may have been a bad idea. Unknown, unknowns!

He was against the war in the first place, but now that we’re in the war, he wants us to win, and us to establish a Democratic state in Iraq. Good for him.

I have no problem with Kaus. He’s taught me a lot.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:01 pm 89. Catherine:

Rick B

Changing registration and sending a letter is a good idea.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:03 pm 90. lindenen:

“I finally said, “Yup, it’s the emerging Democratic Majority.”

Do you think there is merit to this argument? I can’t imagine a worse result than having a white party versus an all the other races party.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:04 pm 91. Catherine:

DtP

Just who gets seated next to Jimmy Carter, if not Michael Moore?

I think the point is that Jimmy Carter can’t be invited to the conventions.

Was he invited to Clinton’s convention?

I have a memory that he wasn’t, or at least that he was noticeably absent for a number of elections after he lost to Reagan.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:06 pm 92. Charlie (Colorado):

Let’s not gloat. The more important reason is that it’s simply wrong. It’s football season, so I’m going to use some illustrations from the NFL. Paul Brown is generally credited with saying “When you get to the end zone, act as if you’ve been there before.”

Well… let’s gloat a little. But yeah, exactly. A fair number of Kerry supporters are actually being shits about it, but a fair number — like Andy Rooney — are actually being grown up about it.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:07 pm 93. Samuel:

Rick

it is my belief that the best way for all of you Democrats to serve your party is to change your registration to independent and send copies of the change of registration along with a letter stating the reasons to the DNC.

Well I changed it to Republican because I believe in the two Party system. (It is just I used to only really believe in one side) I’m not an independent, I am a maverick, a very big difference. As far as sending a letter to the DNC, not needed for me. I went to Jim Moran and put him on notice in person, we almost got into a physical altercation over it but any one that knows Jim Moran wouldn?t be surprised.

I suppose if people like Terrye and Catherine would follow your suggestion it would shake them up a little bit but I swear they are thick headed at the DNC, they still think this is about making some PR moves rather than true changes. I get a sense that after the daze of the election wears off they will just go underground with their contempt, I think they need to be thrashed one more time before they get it.

I will add that I personally know Harry Reid and if he becomes the majority leader there is a chance for bipartisanship that is if Harry doesn’t let the harder cases among his peers get to him, he truly is a moderate at heart, but either way a much nicer and infinitely more sincere then Tom Dascle.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:11 pm 94. Catherine:

lindenen

I can’t imagine a worse result than having a white party versus an all the other races party

Sorry–I was being ironic about my husband’s amazing capacity to think things are going well when they manifestly are not. (Wish he’d apply this filter to Iraq.)

I hope Samuel (or Rick or DpT) will correct me if I’m wrong, but for Bush suddenly to have forty-three percent of the Hispanic vote is a Big, Fat Sign that Dems are losing one of their people-of-color constituencies.

In 2000 he got 31%.

Basically, the party now is blacks, single women, and people under 30.

Also Jews & Asians, of course, but those groups are pretty tiny, comparatively speaking (yes?)

Single women and people under 30 will tend to migrate to the Republican column when they morph into married people.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:12 pm 95. Catherine:

Samuel

they still think this is about making some PR moves rather than true changes

REALLY??????

And I thought my husband was ‘left-brained.’

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:14 pm 96. lindenen:

Oh, I know you meant it as a joke to your husband, but I’d heard of that particular book and found its conclusion incredibly worrisome.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:16 pm 97. Terrye:

Catherine:

You are right about unknowns.

They are going into Fallujah now. God I hope the Marines don’t take a lot of losses and I hope a lot of innocnet people are not hurt or killed.

I just wish they could get Zarqawi. I know people say that you can not defeat these guys militarily, but a defeat can hurt any cause and those goes for the bad guys too. That is why the US demanded unconditional surrender in WW2. We wanted to make sure they did not come back.

So if you are the praying kind now is the time.

And tell your husband that the Dems are losing the ladies and without us they are goners.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:17 pm 98. richard mcenroe:

Silicon Valley Jim ó Of course, there’s some folks as are looking to be offended. We were accused of gloating just for showing up for our weekly support-the-troops ralley last Friday, and I was accused of it specifically for waving a highly provocative sign that read simply THANK YOU VOTERS. I’m perfectly prepared to get along with people willing to be got along with, but I’m plain tired of humoring assholes.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:32 pm 99. Rick Ballard:

“And tell your husband that the Dems are losing the ladies and without us they are goners.”

Brava, Terrye. Absolutely the most important demographic shift, bar none. Second most was the pick up in the 18-29’s, third the Hispanic shift. 18-29’s are very important because this is the first or second election they’ve voted on and the earlier a shift is made the more permanent it is likely to be. This is a watershed election because increases were obtained in almost all demographic groups and because the pattern followed into the House and Senate races.

Catherine,

If you would like to twist the barb on the needle you could ask what he believes to be the strongest policy issue for any given demographic. The Dems have an empty quiver on nearly everything and a moments reflection will reveal that fact. Might wanna be leaving the room as you ask the question.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:36 pm 100. lindenen:

Hey Catherine,

regarding the hispanic vote:

And, lastly, the White House needs to correctly decipher the Hispanic vote. The exit polling by Edison Media Research showed Bush winning 44 percent of the Hispanic vote, a historic high for a Republican, if true. However, this appears to be as suspect as the other results from Tuesday’s exit polling, which projected a Kerry victory. Exit polling specifically targeted at Hispanics, conducted by the William C. Velazquez Institute, found that a more believable 31.4 percent of Hispanics voted for Bush. This would be a significant decline from 2000.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:39 pm 101. Syl:

Kerry’s position was impossible from the git go. He was successful, however, in his attempt to unite the Democrats behind him, but that success turned the majority of Americans against him.

Kerry had to convince the anti-war element that he would pull out of Iraq and never, ever, do something so stupid as invading another country. Kerry had to convince the more realistic Dems that he would fight the war on terror with every bone in his body. Thus he had to separate Iraq from the War on Terror.

The MSM helped him tremendously in this effort and it almost worked. To both anti-war and pro-war Dems, Kerry was their man.

I’ve heard complaints about the flip-flopping characterization of Kerry presented by the Bush campaign, but this was the only way to highlight the trick Kerry was playing….that of being both pro and anti-war simultaneously. And this flip-flopping surface image scared America without divulging the true reasons for Kerry’s alternating positions.

For my vote, Samuel characterized it best. Bush is a good man who did not deserve the vitriol and bile thrown at him and I thus supported Bush more strongly than I might have if the sh*t thrown around weren’t piled so deep.

But another major reason Bush got my vote was the image of the infamous ‘arab street’ rising up in celebration on 9/11 and I did not want to see the same celebration of a Bush defeat.

On the other hand, I think the Dems, and we, are missing an important reason there was support for Kerry. The Blue counties are terrified of al-Qaeda and they believe that Bush has angered these bees by swatting the hive. I would say that is Kaus’s main reason for voting for Kerry.

I believe the Bush supporters know that anger and backlash is a natural consequence of aggressively fighting the enemy and we accept it as a component of war. We cannot win this thing if we hold back in fear. The majority of Americans agree and their vote for Bush was a defiant F*** you! to Osama.

I’ve never been prouder to be an American.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:45 pm 102. Samuel:

Catherine

I hope Samuel (or Rick or DpT) will correct me if I’m wrong, but for Bush suddenly to have forty-three percent of the Hispanic vote is a Big, Fat Sign that Dems are losing one of their people-of-color constituencies.

I addressed this in an e-mail I sent you. In short the reality is Bush ticked up anywhere from 2% to double digits% across the board. The real significance is found in the universal the increases.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:52 pm 103. Terrye:

lindenen:

I heard Bush got about 43% of the Hispanic vote. I can’t remmeber where I heard this though so I can’t link it. I remember thinking it might have had to do with social issues.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:56 pm 104. lindenen:

Terrye, that article I linked at National Review says that number is probably wrong. The quote I posted tells where that number came from. I don’t know. I wonder.

Nov 7, 2004 - 7:00 pm 105. Rick Ballard:

Samuel,

The largest issue concerning governance will not be the Democrat’s obtructionism (which will soon effervesce) but the amount, type and quality of control that Frist will be able to exert in the Senate. The west coast is about to suffer an extreme deprivation of pork and that which they lose will provide a toothsome morsel to be dangled in front of a number of recalcitrant Republicans. That’s the easy side. The tough side, the stick side, is where Frist needs to show some steel. He will do better than Lott but it will be necessary for him to do much better rather than a little better. Hastert has the House in hand, no reason for worry there.

The next few months will be interesting but not because of Dem intransigence.

Nov 7, 2004 - 7:01 pm 106. Terrye:

Syl:

Me too.

I thought that if Bush gets beat those idiots will be out in the streets singing and dancing and that will make me sick.

I know people get scared, but if these guys are gonna get you they will. Besides if they are willing to take Osama at his word I should be the one who is scared. I live in a red state.

Nov 7, 2004 - 7:03 pm 107. Terrye:

lindenun:

I heard that on TV news, but I don’t know where they got it from.

I think it may be true because Bush got more of the Catholic vote and because a lot of Hispanics turned out in Florida for the Senate race with Martinez and he is running as a Republican.

Nov 7, 2004 - 7:06 pm 108. TmjUtah:

Samuel -

“Social Security, Tax Overhaul, Small Buisiness Insurance groups, Energy Policy, Judges, and not the least the WOT. You name it this Cowboy President of ours has a meeting with all these things and even more in the OK Corral of politics, in our hearts we all know it both friend and foe, brace yourselves, we are ready.”

Exactly. The last four years Bush’s opposition didn’t contribute to debate – they obstructed, or belittled every bit of legislation that was enacted. Even those bills and laws they helped write were all lumped together in a melange of media-megaphoned failure, failure, failure…spiced with imputations of fascism, theocracy, or worse.

Right now, two nations are working toward freedom that wouldn’t have been. We took an economic and political hit worth untold billions of dollars on 9/11 and are enjoying the beginning of our second year of growth. Employment is catching up, too. It’s not covered very much, but NCLB is making a mark…a good start. We are still fighting and dying in Iraq but that’s because it’s a war that we must win – not because it’s a quagmire.

The Democrats are giving every appearance of staying on their script of the last four years, which cannot be more charitably described as praying for failure, and doing everything in their power to bring it about.

They need to buy a clue; or, they can stay out in the cornfield for a generation or two until they find one.

Charlie (c) -

I was careful to say “the closest thing” for a reason. My intent was not to offend any teachers that observe or post here, but to point out that of all the influences that affect kids, compulsory education is, well, compulsory.

Remember that I live in Milktoast Valley, Utah – and the place where I see the worst behaviour on the part of teens is during class changes at my kids’ middle school.

There are three tiers to discipline in our school district: warning, warning with notification of a prinicpal, and warning with notification of principal and parents. That’s per student, per teacher. Four classes per day gives an ambitious kid eight (ten, counting lunch time – lunch monitors count as teachers) times to break rules with impunity. Profanity, casual vandalism, physical intimidation…anything that doesn’t rise to the level of an actual assault just gets plugged into the proper reportage field.

You end up with a larger-than necessary class of victimized students for a start. Adolescence is a trying time for anyone, and it doesn’t take much to cow a teen who isn’t on the plus side of assertiveness or self confidence. Then there is the great middle bloc of kids who are just not worth preying on; if they make grades between A and D they seldom develop personal rapport with their teachers. When my oldest was finishing seventh grade she lamented that she didn’t know any of her teachers as well as she did her elementary teachers. I wrote it off at the time as part of the widening social and emotional world of a teenager but have come to think differently At the top of the blythe expression social chain are the sea lawyers and gamers who fail their way into our excellent “alternative” school system but not before negatively impacting at least five or ten scholastic careers around them.

I will not waste your time with anecdotal instanceS I’ve found myself involved with The System while visiting the school to deliver homework or other errands. I don’t go down there very often, and I’ve been forced to do a teacher’s job more than once.

I hate process over results. It makes my blood boil. Kids are meant to be challenged and led, not managed to appropriate norms (the phrase a vice principal actually used in conversation with me) to define how schools do their jobs.

I meant no disrespect to gulag alumni; yes, I’ve known a few, too – my mom used to host speakers on the evangelical coffeehouse circuit back in the seventies. Russians, Hungarians…we even had Nicki Cruz at our house for a weekend.

Public education in my most homogenous of all states is the way it is, and it makes me shudder to think what it might be like elsewhere. I’m really rooting for improvements in standards over the next four years.

Nov 7, 2004 - 7:13 pm 109. lindenen:

TmjUtah, are you saying the schools need to start cracking the discipline whip?

Nov 7, 2004 - 7:19 pm 110. Charlie (Colorado):

Ah, now, if we want to insult public education, I’m your man.

Nov 7, 2004 - 7:20 pm 111. chuck:

DtP,

I think you nailed it. Looking at the income levels of the blue states, the thing that jumped out at me was that they were the rich states. The Democrats have become the party of the elite: academia, the literary set, Hollywood, and the rich. This is not enough of a base to win elections, for that they depend on an almost complete lock on the Black, Hispanic, and Jewish vote. If these demographics begin to break, the party will die a terrible death. What can the Dems offer besides the current bread and circuses? Beats me. They seem empty of ideas and possessed of a subtle racism that will slowly become clearer. This will be quite interesting to watch.

Nov 7, 2004 - 7:20 pm 112. WichitaGirl:

Charlie (CO),

I think private education is just as bad as, or worse than, public education.

Catherine,

This is apropos of something you said a while ago: that the Economist (and one other Euro journal) had come out in favor of Kerry but were taking Bush’s reelection in stride. Actually, in the Economist’s article endorsing Kerry, there were more positive things said about Bush than about Kerry. Talk about damning someone with faint praise.

But it recalled to my mind something I read in the Economist ages ago when the campaign was first warming up. The Economist seemed to be trying to explain to its European readers that America is not homogeneous; that some of us are religious and some are not; that America might be, in fact, divided in the coming campaign as well as divided culturally.

I thought: If Europeans don’t understand THAT about us, then what the hell DO they know?

Nov 7, 2004 - 8:23 pm 113. Barry Dauphin:

Terrye

I would have responded sooner but have browser/typekey problems. I have a feeling that 4 years hence, such rantings will have been long forgotten or else the lack of a fascist state will be seen as the result of some Herculean effort by the left to prevent such. It will be attributed to the 130,000 turnout for Earth Day 2006 when George Soros does a drive through appearance or some such nonsense. I’m thinking of suggesting that Bush have Teddy Kennedy over for a post election chat to discuss the virtues of Ted attending some AA meetings.

Nov 7, 2004 - 8:29 pm 114. Charlie (Colorado):

TMJ, point taken: I don’t mean public education as versus private as much as I mean “the way people in general are being educated.”

Although it’s my impression that the private schools around here are more likely to preserve some semblance of order. (On the other hand, what you’re describing sounds more or less like my high school. You’d have thought cleaning the mastodons out of the hills would have concentrated our minds more.)

I had a long debate with an acquaintance in the education establishment some years ago, talking about the notion of using standardized testing as a measure of school success. She felt that it would limit the ability of schools to encourage creativity and critical thinking; my answer was that I’d settle for highh school students who graduated able to read USA Today and write a sentence in which subject and verb agreed in number.

Nov 7, 2004 - 8:45 pm 115. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Depending on the private school, they can keep order better than the public schools – they don’t have the same mandate.

My daughter went to Catholic schools for 1-12 and the disruptive students would be kicked out. The school, the best prep school in the state, had lots of non-Catholics – Jews, a Muslim or two, and others.

It’s also a lot cheaper per pupil than public, but unfortunately you have to use money on top of whatever taxes paid for public scchools.

Nov 7, 2004 - 9:05 pm 116. Charlie (Colorado):

Two of the many puzzles about public schools are (1) the fact that many private schools actually are cheaper per student than public, and (2) the fact that dollars/student seems inversely correlated with outcome.

I visited a local history museum (Adams County, I think) in which they had preserved the one-room school of the 1920s. I got to thinking: the last I heard, public schools in NYC ran about $9500/student. This one-room school was about 20×30 feet, 600 square feet, and had seats for 25 students, so, nominally, that would be $237,500 per year. Manhattan office rents are (actually) surprisingly cheap — I just looked at rents in Murray Hill, since that’s where I lived when I lived in Manhattan, and the rents with electric are about $45/sq ft. So, to be generous, say it’s $60/ft^2 to allow for additional costs of janitorial etc. That’s $36,000. Allow $1000 per student for books and supplies.

That leaves $176,500 a year for the teacher.

I’m seriously tempted to think that underground schools could make big money. For that kind of money, you could hire some pretty smart folks.

So here’s the question: when every 25-student classroom is bringing in $237,500, why can’t those students learn to read?

Nov 7, 2004 - 9:45 pm 117. RandMan:

While I’m a little late the party on this thread, I’d like to put in my $1.05.

1. For most Democrats, they see no enemies on the Left. The Sister Souljah moment given to us by Bill Clinton is the exception rather than the rule. May I also remind you that “Rev.” Al Sharpton, racial demagogue, inciter of riots, and anti-semite is a welcome member in the Democrat party.

2. As others have noted, the Democrat party leadership is more radicalized than most realize. They don’t think of themselves as radicals, but they see the world through a Marxist prism.

What is this prism? Race, gender, class. Rich (bad) vs. poor (good). Powerful (bad) vs. powerless (good). You get the picture.

Most readers here are aware of the Leftist mantra that poverty causes crime. Many on the Left think poverty causes terrorism. If one believes that, it is easy to understand why there were no condemnations from the Democrats.

Besides, Michael Moore was doing the Lord’s work, demonizing President Bush!

Nov 7, 2004 - 10:11 pm 118. TmjUtah:

On discipline in schools -

I don’t want rote learning (even though I was reading Hardy Boys mysteries in first grade after rote phonics in kindergarten) but I would really like to see some sense of formality reintroduced into the teaching environment.

Students are there to learn EVERYTHING they don’t learn at home. Teachers are there to teach, and collectively they will ulitmately spend about three times as many structured hours in contact with the students as their parents will during the school year. That’s a finite asset that is being pissed away at a greater rate every passing school year.

Teachers impart far more than mere information; their bearing and leadership have a direct impact on how students percieve limits and acceptable behaviour. Whether or not a kid is a class clown is not important to me as long as he/she is learning and is NOT KEEPING HIS/HER PEERS from learning. Every teacher is a role model, and every one should be reminded of that on a recurring basis.

Every student needs to know that their job is to learn. Recognition of achievemers is the single most threatened tool inside our public schools. Non-outcome playground games, high schools abandoning honor rolls, Valedictory/Salutorian awards made to accomadate race or not at all – it’s bullsh*t. It’s essential that we instill self discipline in our kids, and the earlier the better. I want a teacher not to hesitate when he tells a fifth grader he has to sign up for tutoring over lunch to get up his reading scores. Better that than to pay for his three hots and a cot ten years later when he’s an unemployable illiterate lacking the social skills to function in society.

Families aren’t very strong, not with fifty percent divorce rates. Churches, feh. Some strong, some weak, some just waiting to turn into 527’s. We still have schools, and kids will spend a huge chunk of time inside them.

Back in the eighties I was certain that the Asian Rim and Europe were going to outperform us because they had better schools. Since then, the lethal mechanical faults inherent in the Euro nannystate have put them on the road to serfdom and the Japanese seem to be content with making their part of the world work while keeping us as a dependable trade partner. What the conditions will be in ten years are a myster to me. The future holds nothing good for us if we don’t produce enough skilled professionals to maintain the highly techinical society we have achieved.

Nov 7, 2004 - 11:25 pm 119. Charlie (Colorado):

TMJ, I’m not a big one for formality. But I’m not sure what you’re describing is what I’d think of as formality anyway — it sounds more like confidence. The teachers in that one-room school weren’t all that formal, if the accounts I’ve read and the stories I’ve heard are to be believed.

They were, however, provided with two advantages public-school teachers are not: first, confidence that they have the authority to do things like insist on the student staying late for tutoring, not to mention washing behind their ears and doing their spelling homework; and second the certainty that they will be measured on the effectiveness they show at actually teaching the curriculum.

My hypothetical Manhattan one-room schoolteacher might be making $120K and benefits; I would imagine that the people who that would attract would be comfortable with the notion that they have to deliver.

Nov 8, 2004 - 7:32 am 120. Patrick Tyson:

Catherine—

In all seriousness, the Democrats should try to get Bruce Springsteen to run for Governor of New Jersey next year.

Pat

Nov 8, 2004 - 8:12 am

Write a Comment

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