One of the good things about running a blog is you get to post your comments in The Main Section. So here’s a not-so-brief response to some of the comments posted under “No Surrender.”
First, let me clear up a misconception that I am not, in fact, actually the same person as P. Diddy. While it’s true that we are both multi-platinum rap artists and we both sport Mohawks, I actually did not conduct the “Vote or Die” campaign. So the four or five people who have said to me in the past week something like “Looks like you and your liberal friend P. Diddy didn’t do such a great job at blah blah,” can simply take a hike. I don’t subscribe to the “just go and vote, no matter who you vote for,” idea. Take it up with Diddy. Also, what make you think he’s a liberal? As far I can tell, P. Diddy is a rich guy who carries a gun and threatens you to do something “or die.” Sounds like a conservative to me.
Cam – I expect a lot from the electorate as well, but expecting more people to recognize John Thune than me, uh, I mean than P. Diddy, is absurd. Thune is from South Dakota, population 750,000. He’s not going to crack the mainstream consciousness anytime soon.
Do I have to admit that “the Reagan” was more popular than either of the recent candidates? Okay. Did I state otherwise? He was a terrible and popular president. It's possible to be both.
There’s too many things wrong with your social security analysis to go into here. What I want to address is your objection to my thoughts on gay marriage. You can think what you want of the concept, but somebody needs to explain to me what gives voters the right to regulate the relationships people choose to form, and what those people call those relationships. Explain what gives you that right, and then we can talk about referendums. That we “owe our lives” to “the union between man and woman” is largely irrelevant to the question of gay marriage. This may surprise you, but people who are not married have kids all the time. The fact that only a heterosexual relationship is biologically capable of producing kids says nothing about the merits of allowing people to define their personal relationships
Matt – The Point about “Reggie the Registration Rig” is a good one. I had forgotten about it until your post. When I first saw that monstrosity on TV, I thought, “Oh shit, what dumb fucking idea has the DNC come up with now? I laughed with relief when I saw RNC chief Ed Gillespie sitting in front of ‘the rig’, wearing a suit and what looked like wingtips, talking about how the Republicans wanted to engage today’s youth.
While I think the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade is unlikely, you’re right to point out that it is by no means ridiculous to think it might happen. Statements like these only give credence to such fears:
Dr. James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family and an influential evangelical Protestant, said he had issued a warning to a "White House operative" who called yesterday morning to thank him for his help.
Dr. Dobson said he told the caller that many Christians believed the country "on the verge of self-destruction" as it abandoned traditional family roles. He argued that "through prayer and the involvement of millions of evangelicals, and mainline Protestants and Catholics, God has given us a reprieve."
"But I believe it is a short reprieve," he continued, adding that conservatives now had four years to pass an amendment banning same-sex marriage, to stop abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, and most of all to remake the Supreme Court. "I believe that the Bush administration now needs to be more aggressive in pursuing those values, and if they don't do it I believe they will pay a price in four years," he said.
Dr. Dobson and several other Christian conservatives said they believed the expanded Republican majority in the Senate and the defeat of the Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, put them in striking distance of both amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage and approving the appointment of enough conservative Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade and other abortion rights cases.
Max – The crack about the I-4 corridor was, how do you say…? Ah yes, a joke. If I wanted to insult you, I would write things like “Max Power has a girl’s lunchbox.” Or else I would make fun of some trivial aspect of your personal appearance, like your elbows. In the future, when writing a joke about persons aged 50 and above (see? Another one right there) I will include this symbol (J!). No offense intended. As an aside, I think I can fairly claim to “actually know something about politics,” your knock notwithstanding.
I'm sticking with my (not so original) theory that the the anti-gay marriage initiatives helped fuel conservative turnout. Apparently, some conservatives themselves are bragging about this.
The strongest argument that Christian conservatives played a decisive role in the election came in Ohio, where a ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage passed by an overwhelming margin. Conservatives said the proposal increased conservative turnout and helped Mr. Bush win a narrow, pivotal victory.
Phil Burress, the veteran Christian conservative organizer who headed the effort to pass the measure, said his campaign registered tens of thousands of voters, distributed 2.5 million church bulletin inserts and passed out 20,000 yard signs. His group called 2.9 million homes, he said, identifying 850,000 strong supporters whom it called again on Monday as a reminder to go to the polls.
"The president rode our coattails," Mr. Burress said.
51-49 percent of the vote is not a mandate. There’s no mysterious number unfortunately. The last president that I think could fairly claim a mandate would be George “Old Balls” H.W. Bush in 1988. You bring up the point yourself that John Kerry received more votes than any other candidate save GWB this time around. You could interpret Bush’s role, as I do, as somebody who has inspired record-breaking support as well as record-breaking opposition. That’s not a mandate. But back to practical considerations, it doesn’t really matter does it? The guy governs how he sees fit. He did that without the popular vote in 2000, he’ll do it even more so now.
Tax proposals are “hidden” when they’re not presented honestly. Hence the estate tax becomes a “death tax” and hordes of scared voters think they will pay it. There’s a lot of talk about “family farms” thrown around, though no one can point to an example of an actual family farm going under because of the estate tax. Tax proposals are also hidden when the people pushing these proposals come out and say they are hidden.
That’s the hidden story of what is going on under Bush,” Stephen Moore said. “People like me have been advocating a flat tax for a decade. I helped Dick Armey put together his flat-tax proposal. Nobody could get it done politically. What Bush has done, in a hidden way, is move us in baby steps toward the flat tax.”
You might like this post, and the corresponding article it comments on.
Run left? That would be my proposals in some areas, not in other areas. More on this some other time. I reject the Goldwater analogy as too simple. The main point is that the 1964 election was a genuine drubbing. This, despite your claim of having had our collective ass handed to us, was not a drubbing.
I was going to question your recruitment assessment before Shawn beat me to it. I’ll just add that you might look at this times article, Its Recruitment Goals Pressing, the Army Will Ease Some Standards.” It's archived, unfortunately, but it does talk about lowering some education and pyschological standards. Also, the article about the soldiers in Colorado does not appear to be bunk. Does questioning their stories fall under the rubric of “Supporting the Troops?”
Pat – You’re right. I have no idea what I’m talking about when it comes to biology.
Shawn – I think there’s ways to round up 40,000 troops absent a draft. None of them are particularly appetizing. I still think that John Kerry would have ended the war sooner than GWB, as well as reduced the possibility of beginning future wars. Kerry was the only person, other than Bush, with a realistic shot at power, and thus with realistic shot at beginning to un-fuck the damage of the past four years. I guess we’ll never know.
Conservative Bush Supporters Say They Anticipate 'A Revolution' Not a surprise.
Posted by mike at November 6, 2004 02:42 PM