« Mavs spank some Queen ass | Main | Invasion of the Evangelicals »

I am glad it is over. The fact that the victory is narrow means that Bush is leading a country where half the people do not agree with him.

But does this mean that he will try to unite the country again ? In his last term he did not even try to do that. But now that he does not have to face an election, he might try to see the other side.

I actually don’t agree the election was narrow, JK. Yes, it was narrow in terms of electoral votes but in terms of popular vote Bush kicked butt by winning it by more than 3.5 million votes. Republicans gained seats in the house and congress. I think this is more like a firm mandate for the President and his policies.

That said, Bush doesn’t have anything to lose by moving to the center this term and I hope and pray he will do it. I really hope he will work to bring the people together and show us some of that compassion he was supposedly for during his term in Texas as Governor. I worry it might not happen and the Republicans will get too cocky. They better not or else in two more years they will get a wakeup call.

Glad to hear Bush won, and am also glad to hear Kerry conceded. While I did not agree with his platform, Kerry was a sharp debater, and forced Bush to get his act together. If the Democrats can get their Moore-ons under control, they may begin to rebuild their reputation with mainstream voters.

Yes you are right about the popular vote. Regarding him moving to center, it may not happen at all. Now if he is going to appoint some Scalia clones in the Supreme Court, that will divide the country even more.

From India’s perspective Bush does not oppose outsourcing and will not push CTBT down our throats. A Kerry Administration was threatening both.

KXB, I agree - I really hope this will serve as a kick in the teeth for the far-left who have hijacked the Democrat party and will bring the party closer to the center. I think a strong Democratic party is absolutely essential to keep the Republicans in check.

JK - no arguments there. I hope things will get better now.

Well… Bush has been unredefeated! ;)

I’m glad Kerry did not give in to the hawks in his camp and accepted defeat in a dignified manner.

LOL, Sameer - It was definitely very gracious of Kerry to put a quick end to this episode and take the initiative towards a better relationship between the parties.

I am moving to Canada. I dont want to live in a country where the crazed evangelicals have so much power.
Some of the republican senators elected last night are outright nutty.
The Congress will now move further to the right.

Mujahid, that is extremely hypocritical of you. Crazed evangelicals? Read www.rogerlsimon.com and you will find out that there were many disillusioned democrats who voted Bush yesterday. Oh, and how about that democrat guy (Harkin?) who predicted a Kerry win because he thought God wanted it that way. Is he nuts too? Cynthia McKinney who btw won her senate seat yesterday - she is one of the most hateful human beings I have seen in the senate - anti-semitic, anti-Indian and a total bigot to boot. Guess which party she belonged to.

See? This is the problem with the Democratic party of today. You guys have your heads stuck up so high you regard anyone who opposes you as a “crazed evangelical” and anyone who supports the President or the war is a fascist. You are not winning too many elections this way - maybe it is best for you to apply for asylum in Canada.

Some of the republican senators elected last night are outright nutty.

i’m assume you’re referring to the “interesting” senator from kentucky? :nice:

Al,

You may have to wait a bit to get into Canada -

“No Canada Safe Haven for Democrats”
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/canada.us.reut/index.html

Choice quote, “But statistics show a gradual decline in U.S. citizens coming to work and live in Canada, which has an ailing health care system and relatively high levels of personal taxation.”

Or, to quote Tom Wolfe from The Guardian “I would vote for Bush if for no other reason than to be at the airport waving off all the people who say they are going to London if he wins again. Someone has got to stay behind.”

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1340524,00.html?gusrc=rss

Mckinney is a Congresswoman not a senator.
Look at the exit polls. Conservatives votes in large numbers for Bush on the ‘gay issue’.
Terrorism and the economy were secondary issues to the conservative faithful. Their main issue was the ‘gay issue’.
The conservative base is evangelical. Thats a fact and no one disputes that.
I am sorry but I am more concerned about terrorism, economy and civil liberties than worried about Adam and Steve marrying.

votes* = voted

Mujahid, the big issue for conservatives was “Moral values” and not the gay issue. Gay issue may be one of the moral values issues but it also means a bunch of other things. Even on the gay issue, I frankly don’t see any difference between Kerry’s position and Bush’s, so I don’t think that matters at all.

Maybe for the people polled terrorism might not seem like a big thing because they might believe that the Persident is on the job already as wil the economy which everybody can see is growing and we are not in a recession anymore. Just a thought…you who argues for understanding of the Chechnyan murderers might extend atleast a little of that sympathy to your fellow Americans.

Al,

It’s a bit more complicated than the “gay issue.” It was the uncompromising nature of the gay activists that bothered so many straight people. America is far more tolerant of homosexuals than it was 20 years ago, but are still hesistant about marriage. Rather than try to work with the mainstream to reach some form of compromise, the gay actvists found liberal judges to invent a “right to marriage” So even straight people who were sympathetic to gay issues were annoyed at the hubris of the activists.

And the circus in San Francisco did not help matters. CA law explcitly defines marriage as between a man and a woman, but the mayor of SF (looking towards the governor’s house), decided it was not necessary to observe the law. So a city which cannot educate its kids, cannot promote affordable housing - it decides gay marriage is the most pressing matter. So, you have a situation even worse for gays. But the activists were as self-absorbed in their beliefs as many evangelicals are.

One more point - were these the same exit polls we are fighting about that gave the victory to Kerry by a landslide?

A better insight into the ultra-conservative victory can be found here:
http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2004/11/election-reflection.html

“[M]ore than half of Bush’s voters cited moral issues as a principal reason for their support — more than any other issue, including even terrorism.” In fact, morals trumped terrorism by seven percentage points in the Los Angeles Times poll.

I like this conclusion better than anything else I have ever read since the election results were finalized.

Source: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2004/11/we_lost.html

I find the idea that “moral values” means “being against abortion and gay marriage” bizarre beyond belief. What happened to courage, magnanimity, integrity, decency, fairness, honesty, respect, generosity, kindness, perseverance, and justice? When, exactly, did they drop off our list of moral ideals? When did the scope of moral reflection contract to the point where it covers only sexual and reproductive questions? And when did we decide that the point of morality was only to point out things to dislike, not to suggest any ideals for each of us to live up to?

Dilip, what is to suggest that things happened the way that moral values don’t mean all those things your second blog citation wanted them to mean?

You and Mujahid are substituting abortion and gay marriage for moral values without knowing if that is the case. What is to say most of the voters actually believed Bush to the more steadfast, family-values-oriented, honest and having integrity? I don’t know how you can try to understand the other side’s point-of-view when you are attempting to tag them with the worst possible cariacatures you can conjure up.

Go read this by Michele at “A Small Victory” - go read www.rogerlsimon.com - go read Instapundit. These are people who voted for Bush - they are atheists, supporters of gay marriage, libertarians - people as varied as the they can be. Get out of the freaking bubble and start trying to talk to people who hold a different viewpoint. You might be surprised to see they are all not gun nuts or bible-thumpers.

As for exit polls, I am really not sure how you can support them after seeing how unreliable they have turned out to be.

One more thing - how is it helpful for anyone reflecting over a defeat to say “oh, we lost because we were too good”? Painting the people who didn’t agree with you as “ultra-conservative” is going to be great at “uniting” the country.

Shanti are you disagreeing with the fact (which by the way no one in the country including conservatives disagree with) that for a MAJORITY of the Bush supporters gays and abortion were the number one issue.

Dilip, what is to suggest that things happened the way that moral values don’t mean all those things your second blog citation wanted them to mean?

I don’t remember suggesting anything in my postings other than inviting people to have a look at some posts that I tended to reasonably agree with. Why is that working you up?

You and Mujahid are substituting abortion and gay marriage for moral values without knowing if that is the case.

Oh.. you somehow know that it is NOT the case? In any case if you take off gay rights and abortion what is to say Kerry does NOT subscribe to the same value system as Bush? He is a devout catholic too. That is about as orthodox as you can get.

I will address your other points later. Got to have lunch first. Regardless I am an open minded guy — so relax.

Mujahid, as far as I have been looking around, I see more people on the left worried about abortion (remember the brouhaha over Laci Peterson’s murder and NARAL’s comments over it?) every time someone calls a “fetus” a “baby”. Again, it was a leftist mayor in SF who made an issue out of gay marriage. I think it is the left that keeps trotting out these issues every time they need to energize their base by showing them the boogieman of the “relegious right”.

Dilip, what I am “getting worked up” about is the attitude of blaming everything on others and not taking any accountability whatsoever. That has been the trend so far that I have seen on most leftist blog . It sucks and shows a total lack of respect for one’s opposition.

Dilip and Al,

Maybe, just maybe, Bush voters felt that contentious issues such as abortion and gay marriage are best addressed through legislative bodies and voters, and not unaccountable judges? If someone says, “Abortion is my primary issue.” - that does not automatically translate into meaning pro-life. (Unless you’re a second-rate hack for the LA Times). It could mean believing that abortion should be legal, but maybe I want parental notification when teenagers are involved, or no late-term abortions. But for the “Abortion - anytime, anywhere, anyhow” crowd, this is regarded as a dangerous encroachment on reproductive rights. The main thing is that voters want to have their voices heard, and not be treated as so many sheep, being tended to by the judicial branch of government. Bush understood that, and so did those that voted for him.

Mujahid, I don’t want to come across as a homophobic, but regardless of what the exit polls have shown, I think it would be naive to suppose that Americans were more concerned about gays getting married than about their security.

Moreover, its funny how in the pre-election days, morals meant conscience that was feeling guilty about invading Iraq but post-elections, morals suddenly had a lot to do with gay marriages!

KXB

So far I don’t disagree with anything you said. I don’t understand what we are arguing about.

As far Shanti:
Dilip, what I am “getting worked up” about is the attitude of blaming everything on others and not taking any accountability whatsoever.

Can you establish some context? I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Read this thread for instance - this is not Democratic Underground we are talking about, but a supposedly sane and moderate democrat blog. Look at the comments - the loss wasn’t because the democratic campaign sucked. Noooo, it was because the rest of the America was too stupid, racist, fundamentalist, (insert your favorite insult) to vote for Kerry.

That is not right. I have seen umpteen variations of the same theme over and over again. It irritates me to no end to see one side of the people completely discount the other side like that just because they didn’t agree with them. These are the same people who unfailingly bring up, “but Bush wanted to be the uniter and he divided us! Waah!” How do you feel like reaching out to people like this?

For the record, I was as disgusted by the Clinton - Vince Foster - Monica Lewinsky attacks as by these.

Here is an interesting tidbit for Mujahid - “Don’t forget Missouri, where [gay marriage amendment] passed with 70% of the vote in a primary election in which over 5/8ths of the votes were cast by Democrats.”

Well, how do you know the democratic campaign sucked? Did you volunteer yourself to make calls everyday in the morning to galvanise the voters? Did you conduct any grass-roots movement to enthuse the foot warriors to communicate the Democratic agenda to the American public? Exactly what did you do that leads you to believe that the Democratic campaign sucked? The fact that despite all this Bush got re-elected? For every thread you post I can post equivalent no. of links that are arrogant on the opposite extreme. Want to see an example? Check this:

http://patzer.us/blog/archives/000039.html

and a couple of other previous posts in the same blog. Blinkered views are everywhere.

And:

It irritates me to no end to see one side of the people completely discount the other side like that just because they didn’t agree with them.

The problem with these kind of arguments is its a double-edged sword. I can just turn it around on you and expect the same result. What makes you think Bush ran a clean campagin, truthfully, w/o any negative advertising and still won simply based on his merits?

4 more years of Evangelical In Chief Bush and I will be ready to move to Iran.
Iran in 4 years will look moderate when you take into account the 3 republican senatorial crusaders namely Bunning, Mint and the Oklahoma dude. As if the Senate was already not conservative enough.

Dilip, I am sure the Bush campaign ran as many negative ads as the Kerry campaign did - problem is that there was so much anti0-Bush sentiment int he country that any remotely decent Democratic campaign might have easily taken the victory.

When I say Kerry campaign sucked, I am saying they didn’t run it right. They wilfully let themselves be led by the nose by the ultra-left as was seen by the deifying of Michael Moore at the DNC. Guess what, regardless of politics most Americans don’t like Moore. There were similar things that the Democrats did wrong by commission and omission that they could have done differently to win this election. Bush was never in such a strong position as to be unbeatable.

I read the post you linked to and have no idea what extremism you saw in the post or the comments - did you see the thread I was referring to? Here is a sample -
“it’s nuts the way the south remained cracker in these elections. we gotta shake that up and bigtime.”
“Let’s split into two countries. A bi-coastal republic consisting of NY, CA, OR, WA, MA, NJ, CT…and another with all those pesky red states. We could stay friends (unless GDub pre-emptively invaded), have free trade, but very different foreign and domestic policies. ”
“Unfortunately, the mandate is fundamentalist values and the south is full of fundamentalists AND racists.”
“First thing, to anybody living in a country that’s not America, we are so sorry. We are so sorry that we couldn’t knock sense back into this country. If you unite to destroy us, I would applaud you.”

Tell me, where is the equivalent at a moderate Republican blog?

Mujahid, get over it already. I find your use of the word “crusaders” particularly annoying. Seriously, they are not out to get you.

Al,

Iran a moderate cuntry in four years? Was this lesson taught at the same madrassa that said 300 Jews did not show up to work on 9/11? Following by the health lesson of the day that says the polio vaccine results in sterilization?

Interesting how America’s global critics can’t get their stories straight. Our soap-averse Euro-critics say we are too religious (while asking us to be sensitive to Muslim religious sentiments). Meanwhile, the tolerant Mohammedans chastize us for being Godless and materialist.

For those who believe that the threat from Islamofacism is a Bush-designed bogeyman, keep in mind that on the same day Bush was re-elected, a Dutch filmmaker was murdered in The Netherlands for daring to make a film critical of Islam. The Netherlands is probably the most open country in the world, and even it becomes a target for the Islamofacists. If you believe this is not a war for civilized behavior, let us know how long you can keep your head in the sand.

On a related note, looks like the freedom-loving Iranians actually like the Bush victory -

Iranians welcome massively Bush’s re-election
SMCCDI (Information Service)
Nov 3, 2004

Millions of Iranians expressed their satisfaction on the outcome of the US Presidential elections and George W. Bush’s victory by calling and congratulating each other. Many were seen walking in the streets and shaking each others hands or showing a discret V sign.

Many are speaking about the promises made by Mr. Bush to back the Iranian Nation in its quest for freedom and democracy.

As Iranians and especially the younger generations have become happy , those affiliated to the Islamic regime are seen deeply worried about their future.

The CNN poll had a very different number than this LA times poll that is being quoted. And I haven’t been able to find any hard numbers for that other than what was quoted.

The CNN poll: 22% moral issues, 20% jobs/economy, 19% terrorism, 15% Iraq. Those that put moral values and terrorism at the top broke for Bush and those that put jobs/economy and Iraq at top broke for Kerry. Also, if you look closely at CNN.com election poll, if you added up the numbers who agreed with gay marriage and civil unions (as opposed to marriage) they constituted a clear majority. So perhaps, we should try for civil unions first? That should pass if you look at the numbers (or come close).

Al - when you leave for Canada, can you give your place in the US to one of my relatives in India? They would take it in a heartbeat :)

I am proud to be an American, proud to be of Indian descent, moderately glad Bush one (he’s a politican, after all. They all deserve only moderate ‘love’) and I am impressed with the grace of Senator Kerry (who is my Senator, btw).

Democracy. You win some and you lose some. You tend to win more, though, if you offer hope and solutions and respect. Telling 57? 59 million americans they are stupid ain’t a vote getter.

won, not one. Sigh. I guess I am as dumb as some of the Kerry supporters say I am…..:mad:

Hugh Hewitt comments that the defeat of John Kerry, in a sense, marks the real end of the Sixties:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/876zajvv.asp

On another note, I’m a little surprised you haven’t yet mentioned Bobby Jindal’s election to Congress from Louisiana. He, it must be said, made GWB look like a piker with his 78% (!!) margin of victory - and he’s the first Indian-American, AFAIK, elected to national office.

Joe,

Actually, Dilip Singh Saud was elected to the House from a California district in 1956.

On a completely unrelated note (not really), while America is wondering if it was the ‘moral’ issue of gay marriages that decided the election, India continues to maintain that homosexuality is a crime!

Sameer, that reminds me of the Robert Frost line - “Miles to go before I sleep”… We have still got ways to go before people truly become open-minded.

I am sorry I missed Bobby Jindal’s election. Good for him!

There’s nothing good about Mr Jindal’s election. His Nazi credentials are unimpeachable.
I am ashamed of the fact that hes of Indian origin. Hes a brown man in a hood. Btw its interesting to note that he converted from Hinduism to Christianity so that he could curry favor with the ignoramous populace of Louisiana where only recently David Duke got the majority of the white male vote.

Pshaw! You are really beginning to bother me with this nonsense now. Nazi credentials? How many people did he lynch? Don’t you see how stupid you are to go around accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a Nazi? Compare and contrast your arguments against Raghu Reddy and the crap you are spouting here. I guess you don’t try to understand another viewpoint unless the it is put forward by child-murdering terrorists? I am wondering if I am wasting my time with you here.

Dont take the title of ‘Nazi’ literally. And no, I am not a terrorist if this is how you are going to retort.

If you bother to read carefully, I said you only try to understand terrorists - I did not call you one.

Al,

For a guy who urges us to understand the motivation of oppressed young men who feel the need to sever a human head from its body, shoot children in the back, and blow up people going to market - I’m surprised that you do not extend the same understanding to a guy who has not severed a head, burned a cross, putup the Stars & Bars, said a negative word about another faith.

And if he’s conversion to Christianity is simply one of political convenience, that is surely preferable to the “Convert or die” method that Islam embraced through much of its history.

KXB,
So you have proved your point. Islam is way more evil than Christianity.
But the choice in the US elections was not between Christianity and Islam. The choice was between Christianity and secularism. So who cares how bad Islam is ?

No, there was no such choice between Christianity and secularism. It was Jindal’s personal choice, maybe for political advanatge, but guess what - that is the beauty of individual choice. People can do foolish things. Can you point out a speech where Jindal encourages conversion to his faith? A public proclamaition of faith is hardly a threat to the separation of church and state. What leftists seem to forget in their diversity crusade is that some people actual demonstrate their difference through religion.

“Celebrate diversity (just don’t say we’re different)”

Didn’t Jindal convert when he was a teenager?

Why do you think he converted for political convenience?