Friday, November 05, 2004
Email of the day
I really enjoyed this email. I do think, though, that the last line will really drive Bush-haters insane. Heh.
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds have interesting posts up that suggest strongly that "morality issues" and gay-bashing initiatives in particular had far less impact on Bush's re-election than national security considerations. One of Andrew's readers argues that the numbers do not support the argument that "protection of marriage" initiatives helped Bush:
Everybody is trying to talk about the "lessons of the election" and spinning it to defend their position or reinforce paranoia. The conservatives are saying Bush has a mandate to cram down "morals and values stuff," presumably judges, etc., while the liberals are expressing their fear of imposed religiosity and the threat to abortion rights.
I think it's all a bunch of hooey.
Here's a thought: people who voted for Bush despite his flaws appreciate him because, generally, he says what he means and does what he says. Pretty blunt and plain speaking (if a little inarticulate). That alone is a big "morals and values" step up from Perjury Bill "that depends on what the meaning if is is" Clinton and Genghis John "vote against (1991), vote for (2002), vote against (2003a), vote for (2003b) Iraq" Kerry. I cannot think of a soul, regardless of party, who likes the way lawyers (sorry) speak with forked tongue.
People can disagree on lots of values-related stuff, but not that.
Another thing to take away, maybe: enough sensible people realized that showing Bush the door would reflect so poorly on the backbone of Americans to tough out significant challenges, to lose even a few good men, to defend their interests, that our perceived weakness abroad as a result would cascade into terrible pain in the future. All you have to do is tune in to how Islamo-fascists refer to Americans to know they would have perceived it that way. Our historical lack of toughness (actually political will, not military toughness) in multiple cases of this sort invited further attacks, and the bad guys admit it, revel in it. They think democracy is a weak system; we are now proving to how tough [democracy] in fact is -- volunteer army, democratic election, and we are kicking their Islamo-fascist asses all over the map. When we flatten Fallujah, our fellas are going to wipe the floor with them, and it will be a lesson they will learn for 1000 years. If not, we will do it again.
That's the other thing Bush projects, like him or not. Toughness, resolve, certainty, political will. Coastal people don't get that. Middle of the country people love it. Kerry was ridiculous on this point.
So, I think the lessons are pretty simple. Do what you say, say what you mean. And if in four years, Iraq is a sort-of democracy, Afghanistan is a sort-of democracy, Iran is behaving, and a new generation of Palestinians is trying to make a peace with Israel; and if the US economy is powering ahead, I will bet you $10 Jeb Bush will be our next President....
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds have interesting posts up that suggest strongly that "morality issues" and gay-bashing initiatives in particular had far less impact on Bush's re-election than national security considerations. One of Andrew's readers argues that the numbers do not support the argument that "protection of marriage" initiatives helped Bush:
That is, of course, fiction. Bush improved his share of the popular vote by 3.2% from 2000 to 2004 (47.9 in 2000, 51.1 in 2004). Now how did he do in the states which had anti-marriage ballot initiatives?
Arkansas +3.0%
Georgia +3.3%
Kentucky +3.1%
Michigan +1.8%
Mississippi +2.2%
Montana +0.7%
North Dakota +2.2%
Ohio +1.0%
Oklahoma +5.3%
Oregon +0.8%
Utah +4.2%
Only in two states (Utah and Oklahoma) did he gain a significantly higher vote share than he did nationwide.
0 Comments:
