So When Do the Conspiracy Theories Start?

Charles Paul Freund | November 3, 2004

For instance, that those Tuesday PM exit polls were the "real" numbers, and that the returns are a Diebold illusion (or something). They must be out there. Anybody run into one yet?

Comments

|11.3.04 @ 10:35AM|#

Jesus, just wander over to Kos and hit the comments section. Mmmmmm... that's good schadenfreude!

|11.3.04 @ 10:35AM|#

check dailykos.com's permanent thread -- the conspiracies are enumerated there.

|11.3.04 @ 10:40AM|#

Head on over to Democraticunderground - if you've got the belly for it - and you'll find all the anger, bile and conspiracy theories you can handle. Good grief, they make Daily Kos look like NRO.

|11.3.04 @ 10:42AM|#

Hope they didn't pay to much for those exit polls. They crashed the stock market and made Brit Hume look like he ate a bug and turned out to be pretty bogus. Are they always like that?

|11.3.04 @ 10:43AM|#

here's a particularly good one:


http://openthread.dailykos.com/comments/2004/11/3/95657/2208/25#25

|11.3.04 @ 10:46AM|#

They started as soon as my wife got out of bed this morning. The biggest downside to a Bush victory is that I get to hear the same rant EVERY DAY for ANOTHER four years. :-(

|11.3.04 @ 10:49AM|#

Matt Yglesias' comments are so ate up with them that he posted a Tin Foil Hats notice in his own blog.

|11.3.04 @ 10:50AM|#

Silly me, I always thought it was the votes that counted and not the exit polls. But I guess when you factor in the Halliburton-Diebold conspiracy to secretly steal the Iraqi oil that still hasn't been stolen and build that Afghani pipeline which still hasn't been built (but is the REAL reason we went into that country), plus the fact that Osama bin Laden is working closely with the Bush camp (according to Walter "I used to not be insane" Cronkite), well I guess Kerry never had a chance. Note to the Democrats: In retrospect, it's a real shame that you didn't run Howard Dean. If you're going to lose anyway, you might as well say what you really believe.

fyodor|11.3.04 @ 10:50AM|#

From Brian Cook's link:

Find the places in Florida and Ohio and every other state where a plausible argument for Republican vote fraud can be made. It doesn't matter whether it did happen or not.

Is this crass partisanship, or merely the logical extension of new age philosophy?

|11.3.04 @ 10:55AM|#

"So When Do the Conspiracy Theories Start?"
In the words of "Tricky" Dick Cheney, "go f*ck yourself".

|11.3.04 @ 10:57AM|#

That is a particularly good one, BrianCook. I'm not sure it qualifies as conspiracy, but I especially liked this part:

Second, gut any Bush hopes for legitimacy. Find the places in Florida and Ohio and every other state where a plausible argument for Republican vote fraud can be made. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT DID HAPPEN OR NOT. What matters is if it can be plausibly alleged to marginal Bush supporters and to the media... We have to make him "Bush the only American President who was never elected" whether it's true or not.

IMHO, the democrats can't win because of this type of attitude. Reality is unquestionable, but they still seem to be stuck with that "revolutionary" attitude so much of the time.

|11.3.04 @ 11:07AM|#

On a side note, now that Bush has the all time record for a popular vote win, and now that he is the first president since the 1988 election to have the majority of the votes (thanks to Perot and Nader), can we please institute an "automatic face-punch" rule to anyone continuing to claim that Bush isn't the "real" president, that he's "not my president", that he "stole" the election, that he's "Selected by the court", etc etc etc? In terms of legitimacy points, this election surpasses both Clinton victories.
I'm not a fan of Kerry at all, but I just heard the AP is reporting Kerry has called Bush to concede, and I give him a lot of respect for not dragging this thing out.

drf|11.3.04 @ 11:07AM|#

now for the flip flop from four years ago. neither side is principled. neither side cares for anything except for their side winning. it's for those lame-asses who equate "competativeness" to petty one-upsmanship, or "self esteem" for "never being wrong".

kerry people: remember what assholes "conservatives" were last time? that's you guys this time. just shut the fuck up and realize that had you picked a better candidate either time or not had quibbeldicks in congress, you'd not be in this situation. who voted for PATRIOT? who gave prez bush authorization? you did. now shut up and take some leadership courses. the conspiracy is that you guys suck from within. it's your own damn fault.

assholes.

drf

|11.3.04 @ 11:07AM|#

jesu christo! I didn't know people on Democratic Underground were so... um... mentally unbalanced? Maybe Halliburton's been putting Flouride in their water...

|11.3.04 @ 11:09AM|#

Can someone chronicle all these rants and conspiracy theories, and then publish them later? I would enjoy reading and laughing at them in private at night... after I've had to deal with the annoying whining in public during the day.

Perry|11.3.04 @ 11:13AM|#

drf - my sentiments exactly.

All the people that hate the other side so much for being dirty and deceitful are more than willing to be dirty and deceitful to help themselves win.

It seems that noone actually cares about truth and justice, just the version of truth and justice that matters to them.

|11.3.04 @ 11:14AM|#

...and by chronicling "these rants and conspiracy theories", I meant the comments at those other blogs, NOT the fine folks here at Hit and Run. You guys are saving my life this morning. Thanks.

|11.3.04 @ 11:20AM|#

Even more insane:

Break something. Be ready for more pain than you think you can stand. Then use that pain. Make the bastards pay for the tears. Send them the bill for the china that gets thrown at the wall.

Or, 'All my feelings MUST indicate the truth, even if I manufacture them; all my enemies WILL pay what I feel is just retribution for the pain caused me, which is an indicator of the true pain of the world (again whether I manufactured it or not).'

|11.3.04 @ 11:24AM|#

A dieboldical plot from Rove and Cheney.

|11.3.04 @ 11:55AM|#

every time i hear of bush referred to as a textbook authoritarian (or something near that) i think back to a picture i saw of the nyc protests. it was a group of kids holding a 20 ft banner which read "THIS IS WHAT A POLICE STATE LOOKS LIKE" while 20 cops, bored and chatting with each other, stood behind them.

he's a textbook boring ass, middle of the road politician.

|11.3.04 @ 12:04PM|#

The voting public, the majority of it, is ...well, in no uncertain words, retarded.

So much for markets.

I think to celebrate I am going to intravaneously administer a bravado boosting sized dose of crystalline methamphetamine.

Going to?

|11.3.04 @ 12:10PM|#

Here's the one I keep seeing:

"The win was a result of anti-gay bigots coming out in droves."

Can't remember where though.

|11.3.04 @ 12:14PM|#

that seems semi-feasible to me. it was a big deal, and a potential splitter for black voters and other churchy types.

|11.3.04 @ 12:45PM|#

automatic face-punch rule

Not a very libertarian sounding idea there, Dave.

But I love it. So I second the motion.

|11.3.04 @ 12:45PM|#

The only state it could plausibly have affected is Ohio... that's close enough to be swayed, but I still don't buy it. There was increased turnout from everyone. Kerry kept repeating that this was the "most important election of our lifetime" but apparently only KKK members were paying attention.

Is it just me, or does the comparison between say, Instapundit + associated right-ish types and the Kos/Atrios axis make the latter set seem like gigantic pricks? Have you been *reading* Kos' Guardian articles? He sounds like the 'edgy' sophomore at your local college's daily paper.

|11.3.04 @ 12:45PM|#

drf, John Kerry came within a hair of defeating a sitting president during a time of war. You think Dick Gephardt could have done that? We didn't pick the wrong candiate; American did.

JDM,

Go to Andrew Sullivan for the anti-gay fliers and phone calls that went around Ohio over the past week, and look at the poll numbers for the number of people who, during a time of war, record deficits, terror threats, etc etc etc, identified "moral values" as the most important issue. Backwards tools, easily manipulated by pictures of men showing physical affection.

|11.3.04 @ 12:48PM|#

well, you know what they say, joe. we all have to get our anti-jollies somehow.

|11.3.04 @ 12:53PM|#

"The win was a result of anti-gay bigots coming out in droves."

With no less than 11 states rushing to prohibit gay marriage, with Republicans themselves pinning the win on the increased turnout of their evangelical base, who tend to be, yes, anti-gay... sounds plausible to me.

|11.3.04 @ 1:04PM|#

And the award goes to:
"Kerry didn't lose this election, Bush stole it. People have been putting in the fix for Bush all his life, and they did it again. They stole the election IN THE VOTING BOOTH."

Kevin Carson|11.3.04 @ 1:05PM|#

joe,

IMO the Democrats did it to themselves by yuppifying their own party: shifting emphasis to social issues and identity politics. By foolishly adopting gun control as a national issue, and using judicial politics to turn abortion and gay rights into national issues instead of leaving them to the state legislatures where they belong, they handed those wedge issues to Karl Rove on a silver platter.

And I say that as someone who is scared shitless by Bush, and reluctantly voted Kerry (I'd have voted for one of Carter's hemorrhoids or Reagan's rectal polyps to get rid of Bush).

|11.3.04 @ 1:06PM|#

to expand a bit - joe, keep in mind that the very same thing is said of lefties voting for kerry - that in a time of war such piddling issues as "civil liberties" and the like are secondary to security. security without the added bits of culture we consider "our own", it seeems, isn't worth much. so a rallying cry of "the homoseshuals are coming, figuratively!" is akin to "bush is destroying our civil liberties and will reinstate the draft" and all that.

|11.3.04 @ 1:08PM|#

It is odd that the returns from heavily Democratic Cleveland actually increased Bush's margin. And this in the state that the manufacturers of the voting machines promised to deliver to Bush.

Given the shennanigans in Florida last time, I can see how those who tend towards the paranoid style could find the idea of a conspiracy plausible.

My, I say it came down to the gay-baiting in Ohio.

|11.3.04 @ 1:16PM|#

Kevin, are you suggesting that Kerry pushed gun control, gay marriage, and identity politics during his campaign? That's absurd. He did everything he could to diffuse those issues, not exploit them. Hell, he might as well have dressed up in camo and shot some geese with a squadron of white guys! Oh, wait...

dhex, getting drafted is a big deal. Getting thrown in a hole without being able to call a lawyer is a big deal. Having a gay couple live down the street is not a big deal. Equating the latter to the former in terms of importance is a bit nutty, no?

|11.3.04 @ 1:20PM|#

no, it's not. because the draft ain't gonna happen. it's a scare tactic used by dems, like gay marriage was used by pubs.

|11.3.04 @ 1:24PM|#

At this point, the Democrats have GOT to realize the one firmly good thing they (may) have on their side...The Republicans can no longer blame them for ANYTHING.

This is now the Conservative Republican show. The Dems can't even be much more than an assist for moderate Republicans (...and I predict we're going to start hearing a LOT more from them.)

But the next 2 - and maybe 4 - years belong to the Republicans like no time since Hoover (careful...we all remember how THAT one ended)

All I can say is, you'd better get it right this friggin' time...

After 30 years of listening to Republicans play the victim to "liberals and their Godless agenda" I had BETTER start seeing...

1. Lower (and I mean a LOT lower) taxes and you'd better start with the ATM.

2. More fiscal responsibility from you gutless turds on Capital Hill.

3. An awesome-ass economy

4. The almost magical disipation of all social problems. That means no increases in poverty or unemployment.

5. And if you're going to privatise social security, you'd better protect the hell out of it from fraud, imbezzlement and other shenanigans

6. You'd better stay the hell out of my life and everyone elses.

After listening for 30 years how much better everything would be if the Republicans had a lock, they'd better fucking perform.

If you end up flushing our economy down the toilet (again?) and make everyone miserable with your creepy social agenda, you won't be able to blame the Democrats.

|11.3.04 @ 1:28PM|#

...getting drafted is a big deal. Getting thrown in a hole without being able to call a lawyer is a big deal. Having a gay couple live down the street is not a big deal. Equating the latter to the former in terms of importance is a bit nutty, no?

Not if there's almost no hope of the first two happening, and a much greater real possibility of the latter. In other words, what's a more important issue to vote on; something really bad that will probably never effect you or anyone you know, or something kinda bad that probably will/is affecting you? Not only that, but while it's no big deal to you, it kinda is a big deal to social conservatives. Cultural intolerance made the Left tone deaf to how big those issues would play.

|11.3.04 @ 1:28PM|#

"With no less than 11 states rushing to prohibit gay marriage, with Republicans themselves pinning the win on the increased turnout of their evangelical base, who tend to be, yes, anti-gay... sounds plausible to me."

If Democrats believe that their failings in this election had more to do with gay marriage than, I don't know, the seminal issue of our time, terrorism, they'll get swamped again in 2008.

Democrats did not offer a credible alternative to GWB on foreign policy. Kerry's position was "I wouldn't have done it but I would have done it better and with lots of allies support the troops." Bush, right or wrong, is headed somewhere.

|11.3.04 @ 1:37PM|#

good one from Atrios:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=atrios&comment=109949829605145101#1199295

|11.3.04 @ 1:37PM|#

Brian, terrorism is a giant, vitally important issue facing the country. If there was a widespread perception that Democrats could not provide adequate policies to address it, this election would have been a blowout. Ditto with Iraq.

Of course there were a people who thought Bush was dramatically better on these issues - they're the Republican base. There are also people who thought Kerry was dramatically better - the Democratic base and various lefty hangers-on. But the closeness of the election demonstrates that people who could be convinced did not decisively break either way.

trollpatrol, a distaste for writing other people's prejudices into law is an odd definition of "cultural intolerance."

I say live and let live, but I guess that makes me intolerant.

|11.3.04 @ 1:38PM|#

[gay couple down the street] something kinda bad that probably will/is affecting you

Remind me not to live on your street... never mind that it doesn't affect you in any goddamn way.

|11.3.04 @ 1:46PM|#

but it is bad! we might see them holding hands!

AND POOR LITTLE TIMMY WILL CATCH TEH GAY!!!!!!!!!!

|11.3.04 @ 1:56PM|#

"Brian, terrorism is a giant, vitally important issue facing the country. If there was a widespread perception that Democrats could not provide adequate policies to address it, this election would have been a blowout. Ditto with Iraq."

I agree with the flipside of that... if there was a widespread perception that Democrats *could* provide adequate policies to address it, it would have been a Dem blowout. Bush was vulnerable to a coherent opposition to his risky, poorly executed plan in Iraq. But there needed to be Plan B instead of No Plan.

When Kerry looked to be the winner according to exit polls, I wondered to myself what he would do in Iraq. The fact that I didn't know, and I've been paying a good amount of attention, is disturbing to me.

I'd like to see some numbers about turnout and the like, but Bush's ~4 million vote edge indicates to me that in general, undecideds went with the devil they know.

|11.3.04 @ 2:20PM|#

The win was a result of anti-gay bigots coming out in droves."

With no less than 11 states rushing to prohibit gay marriage, with Republicans themselves pinning the win on the increased turnout of their evangelical base, who tend to be, yes, anti-gay... sounds plausible to me.

Comment by: Patrick at November 3, 2004 12:53 PM


well, I am posting from the Sovereign State of Michigan, where we passed a no-gay-marriage proposal yet somehow went for Kerry all the same.

There are a lot of people in the "traditional" Democratic base who are pretty socially conservative (or just outright homophobic) - the Dems could have done a better job motivating them to vote.

In short, I blame the victim.

|11.3.04 @ 2:29PM|#

"I agree with the flipside of that... if there was a widespread perception that Democrats *could* provide adequate policies to address it, it would have been a Dem blowout."

Only if you assume that most people feel the Republicans don't have good policies to address it, which is not the case. One side doesn't blow out the other side on an issue when they are both perceived of being at least ok on it.

|11.3.04 @ 2:44PM|#

James W.,

Gay marriage kept places like Michigan close. Absent the "Kerry's going to turn your sons gay" argument, it would have been a blowout.

|11.3.04 @ 2:56PM|#

trollpatrol, a distaste for writing other people's prejudices into law is an odd definition of "cultural intolerance."

I say live and let live, but I guess that makes me intolerant.
No one has suggested banning homosexuality, merely not giving homosexuality equal status with other behaviour. A true distaste for not writing prejudices into law would support abolishing marriage outright, rather than merely creating another class of artificial social structure. Gay marriage merely extends the entitlement program that heterosexual couples enjoy to homosexuals. Yet note the dismissive attitudes and ad hominems heaped upon an opposing viewpoint in lieu of actual debate (see "AND POOR LITTLE TIMMY WILL CATCH TEH GAY!!!!!!!!!!" and "...never mind that it doesn't affect you in any goddamn way.") Not maintaining an open mind on issues is the epitome of intolerance, and just because you believe your opponent is closeminded doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to evaluate issues objectively and rationally. And even if the issue were a religious one, I was under the impression that in a libertarian utopia I had a right to discriminate and let the market give me my reward or comeupence. It doesn't effect me in any goddamn way? What a patently stupid statement. Okay, you see if selling a house in Athens GA is easier or harder with Siegfried and Roy living next door (but maybe it's because of the tigers roaming the lawn). Oh, I'm allowed to discriminate, but just not on the basis of something the groupthink doesn't hold as valid, like religion. Gotcha.

This is why the Dems lost this election, and libertarians never win anything. The holier than thou condescension that because you believe it to be the case anyone who doesn't is automatically an idiot or a bigot. That because it's unimportant to you it shouldn't be to anyone else. That you can ridicule and dismiss peoples concerns, beliefs and values and still expect them to vote for you. Yeah, that does make you intolerant.

|11.3.04 @ 2:59PM|#

Joe,

Kerry got crushed. No charisma plus no ideas plus wartime "me-too-ism" equals defeat. Oh, and he's also a blowhard.

He lost by 3,500,000 votes to a guy who had enough negatives to sink a Clinton or a Reagan. To a guy who's campaign consisted of repeating about 5 stock phrases.

The Dems need to put up someone like Harold Ford, Junior.

Why aren't you complaining about the tyranny of the Elis? It'll be 20 years of those goons in 2008.

|11.3.04 @ 3:07PM|#

well, I am posting from the Sovereign State of Michigan, where we passed a no-gay-marriage proposal yet somehow went for Kerry all the same.

Whammo. Righto- on the money. This is something that the Democrats vastly misunderstand, and why they've had so much trouble the last two decades, Clinton not withstanding. Clinton shrewdly recognized we are a largely conservative and fairly religious nation. Clinton was in the right place at the right time and won two elections with less than 50%. Clinton, to bolster his votes used the infamous 'third way' which Democrats won't even discuss amongst themselves.

There are people who will vote for Democrats every time for a wide ranging number of reasons- not all (or even many) of which have to do with socially liberal causes. Union voting blocks are FAAAAMOUS for this. Unions vote Democratic because of labor protections and pro-labor policies. After that, it's pretty much dead air. Sorry to offend some people here, but go to your local union hall and you will be surrounded by largely white, intolerant, religious conservative types, who don't have much use for gay issues, want Osama's head on a platter, think that the Middle East are all a bunch of terrorists, smoke heavily, drink more heavily, don't have much use for issues concerning race, but reliably vote Democrat EVERY single time.

This, in my opinion makes the Democratic party the highly factionalized, schizophrenic party it is.

Paul

|11.3.04 @ 3:18PM|#

James W.,

Gay marriage kept places like Michigan close. Absent the "Kerry's going to turn your sons gay" argument, it would have been a blowout.

Comment by: joe at November 3, 2004 02:44 PM


er - no.

in 2000- here were the results in MI:

Bush 1,953,139 Gore 2,170,418

would not call %51 a "blow out"

I am not claiming that evangelical Christians are not a factor - but they tend to be already a fairly motivated voting base.

Here is how the vote turned out this year:

Kerry 2,471,402 Bush 2,306,259

but the ballot proposal (do you want to ban Gay Marriage?)
No 1,901,817 Yes 2,685,859

(from cnn.com)

- so 189k more people voted for President than
for that initiative. And more than 300k voted "Yes" than voted for Bush - I think we can conclude that a lot of people pulled the lever for both this proposal and John Kerry.

Michigan is actually a fairly conservative state- except for the Detroit area. Which is why we were considered to be slightly "in play" by the Repubicans, despite having gone for Gore in 2000.

|11.3.04 @ 3:28PM|#

i am merely echoing an actual line of reasoning i've heard disseminated over the years. the idea is that timmy isn't going to be gay, except he's weak minded, and soon as he sees that gay people aren't vipers in the pit of moral decay, he'll catch it.

you can say that's condescending, and it is...to timmy.

but when someone tells me, with a straight face, that the sexual behavior and codification thereof in the form of a marriage certificate will affect their marriage, hundreds and thousands of miles away, i have no choice but to regard that person as a fucking idiot. if you like you can postulate some sort of non-local sexual magick effect from gay marriage, but your only compatriots will be OTO members and some bengali tantrics.

|11.3.04 @ 3:29PM|#

Okay, you see if selling a house in Athens GA is easier or harder with Siegfried and Roy living next door

Athens? A college town?! Try a little harder... Anyway, the dismissive attitudes and ad hominems heaped upon you for thinking in this manner are due to the growing acceptance in this country that gays are in fact a natural part of humanity, not merely a "behavior" to be feared and despised.

|11.3.04 @ 3:39PM|#

"Kerry got crushed."

Kerry got more votes than any presidential candidate had ever recieved prior to this year. He got over 250 electoral votes, and he lost by 3% of the vote in an election with remarkably high turnout. He did this against an incumbent president during wartime. You want crushed? McGovern got crushed. Mondale got crushed. Goldwater got crushed. Kerry did better than Ford, Dukakis, Bush Sr., or Dole. Kerry won all three debates, against a remarkably charasmatic candidate with low expectations. The results of this election were not even close to "crushed."

I agree, Harold Ford Jr. is the future. I could see Ford/Kerry or Kerry/Ford in four years. But looking at the plausible candidates this year, who do you think could have done as well as Kerry?

|11.3.04 @ 3:45PM|#

Joe, Joe so many things have you gotten wrong... it won't be Kerry/ANYTHING in the future. Kerry's done for. Yuo only get one chance to run for President, as a real candidate-Jesse jackson, Gus Hall, etc. aren't REAL candidates. Kerry had his chance, he lost, he's toast... and why would kerry be second banana to someone? AND why would someone choose him as such? No Joe, Mr. Ford may run, but all Kerry is going to do is to hang onto his seat in Mass.

|11.3.04 @ 3:56PM|#

There must be hundreds who could have done better than Kerry in the head to head with Bush but would have been buried by Kerry in the primary. Until reasonable Dems show up in greater numbers to vote in primaries, they will be stuck with weak candidates like Kerry and Gore. As long as they're running against weaklings, Repubs can win with inarticulate jackasses like Bush.

|11.3.04 @ 4:06PM|#

Yuo only get one chance to run for President, as a real candidate-Jesse jackson, Gus Hall, etc. aren't REAL candidates.

Joe L.

While I agree that Kerry's done, I disagree with the 'one chance' comment. Nixon, Reagan, Al Gore- all of whom made initially failed passes at the presidency. Gore eventually got in as a VP- and won the popular vote in 2000.

Paul

|11.3.04 @ 4:15PM|#

Actually Gore was INCREDIBLY lucky, he ran in 1988 and LOST TO DUKKAKIS, that ought to hvae given a warning.... So he did run for Pres. twice, BUT if it hadn't been for Clinton he would never have been viable...I had forgotten about Nixon, though. Good point.

Still I think it is true that you only get one bite at the apple. Gore went nowhere in 2004, you have lost once, why risk my money on a loser, just seems to hang over a candidate.

It'll haunt Edwards in 2008. He declined to run for his own Senate seat, that says VOLUMES there, and he LOST to Kerry, I mean John Kerry had more charisma than you? Plus, in his case he'll be buried by Hillary in 2008, IF he runs. He'd have to wait until 2012 or 2016 and then it'll be John WHO?

|11.3.04 @ 4:21PM|#

The Kerry was a bad candidate meme is not very telling. Bush is a horrifically bad candidate. Having policies foisted on your country which you don't agree with is one thing. Having it done by someone who can't put a coherent sentence together half of the time is quite another. Really fires up the opponents base.

There are 2 good candidtates on the national scene, Obama and McCain. McCain will be the GOP nominee in 2008, and Obama the Dem nominee in 2012, (after Hilary loses in 08) or in 2016 after another interim Kerryesque loser gets beaten, depending on how well McCain ages.

As for gay marriage, I don't know why the Dems hung themselves on that. It was still clear to Clinton that he had to sign the defence of marriage act. Not that many old timers have died off since then. The man knew politics.

|11.3.04 @ 4:29PM|#

JDM, I'd make book that the Republican cnadidate in 2008 ain't McCain:
1) One the Party's base don't like him and apparently its reciprocated
2) He's run once and lost, and I refer you to my theory in the above post.

|11.3.04 @ 4:35PM|#

Joe L.

So he did run for Pres. twice, BUT if it hadn't been for Clinton he would never have been viable...I had forgotten about Nixon, though. Good point.

I'm not trying to rub salt in, really, but you only conceded half my point. You conceded Nixon, but didn't concede Reagan. And, I'll bet there are others that I just haven't thought of, or know about. Reagan ran in 76 AND 68.

Hardly a 'one byte that apple' concept.

|11.3.04 @ 4:54PM|#

every time i hear of bush referred to as a textbook authoritarian (or something near that) i think back to a picture i saw of the nyc protests. it was a group of kids holding a 20 ft banner which read "THIS IS WHAT A POLICE STATE LOOKS LIKE" while 20 cops, bored and chatting with each other, stood behind them.

I know those people. They're all friends of mine. Sick, savage fucks. They are all just waiting to get you home to their hippy encampment, and take your kidneys, plus ice for the long glider ride to various clinics in the Dominican Republican. On the bright side, ask about dialysis coupons.

Ok, so I made that up... But seriously, coupons for dialysis? YEAH RIGHT! Maybe in a real free market, but they'd probably write them on recycled sandpaper anyway. That'd be lame like tofu hotdogs, or marching around in stupid masks all day only to receive lukewarm water with bits of what they claim is from "tea" but looks suspicious like dirt or maybe bits of a crumpled tobacco leaf blunt wrap in the "water." I remember thinking/fearing: "Yeah, sure, Blaxploitation Jones and his overly enthusiastic sidekick, Mother Pagan Posseses Penis. I hate those guys.

he's a textbook boring ass, middle of the road politician.

See, while I may not have slept in... Hmmm... Three days or so (not the worst by far, but still beginning to run a little low on non-psychosis states of ...anything), I think I can safely stand by my original labelling of Bush as a textbook authoritarian.

In fact, time will dictate whether or not he gets his promotion to: Textbook Facist. He'll need a cool uniform first, though. Suit won't cut it, damnit.

Look, like I said (either here or elsewhere, I forget), I didn't say it caused I liked the word, or the way it rolled off the tongue and leaked onto the keyboard. I said it because Bush is quite literally a textbook authoritarian. The evidence is here for all to see, and I'll display what I put in for the criteria off the top of my head, I don't even want to begin getting into any gritty relevant details much beyond this, but anyway...

My [not overly subjective, I think] criteria for a textbook authoritarian (Note: Attempting to purposely be broad and apparent in order to prod more semantical opportunities, if any worth exploring, or at least cracking a joke on.):

[Magical tip and opportunity for coherent version of the below text regurgitation: Read Matt Welcho's article on what happens now that Bush has lost his chains and an ankle or gained an ankle, or whatever. Just read that if you find yourself going "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY MAN." I don't expect this to be a beautiful, effortless, document... or even properly checked for errors.]

-He [Bush] undermines civil liberties, in the "whey" fucking extreme, with little sugar coating. Obviously. Doubt anyone will disagree here, of course.

-He endorses big government, and cares little for independent voices, or even the principles of his own party that he and fellow Neocon traitors didn't carve out themselves.

-He has some undeniable level of acceptance for gun control at a level which we types over here in the Libertarian swing of things still find abhorrently Rosie O'Mingemole[-ing] in nature, and equally oversized. Both in overall proportion, and mingemolary, too, I suppose.

-He supports the war on drugs, which I some day hope will, in and of itself, implode with such anger all around its collapse and exposure as a complete farce (plus, the sole cause of any real substance abuse propagation, aside, perhaps from Alcohol, and perhaps Opium here and there). The WoD, what it's done, where it's gone to do it, how it does these things, etc, etc. constitutes multiple acts of flat out treason within itself. When there is finally the huge backlash against it, I can't say how much I hope those leading the charge for the WoD are treated in court like thoe who passed sensitive info along to the enemy (much along the same guidelines as swapping bank account details with Al Qaeda currently does). I'm not saying it will, but I hope it does. In any case, it's yet another stereotypical button on the times new roman font authoritarian control panel. A control panel as grey as that analogy!

Oh, and as for my choice of words- I couldn't think of anything less redundant. Gimmie something better, and I'll see if I can run with it, or at least get lunch money out of it for a few comments or some such business.

So much for markets.

Markets are more like what Democracy fakes. They are structured in with evolutionary features that allow them to continue improving their very being while remaining dynamic, blah blah blah, and so on and blah fourth.

Going to?

Guilty as charged, and oh god, am I charged like like a rich guy's credit card in the hands of a young, left-wing college student at the Cannabis Cup in the Netherlands.

However, thanks to my hobbies, and soon to be profession (bwahaha, if only some of you knew), injections are quite simple for me to do safely and without worry.

Add a dash of moderation and the Methedrine Face remains a MASTER of DISGUISE, among other neat skills and such stuffs. :->

GOODLAY(s), TO YOU(s) SIR(s)

|11.3.04 @ 4:55PM|#

Having it done by someone who can't put a coherent sentence together half of the time is quite another. Really fires up the opponents base.

Obviously. Whole lot of good it did Kerry. The Democrats have pushed themselves into an 'all base, all the time' category. ONe does not get elected by their base, alone.

Paul

|11.3.04 @ 4:56PM|#

Anyway, the dismissive attitudes and ad hominems heaped upon you for thinking in this manner are due to the growing acceptance in this country that gays are in fact a natural part of humanity, not merely a "behavior" to be feared and despised.

Apparently not growing fast enough. As to the "fact" that "gays are a...natural part of humanity" would you care to prove it? As in show objective scientific proof that it's a genetic trait. I'm not arguing that it is or isn't, just that until a definative conclusion is reached you're relying on faith as much as the next guy. Growing acceptance doesn't prove squat. You call the Thought Police on me, I'll call the Logic Cops on you.

That also conveniantly dodges the fact that true libertarian principle doesn't compell me to act in anything other than my best interest. Therefore so what if Athens is a college town? It's a college town in a state that just passed a measure banning gay marriage 3 to 1. Unless you can show that those voters didn't mean what they voted for (did them accidently punch "ban gay marriage" when they meant to check "grown to accept it" - Damn you, butterfly ballots!), it looks like a significant number of people in GA wouldn't want the neighbors I proposed, thus lowering the potential value of my theoretical property. Therefore since it could very well affect a voter's life who the hell are you to tell him what issues he should or shouldn't vote on?

Oh yeah, the guy that just lost an election.

"As for gay marriage, I don't know why the Dems hung themselves on that. It was still clear to Clinton that he had to sign the defence of marriage act. Not that many old timers have died off since then."

Yeah, only what 75%? of Americans identify as some form of Christian. Better than a third of them are evangelicals. Your ethnic base constituency trends overwhelmingly religious. Nothing turns out the vote like telling them their beliefs don't matter. I wouldn't be suprised if Bush got better than 20 percent of the AA vote, esp. in the South.

|11.3.04 @ 5:05PM|#

Joe,

I say crushed because he should have won pulling away but lost like the '04 Yankees.

Hell, Bush lost by 2.2 million or so in NY and CA and this goon can't win?

He couldn't win Ohio?

"Until reasonable Dems show up in greater numbers to vote in primaries, they will be stuck with weak candidates like Kerry and Gore. As long as they're running against weaklings, Repubs can win with inarticulate jackasses like Bush."

Thanks TWBA

So maybe choked woulda been better. And LP, you could take TWBA's advice too, as could the CA RP.

|11.3.04 @ 5:33PM|#

The natural state of the english language is chaos.

Or... Wait...

...Is it the brain?

Maybe it's the brain's english?

Does the brain speak vernacular?

Oh my....

|11.3.04 @ 6:05PM|#

The natural state of the english language is chaos.
Or... Wait...
...Is it the brain?
Maybe it's the brain's english?

Neither, it's the Queens English... or wait, is the the Queen's brain?

Now I'm totally confused.

Paul

|11.3.04 @ 7:10PM|#

Randi Rhodes on Air America blamed Diebold today - wow, the vitriolic hatred that lost the election just doesn't stop with the hardcore!!

Tax-free HSA's, social security reform, and semi-permanent tax cuts, here we come..

|11.3.04 @ 8:18PM|#

Now we know why you're Methedrine Face. How long since you saw that pillow, anyway?

"There must be hundreds who could have done better than Kerry in the head to head with Bush but would have been buried by Kerry in the primary. Until reasonable Dems show up in greater numbers to vote in primaries, they will be stuck with weak candidates like Kerry and Gore." This is, of course, hardly unique to the Democrats. Think Bush beating McCain, or Lugar polling in the low nothings.

Joe L., Edwards' loss to Kerry in primaries had zero to do with charisma. Democratic voters picked Kerry because he looked and sounded presidential/electable, and because his military background and record in the Senate made him credible on foreign affairs and the military. If Democratic primaries were about charisma, we'd have nominated Sharpton.

JDM, "Bush is a horrifically bad candidate." We actually agree on something. Unfortunately, we appear to be a distinct minority of the electorate, most of whom find him likeable, charismatic, and want to have a beer with him.

Paul, if you think Kerry was the candidate of the Democratic base, you don't know the Democratic base. Kerry's entire Iraq War campaign was one big Sister Souljah moment to much of the Democratic base.

Fabius, I'm curious, what makes you think Kerry should have won easily? Against a sitting wartime president with high personal approval ratings?

|11.3.04 @ 8:59PM|#

Joe L.,

1) The party's "base" will be redefined as whoever gets behind, or can be strung together by, the best candidate. It will magically morph into whatever coalition supports the candidate most likely to win. Pro-warish Kerry got massive support from the anti-war democratic base. This is more pronounced if there is a more obvious choice, like McCain.

2) Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I.

|11.3.04 @ 11:30PM|#

Joe:

He wasn't the candidate of the base. But it was the base that voted for him out of hatred for Bush. Nader voters (the reeeeeal Dem base) who voted in droves here in seattle 2000, all switched back to Kerry. But I admit, it had less to do with Kerry than to do with Bush.

I also have theories about this election- too deep to go into here- but Kerry's not entirely responsible for losing this election. The democratic base holds a large part of the blame.

Paul

|11.4.04 @ 1:27AM|#

Bush's improvment over 2000 in 2004 in states with marriage initiatives on the ballot:

Keep in mind he improved by 4 points nationally.

Pay special attention to Ohio, the state in question.

Arkansas +3.6
Georgia +6.3
Kentucky +4.9
Michigan +2.1
Mississippi +3.1
Montana +4.0
North Dakota +0.4
Ohio -1.5
Oklahoma +10.1
Oregon -4.6
Utah +3.5

Those choosing to spend the next 4 years clinging to the notion that Bush won because of anti-gay turnout will be doing so counterfactually.

|11.4.04 @ 1:37AM|#

If that's not clear, Bush won Arkansas by 9 in 2004, 5.4 in 2000, so his impovement is +3.6.

Also, I used msnbc's numbers for 2004, which were rounded to whole numbers, and had to load the 2000 data into the Excel to get the percentages, so there is a little rounding error from using one less precice set.

Lastly, I'm not normally pathetic enough to crunch numbers for a web post, I'm stuck in a hotel room.

|11.4.04 @ 4:30AM|#

Brian Cook, that Kos posting is so freaky I'm willing to believe it's from a freeper trying to stir things up.

|11.4.04 @ 9:50AM|#

JDM - you failed to isolate your variables. Michigan and Ohio, in particular, saw severe economic loss over the past four years.

There's just no getting around the fact that 1/5 of Bush voters identitied "moral values" as their biggest issue.