A Pilgrim's Digression

OK, we lost Ohio, the question is why?

Time to briefly revisit Election 2004. Enough time has passed to thoughtfully examine one of the key rationalizations proposed immediately after the election to explain Kerry’s loss. Did Bush win based on “moral issues?”

In an article titled, Okay, We Lost Ohio. The Question Is, Why?, Democratic operative Steve Rosenthal lays to rest, probably once and for all, the myth that “morals” and an influx of Christian Evangelical voters into the voting booths tipped the balance of the election towards George W. Bush. I have read other articles proposing that “morals” did not play such an important factor in Kerry’s loss; this is the first article I’ve read that lays out a systematic, statistical analysis of how this idea is founded on falsehoods.

However attractive it might be to scapegoat the 2004 loss on ignorant, bigoted Christians, Rosenthal finds that in Ohio, the percentage of the regularly church-going electorate who voted actually declined to 40 percent from 45 percent in 2000.

He goes on to explode a few other myths that Democrats have used to explain Bush’s astounding win in Ohio. Rosenthal’s conclusion is that “The reason Kerry lost the election had much more to do with the war in Iraq and terrorism than the political ground war in Ohio. Terrorism trumped other issues at the polls�including moral values�and anxious voters tended to side with Bush.” The implication is that Bush took away some voters who were Gore supporters in 2000, enough to beat what was otherwise a flawless Democratic ground game in Ohio.

Voters did not see Kerry providing a clear, strong alternative, either on Iraq or on domestic issues, Rosenthal concludes. Democrats should pay attention to the lesson of Rosenthal’s findings: anti-war anger was not enough to win the Presidency; although considering the margin of victory was a mere 136,000 votes, it was almost enough. However that may be, next time, Democrats must have a message, a vision. Democrats cannot be simply an opposition party. They must be an opposition party with an attractive alternative.

Case of ear worm today: “Let the rivers run,” Carly Simon.

As I was dressing for work this morning, I had the radio tuned to an AM station and this song was used in a commerical selling computers. I am not sure what the connection is between lyrics such as “come the New Jerusalem” and the sale of computers, unless one believes in the redemptive power of technology.

Yesterday, my evening train was crowded. I stood beside two young men holding Bush-Cheney signs. Perhaps these boys were fresh from Bush’s victory speech. One wore khakis and a white shirt and tie and a brown tweed blazer. The other wore khakis and a white shirt and tie and a gray tweed blazer. Mr. Gray wore an ND (Notre Dame?) pin in his lapel. The two young men were smiling, quite happy, as they discussed the election.

Apparently referring to an earlier incident, Mr. Brown said, “How about that asshole, said ‘I hope you get your yuppie asses drafted.’”

Mr. Gray said, “Ignorant jerk. Who’s a yuppie anyway? Does that even have any meaning anymore?”

They both were still smiling. “I don’t know. But nothing can bring me down today,” Mr. Brown said, “Not even that. We win, they lose. I can’t imagine any greater validation. They can just eat shit for all I care.”

They continued in this vein for the remainder of their train ride. Other commuters were looking at them, none too friendily. Mr. Brown and Mr. Grey got off at the Brookland-CUA (Catholic University of America) stop. And the train travelled on.

I hope they get their yuppie asses drafted.

Rush Limbaugh’s morning affirmation this morning essentially repeated what the two boys said on the train. Maybe they heard it from Limbaugh himself yesterday. No, make that probably they heard it from Limbaugh.

Every morning around six, the AM radio station WMAL out of Silver Spring, Maryland, plays a brief clip of Rush Limbaugh commenting on the news or recent events. Today, Limbaugh’s morning message was just four words, the same ones Mr. Brown spoke on the train: “We win, you lose.” The words were delivered as an “open letter” to liberals. Addressees included the two Johns and a wide range of others, from Kofi Annan to celebrities such as Madonna.

Other examples of unabashed gloating: Adam Yoshida, Four more years: AKA Take That You Sons Of Bitches. This was a blog mentioned in the Washington Post this morning. Apparently it is a blog that is popular with conservatives, probably because of the fellow’s last name. “This feller sounds Chai-nese. We don’t get too many a them in our party. Let’s exploit him!”

Ah well, let them gloat. This must be how Democrats felt in ’84 when Mondale lost to Reagan. At least Kerry’s loss was not a landslide like that, but the Republicans sure are playing up the fact that Bush won the largest popular majority in the history of our Republic. I wonder if they feel any shame for having achieved that majority by putting the exclusion of gays from marriage rights on the ballot? Of course they don’t.

Do you think when pundits refer to Bush’s win as the largest popular majority any President has ever received, do they take into account population growth? Or do they just use the raw figures from this and past elections to make their case? Someone better at math than I am should do some statistical analysis and prove whether Bush really did win the biggest popular vote in our history. When adjusted for differences in population, I would imagine George Washington must have received near unananimous support from voters, which would out-match Bush’s win yesterday.

I’ve heard of ear worm, but what about mind worm? A passage of poetry repeating over and over in my mind: “Apeneck Sweeny spreads his knees.”

I think it was suggested by the rythmic similarity to “Casey at the Bat,” which was also in my mind this morning. “Mighty Casey has struck out.”

Despite my advice to not pay much attention to the news, I have throughout the morning managed to skim all the news sites I usually visit. At “The Corner” at National Review Online, blogger KJL posted this asinine comment:

Need thanks too—SwiftVets. And, as Kate said last night, Kerry concession—when it comes—is the Vietnam Vets parade they never got.

I emailed the following in response:

re: your comments about Kerry’s concession being the Swift Vets’ “parade.” Someone needs to piss on that parade. One pet peeve I have is someone who takes delight in other people’s misfortunes.

At the “Kerry Spot” at National Review, the bloggers there are also giving the Swifties credit for the Bush victory.

Why do I torture myself by reading the gloatings of these asses? Must be the Catholic in me. But what sin am I trying to expiate with this self-flaggelation?

Some more things to look forward to in coming days and months: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is due out on DVD November 23.

Return of the King Extended Edition is due out December 14. Extended edition? Oh yes. For all those whose bums felt that three and a half hours was too little time to spend watching the sexual tension grow thicker between Frodo and Sam.

An article on Slate I find to be true to a fault: Simple but effective: why you keep losing to this idiot.

Kristof in the New York Times is also quite good: Living poor, voting rich.

Is there no balm in Gilead? Reading the news today is like self-mutilating with a razor blade, but you know, people self-mutilate for a reason: they believe there is redemption in pain. Maybe they are right. We’ve a lot to reflect on and learn, Folks.

psalm 137

…for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy … (Psalm 137:1-3)

I went to bed last night about ten P.M. with the election still very much undecided. The mood had changed, however. When I first turned on Fox at around 6:30, the conservatives were nervous. Exit polls were not favorable. For much of the half hour until seven, Mort Kondrake, Fred Barnes, Juan Williams, and Bill Kristol were doing what amounted to a post-mortem on the Bush campaign. What went wrong? When did the tide turn against Bush? General agreement was that it was the Iraq war that had sunk the Bush presidency. Or rather, it was the lack of WMD in Iraq that had sunk the Bush presidency. The pundits agreed that if the central rationale for the war had panned out, Bush would be in much better shape on election night.

When I went to bed at ten, the story had changed. Ohio and Florida were far from being decided, but Bush was ahead slightly in both. There was already a feeling that the victory was slipping away from Kerry. However, I thought Kerry would at least close the gap in Ohio by morning.

I did not sleep well or long last night. I woke before three and listened to the radio a little. Gradually, I woke up even more, as the news became clearer to my mind. The tone of the NPR reporters’ voices, the way they were talking about the Kerry campaign as if victory were now an impossibility …

I lay like that for an hour, finally giving up at four. I had heard everything I needed to hear. I got a shower, shaved, and went downstairs for breakfast. I had some oatmeal and juice, and I watched MSNBC, hoping the story was not so dire. It was indeed really so dire.

On the way to work in the pre-dawn hours this morning, I tried to think of what I would write here. I did not want to write anything, but writing is therapy, and I resort to it in good times and bad, like some people resort to alochol or drugs. However, even now, after a few hours of reflection, I just don’t know what to offer my readers today, whether it be consolation, defiance, anger, or bitterness. I feel all of those things, except consoled.

As I waited at the bus stop at 5:30, I thought perhaps I ought to be conciliatory. Bush won. I could say that I hope that history finds that those of us who supported Kerry were wrong, and that Bush did indeed have the correct vision for this country. I’d rather that I be wrong in my choice than that future historians should judge this first decade of the century as a great moral and political calamity. I could say that. I would not necessarily feel it, but I could say that I hope I was wrong and that Bush is right. “For the sake of the country,” to use that old cliché.

I can’t say what I don’t really believe, though. There is no joy in Mudville.

I could express my anger. That would be much easier. I am angry. I read today about the Bush campaign’s “irritation” that Kerry hasn’t conceded yet, and I think to myself, “Ah yes, that’s the Bush I remember from the 2000 election fight.” Andrew Card came out around 5:45 this morning and declared victory for Bush, even though technically he does not have the 270 electoral votes needed, and technically his opponent hasn’t conceded. That is quintessential Bush 2000 as well. Say you are the victor, act like you are the victor, and soon enough, people will believe you are the victor. It also reminds me of the “Mission Accomplished” joke. Saying a thing makes it so, for George Bush. George Bush reminds me of a quote attributed to Churchill, who supposedly said of Montgomery, the victor at el Alamein in World War II: (paraphrase)”In defeat unbeatable; in victory insufferable.”

So I am angry. Something else that keeps playing over in my mind is how all those self-righteous, officious pricks like Pat Robertson can now say, “See, we told you God had chosen George Bush to lead this country. George Bush is blessed by God.” It’s childish of me, I know, but I really wanted to see them proved wrong. I wanted it not only for my own satisfaction, but for their own growth as human beings as well, as silly as that sounds. Sometimes people need to be forced to realize that they do not know the mind of God, despite what they think.

Bitter? I’m bitter, too, if you can’t tell. No need to explain that one. Walking up here to work in the darkness, the wind whipping up and down First Street—for it is very windy today in Washington, which I suppose will occasion some mention of the “winds of change” in a Bush victory speech he may deliver today—the people walking with me were utterly silent. Before that, on the bus, silence. On the train, silence, too. And I thought, this is surreal, this is some nightmare and soon I’ll wake up. No, if it’s a nightmare, it’s going to be four years long, I’m sorry to say.

Instead of of focusing on all the negative emotions, here is what I propose for salving the psychological pain of this election. In the next day or two, it is essential to find something else to focus on. I’d suggest the following:

• A potentially good movie is coming out tomorrow, The Incredibles. Go see it.
• Listen to music all day; tune in to the news as briefly as possible.
• Read something literary and far removed from the present: 19th century Romantic poetry, Shakespeare.
• Play a video game, preferably a shooter, until your eyes weep for reasons other than the election. You might also feel better playing something with a noble theme in which the good guys win, like one of the Lord of the Rings video games.
• The Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle Earth RPG game is shipping. Buy it and submit yourself to it for a good long time.
• A new episode of Lost is on ABC tonight. Look forward to it.
• Go spend money on something you’ve really been wanting

In short, we all need some escape right now. Any one of these things are a potential mood lifter. If anyone has any further suggestions to add to my list, feel free to add to it in the comments.

Outlook 2004: Tucker Carlson

I won’t be posting much more today, maybe not at all. I expect to watch election returns until at least ten, by which time the trend of the election should be clear enough. Then it’s off to bed for me.

Everything I read says this election is not going into overtime. The campaigns themselves seem to believe that the election will be decided tonight after all, as Keith Olbermann reports. The high voter turnout seems to work in favor of a decisive winner tonight. Gee, no wonder the GOP fear turnout.

Before I sign off for the day, I came across this tidbit in a Washington Post on-line chat with Tucker Carlson. Carlson hints at division within the Republican party if Bush loses. Nevermind Carlson’s endearing typos. Consider them idiosyncracies, like his cute bowties.

Woodberry Forest, Va.: There are definite signs of cracking in the union between old-guard Republicans, neocons, and evangelicals. Will the GOP be more divided by a Bush victory or a Kerry victory?

Tucker Carlson: Definitely by a Kerry victory. One of the great unwritten stories of the last four years is the degree to which the Bush White House controls the Republican Party. There is dissent within the party, but it almost never gets aired publicly. That’ll change is Bush loses.

Carlson goes on to say that if Kerry loses, the Democrat party will basically cease to exist. A new party will have to rise from its ashes, one that has more to offer America than mere Bush hatred. I don’t disagree with that final conclusion at all.

National Review’s bloggers offer an interesting perspective on election day. The leftie and the rightie take turns panicking. Check out The Corner.

Exit polls are starting to come in. It is almost three of the clock, after all. By four, things will really be cranking.

Drudge reports that the first exit polls look good for Kerry. National Review says the same, adding that Kerry looks to be up in Florida right now.

I am trying not to get carried away with my posting today, because I know I won’t be able to keep it up into the night. But …

The Talking Points Memo has the scoop on the “bogus” Philadelphia voter fraud story Drudge posted first thing this morning. Drudge has since bumped the story to just another link on his page.

Imagine that, Matt Drudge jumping to conclusions before knowing all the facts.

Zogby’s final presidential tracking poll has Bush and Kerry tied in Pennsylvania and Virginia. Virginia! That may seem unbelievable, but this year I’ve seen support for Kerry in Virginia I never saw for Gore. If Kerry loses Pennsylvania but picks up Virginia, that would be quite an upset. I imagine Kerry is doing quite well in urban Northern Virginia, but even in rural Southwest, I’ve seen more Kerry signs and bumper stickers than I ever saw Gore paraphernalia in 2000.

It’s simply too early for me to get excited. I am feeling optimistic, but it’s too early. I just know the crash is going to come. There’s got to be some bad news out there for Kerry today. Maybe being tied with Bush in Pennsylvania is the bad news.

Two cents is about all it’s worth, too. Limbaugh is being upbeat today, in contrast with yesterday. I swear I don’t know where these people get their information sometimes.

I almost choked on my sandwich: Limbaugh said that the final Zogby poll has Bush polling above 50% all of a sudden, after weeks of a “tie.” Limbaugh says the pollsters are now making corrections for their previous pro-Kerry polls, so they don’t look foolish when Bush wins tonight.

Well, check it out for yourself. Does it look like Zogby is predicting a Bush victory to you?

Throughout the day, I am going to be listening to conservative talk radio, Boortz and Hannity in the morning, Limbaugh in the afternoon. I think a better gauge of how the election is going can be gained from listening to the partisans than the “objective” media who are afraid of making a wrong call or being too inadvertently enthusiastic or (alternately) down in the dumps.

Boortz is convinced Kerry is going to win. A few minutes ago, he became involved in an argument with his call screener, Royal Marshall, an African-American who sometimes substitutes for him when he is on vacation. I mention Marshall’s race only because it is significant that Marshall was the voice of moderation and reason.

Boortz said explicitly that a vote for Kerry was no different than taking up an RPG and lobbing a grenade at a humvee. Marshall rather angrily challenged him on this, pointing out that Boortz was making the same kind of extreme statements as those Bush haters who believe that George Bush is an evil, tyrannical dictator. In response, Boortz tried to split hairs by saying that he had never called Kerry “evil,” he had just said Kerry was bad for America. Marshall just laughed at this, apparently because of the absolute ridiculousness of Boortz’s point.

Boortz went on to say that if Kerry does win tonight, tomorrow, Boortz will gird for a four year-long war against the Kerry administration. Marshall responded by making a very reasoned case for how Boortz was planning a kind of opposition no different than what he accuses the Democrats of organizing against Bush. Marshall pointed out that America is divided; how does Boortz’s threat of a propaganda civil war heal the divide?

Boortz said he would not oppose “good policy,” only “bad policy.” Naturally, he does not expect any good policy to flow from the Kerry administration. He ended by minimizing Marshall’s cogent arguments as those of someone playing devil’s advocate. He said that sometimes he has to let Marshall express himself for his mental health.

The two men seem to have a friendly relationship, though it is hard to imagine why or how.

Limbaugh is coming on at noon. Yesterday, he sounded depressed about the state of the campaign. Every talker I’ve listened to is shocked and depressed that Bush has not picked up any momentum. How could a liberal like Kerry poll at above 40%?

Hannity is also reporting that a Kerry victory seems likely. It will all hinge on voter turnout. Funny how Republicans always speak of such an outcome as somehow illegitimate. It looks like Bush will be “swamped” by turnout in urban areas, Hannity says. Of course in the Heartland, the “real” America, Bush will win, but it won’t be enough.

Lines are long at the polls and reportedly, some people are walking away. Boortz seems to think the people walking away are Republicans. So according to him, Democrats stay away because of bad weather; Republicans are busy people and leave because they don’t have the time to spare. It’s all a Democrat dirty trick, you see. Democrats flood the polls with voters, probably unregistered or illegally registered, and thus Republicans get tired of waiting and go to work.

Matt Drudge is already alleging voter fraud in Philadelphia. No source, other than “poll watchers.”

Watch for it: if the day goes badly for Bush, fraud will become the story in the conservative media. Will the GOP tie up the election in the legal process, if Bush loses? It would be the ultimate irony if they did, since they accuse Democrats of being the litigious ones who cannot win an election legitimately.