Let’s congratulate Bob Shrum.
He has just presided over his eighth losing presidential campaign. And he’s considered the Democrats’ “best” strategist.
Perhaps they should re-think.
As I predicted, on election day, the evangelicals turned out in record numbers, and they voted for Bush. One-quarter of the electorate–11.7 million people–were self-identified “born-again Christians.” Seventy-eight percent of them voted for Bush. That constituted somewhere between 59 and 78% of the born again population. The only demographic groups that gave the president a higher percentage of their vote were Republicans (93%) and Conservatives (84%)–neither of which merits a headline.
But the evangelical vote is definitely something to write home about. More to the point, it’s something to write George Barna about.
George Barna is a man who is going to become very, very popular in the near future.
Who is George Barna, you ask?
He’s the founder and director of the Barna Group, Ltd., a former pastor, a graduate of Boston University, recipient of two masters’ degrees from Rutgers and a doctorate from Dallas Baptist University.
He’s also the man who has, for decades, been compiling every imaginable statistic concerning evangelical Christians.
He knows all about us–our politics, our opinions, what we think of our pastors, what our future pastors think of us, how strongly pastors and congregations feel about a variety of topics, how many of us there are, and which issues activate us.
If I were a politician–especially a Democrat, hoping to hold on to a seat or get one in 2006, or even aspiring to win the Big One in 2008–I would sure be trying to get this guy’s cell number. Better than any other pollster, pundit, or media maven, Barna has his finger on the pulse of the born-again voter–and has had since before anyone thought there was any life in it. His treasure-trove of trivia is now worth its weight in gold, but he won’t be working for Hillary anytime soon.
You see, while his information is public knowledge, and all you have to do is do a little internet digging or buy one of his books, his services are not available to just anyone. Barna has five divisions, and they work for churches. The ultimate goal of the corporation is to bring about the spiritual transformation of the United States–by which we might mean something like the Jesusland map that Michael Moore finds so spooky.
But, whether you approve of his hopes for a renaissance of reformative evangelical Christianity, the facts at his fingertips are undeniably solid. Over the years, he has written 35 books on various trends in the Christian community, and pastors of virtually every evangelical denomination swear by his evaluations of the spiritual climate in America.
Ever since the election, puzzled Democrat leaders have been trying to figure out how to “talk to” these mysterious “values voters.”
As the saying goes, they should ask the man who owns one.
RECOMMENDED READING:
Monday, November 15, 2004
DON'T ROCK THAT VOTE--JUST GIVE IT A GOOD TALKING-TO!
I was reading some depressed Kerryite blogging today. It’s amazing how arrogant these people really are. I thought I had seen unsupportable arrogance in college, but this election tops everything.
They are describing themselves as a “fledgling democracy movement,” as though evangelicals are the Chinese government and they are willing sacrifices going under the tanks at Tiannemen Square. They feel as though their “lives have been stolen” from them. They “can’t believe it’s happened.” They are “afraid to graduate and look for work in a nation like this.”
How disconnected from reality can one be?
The fact is, this is the same country it was the day before the election. The business climate is the same. Did these radical youth think that, if Kerry won, Wall Street and the other places they want to work would suddenly fill with benevolent pro-environment employers offering free health care to them and their gay partners? Did they not know what the world around them was like?
No, they didn’t. The mainstream media betrayed them, by perpetuating the image in their heads of what “real” Americans were like. If you watched enough Dan Rather, you would think the nation was chock-full of angry young voters, radical people of color, feminist women, and gay couples.
But that’s not true.
What’s true is that the biggest identifiable constituency groups in the Democratic party are media members, Hollywood entertainers, and academics. And there aren’t enough of them to populate Providence, Rhode Island–much less win an American election.
The intensity with which the vote-rockers threw themselves into beating the Bushies was breathtaking. They should get an A for effort, as they tried every slick and creative new way they could think of to get their man elected.
But the problem is that elections are decided by voters, and they didn’t get enough. The complexity of their efforts to win a game that boils down to a lean, mean ground game reminds me of the scene in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom where Jones is attacked by a sword-wielding assassin who shrieks and pivots and flourishes menacingly–until Indy just takes out his gun and shoots him dead.
Ordinary and efficient beats fancy and foolish every time.
Unfortunately, that’s not an avenue open to the electorate (even if we got a law passed, you can bet the Courts would never let it stand.) So, we’re going to have to put up with this for a while. I was prepared for a bit of a letdown to course through the bloodstreams of the valiant vote-rockers, maybe a week or so before they got bored, took midterms, and went home for Thanksgiving Break.
But, after seeing the outpouring of apparent grief, disillusionment, suicidal and homicidal ideation that has flooded the airwaves and the internet since the election, I’m really beginning to think there’s something seriously wrong with some fraction of 48% of the country.
This is not the way grown-ups lose an election. This is the way two-year olds lose the privilege of watching yet another episode of “Dora the Explorer.”
It shouldn’t come as that much of a surprise, though, considering that exit polls show that the only age group Kerry won a majority of (constituting 17% of the electorate) was the 29 and under crowd. Every other–EVERY other–age group went to the President (30-44 by 53/46; 45-59 by 51/48; and sixty-plus by 54/46.) One wonders what the results would have looked like, were it not for the misguided Vietnam-era sop to the college students that allows 18-year olds to vote. Despite the fact that they are generally still thinking like high school students–and those in college are considered so irresponsible that the college or university takes responsibility for them ("in loco parentis")–still, since they could be sent against their will to Vietnam, the Congress and the people decided to roll the dice and let them vote.
And look what happens.
Rather than graciously accepting defeat, those wacky young people are saturating the internet with conspiracy theories, dark threats, angry editorial cartoons, bitterness, rage, and resistance. It seems they have so little to do in their ordinary lives that they have endless time to forward email and fabricate plots.
Since the folk-singer vote went so heavily to Kerry, I suppose we can expect to be hearing about “two stolen elections” for years and years to come. No doubt, the button and bumper sticker industry will continue to boom, as they produce more and more clever variations on “Bush lied” (what rhymes with “stolen?") And, of course, since they know where their interests lie, the tenured radicals will continue to teach the young (even the 45% of them that voted for Bush) that their government is illegitimate and their leadership to be resisted.
Strange as it may sound, the voters of 1960 should thank their lucky stars for Richard Nixon. Had he not refused to sue over the results of the Texas and Illinois votes, it is entirely likely that John F. Kennedy would never have been president. And those who voted for Kerry should be grateful for Nixon’s good grace, too–since without John Kennedy and Vietnam, there would never have been a John Kerry to agitate on behalf of.
But instead of imitating their candidate (who, to his everlasting credit, had the class to bow out gracefully), the Kerry voters are still hanging on to the almost nonexistent hope that provisional ballots in Ohio–or maybe the panhandle votes in Florida–or maybe one of Nader’s lawsuits–or magic fairy dust–will hold the key to victory. They are not budging until we let them count all the votes again. They don’t care if they have to sit in lawyer’s offices for the rest of their lives. Nobody’s going to tell them they’re wrong.
But those of us who have had children should be able to see where this is going. The Kerry voters will scream and cry and dig in their heels and re-count the New Hampshire vote and wail about how unfair it all is. They’ll tell us every chance they get that they really, really, really want Kerry to be president, and the only way that rotten old George W. Bush could have won is if he cheated!
“You’re trying to ruin our lives!” they’ll cry to us, through Air America (the radio equivalent of standing in the corner and holding your breath). “You’re all mean and hateful, and we WON’T obey you!” they’ll scrawl across the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times. “George W. Bush is a FINK!” they’ll pound out on the keyboards at Democratic Underground and Slate.
And then they’ll look sideways at us like manipulative Angelica in Rugrats and say, “We’ll never ask for anything again, if you just let us win.”
And we would really like to have some peace, the adults among us. We are awfully worn out by letting them rant and ignoring them, because even when you’re ignoring someone, if they’re screaming you can still hear them, and if they’re scratching it still hurts.
And then we’re going to have to apply some tough love to the little monsters. They’re not going to like it. The truth may sometimes hurt, but its more loving to tell them the truth than to let them live the lie.
If you know a young voter in denial, let me give you some help in explaining the results of the election to them. Sit them down at a calm time and turn off the tv, the computer, and the Nintendo. Be sure you have their full attention. Then, try something like this:
When your young voter breaks down in denial and disbelief, you may have to go a step further and provide the proof positive that President Bush did, indeed, win. And so did many, many Republicans. To-wit:
The results of the election–across the board–are totally clear. It wasn’t just the President who won. It was the most conservative choices for the Senate and the House. It was the constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman–and even an amendment that rejected the very notion of civil unions, as well. If the nation didn’t want the agenda and ideology of George W. Bush, they have a funny way of saying so.
The Founders were very wise. They understood that if they allowed each state to have the same vote, it would dilute the effect of the individual votes of those in the more populous states. Conversely, to provide proportional representation would disadvantage those in the less populous states, who may have more land, and who in a federal system were supposed to be equals on a state-to-state basis. Thus, they devised a bicameral system, in which one house contains representation for the people that provides equal representation by population, and one that provides equal representation by state, in the form of two Senators. In this way, it was believed that voters in both large and small states would have their say.
Once you have gone over how the system works, it’s time to get to business. (Remember: it’s not you they hate; it’s George W. Bush.)
They are describing themselves as a “fledgling democracy movement,” as though evangelicals are the Chinese government and they are willing sacrifices going under the tanks at Tiannemen Square. They feel as though their “lives have been stolen” from them. They “can’t believe it’s happened.” They are “afraid to graduate and look for work in a nation like this.”
How disconnected from reality can one be?
The fact is, this is the same country it was the day before the election. The business climate is the same. Did these radical youth think that, if Kerry won, Wall Street and the other places they want to work would suddenly fill with benevolent pro-environment employers offering free health care to them and their gay partners? Did they not know what the world around them was like?
No, they didn’t. The mainstream media betrayed them, by perpetuating the image in their heads of what “real” Americans were like. If you watched enough Dan Rather, you would think the nation was chock-full of angry young voters, radical people of color, feminist women, and gay couples.
But that’s not true.
What’s true is that the biggest identifiable constituency groups in the Democratic party are media members, Hollywood entertainers, and academics. And there aren’t enough of them to populate Providence, Rhode Island–much less win an American election.
The intensity with which the vote-rockers threw themselves into beating the Bushies was breathtaking. They should get an A for effort, as they tried every slick and creative new way they could think of to get their man elected.
But the problem is that elections are decided by voters, and they didn’t get enough. The complexity of their efforts to win a game that boils down to a lean, mean ground game reminds me of the scene in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom where Jones is attacked by a sword-wielding assassin who shrieks and pivots and flourishes menacingly–until Indy just takes out his gun and shoots him dead.
Ordinary and efficient beats fancy and foolish every time.
Unfortunately, that’s not an avenue open to the electorate (even if we got a law passed, you can bet the Courts would never let it stand.) So, we’re going to have to put up with this for a while. I was prepared for a bit of a letdown to course through the bloodstreams of the valiant vote-rockers, maybe a week or so before they got bored, took midterms, and went home for Thanksgiving Break.
But, after seeing the outpouring of apparent grief, disillusionment, suicidal and homicidal ideation that has flooded the airwaves and the internet since the election, I’m really beginning to think there’s something seriously wrong with some fraction of 48% of the country.
This is not the way grown-ups lose an election. This is the way two-year olds lose the privilege of watching yet another episode of “Dora the Explorer.”
It shouldn’t come as that much of a surprise, though, considering that exit polls show that the only age group Kerry won a majority of (constituting 17% of the electorate) was the 29 and under crowd. Every other–EVERY other–age group went to the President (30-44 by 53/46; 45-59 by 51/48; and sixty-plus by 54/46.) One wonders what the results would have looked like, were it not for the misguided Vietnam-era sop to the college students that allows 18-year olds to vote. Despite the fact that they are generally still thinking like high school students–and those in college are considered so irresponsible that the college or university takes responsibility for them ("in loco parentis")–still, since they could be sent against their will to Vietnam, the Congress and the people decided to roll the dice and let them vote.
And look what happens.
Rather than graciously accepting defeat, those wacky young people are saturating the internet with conspiracy theories, dark threats, angry editorial cartoons, bitterness, rage, and resistance. It seems they have so little to do in their ordinary lives that they have endless time to forward email and fabricate plots.
Since the folk-singer vote went so heavily to Kerry, I suppose we can expect to be hearing about “two stolen elections” for years and years to come. No doubt, the button and bumper sticker industry will continue to boom, as they produce more and more clever variations on “Bush lied” (what rhymes with “stolen?") And, of course, since they know where their interests lie, the tenured radicals will continue to teach the young (even the 45% of them that voted for Bush) that their government is illegitimate and their leadership to be resisted.
Strange as it may sound, the voters of 1960 should thank their lucky stars for Richard Nixon. Had he not refused to sue over the results of the Texas and Illinois votes, it is entirely likely that John F. Kennedy would never have been president. And those who voted for Kerry should be grateful for Nixon’s good grace, too–since without John Kennedy and Vietnam, there would never have been a John Kerry to agitate on behalf of.
But instead of imitating their candidate (who, to his everlasting credit, had the class to bow out gracefully), the Kerry voters are still hanging on to the almost nonexistent hope that provisional ballots in Ohio–or maybe the panhandle votes in Florida–or maybe one of Nader’s lawsuits–or magic fairy dust–will hold the key to victory. They are not budging until we let them count all the votes again. They don’t care if they have to sit in lawyer’s offices for the rest of their lives. Nobody’s going to tell them they’re wrong.
But those of us who have had children should be able to see where this is going. The Kerry voters will scream and cry and dig in their heels and re-count the New Hampshire vote and wail about how unfair it all is. They’ll tell us every chance they get that they really, really, really want Kerry to be president, and the only way that rotten old George W. Bush could have won is if he cheated!
“You’re trying to ruin our lives!” they’ll cry to us, through Air America (the radio equivalent of standing in the corner and holding your breath). “You’re all mean and hateful, and we WON’T obey you!” they’ll scrawl across the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times. “George W. Bush is a FINK!” they’ll pound out on the keyboards at Democratic Underground and Slate.
And then they’ll look sideways at us like manipulative Angelica in Rugrats and say, “We’ll never ask for anything again, if you just let us win.”
And we would really like to have some peace, the adults among us. We are awfully worn out by letting them rant and ignoring them, because even when you’re ignoring someone, if they’re screaming you can still hear them, and if they’re scratching it still hurts.
And then we’re going to have to apply some tough love to the little monsters. They’re not going to like it. The truth may sometimes hurt, but its more loving to tell them the truth than to let them live the lie.
If you know a young voter in denial, let me give you some help in explaining the results of the election to them. Sit them down at a calm time and turn off the tv, the computer, and the Nintendo. Be sure you have their full attention. Then, try something like this:
“First off, I want you to know this is going to be hard. I know you’re unhappy right now. I hear that. But this is just getting out of hand. You need to understand that, however you approach it,” (take a deep breath here, then proceed with clarity and firmness, “John Kerry lost.”
(Be sure to have plenty of Kleenex ready when you have this conversation; they’re going to take it hard.) “John Kerry is NOT going to be president of the United States.
“And, sweetie, the reason he’s not going to be president of the United States is that more American voters wanted President Bush to stay President.” (At this point, the young voter may stare at you in shock and horror, unable to understand how you–even YOU–could betray him. Stay strong.)
“I know, I know. The Europeans told you Kerry was going to win. The media told you he was going to win. All the people you know voted for him. All the people you met promised they were going to vote for him.
“But that’s not what happened.”
When your young voter breaks down in denial and disbelief, you may have to go a step further and provide the proof positive that President Bush did, indeed, win. And so did many, many Republicans. To-wit:
The results of the election–across the board–are totally clear. It wasn’t just the President who won. It was the most conservative choices for the Senate and the House. It was the constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman–and even an amendment that rejected the very notion of civil unions, as well. If the nation didn’t want the agenda and ideology of George W. Bush, they have a funny way of saying so.
The Founders were very wise. They understood that if they allowed each state to have the same vote, it would dilute the effect of the individual votes of those in the more populous states. Conversely, to provide proportional representation would disadvantage those in the less populous states, who may have more land, and who in a federal system were supposed to be equals on a state-to-state basis. Thus, they devised a bicameral system, in which one house contains representation for the people that provides equal representation by population, and one that provides equal representation by state, in the form of two Senators. In this way, it was believed that voters in both large and small states would have their say.
Once you have gone over how the system works, it’s time to get to business. (Remember: it’s not you they hate; it’s George W. Bush.)
“You see, darling–I’m going to be as gentle with this as I can, but there’s just no way to make it any better for you–the problem is, MOST people didn’t want to give you the president and vice-president you wanted. In fact, the majority of Bush voters were voting for Bush, while the majority of Kerry voters were voting against Bush. Sadly, neither those who voted for him nor those who did not seemed to care much about who occupied Kerry’s spot on the ballot (though, to be fair, they evidently didn’t want it to be Ralph Nader or Michael Badinarik.)
“That’s not a very mature reason for voting.
“And I’m sorry to tell you this, honey, but the voters also picked a lot of people you really aren’t going to like. You could have won control of the Senate, if a higher number of states contained Americans that preferred John Kerry to President Bush. But they didn’t. The Republicans run the Senate, 55 to 44. And you could have won control of the House of Representatives, if enough people in each district agreed with the Democratic agenda more than the Republican one. But they didn’t. The Republicans won the House, as well, 231 to 200.
“And you might even have gained a foothold in the statehouses, if voters in individual states preferred your agenda to the Republican one. But governors are Republican, too–29 to 21. And, of course, you lost both the popular vote by (at least) three and a half million votes, and the electoral college, 286 to 252. Oh, and I almost forget–there were also 11 winning ballot measures on defending traditional marriage.” (Wince sympathetically here.) “Sorry. I know you really cared about that one.
“So, I guess what I’m saying is, if you’re Blue, I guess you have a right to be. Let me put it in sports terms. It’s always a disappointment when your team doesn’t win. Some of your friends were happy when the Red Sox won the Series, remember? But then some of them–the New Yorkers–were kind of sad, right?
“Well, look at it this way. You wanted the Blue team to win the election, but they barely got in the game.
“Basically the Reds just beat you, 5 games to none.”
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
OR WERE THEY NEVER REALLY THERE?
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE GAY POPULATION COMES OUT OF THE CLOSET
As we all know by now, the traditional marriage amendments on the ballots of eleven states helped generate one of the largest turnouts in American history. The opponents of gay marriage triumphed in all eleven states, from 56% in Oregon to better than 80% in Mississippi. The moral traditionalists, it seems clear, were quite concerned about this issue, and they came out to say so.
Speaking of "coming out," there's an interesting bit of data buried in the piles of post-election information that has been made available. See if you spot it:
Are you [the voter] gay, lesbian, or bisexual? (4% Y; 96% N)
YES -- Bush 23% Kerry 77%
NO -- Bush 53% Kerry 46%
Yeah, yeah, we knew Bush wasn't going to get this vote. It's no surprise that Kerry got 77% of the gay vote.
But, wait.
The percentage of gays in the ELECTORATE is--what? Four percent? FOUR?
How many zillions of times have we heard it. "Ten percent of all Americans are gay. And they are from all walks of life, from every income level, every race, in every region of the country…."
If that's actually TRUE, then ten percent of the VOTERS should be gay, as well.
Instead, we have a percentage much, much closer to the estimate usually offered by pro-family groups--3% of women, 5% of men. The ten percent figure, they contend, is an artifact of the skewed data collection methods used by the originator of the claim, Alfred Kinsey. Because his data over-sampled imprisoned child molesters, the incidence of homosexuality in the population is overstated in the Kinsey data.
Thus, we have a puzzle. Given the importance of the gay marriage amendments, and given the desperate desire of pro-gay and pro-choice activists to get rid of this president, one would have expected a disproportionate turnout of such voters (of course, that's just anecdotal evidence, derived from the speakers' lists of the many anti-Bush protests, rallies, and descents of various kinds on Washington.)
Yet, if they are ten percent of the population and 40% of the electorate, one has to conclude that they are less concerned about the election than the population as a whole, which produced a turnout of just under 60%.
And if, as gay rights activists insist, gays are distributed throughout the population, with no non-ideological characteristics to distinguish them, this data indicates they constitute a mere four percent of the population--four times the percent of Nader voters, sure, but not nearly enough of a constituency to justify the attention that has heretofore been lavished on them by the press, the culture, and the political establishment.
Facts are stubborn things. And sometimes they tell secrets.
As we all know by now, the traditional marriage amendments on the ballots of eleven states helped generate one of the largest turnouts in American history. The opponents of gay marriage triumphed in all eleven states, from 56% in Oregon to better than 80% in Mississippi. The moral traditionalists, it seems clear, were quite concerned about this issue, and they came out to say so.
Speaking of "coming out," there's an interesting bit of data buried in the piles of post-election information that has been made available. See if you spot it:
Are you [the voter] gay, lesbian, or bisexual? (4% Y; 96% N)
YES -- Bush 23% Kerry 77%
NO -- Bush 53% Kerry 46%
Yeah, yeah, we knew Bush wasn't going to get this vote. It's no surprise that Kerry got 77% of the gay vote.
But, wait.
The percentage of gays in the ELECTORATE is--what? Four percent? FOUR?
How many zillions of times have we heard it. "Ten percent of all Americans are gay. And they are from all walks of life, from every income level, every race, in every region of the country…."
If that's actually TRUE, then ten percent of the VOTERS should be gay, as well.
Instead, we have a percentage much, much closer to the estimate usually offered by pro-family groups--3% of women, 5% of men. The ten percent figure, they contend, is an artifact of the skewed data collection methods used by the originator of the claim, Alfred Kinsey. Because his data over-sampled imprisoned child molesters, the incidence of homosexuality in the population is overstated in the Kinsey data.
Thus, we have a puzzle. Given the importance of the gay marriage amendments, and given the desperate desire of pro-gay and pro-choice activists to get rid of this president, one would have expected a disproportionate turnout of such voters (of course, that's just anecdotal evidence, derived from the speakers' lists of the many anti-Bush protests, rallies, and descents of various kinds on Washington.)
Yet, if they are ten percent of the population and 40% of the electorate, one has to conclude that they are less concerned about the election than the population as a whole, which produced a turnout of just under 60%.
And if, as gay rights activists insist, gays are distributed throughout the population, with no non-ideological characteristics to distinguish them, this data indicates they constitute a mere four percent of the population--four times the percent of Nader voters, sure, but not nearly enough of a constituency to justify the attention that has heretofore been lavished on them by the press, the culture, and the political establishment.
Facts are stubborn things. And sometimes they tell secrets.
SNEAKING OFF THE PLANTATION
My best friend is Black (no jokes, please.) She's also very religious. She goes to one of those few churches where the election wasn't really addressed much this year, but you can't stop folks from talking amongst themselves.
This weekend, she was talking to one of the mothers of the church (for you blue staters, they're the older women who are sort of relied upon to do a lot of the layperson's legwork for the pastorate.) The old lady leaned over and whispered something to her. It was the kind of thing you don't discuss in polite company in the traditional Black church, the kind of secret you have to be kind of quiet about, because you just know most folks wouldn't approve. She confessed--not a sin, exactly--but, clearly, a violation of Black church tradition. Here is what she said:
"Don't tell anybody, but I voted for Bush."
I don't know how many times this scenario was repeated across the country this past weekend, as newly red Black people begin to slowly reveal that they just couldn't stomach their masters in the Democrat party this time around. As they do, though, I think they will find that their act was not one of rebellion, but one of liberation.
This new ability to breathe will, over the next two years, be felt in several traditionally Democrat voting blocs, and, I suspect, be transmitted as well even to those who voted for Kerry, as they realize that the sky is not, after all, falling. The seniors' checks will still come to them. Children will still be educated--oddly, even better than before. Tax reform will actually improve the lives of everyone, from the least of these on up. And there will be no gay marriage, except in Massachusetts.
Traditionally Democratic Catholics voted Republican this year, to the tune of nearly 60% in some places. Women voted for Bush. Hispanics gave more than forty percent of the vote to the President, besting his showing with them as governor by an additional ten percentage points. Organized labor went for Kerry, but as they re-assess their wisdom, they will find that their rank and file is never very happy with far left social causes, and maybe there are a few organizations--like NARAL and Planned Parenthood and NOW and SEICUS and the ACLU and the gay rights groups--that should mysteriously drop off their Christmas card list this year.
It may be a secret now, but if the President fulfills his promise of compassionate conservatism and holds the line against the liberal-based destruction of our American way of life, there's a good chance it will be an open one by 2006.
Of course, then the Democrats will just have judges declare "separate but equal" polling places constitutional, to make sure that African-American voters who want to vote Democratic can go to a specifically Democrat and supportive polling place to do so. Or maybe they could rescind the law against the literacy clause.
After all, Europeans and liberals agree. 59 million Americans CAN be "dumb."
This weekend, she was talking to one of the mothers of the church (for you blue staters, they're the older women who are sort of relied upon to do a lot of the layperson's legwork for the pastorate.) The old lady leaned over and whispered something to her. It was the kind of thing you don't discuss in polite company in the traditional Black church, the kind of secret you have to be kind of quiet about, because you just know most folks wouldn't approve. She confessed--not a sin, exactly--but, clearly, a violation of Black church tradition. Here is what she said:
"Don't tell anybody, but I voted for Bush."
I don't know how many times this scenario was repeated across the country this past weekend, as newly red Black people begin to slowly reveal that they just couldn't stomach their masters in the Democrat party this time around. As they do, though, I think they will find that their act was not one of rebellion, but one of liberation.
This new ability to breathe will, over the next two years, be felt in several traditionally Democrat voting blocs, and, I suspect, be transmitted as well even to those who voted for Kerry, as they realize that the sky is not, after all, falling. The seniors' checks will still come to them. Children will still be educated--oddly, even better than before. Tax reform will actually improve the lives of everyone, from the least of these on up. And there will be no gay marriage, except in Massachusetts.
Traditionally Democratic Catholics voted Republican this year, to the tune of nearly 60% in some places. Women voted for Bush. Hispanics gave more than forty percent of the vote to the President, besting his showing with them as governor by an additional ten percentage points. Organized labor went for Kerry, but as they re-assess their wisdom, they will find that their rank and file is never very happy with far left social causes, and maybe there are a few organizations--like NARAL and Planned Parenthood and NOW and SEICUS and the ACLU and the gay rights groups--that should mysteriously drop off their Christmas card list this year.
It may be a secret now, but if the President fulfills his promise of compassionate conservatism and holds the line against the liberal-based destruction of our American way of life, there's a good chance it will be an open one by 2006.
Of course, then the Democrats will just have judges declare "separate but equal" polling places constitutional, to make sure that African-American voters who want to vote Democratic can go to a specifically Democrat and supportive polling place to do so. Or maybe they could rescind the law against the literacy clause.
After all, Europeans and liberals agree. 59 million Americans CAN be "dumb."
Friday, November 05, 2004
SIZE MATTERS
55 SENATORS KEEP HOPE ALIVE
In his first term, President George W. Bush had a Republican Senate. Well, sort of. A little bit. Sometimes. And not so you'd notice.
Now he has 55 Senators of his own party. And that's a very, very important number.
Not only does he have a far greater chance of defeating the filibustering nonsense the Senate Democrats saddled him with in the first term, putting one judicial appointment after another on ice, on the flimsiest of excuses--he also has new Senators that are far, far more conservative than the ones we've seen before.
The chief obstructionist, Tom Daschle, defeated House Minority Leader, has fallen to a flat-out conservative, John Thune. Pro-life Louisiana Congressman David Vitter surprised everyone by defeating two Democrats with better than 50% of the vote, avoiding a run-off election. The open Florida seat, formerly that of Democratic presidential aspirant Bob Graham, went to the President's former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Mel Martinez. The old job of John Edwards (the unluckiest unemployed lawyer in America) was picked up by a conservative co-sponsor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act while in the House, who defeated former Clinton chief of staff, Erskine Bowles.
South Carolina's open seat, emptied by the resignation of distinctly Democratic Fritz Hollings, is now the property of former House member of the Congressional Pro-life Caucus, Jim Demint. Former ambassador to the United Nations and pro-life conservative firebrand Alan Keyes lost an open Republican seat to liberal Democrat Barack Obama, but Keyes was handicapped from the beginning by coming to the race late, in a party in disarray, scrambling to replace the unfortunate Jack Ryan, running as an outsider in a state he was not from, and which handily delivered its electoral vote to John Kerry. Keyes can take it, and we'll get over it. Perhaps most interestingly of all, the putative new Senate Minority leader, Harry Reed of Nevada, may be a pal of Patricia Ireland and Hillary Clinton, but he is also the rarest of breeds these days--a pro-life Democrat.
And Thursday evening, after the news reported in the morning that the assumed next chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, moderate Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter had "warned" the president not to send up any divisive judicial nominees that might overturn Roe v. Wade, the airwaves were awash in Specter's denial that he ever did such a thing. If he did, he's been slapped down good, and I doubt he'll try it again, assuming the 60% of his conservative fellow Senators on Judiciary vote him into the position in the first place.
In this term, the president is likely to appoint at least one, and perhaps up to four new Justices to the Supreme Court. This, indeed, has been the target of the evangelical leadership for more than two years, since the first rumblings began that homosexual sodomy might become a right and gay marriage a fact of American life. But those Justices will no doubt share the president's concern with the taking of unborn life. If Rehnquist's health fails, we can expect the brilliant conservative Antonin Scalia to rise to the position of Chief, and another conservative to replace him. Several other justices are not well, and some are old. It is doubtful the other 8 will all hold out for another four years.
The fact is, not since 1972, the year before Roe was decided, has there been a better time to be an unborn child in America.
They have a pro-life president, a pro-life House, a pro-life Senate, and a presumably pro-life electorate on their side. The cozy roost the pro-abortion lobby had during the Clinton administration was vacated during the first Bush administration, and now has a "this property is condemned" sign on it. There's an open door at the White House for Crisis Pregnancy Centers and adoption advocates, and empty chairs at the Judiciary committee, just waiting for pro-life doctors, nurses, social workers, authors, and activists to occupy them as witnesses at hearings on the various aspects of abortion law. And International Planned Parenthood is persona non grata at the American delegation to the United Nations.
This president has delivered the goods for his pro-life base. The administration has been suffused with concern for the sanctity of innocent life, both in domestic affairs and foreign policy. The American UN delegation has fought to remove language that would spread the poison of abortion throughout the world--and won. The Congress has passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, the Child Custody Protection Act, and the Abortion Non-discrimination Act. Many of the incoming Senators already have solid records protecting the sanctity of life. Others have made promises the voters expect them to keep.
Fifty-five is a wonderful number. It's going to help some very vulnerable people stay alive.
In his first term, President George W. Bush had a Republican Senate. Well, sort of. A little bit. Sometimes. And not so you'd notice.
Now he has 55 Senators of his own party. And that's a very, very important number.
Not only does he have a far greater chance of defeating the filibustering nonsense the Senate Democrats saddled him with in the first term, putting one judicial appointment after another on ice, on the flimsiest of excuses--he also has new Senators that are far, far more conservative than the ones we've seen before.
The chief obstructionist, Tom Daschle, defeated House Minority Leader, has fallen to a flat-out conservative, John Thune. Pro-life Louisiana Congressman David Vitter surprised everyone by defeating two Democrats with better than 50% of the vote, avoiding a run-off election. The open Florida seat, formerly that of Democratic presidential aspirant Bob Graham, went to the President's former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Mel Martinez. The old job of John Edwards (the unluckiest unemployed lawyer in America) was picked up by a conservative co-sponsor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act while in the House, who defeated former Clinton chief of staff, Erskine Bowles.
South Carolina's open seat, emptied by the resignation of distinctly Democratic Fritz Hollings, is now the property of former House member of the Congressional Pro-life Caucus, Jim Demint. Former ambassador to the United Nations and pro-life conservative firebrand Alan Keyes lost an open Republican seat to liberal Democrat Barack Obama, but Keyes was handicapped from the beginning by coming to the race late, in a party in disarray, scrambling to replace the unfortunate Jack Ryan, running as an outsider in a state he was not from, and which handily delivered its electoral vote to John Kerry. Keyes can take it, and we'll get over it. Perhaps most interestingly of all, the putative new Senate Minority leader, Harry Reed of Nevada, may be a pal of Patricia Ireland and Hillary Clinton, but he is also the rarest of breeds these days--a pro-life Democrat.
And Thursday evening, after the news reported in the morning that the assumed next chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, moderate Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter had "warned" the president not to send up any divisive judicial nominees that might overturn Roe v. Wade, the airwaves were awash in Specter's denial that he ever did such a thing. If he did, he's been slapped down good, and I doubt he'll try it again, assuming the 60% of his conservative fellow Senators on Judiciary vote him into the position in the first place.
In this term, the president is likely to appoint at least one, and perhaps up to four new Justices to the Supreme Court. This, indeed, has been the target of the evangelical leadership for more than two years, since the first rumblings began that homosexual sodomy might become a right and gay marriage a fact of American life. But those Justices will no doubt share the president's concern with the taking of unborn life. If Rehnquist's health fails, we can expect the brilliant conservative Antonin Scalia to rise to the position of Chief, and another conservative to replace him. Several other justices are not well, and some are old. It is doubtful the other 8 will all hold out for another four years.
The fact is, not since 1972, the year before Roe was decided, has there been a better time to be an unborn child in America.
They have a pro-life president, a pro-life House, a pro-life Senate, and a presumably pro-life electorate on their side. The cozy roost the pro-abortion lobby had during the Clinton administration was vacated during the first Bush administration, and now has a "this property is condemned" sign on it. There's an open door at the White House for Crisis Pregnancy Centers and adoption advocates, and empty chairs at the Judiciary committee, just waiting for pro-life doctors, nurses, social workers, authors, and activists to occupy them as witnesses at hearings on the various aspects of abortion law. And International Planned Parenthood is persona non grata at the American delegation to the United Nations.
This president has delivered the goods for his pro-life base. The administration has been suffused with concern for the sanctity of innocent life, both in domestic affairs and foreign policy. The American UN delegation has fought to remove language that would spread the poison of abortion throughout the world--and won. The Congress has passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, the Child Custody Protection Act, and the Abortion Non-discrimination Act. Many of the incoming Senators already have solid records protecting the sanctity of life. Others have made promises the voters expect them to keep.
Fifty-five is a wonderful number. It's going to help some very vulnerable people stay alive.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
MASTER OF THE GAME
IS ED GILLESPIE THE GREATEST POLITICAL STRATEGIST OF ALL TIME?
Of course, he didn't "go it alone"--Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove are part of the team, as well. But major credit for this victory has to go to Ed Gillespie.
Consider: Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee, orchestrated the single most well-reviewed Republican convention in recent memory. Even the great Lee Atwater could never claim such fame, as his conventions were marred by party infighting and accusations of being all red meat, and no beef.
The 2004 Republican National Convention brought together a wide variety of Republicans or supporters thereof--from pro-choice stem-cell supporter Arnold Schwarzennegar to pro-life former Kerry pal John McCain. Not only did they "all get along," but they all managed to focus their love and adoration on George W. Bush, each doing his part in preparing the stage for the President's amazing speech, majestically delivered "in the round" to the whole convention. For this alone, he deserves high honors.
Yet Gillespie is also the architect of this election season's superlative "ground game." The Bush campaign developed an astonishing grass-roots and email effort that sent out monthly, weekly, and daily updates on key issues, advance copies of ads, special interest mailings to a variety of types of voters--women, veterans, Hispanics, teachers--all designed to give voters the sense of being an "insider" in an exciting political adventure. They developed an extensive army, with leaders in virtually every precinct in America. They used state political apparatuses to play the game more intelligently this time than last, asking the important questions to find out what the demographics, interests, and environment were on the ground. In the final hours of the campaign, they put one million volunteers on the ground.
The people on Ed's email lists were treated to advance copies of the advertisements about to be run, links to websites that provided important election information, and other resources for political junkies across the nation. This is an important aspect of the campaign, though few have made mention of it. One of the worst aspects of modern politics is that states and voters are treated differently, according to their usefulness to the politician. By using email and focused groups (as opposed to "focus groups"), the campaign is able to devote attention and resources to voters that might otherwise be ignored. Those who lived in battleground states were the targets of campaign ads, but with email and web pages, even the most electorally secure voter had the chance to see the ads he or she might only get if they played to a national audience.
This connection to the base seems to be a hallmark of Gillespie's style. It connects him--and, through him, the party and the president--to the rank-and-file voter. There's something cool about watching a man tear up a Terry McAuliffe or a Susan Estrich on Fox and Friends in the morning, and then getting an email from him that afternoon. It's just, you know, cool.
And so, as we lean back into the comfortable margin of President Bush's victory, let us raise a toast to the man whose media savvy and impish personal charm brought us to this day: To you, Ed Gillispie, Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Kudos.
Of course, he didn't "go it alone"--Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove are part of the team, as well. But major credit for this victory has to go to Ed Gillespie.
Consider: Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee, orchestrated the single most well-reviewed Republican convention in recent memory. Even the great Lee Atwater could never claim such fame, as his conventions were marred by party infighting and accusations of being all red meat, and no beef.
The 2004 Republican National Convention brought together a wide variety of Republicans or supporters thereof--from pro-choice stem-cell supporter Arnold Schwarzennegar to pro-life former Kerry pal John McCain. Not only did they "all get along," but they all managed to focus their love and adoration on George W. Bush, each doing his part in preparing the stage for the President's amazing speech, majestically delivered "in the round" to the whole convention. For this alone, he deserves high honors.
Yet Gillespie is also the architect of this election season's superlative "ground game." The Bush campaign developed an astonishing grass-roots and email effort that sent out monthly, weekly, and daily updates on key issues, advance copies of ads, special interest mailings to a variety of types of voters--women, veterans, Hispanics, teachers--all designed to give voters the sense of being an "insider" in an exciting political adventure. They developed an extensive army, with leaders in virtually every precinct in America. They used state political apparatuses to play the game more intelligently this time than last, asking the important questions to find out what the demographics, interests, and environment were on the ground. In the final hours of the campaign, they put one million volunteers on the ground.
The people on Ed's email lists were treated to advance copies of the advertisements about to be run, links to websites that provided important election information, and other resources for political junkies across the nation. This is an important aspect of the campaign, though few have made mention of it. One of the worst aspects of modern politics is that states and voters are treated differently, according to their usefulness to the politician. By using email and focused groups (as opposed to "focus groups"), the campaign is able to devote attention and resources to voters that might otherwise be ignored. Those who lived in battleground states were the targets of campaign ads, but with email and web pages, even the most electorally secure voter had the chance to see the ads he or she might only get if they played to a national audience.
This connection to the base seems to be a hallmark of Gillespie's style. It connects him--and, through him, the party and the president--to the rank-and-file voter. There's something cool about watching a man tear up a Terry McAuliffe or a Susan Estrich on Fox and Friends in the morning, and then getting an email from him that afternoon. It's just, you know, cool.
And so, as we lean back into the comfortable margin of President Bush's victory, let us raise a toast to the man whose media savvy and impish personal charm brought us to this day: To you, Ed Gillispie, Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Kudos.
I SEE A NATION AND I WANT TO PAINT IT RED
WHAT'S NEXT FOR BUSH'S AMERICA
As the dust settles here in the wee hours of the morning, assuming that Mary Beth decides to act like an adult and stop stomping her feet and threatening to sue people, we have a Republican president, a more Republican house, and a legitimately Republican Senate.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, it's time.
It's time to get some new judges and Justices. It's time for Scalia to ascend as Rehnquist steps aside, and for George W. to get someone confirmed who will interpret the law, not make it. Then, Justice O'Connor can be released from her duties, something she's reportedly wanted for quite some time now, and another strict constructionist can take her place.
It's time for the Congress and the Courts to LISTEN to the voice of the people--the people who, in eleven states tonight, sent a very clear message. Marriage, they said, is the union of one man and one woman. They said so by incredible margins--in the 60 and 70 percent ranges. They said so decisively, and whether or not they voted for George W. Bush. They proved this is not a "wedge" issue. It is a matter of deep concern to the people of America. And it is not for the Court to decide otherwise.
It's time for the President to get out his veto pen--or, better yet, for the Congress to exercise good Republican judgment and cut both taxes AND spending. If Congress won't produce a balanced budget, the president no longer has to worry about his political viability. Far from a lame duck, he is now a man without political strings. He need not run for re-election. He need not worry about his political future. He can use his veto power, without worrying about his long-term political capital.
It's time for Fallujah to become an ashtray, and for the United Nations to understand where their future interests lie. The political will to move hard against the Evildoers has been awaiting the moment when taking that risk will not lose the president his job. It's time to finish what those head-slicing animals started when they decided Iraq was not going quietly into the bright sunlight of democracy.
It's time to get some commonsense legal reform. If there's anything the American people have had enough of, it's lawyers and lawsuits. What does it tell you when we can only muster a kind of bemused annoyance when we find that there are Americans among the many lawyers offering themselves up to defend Saddam Hussein in his trial? Of course, we think. That's what they always do.
Good doctors in America are being run out of business by skyrocketing malpractice insurance bills caused by ridiculous monetary awards teased out of juries by slimy shysters like (former) Senator John Edwards. The president has promised to do something about it, and I believe he will. Because it's time.
And, after four years of petulance, it's time for the Democrats to stop pretending the Republicans can only win by cheating and that we didn't win at all. It's time for them to get over it and get back to the business of helping us run this great country. We can agree, and we can agree to disagree--but we must stop disagreeing just to be disagreeable and tearing down our nation just to prove our side right. And it's time for those same Democrats to tell the cryptocelebrity policy advisors to just go away and leave politics alone.
The politics of hysteria and conspiracy have failed. Patience, calm, and wisdom have prevailed.
Now let's all get to work doing what Americans do--fixing what's wrong and doing what's right.
As the dust settles here in the wee hours of the morning, assuming that Mary Beth decides to act like an adult and stop stomping her feet and threatening to sue people, we have a Republican president, a more Republican house, and a legitimately Republican Senate.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, it's time.
It's time to get some new judges and Justices. It's time for Scalia to ascend as Rehnquist steps aside, and for George W. to get someone confirmed who will interpret the law, not make it. Then, Justice O'Connor can be released from her duties, something she's reportedly wanted for quite some time now, and another strict constructionist can take her place.
It's time for the Congress and the Courts to LISTEN to the voice of the people--the people who, in eleven states tonight, sent a very clear message. Marriage, they said, is the union of one man and one woman. They said so by incredible margins--in the 60 and 70 percent ranges. They said so decisively, and whether or not they voted for George W. Bush. They proved this is not a "wedge" issue. It is a matter of deep concern to the people of America. And it is not for the Court to decide otherwise.
It's time for the President to get out his veto pen--or, better yet, for the Congress to exercise good Republican judgment and cut both taxes AND spending. If Congress won't produce a balanced budget, the president no longer has to worry about his political viability. Far from a lame duck, he is now a man without political strings. He need not run for re-election. He need not worry about his political future. He can use his veto power, without worrying about his long-term political capital.
It's time for Fallujah to become an ashtray, and for the United Nations to understand where their future interests lie. The political will to move hard against the Evildoers has been awaiting the moment when taking that risk will not lose the president his job. It's time to finish what those head-slicing animals started when they decided Iraq was not going quietly into the bright sunlight of democracy.
It's time to get some commonsense legal reform. If there's anything the American people have had enough of, it's lawyers and lawsuits. What does it tell you when we can only muster a kind of bemused annoyance when we find that there are Americans among the many lawyers offering themselves up to defend Saddam Hussein in his trial? Of course, we think. That's what they always do.
Good doctors in America are being run out of business by skyrocketing malpractice insurance bills caused by ridiculous monetary awards teased out of juries by slimy shysters like (former) Senator John Edwards. The president has promised to do something about it, and I believe he will. Because it's time.
And, after four years of petulance, it's time for the Democrats to stop pretending the Republicans can only win by cheating and that we didn't win at all. It's time for them to get over it and get back to the business of helping us run this great country. We can agree, and we can agree to disagree--but we must stop disagreeing just to be disagreeable and tearing down our nation just to prove our side right. And it's time for those same Democrats to tell the cryptocelebrity policy advisors to just go away and leave politics alone.
The politics of hysteria and conspiracy have failed. Patience, calm, and wisdom have prevailed.
Now let's all get to work doing what Americans do--fixing what's wrong and doing what's right.
BACK TO YOUR CAGES, MONKEYS:
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE REJECT THE CELEBRITOCRACY AND ELECT THEIR OWN PRESIDENT
Bruce Springsteen and John Kerry appeared before a crowd of 80,000 people. Guess who they probably actually turned out to see? Not the Senator.
Michael Moore trained his camera on the "battleground" states, looking for malfeasance. Guess what he found? Nothing.
Bon Jovi, Ben Affleck, Janeane Garafolo, Cher, Barbra Streisand, Moby, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, and--oh, how sweet it is--JOHN MCENROE--have ALL been defeated. They pulled out all the stops, they dumped their money into George Soros' 527s, they screamed and ranted and raved and even sang for free--and guess what?
The grown ups got mad, got active, got on the phones, went to the polls, and spanked them good.
This election sends a message not only to John Kerry and the anti-war left, but also to the elitists in Hollywood and their now fully-exposed allies in the liberal press.
This one's for you, Dan Rather. And for Mary Mapes. And it's for Americans Coming Together. And for the Media Fund. In your eye, George Soros. Go back to whatever bizarre country you came from. You, too, Mrs. Heinz "no real job" Kerry.
And with gratitude, it's for you, Ron Silver. For standing tall and defending patriotism in an industry of pygmies and traitors. And it's for the real heroes that fought and were imprisoned and died in Vietnam. And, most of all, it's for John O'Neill, a man of courage and strength. A man who can be proud that he fought this last battle for truth. A man who can fade back into history and live out his life in peace, knowing that he answered the call again when his country needed him most. To coin a phrase, he defended this nation as a young man, and he saved it when it needed to be saved.
Bruce Springsteen and John Kerry appeared before a crowd of 80,000 people. Guess who they probably actually turned out to see? Not the Senator.
Michael Moore trained his camera on the "battleground" states, looking for malfeasance. Guess what he found? Nothing.
Bon Jovi, Ben Affleck, Janeane Garafolo, Cher, Barbra Streisand, Moby, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, and--oh, how sweet it is--JOHN MCENROE--have ALL been defeated. They pulled out all the stops, they dumped their money into George Soros' 527s, they screamed and ranted and raved and even sang for free--and guess what?
The grown ups got mad, got active, got on the phones, went to the polls, and spanked them good.
This election sends a message not only to John Kerry and the anti-war left, but also to the elitists in Hollywood and their now fully-exposed allies in the liberal press.
This one's for you, Dan Rather. And for Mary Mapes. And it's for Americans Coming Together. And for the Media Fund. In your eye, George Soros. Go back to whatever bizarre country you came from. You, too, Mrs. Heinz "no real job" Kerry.
And with gratitude, it's for you, Ron Silver. For standing tall and defending patriotism in an industry of pygmies and traitors. And it's for the real heroes that fought and were imprisoned and died in Vietnam. And, most of all, it's for John O'Neill, a man of courage and strength. A man who can be proud that he fought this last battle for truth. A man who can fade back into history and live out his life in peace, knowing that he answered the call again when his country needed him most. To coin a phrase, he defended this nation as a young man, and he saved it when it needed to be saved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)