Remember them?
Jay Clarke
Posted on 10/28/2004 9:17:38 AM PDT by Constitution Day
happy warrior Prediction City This election can't end soon enough, and it probably won't, not with thousands of Democrat lawyers circling the courthouses of selected battleground states. It's necessary for Bush not just to win, but to win big enough to compensate for the gazillions of New York residents registering to vote in Florida, and for the massed ranks of chad-diviners waiting to descend if that proves insufficient. But Bush owes us a big win anyway. A squeaker will not be good for America and it ought to prompt some serious reflection among Republicans on why the president didn't use his 80 percent approval ratings three years ago to make a serious attempt to shift the political culture. More on this anon, either in our Extra-Embittered All-Recriminations Issue or in our Now That He's Back In, We Can Start Whining and Complaining Again Special. But, as it happens, I think he'll win, and win convincingly enough. In 2000, Al Gore lost because he had no appeal to rural white men, who, despite his claims to be a Tennessee farmer, reacted to him as if he were some effete ninny from Massachusetts. Four years on, the Dems have replaced the faux effete ninny with the genuine article. Arkansas, West Virginia, and Tennessee will be sticking with Bush, and Maine's Second Congressional District will join them. Every loser spinning as he descends says he doesn't believe the polls, but it does seem to me when you look at them that there's something a little Squaresville about the whole racket. It's 9/10 polling, and I'm not sure it catches some of the shifts. For example, everyone keeps talking about New Jersey as a "solidly Democrat state," as if it were a complete mystery and aberration that it's suddenly a swinger. It's true that, in normal circumstances, New Jersey shouldn't be in play. So what's abnormal this election cycle? Well, there was that thing that happened just over the Hudson River three years ago that kinda changed the look of the skyline . . . How many New Jersey commuters to Manhattan feel reassured by Kerry on terrorism? A sliver of "9/11 Democrats" declined to support their party in the 2002 elections. Will there be more or fewer this time?
MARK STEYN
Well, consider Martin Peretz, the executive supremo of The New Republic and a big buddy of Al Gore. Four years ago, he was as chad-hungry as every other Democrat, sticking loyally by Al's side through one spurious legal move after another. Those of us who took the Bush side in the Florida re-re-re-re-re-count were swatted aside, in my case as "an ugly little article by one Mark Steyn." (Gotta love that "one Mark Steyn" business, a favorite formulation of snooty American media grandees.) Mr. Peretz was also one of those Democrats aesthetically revolted by Dubya. "George W.," he sneered, "may not know much of anything. The other night on television, the Texas governor introduced his dog to the American people, and — do you believe it? — his dog is named Spot." By contrast, Al Gore had the taste and sophistication to call his pooches "Shiloh" and "Daisy." Mr. Peretz's strange judgmentalism on canine nomenclature embodied the vicious partisanship of the day: Cry havoc and let slip the war of dogs!
But four years on the great man turns up in the Los Angeles Times with a column called "Kerry the Clueless." Clueless on what? Israel, mainly. The senator, says Peretz, is wedded to "the failed precepts of the past" and would put us on "a road map to nowhere."
If a Gore sidekick like Mr. Peretz can put aside his chad obsession and stylistic distaste for the Texas moron in favor of strategic clarity, how many other Democrats can? If a relatively tiny number of Jewish retirees feel as strongly about Kerry's cluelessness as Mr. Peretz, Florida's safe for Bush, and New Mexico could fall his way, too.
So my bet is that this year it's the Republicans who have the big tent, from the tri-state bridge-'n'-tunnel crowd to Marty Peretz to Pat Buchanan (who's just endorsed Bush in the magazine he launched to declare his disgust at him) to 24-year-old Alexandra Wolfe, daughter of Tom, who told the Sunday Times of London she'd be voting for Bush. ("If I say it out loud, it's death . . . People look at you like you are a freak. I believe in abortion and I totally believe Kerry is right on some social issues, but I just don't trust him on terrorism.")
I don't think the Hail Mary Cheney pass and promises of the crippled rising from their wheelchairs will make any difference to the likes of Miss Wolfe. And, more worrying for Kerry, those afflicted who can already rise from their sickbeds seem disinclined to do so. "Clinton Expected To Be at Fewer Kerry Events: Recuperation from Surgery Is Taking Time," reported the Washington Post. "Kerry officials had hoped that Clinton might spend some of the closing weeks of the campaign on the Democratic nominee's plane, appearing arm in arm at rallies in swing states," but apparently his physicians have ruled it "out of the question."
Hmm.
So I'm optimistic. If, when next we meet, John Kerry is president-elect, I'll look like a complete idiot.
But that will be the least of it.
Not only they don't make sense, but they're made by the same ex-radical campus mob that fills news rooms and editorial boards of the mainstream/lefty liberal media.
"In the name of higher goal" (to oust W) these guys don't hesitate to lie and falsify in press and on the screen... why would they abstain of doing that in polls?
The best illustration is Australia's recent election. The situation there resembled the American very closely: conservative incumbent John Howard, a staunch US ally in war against terrorism; and pinkish Labor candidate Mark Latham, with a hand of traditional peacenik and femmunist candies to lure the electorate.
The campaign was a total love affair between the media and the Laborite. I cannot recall a poll mentioned in the press under any headline except "Race too close to tell" or "Labor gains public approval" or "Candidates are neck-in-neck, with slight advantage for Latham".
And then John Howard not only won on wide margin but took over several "safe Labor seats" in the lower house, and obtained control over the Senate.
Possible explanations:
a) pure coincident;
b) those in the polling companies have no clue what they are doing;
c) they know what they are doing quite well, but it's not what you think they are doing.
The choice is yours.
Yes, they do! I was glad to see that in my mailbox.
I think that Bush hatred is overstated (a minority making a lot of noise.
That will be the story of the election. The media, living in their bubble, didn't see what was really going on.
Chad Diviner runs a Bore-Water Drilling company in outback Queensland.
I agree, and in fact I offer two predictions of my own.
1. Many people who vote for John Kerry will feel privately relieved when decisive President George W. Bush is reelected decisively.
2. About a year from now, a book with a title something like Collusion: How the New York Times and CBS collaborated with John Kerry and the Democrats will (with delicious irony) be on the New York Times Best Seller list.
Judging from the folks I've talked to, the answer is: MANY more.
Who the heck do you think pays most of the taxes, Steve?
A tax cut that didn't include everyone, especially those making over 200K wouldn't have been effective to lift our economy. It would have been a worthless and unwise move. It might have looked like a nice move to those in the lower brackets, but anyone who really knows and is honest can tell you that tax cuts need to be deep to really spur the economy (even deeper than now) and when they are deep, even federal revenue is increased as more workers and corporations are paying taxes, even though at lower rates.
Increased taxes causes malaise, Steve. And that's the truth. Besides, high taxes are unfair to anyone who works for a living, PERIOD.
What part of that can't liberals understand?
Thanks for the ping.
We were all saying the exact same thing in 2000. The only question then was the extent of GWB's landslide over Gore. I'll believe the polls now until they are proven otherwise.
Yours is a good take on it.
Steyn slips the daggers in so effortlessly and without notice. Oh, I love him.
More Steyn Ping
BTTT!
Socialists gave up on their utopian vision 30 or 40 years ago. For them, destruction has become an end-in-itself.
Tax cuts should always be across the board. In fact I support a flat tax, every one pays the same amount. This idea that it is only "fair" that the "rich" pay more only complicates our tax laws.
Taxes should be for only one purpose, raise money to run the governemt, not to help or punish individuals.
I am not worried. What we are witnessing is a rare event, the death of a polictical party. The Democrat Party has been taken over by those on the extreme left, and while they are still numerous, they do not represent the view of middle America. Each day, life long Democrats are leaving the party and joining the Republicans.
At some point, the Democrats will go the way of the Whigs, and the Republican party will split. The liberal Democrats will keep the old Republican party while those that are more conservative will create a new party.
I listened to yesterday's (Sunday) BBC World Service in Chinese and one thing strikes me. A Chinese-American radio show host based in New York told the BBC that he noticed a serious leaning to the Republicans and Bush when compared to 4 years ago and more people plan to vote Bush than Kerry. I think he was talking about Asian-Americans (which never voted majority Republican since the end of the Cold War) and in particular, the Chinatown Chinese-Americans. And co-incidentially, the People's Republic of China in Beijing is also telling them to vote Bush!
As these Chinese comprise around 10% of blue state voting public (you know, the big Chinatown Chinese concentrate in states like New York, New Jersey (due to NYC), California (San Francisco and LA), will we actually see the big blue states fall to Bush? ;-)
Had Bush not passed the tax break for everyone, especially those who pay the most, we wouldn't be gaining substantial numbers of jobs right now and Bush would have certainly lost the election because of higher unemployment like his father did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.