Saturday, November 20, 2004

Kerry Apologists: Defining Stupid

The aphorism can be applied to stupid people just as easily to the insane. It goes like this: "A reasonable definition of stupidity is doing the same thing today that you did yesterday, and expecting different results."

The stories are everywhere. Kerry voters are in therapy over their loss. Pundits are all over the media and blogosphere analyzing what went wrong, were Kerry acolytes too easy on the President? Maybe they were too hard. Maybe they should have played up moral values more, maybe, maybe, maybe.

The common thread of the post election postmortums is that the Democrats need to take a different approach in order to win back the White House. A few Dem insiders are even privately saying that to win they need to be less shrill, less negative, less liberal, less "anti", less reactionary, more positive. James Carville even said, in so many words, last week that this was necessary for the Democrats to become a majority party again.

But this is the second election in a row that they have come to this conclusion. They were highly negative the last time around when Gore lost the White house and many were saying then that people were turned off by the high level of negativity in that campaign. The low blows leveled against W in 2000 including the despicable NAACP dragging ad and the 11th hour drunk driving charge did tremendous damage to Bush, it is true but also to Gore as people recognized the dirty politics involved.

Fast forward to today when, despite all evidence showing that people found Kerry's negative portrayal of Bush and middle America repulsive, many on the left are elevating the lunacy and negativity by talking blue state secession, moving to Canada, another stolen election in Florida and group psychotherapy sessions for Kerry lovers fearful of what terror Bush is going to bring upon them this time around. The anti-evangelical rhetoric is increasing, the "stupid" red state mantras continue, and on it goes.

Apparently, these people just can't help themselves. They know that their antics turn off the electorate. They know that they should moderate their tone. They should know that whining just makes them look like lame losers. But, from all appearances, the Left is intent on self-destruction. I can't watch Fox News in the evening for more than 15 minutes before I see some Kerry apologist like David Korn or Bob Beckel making racist remarks about Condi or bigoted statements about evangelicals. It just goes on and on. They should know better but they appear to think that doing the same thing they did last election cycle will produce different results in the next.

Berkeley Study: Gore almost stole election in Florida!

Although the tinfoil beanie types are still trying to claim that the reason Kerry lost is because the Republicans cheated, a recent study ironically, may prove that Bush won Florida in 2000 by a much larger margin than we thought. A new Berkeley study is trying to claim that e-voting in Florida in the recent presidential election does not square with voting patterns in 2000. Since votes chalked up for Bush faster in 2004 than in 2000 the only conclusion can be, that the GOP somehow hacked the electronic voting machines, thereby giving Bush more votes than previous voting patterns suggest he would have received.

But here's the problem, the study might unwittingly, be proving that the DEMOCRATS cheated in 2000 by SUPPRESSING Bush votes.

Dafydd ab Hugh, a statistician wrote an email dissecting the assumptions and makes this astute observation:


"...the correct way to interpret this is that there were between 130,000 and 260,000 "excess votes" for Bush. But mathematically, it's equally valid to suppose that there was a Republican suppression factor in the 2000 and 1996 elections -- that is, that the Democrats cheated in counting punchcards in heavily Democratic districts in past elections -- which they were unable to do in 2004 with the electronic voting machines."

To think that the Gore-illas almost got away with a wholesale theft of the election in 2000 still makes me shudder.


(hat tip: Powerlineblog.com)

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Secession Blues

As we all grow weary of the increasingly tiresome secession talk, I'd like to remind you Kerry-lovin' blue voters that you are, as usual, unhinged from reality. First, there is no Cascadia and there isn't going to be one. You Blue folks are simply too hateful and unproductive to survive in a land all your own. Us red folks are the engine of this country and you know it.

Second, if you really must secede (and we don't want you to but this is currently a free country and the redder it is the more that will be true), you're talking about EIGHT new countries, not one. But sorry, you don't get any more territory than you currently claim you occupy. After all, you're the ones always talking about how sparsely populated "Jesusland" is. Well fine, then stick to your Watts public housing or your Upper Westside rent-controlled condos. That's fine with us out here in Stupidpeopleland.

While some might argue that the red/blue maps should either be purple or boiled down to red/blue at the precinct level, the reality is, the county-by-county election map is the best foundation for establishing the boundaries of your eight shiny new blue countries: The Disunited States
Your nation selection will be varied in locale, climate, and natural resources (which we expect you to leave untouched, by the way). Note that, while some blue counties had to go red (and vice versa) to make your 8 new countries possible, that's geopolitics for you. Sorry you can't keep ANWR or Yellowstone but we need more oil and geothermal energy for our rapidly expanding Stupidpeopleland population (currently 59,459,765+).

So take your pick of one of the new confederated blue countries and then feel free to apply for immediate citizenship. We'll miss your whining (but that's about it.)

Monday, November 08, 2004

Poverty Doesn't Breed Terror

As I suspected all along:

A John F. Kennedy School of Government researcher has cast doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom.

Read the entire piece.

Friday, November 05, 2004

Who Really are the Stupid Ones?

Jane Smiley comments, in her now infamous column, about the stupidity of Bush voters. But ever since the election I've been asking myself, "how could people be so ignorant to vote for the ultra-leftist Kerry?" Yes, I know I risk being labeled a reverse-elitist here and I do know that there are many well educated people who voted for Kerry. So what explains the popularity of a candidate who was demonstrably the most liberal Senator in Congress, a "war hero" of dubious distinction (and quite possibly of dishonorable merit), a self-admitted war criminal, by definition a traitor to his country (as he gave aid and comfort to our enemies on multiple occasions), a guy who was on every side of the issue from day one of his candidacy, and a stiff to boot?

The answer lies, I think, in three different areas. First, regarding his "flip flopping". Many Kerry true believers are just as liberal as he is and know that his seemingly apparent constant changing of position was just that, SEEMINGLY apparent. In fact, the position-changing was as we now know, simply a tactic to get the gullible to vote for him. The Faithful didn't care that he was a pseudo-flip-flopper because they also knew that Kerry could prevaricate like a Clinton (only not as roguishly). They knew he was for partial birth abortion, gay marriage, taxes on everyone with an income, big government, and never met an appeasement position he didn't like. So, they didn't care if he appeared to change positions because they knew that ultimately, he was going to be what he has always has been, an anti-war, anti-family, liberal, globalist.

The second reason Kerry was nearly elected was that a huge number of people now rely, in no small measure, on government. Either they collect social security, welfare, subsidies, or a paycheck as a government worker. Others rely on big government for the enhancement of their power base. This is the vote that is becoming ever more dangerous for how long can a democratic republic exist if the majority vote is cast by people who are takers rather than contributors?

Finally, many Kerry voters apparently do not pay attention to the issues to a level that qualifies them to think for themselves. These are the people who think that modern conservatism/libertarianism is synonymous with its ideological nemesis, fascism. These are the people whom Jay Leno interviews who don't know who Dick Cheney is or that the moon is the Earth's ONLY satellite. These are the people who think that Michael Moore's films are documentaries rather than fantasy (and not very good fantasy either). One might say that these are the products of public school/elite media brainwashing. This is the group Evan Thomas, Asst. managing editor for Newsweek, was no doubt talking about when he claimed that the mainstream press could deliver 10-15 points to Kerry beyond what the candidate normally should get. Indeed, I think they did succeed in obtaining that number. Without their help the Dem candidate would have lost nearly every blue state after being challenged on his dubious war record, his traitorous conduct after the war, his non-existent career in the Senate, and his constant position changes. But they didn't (and in fact, did the opposite). They covered up for him, built him up as a brilliant, thoughtful, and nuanced individual, a politician of the people, yada, yada, yada.

I would place good money on the hunch that AT LEAST 15% of the country bought the bogus stories produced by CBS and the NY Times about Bush's TANG record and the trumped up wep depot story. Newsweek and the AP printed Democrat talking points as real news stories for months and people lapped it up. Can I say, people that bought these lies, maybe THESE are the stupid people that Michael Moore was really talking about?

There is no other explanation for how a guy who carried the banner (and poorly at that) for a failed ideological system could get 48% of the American vote.

48% is a huge number considering the bankruptcy of both the Kerry record and the ideology he espouses. How is this possible? While the following numbers are not the result of research, it is my considered opinion that the voting populace probably breaks down something like:

Dem column:

15% "Intellectuals", assorted true believers, Christian values haters, anti-war types, socialists
18% People who benefit from big government programs (recipients as well as government employees)
15% uniformed people who are easily taken in by media propaganda or idealists who don't know their history.

GOP column:

30% values oriented traditionalists who stand by the foundational premise of the country.
15% American exceptionalists who see this country, warts and all, as the best hope for the world.
7% uninformed voters who vote based on common sense rather than deep study of the issues.

Kerry supporters can whine all they want about the "dumb" American voter, but in the end, a look in the mirror might be more in order.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

We are NOT Divided!!

I grow so weary of the "divided country" stuff. Liberal commentators keep talking about how Bush now has to govern to the center instead of the "far right" because he won by such a slim margin. Tell me this, did they say the same things when Clinton couldn't muster more than 46% of the vote in 1992?

Look at these numbers (from City Comforts Blog):

year ..... margin ....... candidates

1948 * 04.5%, 114 * Truman/Dewey
1952 * 10.9%, 353 * Eisenhower/Stevenson
1956 * 15.4%, 384 * Eisenhower/Stevenson
1960 * 00.2%, 084 * Kennedy/Nixon
1964 * 22.6%, 434 * Johnson/Goldwater
1968 * 00.7%, 110 * Nixon/Humphrey
1972 * 23.2%, 503 * Nixon/McGovern
1976 * 02.1%, 057 * Carter/Ford
1980 * 09.7%, 440 * Reagan/Carter
1984 * 18.2%, 512 * Reagan/Mondale
1988 * 07.7%, 315 * Bush 1/Dukakis
1992 * 05.6%, 202 * Clinton/Bush 1
1996 * 08.5%, 220 * Clinton/Dole
2000 *-00.5%, 005 * Bush 2/Gore


Bush won by 3+ points and 34 electoral college votes and NOW we're suddenly divided?