Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Let the blood-letting in the Democratic party begin. Let's hope they wise up over the next four years.

Posted by James at November 3, 2004 08:55 AM

We should all fell gratitude towards Mr. Kerry becasue he could have drug this crap out for weeks if not months. I did not care for the man or his politics, but he is at least better than Al Gore.

Posted by Joe Schmoe at November 3, 2004 08:57 AM

congrats.

It appears that mr. President owes a favor to OBL. As soon as Osama quoted Moore, Kerry was done with.

And now for the interesting part. We'll see if MtM was anything more than a whiff of hot air or not.

Posted by kert at November 3, 2004 09:06 AM

Well, to be fair to Gore, he actually almost had the election in reach. It really was close in Florida.

But to think that Kerry was going to somehow pick up Ohio was, at the end, laughable (and it was last night, too--they just finally came to their senses after getting a good night's sleep).

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 3, 2004 09:07 AM

Well, he's won. My take on this is that we'll get to see what he's really made of.

My take on his presidency was that Afghanistan wasn't the total disaster that it could have been; Iraq is much worse than it should have been, and the economy and foreign policy have been poor.

There's nothing in his first presidency that seems to be "genius"- he hasn't caught OBL, he hasn't improved anything much that I can see for America (with the possible exception of getting rid of Saddam- but then Saddam realistically was a shadow of his former self, and unlikely to cause big problems, although he could conceivably have done so.) He hasn't even secured supply of Iraqi oil, the terrorists keep blowing it up. And he sure has spent a *lot* of money.

Still, his space policy is atleast semi-reasonable.

Seriously, what else good has he done as president?

I think it's only right to expect a lot from a president. We in the rest of the world wait to see with baited breath whether his second term will improve on his first; there seems to be a *lot* of room.

Posted by Ian Woollard at November 3, 2004 09:40 AM

Given the Bush mandate, and control of the House and Senate and soon the Supreme Court I think its fair to have high expectations from this Administration.

If things stay FUBAR-ed up there will be no one else to blame. If things go well, then I will applaud and admit my prior errors. In the meantime, no more screeds.

Only time and reality, not faith, will tell.

Kudos to Kerry for not seeking to incite civil war.

Posted by Bill White at November 3, 2004 10:16 AM

PS to James.

Blood letting amongst the Democrats is irrelevant. You guys now hold all the cards. To kick a fellow when he is down is petty and damaging to the nation.

I shall encourage my fellow lefties to hold their tongues and give Bush and the Republicans a chance. Not be "yes-men" or "me-too-ers" but give the GOP a fair chance to run things well.

Posted by Bill White at November 3, 2004 10:21 AM

Hey Bill,

Thanks for your comments - I guess I miscommunicated my thoughts.

I'm actually a self-described liberal living in Canada and was (marginally) hoping for a Kerry win. Kerry is actually a lot more conservative than I am on many issues.

What I was trying to get across is that this election may finally offer a chance for the Dems to take stock of where they really stand. I don't think that they have been realistic about a lot of things, going into this election. According to the view of most of my Democratic friends, all the pieces were in place for a Democratic victory last night. The fact that they failed may cause them to re-evaluate a lot of things, leading to a much stronger Democratic party (and candidate) in 2008. This is certainly what I'm hoping for. It's just going to take a lot of changeover in the party leadership.

Ultimately, I am still hopeful that this election result is a good thing for the Democrats, in the long term.

Posted by Bill at November 3, 2004 10:48 AM

Whoops, how did my post above get credited to "Bill"? Sorry Bill White, didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

Posted by James at November 3, 2004 10:50 AM

IMHO, gay rights and abortion tipped this election. Can Democrats change on those issues? I don't know. Maybe those issues will indeed help establish a permanent GOP majority.

God help Rand Simberg if that momentum comes to include the anti-evolutionist crusade. ;-)

Neither gay righst nor abortion are high on my list of priorities, either way, but no Democrat can possibly win running too far to the Right on those issues.

= = =

That and whether Iraq regime change helps or hurts the War on Terror. On that, a choice has been made by the Amreican people and only time will tell the wisdom of that decision.

Posted by Bill White at November 3, 2004 11:19 AM

Bill White I take back all the nasty things I've thought about you recently.

I wish and hope that more of the folks from the left will come to your point of view. It's the only way we can survive as a country.

Posted by Steve at November 3, 2004 11:32 AM

We in the rest of the world wait to see with baited breath whether his second term will improve on his first.

Unless you're in Australia, Britain, Poland or another reliable ally, don't hold your breath. We had a chance to elect a President of the UN and Old Europe last night. We chose to elect a President of the United States of America instead.

Does this embarass me? Nope. The "internationalist" overseas Kerryphile position would seem to be that they should vote their interests and we should vote their interests, too. Yeah, well, ha ha.

Posted by Carl Pham at November 3, 2004 12:14 PM

Can we all now agree that Zogby is offically a joke?

The one-trick pony has broken his ankle.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 3, 2004 12:23 PM

We had a chance to elect a President of the UN and Old Europe last night. We chose to elect a President of the United States of America instead.

Hear, hear, Carl!

My sentiments exactly.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at November 3, 2004 01:08 PM

I wonder if Terry McAuliffe, DNC chairman will take some blame his "front loading" primary scheme? And if the donors to the Kerry campaign will feel that they got value for their dollars?

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 3, 2004 01:20 PM

And if the donors to the Kerry campaign will feel that they got value for their dollars?

I wonder if George Soros has picked out a monastery yet?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 3, 2004 01:23 PM

There are problems in both parties. I've heard too many complaints from long time Republicans about the religious right and the neocons. I expect that to only get worse. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative people are not likely to be all that fond of the religious right.

Some Democrats are starting to realize that Nader et al. are real liabilities. If they hadn't, I wonder if I could have even supported the centrist Democrats I did.

FWIW, 40 years ago my views would have qualified me to be broad minded liberal Republican -- as well one who saw the truth in what a lot of libertarians are saying today without going overboard about it.

Posted by Chuck Divine at November 3, 2004 02:09 PM

I wonder if George Soros has picked out a monastery yet?

Funny you should write that. Within a few weeks I will release a space themed short story premised on a George Soros like character.

Who says all space "knights" must be white?

Posted by Bill White at November 3, 2004 02:46 PM

Oh I've said this before, but at the risk of being even more long-winded that usual:

Make no mistake about it, the Democratic Party we saw this year is not it's core. The Democratic Party is perfectly capable of putting up a smart, capable, reasonable and intellectually honest candidate (as our mighty host points out himself) -- they just chose not to this year.

What we saw in 2004 was the frothing noise of a motley collection of the Democratic Party's dregs and wannabes, which bear the same relation to the great party of the past as the crazy Montana militias do to American Jacksonian conservatism, or as blow-dried tax-skimmin' wife-cheatin' televangelists do to the deep religious faith of our grandfathers and grandmothers that built this country into the awesome beacon of hope to the world it is.

The reason is simple: W was unbeatable this year, and the best Democrats knew it long ago (especially after a few of them dipped a toe into the primary process and got trashed). So why not play a little rope-a-dope and let the in-house crazies have their field day? Let them all gather together and thoroughly discredit themselves and their loony ideas. I think that was the master plan.

And that's what happened. It was a necessary and beneficial bloodletting. Now look for the real heart of the Democratic Party to emerge from hiding. Their competence and sensibleness will surprise the more naive observers on the right.

W is a great President, one of the best. The strengthened Republican Party is going to powerfully influence our future. But not control it. This election is not a sign of even greater GOP dominance to come, but more of a high-water mark. The Democrats are going to be back, back in strength, and back in style.

I look forward to it.

Posted by Carl Pham at November 3, 2004 02:53 PM

Carl

Gosh how I want to believe that. I really do not want the Democratic party to go away. The party I remember had a lot of good things about it.

The only thing I mistrust more than a given party dominating the government is the other party dominiating it.

I'm willing to cut the Republicans slack for two years as I feel it is necessary for the moment, but all things being equal in '06 I will vote the straight Democratic ticket to help get the balance back. So you see I want a sane Democratic party.

But somehow your explaination sounds way way too good to be true.

But here's hoping you are right.

Posted by Michael at November 3, 2004 03:33 PM

(As an aside, I am so glad that I don't have to drive on the Los Angeles Freeway today... I'm somewhat worried about my friend who has a Florida license plate here.)

Although I -- as a sometimes-liberal, sometimes-libertarian youth -- tentatively supported Kerry, I'm personally just glad that this ugly election is finally over. Although there are a lot of things I disagree with Bush on, there's also a lot of things I agree with him on: gun rights, lower taxes, and his excellent space policy. Who knows: maybe with time a better understanding of the views might make me reevaluate some of my differences with Bush.

Hopefully this loss will be the kick in the ass (har, har) that the Democrats need to revitalize, and become something more than the NotRepublican Party. With any luck (and maybe even a constitutional amendment for folks like Schwarzenegger and Granholm) we'll actually have a decent race in 2008.

One of the big things I was in opposition to Bush on was his stance on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, but the successfully-passed $3 billion California stem cell initiative makes that largely irrelevant (and IMHO state funding is much better than federal funding). Also, if t/Space -- a company which includes the heads of Scaled Composites and SpaceX, and looks like it could revolutionize the way we approach space -- gets a Vision for Space Exploration contract, I will be a very happy camper.

Posted by Neil Halelamien at November 3, 2004 03:40 PM

I've heard too many complaints from long time Republicans about the religious right and the neocons.

Chuck, those complaints have been going on since the Mugwumps (if you don't recognize the term, try Google®). Except in blue states, that wing of the Republican Party hasn't done much for itself.

I suppose that in blue states they need to have that kind of attitude, but I'm not so sure. Once upon a time California had a viable conservative wing. What caused the change? Demographics? Right-wing drift among the conservatives? The ascendancy of the moderates in the GOP? A combination thereof?

My reading of history is that the conservative wing of the California GOP did pretty well for itself with Reagan and Deukmejian. Then along came Wilson, who told conservative Republicans in the Legislature they were "f&cking irrelevant." The high tide for Republican success in California politics came shortly thereafter, and until last year's eGray recall had been on the ebb ever since.

And of course within the California GOP the "winners" have written the history and blamed it all on the wacko right-wingers.

Posted by McGehee at November 4, 2004 09:27 AM

But here's hoping you are right.

Michael, have faith in evolution and human nature. There's rich and tasty "food" out there (capturing the White House), so there's no way only one "organism" (the Republican Party) is going to be allowed to enjoy it in peace. Another "organism" is sure to evolve to compete for it.

It might not be the Democratic Party per se, of course. Political parties have died out before. But the people and causes go on -- they just re-organize around a different banner.

For example, everyone except the real wackos might leave the Democratic Party and join the Republican. But then the GOP would be too large, too diversified and self-contradictory, and it would split up. Voila, back to two healthy parties.

This is a large and diverse country. There's no way a single party could keep us all happy indefinitely. So we'll always have an opposition for people who are down on the present way of doing things and think they could do so much better.

Which is one reason we are so much stronger politically than Europe, where there's only one "correct" way of doing things, and the parlaimentary system tends to keep the opposition fragmented and powerless. The fact that we always have an organized, powerful opposition -- that "divided nation" thingy the fools in the MSM keep bleating on about -- keeps our ruling party on its toes, blasts their stupid ideas down quickly, and promotes their rapid adaptation of the best ideas from outside their ranks.

That's why the biggest enemies of our political health are those who think we should all just agree on the reasonable way of doing things, and who bemoan the "divisions" in the country and the "partisan" nature of our discourse. If you translate those complaints into their native language, they are complaining about a diversity of viewpoints and the fact that there appears often to be more than one plausible way of doing things. That is, they are just intellectual Stalinists who complain that the peasants don't seem to be swallowing the Politburo line. This is one way in which rather bright people can be rather stupid.

Posted by Carl Pham at November 4, 2004 11:34 AM

McGehee,

When you lose people like my mother and uncle, you're losing a big part of the Republican party.

The Republican Party was almost dead when Dewey (yes, that Dewey) and then Eisenhower resurrected it.

Religious fanatics are not reasonable people. We've had entirely too much experience with such over the centuries. They eventually piss everyone off -- and destroy whatever they've joined.

Posted by Chuck Divine at November 4, 2004 06:14 PM

Chuck, part of that wing's problem is tarring every conservative who happens to be religious as a "fanatic."

It's the kind of language we expect from the Democrats, not our fellow Republicans. Nobody in the conservative wing is trying to muzzle moderates -- they're only trying to keep the moderates from muzzling conservatives.

Posted by McGehee at November 5, 2004 07:31 AM

Post a comment