Posts Made By: James Brown

8)

Good for him. Good for the country. - Jim -

I do have to gloat a bit on this. The final EV tally looks like 286 Bush, 252 Kerry.

I predicted (with much help from the Hedgehog Report and Horserace Blog) 281 Bush 257 Kerry, with the difference from reality being only New Mexico.

Maurice predicted 274 Bush to 264 Kerry.

Don's Magic 8-Ball correctly called the race as well (Don did not) .

My mates on the right, Patrick and Jim Babcock, lacked the courage of their convictions.

And finally, for your viewing enjoyment:

"299 Kerry
239 Bush

pop vote
54% Kerry
43% Bush

Count on it

Herb"

At least it is not hereditary, Ray York: Bush 300
Kerry 238


- Jim - 8)

Jay Cost is posting an election analysis in three parts on his web page.

http://jaycost.blogspot.com

Be forewarned. Jay is a right winger, and thus a per se moron if you happen to be blessed with the political sophistication of Stephen for example.

For the rest of us it might be interesting. Jay's analysis of campaign dynamics and poll interpretation was eerily correct throughout the election cycle. - Jim -

Not Jim Henry! Say it ain't so

Harold, your post really resonates with a lot of us. For myself, over the last 20 years I have found myself rotating in a slow cycle between three hobbies. Amateur astronomy, vacuum tube audio, and reef aquariums.

When the time I spend focusing on one hobby is waxing, the time I spend on the other two wanes, but never goes away. For example, astronomy is dominant right now, but I still have and enjoy two aquariums and I still listen to the last stereo I built. In a couple of years, (or weeks :S ) I may get the urge to design and build a new aquarium system or build a new amplifier... so it goes. (I confess to being an equipment geek!)

So my suggestion (for what it is worth) is to trim your equipment down to something you like, and something that is easy to use. Rest a bit and do something else. Perhaps the passion will come back in a little while. I find these things to be quite unpredictable. - Jim -

"We helped make Saddam. We didn't help to make Hitler."

1. Arguably, we helped make Hitler. There was no Marshall plan after WWI. With Germany's economy in ruins, the conditions were right for a dictator to rise to power.

2. If we helped make Saddam, so what? That hardly means that our interests with respect to Iraq can not change. Countries do not have permanent allies. Countries do have permanent interests. Look at the U.S. relationship with Japan now vs. our relationship with Japan in 1942.

I am not expressly condoning the war in Iraq with my post. Merely responding to the historical/political point raised in the original post.

- Jim -

It is clear from the posts of the last several days that those of you who are disappointed that Bush was re-elected feel quite strongly that the electorate has made a poor choice. I can appreciate this, what amazes me is the analysis you folks have posted regarding why Bush voters made the choice they did.

For example, Mark is, in his own words, disgusted, “with the electorate that helped {Bush} win. {We non-Bush voters aren't} nearly as disappointed with the reelected administration as we are with those that reelected him.”

Why is Mark so disgusted? "Far too many so called "arguments" for reelection have no substance whatsoever." (Mark has other reasons too, read about it below.)

Kevin, speaking through a friend feels, “Way too many people in the USA voted for Mr. Bush because of fear or ideological rigidity. They simply could not break away from what they had done for years (out of party loyalty or stupidity)." Also, Kevin endorsed the following thought, “For those of us who prefer that the majority of the people can be counted on to engage in critical thought the USA is “toast.”

Mark again: “The W campaign machine duped half the country and they still don't know it.”

According to Tom Steinberg, “the "red states' morality" boils down to racism, pure and simple.” His opinion is endorsed by Clyde.

Tom also believes that “51% of Americans are naive enough to believe what their government tells them, and will absolutely ignore facts to the contrary. It's a matter of Faith in our Commander in Cheat.”

We have a whole thread on homophobia or religious intolerance as the motivator that put Bush over the top. Russell actually thinks that Bush voters want, “Religiocultural government, by the people and against the people. {the Taliban} Homegrown here in the good ole US of A.”

It goes on and on.

According to you guys, in order to support Bush one had to be either:

1. stupid
2. duped
3. racist or homophobic
4. scared,
5. stupidly loyal, or
6. advocating a theocracy.

How narrow, incorrect and presumptuous your assessment seems to me!

My own personal reasons for voting for Bush are well documented and hopefully well articulated on this forum. I personally believe that my reasons for voting Bush are valid. I certainly do not expect you to be swayed by my reasoning; such is politics. What is important for this thread is that my reasons as posted before the election were received here with respect, and in some cases debated with respect. Obviously, my reasons for voting Bush did not fall into categories 1-6 above.

Please spare me the response, “but we are not talking about you…we were talking about those other Republican voters.”

I am certain that the Republican voters who voted for Bush because of reasons 1-6 are rare. Probably as rare as any true leftists or revolutionaries who voted for Kerry. (Where is John Sheil anyway?)

I know hundreds of persons in Colorado and Indiana who voted for Bush. These people are my clients and friends. These people are pretty much indistinguishable from my Democratic clients and friends. In fact you could not tell the difference among the people in each group unless politics was discussed.

My Republican associates did not vote because of categories 1-6. I know several Christian fundamentalists; none of them want a theocracy. I know lots of guys who are somewhat creeped out by Gays, but really couldn’t care less what goes on behind closed doors.

I encourage you guys to ask your Republican friends why they voted the way they did. You might be surprised.

The duped, stupid, theocratic, hateful and fearful 51% makes good press but it is not even close to reality. Even worse, attributing evil motivation or stupidity to millions of reasonable persons who happen to disagree with you is tragically arrogant. – Jim -

I agree with Mr. Gay's theme Nils that intolerance is not a virtue, but I do not agree with the premise of his article. The modern day "Know Nothing" type pure homophobic Republicans exist I am sure, but they are a small easily vilified subset of the coalition. Bush made gains from 2000 among all demographic groups except the very young, including many groups such as gays and women that are typically not homophobic.

To the extent that the majority moved proactively against Gay marriage, the correct analysis IMHO is not intolerance.

The correct analysis is that a majority is reacting to and against overreaching by judicially active courts such as MA and scofflaw Mayors like Gavin Neusom. There was a good opinion piece about this in the WSJ yesterday. Without the MA and San Francisco shortcuts, the Gay marriage amendments would never have seen the light of day.

In essence, gays have made a ton of progress toward full societal acceptance in the last 40 years. Contrary to Mr. Gay's assertion, gay teachers no longer remain in the closet, at least not in my kids' school. A national and state by state majority supports equal legal rights for gay couples. This was clearly not the case in 1964. Our changing values do not mean however that the majority appreciates a short circuit of the process of societal evolution.

There are analogies that can be made to Roe v. Wade on this point.

- Jim -

The Noam Chomsky quote makes no sense at all.

Unless one considers the U.S. to be the source of all that is ill with the world.

Which pretty much sums up the collected writings of Noam Chomsky.

- Jim -