Most Likely My Only Post About the Election

First of all, thank God for the Twenty-Second Amendment.

For those of you self-proclaimed "liberal hawks" who supported President Bush although you don't agree with his views on social issues, consider this hate-filled screed from Frank Pastore in today's Los Angeles Times (hat tip to Kevin Drum):

The left bewitches with its potions and elixirs, served daily in its strongholds of academe, Hollywood and old media. It vomits upon the morals, values and traditions we hold sacred: God, family and country. As we learned Tuesday, it is clear the left holds the majority of Americans, the majority of us, in contempt.

This is the sort of mentality with which you have made common cause. Govern yourselves accordingly. Now consider this comment from a disappointed John Kerry supporter in yesterday's New York Times:

"What's different about New York City is it tends to bring people together and so we can't ignore each others' dreams and values and it creates a much more inclusive consciousness," she said. "When you're in a more isolated environment, you're more susceptible to some ideology that's imposed on you."

As an example, Ms. Camhe offered the different attitudes New Yorkers may have about social issues like gay marriage.

"We live in this marvelous diversity where we actually have gay neighbors," she said. "They're not some vilified unknown. They're our neighbors."

But she said that a dichotomy of outlooks was bad for the country.

"If the heartland feels so alienated from us, then it behooves us to wrap our arms around the heartland," she said. "We need to bring our way of life, which is honoring diversity and having compassion for people with different lifestyles, on a trip around the country." [my emphasis]

So the Kerry supporter reaches out and shows compassion. Anointing himself with the unctuous claim of supporting moral values, Pastore spews hate. What would Jesus do, indeed.

I think that Mark Schmitt is asking the right questions:

We are clearly in the middle of one of the great periods of Christian revival in American history, the third or fourth of the "Great Awakenings" in American Protestantism. Each such period has begun with a change in the nature of worship itself, essentially a private phase, and moved onto a public phase where it engaged with the political process. These have been significant moments of progress for this country. The Second Great Awakening led in it public phase to the Abolitionist movement. What some historians consider the Third Great Awakening beginning in the 1890s led to the Social Gospel movement, settlement houses, and the beginnings of the progressive era idea of a public responsibility to ameliorate poverty.

The right question, I think, is not whether religion has an undue influence, but why it is that the current flourishing of religious faith has, for the first time ever, virtually no element of social justice? Why is its public phase so exclusively focused on issues of private and personal behavior? Is this caused by trends in the nature of religious worship itself? Is it a displacement of economic or social pressures? Will that change? What are the factors that might cause it to change. [boldface mine; italics in original]

When my Dad retired in Huntsville, AL, he became friends with a man named Danny. Danny had a rather checkered past, but had straightened himself out and married a wealthy widow named June. June owned a clothing factory in North Alabama. She and Danny bought themselves a new car every year, lived in a mansion out in the country and vacationed regularly. They also attended church regularly and considered themselves to be good Christians. Most of the people working for them in the factory were paid minimum wage (three dollars/hour at the time) with no benefits such as health insurance. yet Danny and June had no moral qualms about the gross disparity between their lives and the lives of those who made them wealthy. Apparently they had never read The Gospel According to Luke, Chapter 6.

When Christopher Hitchens wrote his parting column for The Nation, he referred to the magazine as "becoming the voice and the echo chamber of those who truly believe that John Ashcroft is a greater menace than Osama bin Laden." If the claims of the Bush supporters are to be taken seriously on the subject of moral values, then the side Hitchens now supports believe that the sexual orientation of his fellow countryman, Andrew Sullivan is a far greater menace to the country than Osama bin Laden, an argument underscored by bin Laden's recent video appearance and the administration's utter failure to bring him to justice. Again, you liberal hawks (and you know who you are) these are the people with whom you are now aligned.

Some thoughts:

• It's time for Terry McAuliffe to go. He has been a failure for the Democrats.
• New York City voters went for John Kerry at about the same rate that they went for Al Gore. While I would not expect my fellow New Yorkers to vote in large numbers for President Bush, if one believes that those who were most critically impacted by the 9/11 attacks felt safer, clearly Bush would have won some more support. That speaks volumes to me.
• If the states that went for Bush are in "the Heartland", I suggest that we call the states that John Kerry won "the Brainland."
• Nota bene: Evan Bayh was reëlected to the Senate with 62% of the vote in a state Bush won with 60% of the vote.
• Don't be morose. That's what the opposition wants.

Finally, a sense of humor is vital no matter how down you may be. On Wednesday morning, my colleague, Luis Verges and I were descending to the lobby of the Golden Nugget Hotel in Las Vegas. We were on our way to a settlement conference at the Federal Courthouse in Las Vegas. Here's the conversation in a full elevator as a senior citizen couple entered.

The man, looking at Luis and me: "Boy I feel underdressed!"

Me: "Well, we're here on business."

Man: "We're on vacation."

Me (smiling): "Well, you're certainly entitled to dress casually"

Man: "Where are you from?"

Me: "New York. And you two?"

Man: "Toronto."

Me: "Are you accepting asylum applications?"

The entire elevator erupted in laughter. Keep your chin up. Right now we have no other choice.

Comments

[Michael J. Totten]

"This is the sort of mentality with which you have made common cause."

Only so far as you made common cause with Michael Moore. I would say you have not, since I know you don't care for him. So gimme a break here. I voted for a Democratic Congress, so I guess I made common cause with Michael Moore, too.

I might fisk this idiot on Monday. I dunno. Depends on what else lands on my desk between now and then.

[Randy Paul]

Only so far as you made common cause with Michael Moore.

Apples and oranges, Michael. Michael Moore is one person who supported Kerry, but may or may not have Kerry's ear. Frank Pastore is one person who is part of a larger movement that clearly has Bush's ear. If you believe that Michael Moore carries as much influence among Democratic policy makers as Christian conservatives do among the Republican policy makers, you're only fooling yourself. Take a look at how Arlen Specter has been walking back from the position he took regarding Supreme Court nominees.

As for your voting for a Democratic congress, give me a break. You voted for one Senator and one representative. Their power pales by comparison to the President's.

So, if you feel uncomfortable when the country lurches rightward culturally, please do not complain to me. For my part I will not say I told you so.

Finally, as for the "War on Terror", I don't know how you can regard Bush's prosecution of this as effective. John Ashcroft has not obtained one jury conviction for terrorism, not one of the vaunted military tribunals has even taken place (the commission members lack basic knowledge of the law), torture is being institutionalized and in true Pinochetesque fashion terrorism suspects are being disappeared.

Hope you're comfortable with that. Those of us in New York overwhelmingly feel less safe.

[miguel]

I think you overstate the difference. I don't think accusing people in "the heartland" of all being homophobe biggots is a good way to win their vote. Again, you can't call people rednecks all year long and then hope you get their vote.

And New York as all inclusive? And needing to spread its culture to all of us? Um. They already do. We in the midwest have to watch their insipid sitcoms.

For a better, less hate-filled assesment of why Bush got so many votes, here's a Dem turned Bush voter:

http://fromasadamerican.blogspot.com/2004/11/how-you-could-have-had-my-vote.html

[miguel]

Also, I think your selection is a bit biased. For every right wing screed, I can find people who are being humble in their victory (or, rather, painful choice of voting for Bush). And for every humle post like your New Yorker, you can find at least one ranting screed against all us redneck hicks who voted to murder ponys.

[aaa]

Where is the outrage at the use of easily hackable electronic voting machines, without a voter-verifiable paper trail?

In my view the use of these machines thoroughly delegitimizes the election results. Don't be so quick to try to find fault with Democrats when it is very likely that the Republicans have stolen yet another election.

More information here:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/003197.html

and here:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/003214.html

and here:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won_.php
http://www.flashpoints.net/#2004-11-03
http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR110304.htm
http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/04/11/06/1857203.shtml?tid=103&tid=226&tid=172&tid=126
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=388
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/10103931.htm?1c
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041105/ap_on_el_pr/voting_problems
http://www.newbernsj.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=18297&Section=Local
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1105-25.htm
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/52213/1921
http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/130301/index.php
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/302395.shtml
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65623,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
http://www.movingideas.org/activism/networks/post_election.html
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=%2Farticles%2F2004%2F11%2F02%2Fnews%2Fobserve.html

[Randy Paul]

I don't think accusing people in "the heartland" of all being homophobe biggots is a good way to win their vote.

Nor did I do that. Perhaps they should afford me the same courtesy and not call me Godless. Deal?

And New York as all inclusive? And needing to spread its culture to all of us? Um. They already do. We in the midwest have to watch their insipid sitcoms.

Have to? What is the channel selector switch for? My God, you have tons of options to divert yourself with. Is that your strongest argument?

Also, I think your selection is a bit biased. For every right wing screed, I can find people who are being humble in their victory (or, rather, painful choice of voting for Bush). And for every humle post like your New Yorker, you can find at least one ranting screed against all us redneck hicks who voted to murder ponys.

My argument to Michael as well as to you, Miguel is that the so-called Religious Right Movement is part of Bush's base (as opposed to say the one individual, Michael Moore). Thus using an op-ed piece in the largest newspaper in the nation's 2nd largest city who is also a radio talk show host on the largest religious radio station in the nation's 2nd largest radio market and owned by the largest Christian Conservative radio group in the country (Salem Communications) if anything is an excellent microcosmal example of the thinking of the president's base of support. I'm sure that there are others who voted for Bush who may get buyer's remorse when he begins to move this country culturally to the right.

As for the use of the term redneck, here's the only time I used the term "redneck":

Few terms offend me more than the term redneck. I gave a speech to a fairly liberal group about the quality of discourse and asked if anyone knew the origin of the term. No one did. I explained to them that it defined a white person who had to toil, usually in the fields or with their hands as a laborer until their neck became sunburned under the hot southern sun. This usually defined the poorest of the poor in the Deep South. In any event, it perpetuated a pernicious stereotype like most other slurs.

Ese perro no cazará, Miguel.

What I resent is the notion that the right has perpetuated that my right to dissent from accepting the false reasoning for the misguided war in Iraq or for his mishandling of the war on terror makes me less patriotic. I deeply resent the notion that the right all too often thinks that they hold a monopoly on what it means to be an American.

[akaky]

its a surprise to see you back a republican measure like the xxii amendment, randy, given that it was the gop's posthumous revenge on fdr ;-)

[Randy Paul]

Any port in a storm Akaky.

[Andrew]

Regarding Randy's thoughts: The exit of McAuliffe (and the rest of the duplicitous Clinton gang) is indeed long overdue. It would be nice to see a Democratic Party with its soul restored. "Brainland" is clever, but it would only reinforce the sense of resentment felt toward coastal elites in much of the Heartland. I count myself as only one of many of your opponents who does NOT want Democrats to become "morose," but rather that they get their bearings and pick fights on a rational basis, not rejecting everything that Republicans propose. I also take exception to the portrayal of us on the Right as being intolerant of dissent. I respect principled pacifism and criticism of the war based on strategic reasoning, but too much dissent these days is of the blind, knee-jerk variety, which is just not appropriate in these dangerous times.

[Randy Paul]

The Brainland comment was tongue in cheek. I don't like the term "Heartland" either and I suggest retiring both of them. How about it? New York, California and Massachusetts are as American as Nebraska, texas and Iowa.

pick fights on a rational basis

Who is to determine what is rational? I think that the rush to war in Iraq was very irrational and I take no satisfaction out of being vindicated by the lack of WMD's, especially when weighed against the deaths of so many young men. I resent the continued attempted linkage to 9/11 and do not feel safer as a result of the Iraq War.

I appreciate your willingness to listen to principled criticism. I only wish that those in the White House would be willing to accept criticism and consider that knee-jerk consistency is not a virtue. Considering their refusal to acknowledge mistakes, I remain less than optimistic.