Now that everyone’s done whomping on Glenn, I’m going to ask if anyone is really surprised over the election results. I mean, really.
To me, it was pretty much in the bag the moment Congress gave Bush war power even though we’re not at war.
Never underestimate the magician’s trick of misdirection. Look. Look, over here. This country’s riddled with problems, the type of which would cause any electorate to shift control, but hey! Over there! There’s this very, very bad man, and we have to do something about him, because he’s a very bad man. So quick, let’s assemble our allies–you know, the country that turns tanks on its protestors, and the country that supplied almost all of the 9/11 hijackers, and the country bordering Afghanistan where the new terrorist camps have been set up–those allies, and do something about this very bad man, because unlike the very bad man, they embrace human rights and the American way and puppies.
And while that’s happening, the Democrats won’t be able to pull the attention of the 1-in-3 people who vote over towards those annoying domestic problems because they’ll be too worried about war, and–as I said ages ago–people don’t like to switch horses in mid-war stream. In a political environment where criticism of the administration is tantamount to being unpatriotic, naturally the electorate is going to give a more clear mandate to a man who, two years ago, it did not give the majority of the popular votes to and likely would be heading for defeat in 2004 if two airplanes hadn’t been flown into the World Trade Center.
So as I said, I wasn’t surprised. The only surprising thing would be if anyone else was.
PAD
• 
Posted by Ben Hunt:
All right, we know Bush is stupid and Clinton is a male šlûŧ, can we please move on to the safety of social security or the nation as a whole now?
I love that line.
I think we found a moderate. 🙂
In all seriousness, good post.
Looking at Brian Jacks’ reply to my post, I realize that I was a bit out of line. Whatever I said about Cuba was the information I received from my (American) Political Science professor, and I didn’t bother to check into it personally, so I shoudn’t have presented it like it was fact. On the other hand, I do stand by the conclusion made from it. I believe the leaders of the American government- and possibly my own, if the situation ever arose, is capable of applying a double-standard when it comes to deciding who is and isn’t a terrorist. And I also believe that it is a dangerous thing to place more power in the hands of an already powerful individual. It’s a view American forefathers shared, which is why the American political system exercises seperation of power by not fusing the executive and legislative branches of the government. They did this so that each could act as a check on the other’s power and distance themselves from the Monarchist view of thinking they saw in Britain. Of course, I could be wrong about this, as I’m “obviously misinformed” about American history.
Looking at Brian Jacks’ reply to my post, I realize that I was a bit out of line. Whatever I said about Cuba was the information I received from my (American) Political Science professor, and I didn’t bother to check into it personally, so I shoudn’t have presented it like it was fact.
You should be able to trust your Political Science professor. But in this instance, he is wrong about the States supporting Castro. To much was invested in the mob controlled former government. And Castro was viewed as a Communist from day one by the US. He actually didn’t become a Communist(according to Castro in an interview) until the US tried to prevent all trade into Cuba. He turned to the Soviet Union and became a Communist. He claimed to be only a freedom fighter against the former government who’s leader escapes me. I keep thinking it starts with a B.
But the United States is not innocent. The US supported Saddam Hussein and trained Osama Bin Laudin both in the 1980s. They were allies against the Soviet Union. George W has already said that the government may have to turn to shady individuals in the fight against terrorism. So we’re going to train people that we’ll fight in twenty years. Smart eh?
About politics. I’m a registered independent (or unaffiliated). I lean toward consertave on many issues, but just as far liberal on some others. This way I get lots less junk mail. I also happen to work in the media (television). The technical side, not the editorial side, so I get to see a lot of what happens. And it ain’t pretty…especially the closer we get to election day.
Lots of people seem to think that broadcast stations should give away airtime to candidates. Well guess what? We can’t! That’s right, we can’t. We offer free time to candidates for debates and even time for candidates to come in and tape a statement about their principals and beliefs. You would think that most politicians would jump on this, but they don’t. For the most part, politicans and their handlers don’t want a forum where there is the slightest chance for a mistake. They only want to be on the air with their commericals. Yeah, the ones that they had to pay some advertising company to write, shoot and produce. Is anyone screaming for the ad companies to give away the production time to the candidates? If the candidate is only willing to be seen prepackaged, then they should pay the same rate as McDonalds, Target and Stay Free Maxipads.
Just as a side note, stations don’t make a lot of money on political ads. Having to air those means that Joes Car Emporium (who has been advertising for 10 years) has his commericial bumped, and gets it later at a reduced rate.
The main reason, IMO, that the republicans won more this election is message. They had a message (lower taxes, war on terrorism). And most of the messages I heard from the democrats was “we are good, they are bad”. The republicans told what they wanted to do, as opposed to the standard democrat message saying what they are going to do (and then forgetting about the promise the minute their hand goes on the bible to be sworn in).
I probably shouldn’t offer the Dems any help but this might help them figure out where their fortunes began to turn.
http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
I wasn’t surprised. The Democrats were in shambles ever since the 2000 election. They had no issue to stand on this year, much having to do with their own incompetence, moral bankruptcy and the fact that they were actually outmaneuvered by Bush.
Dok
I read post after post of people here claiming that the Republicans distracted Americans from the economy. The truth of the matter is that the economy is inexorably linked to the War on Terror. Those who voted Republican and conservative independent recognized that the two go hand-in-hand. An example of this was the DC shooter situation. Islamic extremists caused stores to be empty and commerce to slow to a proverbial crawl in that area and caused fears of like activity in other areas. It did not take an enormous leap in deductive reasoning to conclude that if two men could do this, then so could bin Laden’s boys, in even more devastating fashion.
Dok
“as I said ages ago–people don’t like to switch horses in mid-war stream.”
PAD is a great writer, but a lousy historian. Less than twelve months after Pearl Harbor, with a full-fledged war underway, the Republicans gained seats in both the House and Senate in the 1942 elections. If the Democrats couldn’t hold their ground in that situation, it’s a stretch to say that the Republicans gained seats in 2002 because of 9/11, or because of the threat of a war in Iraq. I’d like to think that it was, in part, because the American public was bright enough to recognize who held the reigns of power when the economy started taking a nosedive, who held the reigns of power when the corporate accounting scandals which have further damaged the economy began, and who held the reigns of power when the United States declined multiple offers to turn over Osama bin Laden for prosecution on previous terrorist attacks against the United States.