Thursday, November 04, 2004

Victory is Ours!

Hello out there! Not a bad day for the right side of politics. In case you’re not already all up to date, this is how things worked out: Though Iowa has still not been called for either side, Bush has 279 electoral votes to Kerry’s 252 (270 are required to win). Kerry did the manly thing when he called up during math class (my math class of course) to concede defeat – he realized that he was unlikely to receive the 94% of provisional votes cast that would move Ohio into his column. Bush received three-and-a-half million more votes than Kerry, winning the popular vote by 51 to 48 percent. Bush tallied seven million more votes than he got in the last election; he got more votes than any other president in history. Bush got more of the female, black, and Hispanic vote than he did in the last election.

Republicans fared well in the House and Senate races as well – we picked up four seats in the Senate, giving us 55 seats to the Democrat’s 44 (there is also one independent who usually votes with the Democrats). The most important Senate race may well have been the one in South Dakota, where the Democrat’s ex-minority leader Tom Daschle (a Senator since 1986) lost to Republican challenger John Thune, who got 51% of the popular vote. Other happy outcomes include Mel Martinez’s defeat of Betty Castor in Florida, and Lisa Murkowski’s defeat of Tony Knowles in Alaska. (Murkowski had been appointed by her father to fill a vacant seat, and it was speculated that this would hurt her.) In Louisiana, David Vitter (R) avoided a runoff election by getting over 50% of the vote. (Louisiana has open elections where more than one candidate can run from each party; in the event that no candidate gets half the vote, there is a runoff between the top two candidates).

Even though three races remain to be called in the House, Republicans have increased their lead – they now have 231 seats to the Democrats’ 200 (there is also an Independent in the House).

Another bit of good news: Eleven states had state constitutional amendments on the ballot that would ban gay marriage in the state. All eleven amendments won in an impressive rejection of gay marriage. The margins ranged from 3-2 in Ohio to 6-1 in Mississippi. The amendments in nine of the states banned civil unions as well. These amendments have allowed the people to make the laws – and taken the power over gay marriage out of the hands of activist judges in those states.

In the face of this resounding victory for conservative values in America, I’ve heard some distressed liberals say that they’re going to move to Canada. I would like to say to them, in as gracious and magnanimous a manner as possible: Go ahead.


At 10:49 AM, Blogger allen said...

Dan, Lisa Murkowski and Tony Knowles duked it out in Alaska.

With that out of the way, the next question is when the Democratic Party will fracture, what the fallout will be and how we'll detect it.

It's now two terms of Repub president and at least twelve years of a Repub House and twelve years, less a year and a half due to Jim Jeffords, of Repub control of the Senate. If Bill Clinton is ever going to sleep in the Whitehouse again he's got to jettison the Deaniacs from the Democratic party so he can move the party to the right.

At 11:35 AM, Blogger Republican Dan said...

Sorry about the Florida-Alaska thing. Problem corrected.

At 8:49 PM, Blogger Warner Family Views said...

Hi Republican Dan:
I'm sending this along to show you that I'm not unwilling to eat crow when the occasion demands. As for your comment about sending disgruntled Democrats to Canada, please do. We'll be glad to take anyone that understands that wars ultimately destroy those who start them.

How the "A" word led Bush to victory
Staff Writer, Cranbrook Daily Townsman
Nov. 5/04
Wrapped in the flag and the Bible, President George W. Bush has dealt the liberal-left in the United States a crushing blow. Not just the left in the U.S., but the left in the entire world. So the rhetorical question must now be asked: Will the left learn anything from the experience?
In my estimation, not likely. Let me explain.
Beating this president should have been a no-brainer. For starters, Iraq, an unwinnable, unjustified, unpopular war with fresh body bags arriving home every week. That alone should have beaten Bush, but it didn't. He's the only president in recent memory whose term resulted in a net loss of jobs. That should have destroyed him in the rust belt of Ohio, little alone the rest of the country, but it didn't. His immoral war boosted the deficit into the multi-trillions. That should have killed him with his fiscal conservative supporters, but it didn't. There are other factors too, but I think you get the drift.
So why is Dubya still in the oval office with his brother Jeb looking over his shoulder in 2008? The answer can be summed up in one word. A word that's not popular in the lexicon of the left, but a word that's been the undoing of the liberal-left in the U.S. the past 30 years.
And that word is abortion.
Surely if this election proved nothing else it demonstrated that in American politics, at least, values have become more important than policies. If policies were all that counted, John Kerry would have won hands-down. How many times the past weeks did we see interviews with Bush supporters and the refrain was always the same: I like his morals. I like his values. He's a believer. He's against gay marriages. He's against stem-cell research. He's born again. He's pro-life.
You could talk job loss statistics, body bags, trillion-dollar deficits and out-sourcing of American jobs until you were blue in the face and it was like water off the proverbial duck's back.
Bush supporters aren't voting for him because of his policies. It's his values that are fervently supported in small town, god-fearing, flag-waving, gun toting, middle America. And chief among these is a visceral opposition to the red-button issues of abortion and gay marriage. Banning the Lord's Prayer in the classroom bothers them too. "We can't have values, they say. "That might offend somebody." And they have a point.
Oh sure, they want lower taxes and smaller government too, but don't kid yourself. It's Bush's position on the key moral issues of abortion and gay marriage that put him over the top in a nail-bitingly, tight race. You want proof? Look no further than the 11 states in the election that passed amendments against same-sex marriage. One of those states was Ohio. I rest my case.
So back to the beginning. What should liberal-left America do to counter the values juggernaut that has high-jacked American politics? For starters, I think some soul-searching is in order and I think this applies equally to the left in Canada.
Let's be honest here. The liberal-left is fond of putting down the Christian right for being narrow-minded, bigoted, reactionary etc. But what is more narrow-minded and reactionary than the left's absolute and totalitarian support for abortion with no dissent allowed? Indeed, unqualified support for abortion is one of the first thresholds you have to pass to break bread with the liberal-left. It's the virtual sine qua non of the feminist movement, one of the left's strongest support groups. In Canadian politics, there are lots of publicly pro-life MP's in the Conservative and Liberal parties, but nary a one in the NDP, or at least one that would admit so publicly because they know that's the kiss of death in the NDP.
So what does this mean politically? In the U.S., where feelings on abortion run far deeper than in Canada, anyone who takes a pro-abortion position loses at least 10 to 20 per cent of the vote right off the top, and in the Bible belt states the total would be far higher, more than 50 per cent in some states.
Then you have John Kerry, a Catholic no less, taking a pro-choice position. That alone was sufficient to defeat him. In fact, post-election analysis said Bush was successful in splitting the normally pro-Democratic Catholic vote. Like duh.
I take no pains to hide my pro-life position, but that doesn't mean I reject those who disagree with me. Abortion is probably the single most troubling issue in society today and consensus is unlikely anytime soon, or ever.
But the key word here is rejection. Left ideology rejects the pro-life position completely and in doing so it cuts itself from millions of potential supporters, the very ones that put George Bush back in the White House.
The left prides itself on being tolerant, but when it comes to abortion the tolerance dries up. Perhaps the left should practice what it preaches. If they did, John Kerry might be headed to the oval office today.
-- 30 --

At 6:01 AM, Blogger Kieran Jadiker-Smith said...

Some of those anti-gay marriage amendments did quite a bit more than pre-empt judges from imposing equal marriage by fiat. Some overturned existing domestic partership laws in cities and counties, many of which were put in place not by judges, but through the usual legislative process.

And some of them went so far as to ban even very basic rights like the right of one person to grant his or her domestic partner power of attorney privileges. Ordinarily, any adult can set up a power of attorney designating someone else to make decisions for them in the event they're incapacitated (say, in the hospital in a coma or in some severely diminished state). In some states, the amendments passed make it illegal for a gay person to designate their partner to make decisions for them (even though they could, as a matter of law, designate anyone else).

The agenda of many of these ballot initiatives went far beyond reserving the marriage question to the legislative process; they sought to actively create new forms of discrimination against same-sex couples, using marriage as a pretext to get it passed.

And, of course, the objective of the Federal Marriage Amendment was not just to strip courts of the power to impose equal marriage, but to strip state legislatures and even the people of each state from choosing to legalize it. In other words, it seems some conservatives are interested in reserving power to the people over marriage only if they make the, uh, right decision about it.

A demographer recently made a compelling argument that, due to demographic churn (old people, who disproportionately oppose gay marriage, dying off as young people, who disproportionately support it) and the fact that people's views on the subject don't tend to change with age (young people supporting gay marriage today probably won't change their minds when they're 30 or 40), that many states will soon have majorities in favor of outright legalization. The opponents of gay marriage realize this, and are scrambling to lock in their views, to protect them from future democratic will. This is not, to my mind, a very consistent form of conservatism.

To say nothing of the fact that a pretty clear majority of Americans now favor at least civil unions...


Post a Comment

<< Home