Here We Go
My last post before the election. Tonight and Sunday afternoon I'll be phone canvassing for Kerry, completing my volunteer work just in time to enjoy All Hallows Eve with my family. Over the weekend I'll be busy taking betting-account deposits for the 2004 Breeders Cup, at the horse-wagering outfit where I work.
A couple of links to tide over: a fine essay by Charles Utwater II on the tough road ahead if Kerry wins; and a warning by John Dean about how dire things might get in the wake of another disputed election.
I remain confident, as I have been since the summer, that John F. Kerry is in a good position to win this race...and that more likely than not, Bush will not come out ahead unless he gets away with voter fraud and suppression.
The debates this year were pivotal, arguably as pivotal as those in 1960, when another JFK showed the country he could act presidential, as his opponent faltered.
1932-68 was the age of FDR and Kennedy. 1968-2004 was the age of Nixon and Reagan/Bush. Now we're on the brink of a new decades-long period: either of Democratic advantage and a long, hard slog to recovering some sense of progressive reality; or a "New American Fascism" era of The World At War meets Monty Python's Flying Circus, with plutocratic & theocratic Republicans dominating, and perhaps with Dems occasionally offering a more marketable package of cloaked corruption and Orwellian militarism.
Democrats might still be able to win future presidential elections if George W. Bush gets a second term, but they will likely have to rely on increasingly dirty and polarizing ways to do so.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
What's New
I've been musing in recent weeks on how Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" in the 1968 presidential election, plus the '60s Vietnam quagmire and Kennedy assassinations, shifted power momentum toward the Republican party of Nixon, Reagan, Gingrich and both Bushes. And we've been at Advantage: GOP since Nixon's win in '68, a 36-year period. Prior to this, an era of Democratic advantage lasted from 1932 (FDR's first win) to 1968, also 36 years.
In those two 36-year periods, there were two presidents who ran against the historical tide and had repeated electoral success: Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton.
Eisenhower, running on his WWII heroism and pragmatism, played a big role in giving us Nixon, who later helped issue in a new era of GOP political strength. Clinton, running on his "Elvis Kennedy" charisma and a split in the heartland over economic policy, gave us...Kerry?
Well, I'd say that Clinton's campaigning for Kerry this year, plus his record of economic success (at least in relation to Presidents 41 and 43), has helped to make people feel better about the Dem nominee, but that's not exactly the level of help that Ike provided Nixon by putting him on the '52 ticket. So I suppose one should call Kerry's ascension to a pivotal role more of a "team effort" on the part of Democrats.
My point (and I do have one) is that we're truly at the dawning of a new era here, one way or another. If Bush is able to hold onto power, it's a clear signal that a large bloc of voters are willing to accept a quasi-fascist state, and that's different from the 1968-2004 GOP era. In 2000, Bush voters though they were getting no more than a genial hybrid of Poppy Bush and Dutch Reagan. Not now: a majority of Bush voters are okaying the possibility, if not probability, of a violent Pax Americana in the Middle East and strident one-party rule at home.
If Kerry wins? It's less clear what it means for Dems, in terms of how a new era of political advantage would play out. All I can think of, is that when Nixon won in '68, it still took a good 12 years for Repubs, with Reagan, to really establish a "dominance" meme in the media bloodstream. So it may mean that Dem partisans are in for a long slog to fully get back their groove...perhaps with a Barack Obama presidential candidacy in 2012 or 2016.
I've been musing in recent weeks on how Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" in the 1968 presidential election, plus the '60s Vietnam quagmire and Kennedy assassinations, shifted power momentum toward the Republican party of Nixon, Reagan, Gingrich and both Bushes. And we've been at Advantage: GOP since Nixon's win in '68, a 36-year period. Prior to this, an era of Democratic advantage lasted from 1932 (FDR's first win) to 1968, also 36 years.
In those two 36-year periods, there were two presidents who ran against the historical tide and had repeated electoral success: Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton.
Eisenhower, running on his WWII heroism and pragmatism, played a big role in giving us Nixon, who later helped issue in a new era of GOP political strength. Clinton, running on his "Elvis Kennedy" charisma and a split in the heartland over economic policy, gave us...Kerry?
Well, I'd say that Clinton's campaigning for Kerry this year, plus his record of economic success (at least in relation to Presidents 41 and 43), has helped to make people feel better about the Dem nominee, but that's not exactly the level of help that Ike provided Nixon by putting him on the '52 ticket. So I suppose one should call Kerry's ascension to a pivotal role more of a "team effort" on the part of Democrats.
My point (and I do have one) is that we're truly at the dawning of a new era here, one way or another. If Bush is able to hold onto power, it's a clear signal that a large bloc of voters are willing to accept a quasi-fascist state, and that's different from the 1968-2004 GOP era. In 2000, Bush voters though they were getting no more than a genial hybrid of Poppy Bush and Dutch Reagan. Not now: a majority of Bush voters are okaying the possibility, if not probability, of a violent Pax Americana in the Middle East and strident one-party rule at home.
If Kerry wins? It's less clear what it means for Dems, in terms of how a new era of political advantage would play out. All I can think of, is that when Nixon won in '68, it still took a good 12 years for Repubs, with Reagan, to really establish a "dominance" meme in the media bloodstream. So it may mean that Dem partisans are in for a long slog to fully get back their groove...perhaps with a Barack Obama presidential candidacy in 2012 or 2016.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Back To Ohio
Digby is almost always on top of the political zeitgeist:
If anyone wonders why the Bush campaign doesn't feel the need to do much campaigning in the essential state of Ohio, you don't need to look any further than this. They have plans in place to ensure he wins no matter what.
This tactic is based upon the same one by which they "won" the election in 2000. They are using it not so much to intimidate voters, although I'm sure they will do that also. The main purpose, as it was when the Republican "challengers" in the recount questioned many more ballots than necessary, is simply to run out the clock. And if anyone tries to hold the polls open longer to accommodate long lines as they did in St Louis last time, they will scream bloody murder about the Democrats "changing the rules" after the game has been played.
This is a big deal.
If Kerry wins enough states, this won't stop his march to victory. But if it's close, what happens in Ohio could make all the difference.
Fingers and toes are crossed.
Digby is almost always on top of the political zeitgeist:
If anyone wonders why the Bush campaign doesn't feel the need to do much campaigning in the essential state of Ohio, you don't need to look any further than this. They have plans in place to ensure he wins no matter what.
This tactic is based upon the same one by which they "won" the election in 2000. They are using it not so much to intimidate voters, although I'm sure they will do that also. The main purpose, as it was when the Republican "challengers" in the recount questioned many more ballots than necessary, is simply to run out the clock. And if anyone tries to hold the polls open longer to accommodate long lines as they did in St Louis last time, they will scream bloody murder about the Democrats "changing the rules" after the game has been played.
This is a big deal.
If Kerry wins enough states, this won't stop his march to victory. But if it's close, what happens in Ohio could make all the difference.
Fingers and toes are crossed.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Kerry On
Tom Ball at Political Strategy offers a hopeful view, with persuasive evidence to back him up, that the Big Mo is with John Kerry as we approach the final week before the election.
Is it too late for the Bush campaign to pull an effective "October surprise"? If it is, will George W. Bush and the GOP shift their main focus from election-day fraud and suppression, and begin pushing hard to delegitimatize a Kerry victory? Or will a batshit-crazy BushCo get away with multiple-state election chicanery, enough to eke out another dubious "win"?
I cautiously lean toward optimism. But if Bush does steal another one, I am confident that the anti-Bush protest movement will be larger than the one following the disputed 2000 election. Dog knows where that will lead, but in the spirit of hopefulness I offer two rebel-rousing links: a fine Kos diary entry from last month by Christopher Day; and a "No Stolen Elections!" website that features an online petition to pledge involvement in post-election protest activities.
Tom Ball at Political Strategy offers a hopeful view, with persuasive evidence to back him up, that the Big Mo is with John Kerry as we approach the final week before the election.
Is it too late for the Bush campaign to pull an effective "October surprise"? If it is, will George W. Bush and the GOP shift their main focus from election-day fraud and suppression, and begin pushing hard to delegitimatize a Kerry victory? Or will a batshit-crazy BushCo get away with multiple-state election chicanery, enough to eke out another dubious "win"?
I cautiously lean toward optimism. But if Bush does steal another one, I am confident that the anti-Bush protest movement will be larger than the one following the disputed 2000 election. Dog knows where that will lead, but in the spirit of hopefulness I offer two rebel-rousing links: a fine Kos diary entry from last month by Christopher Day; and a "No Stolen Elections!" website that features an online petition to pledge involvement in post-election protest activities.
Friday, October 15, 2004
The Slick Of Times
Vacationed last week in Las Vegas with my family. Swam a lot, walked a lot, ate a lot...and posed for pictures at Madame Tussauds with wax figures of my good friends George W. Bush and John Wayne.
Last night, and during the past month, I have done some phone canvassing at the John Kerry campaign office in Salem, OR. I'm thinking and hoping that Kerry's solid performance in his three debates with President Twitchy (thank you, James Wolcott) has resulted in an upswing of support for Kerry, at least among Oregon Democrats and Independents.
I recall how my late grandmother, whenever the subject of Richard Nixon came up, would remind us how proud she was to do phone canvassing work in California in 1962, to help then-Governor Pat Brown defeat Nixon in the state's gubernatorial race.
I probably won't crow as much about my relatively meager contributions to the Kerry campaign. But I am pleased that my online support of Democrats and Kerry (hundreds of posts and a couple of articles over the past four years) has in small ways helped forward the overall conversation about who oughta be president.
At Salon's popular Table Talk White House forum, informed posters build on each others' ideas and opinions, to work toward expressing bottom-line truths about political and social issues. As a participant there, I've often expanded upon ideas that others have introduced, and I've also noticed others expanding upon notions and rhetoric that I've contributed.
The net result is, as a team we often get to the heart of matters quicker and better than the paid punditry of the mainstream media. And once in awhile, our comments earn notice in said mainstream -- as mine did this week.
Thanks to NWHiker at Table Talk, I learned that one of my TT posts (under the pseudonym "Tom Slick") was quoted in a New York Times article on the third Kerry-Bush debate. The NYT reporter said I posted my "partisan" remarks three minutes before the end of Wednesday night's debate. For the record, I actually posted a few minutes after the debate ended, as a reaction to the first wave of post-debate poll results.
In any event, this Internetin' stuff sure can be fun. Thanks again, Al Gore.
Vacationed last week in Las Vegas with my family. Swam a lot, walked a lot, ate a lot...and posed for pictures at Madame Tussauds with wax figures of my good friends George W. Bush and John Wayne.
Last night, and during the past month, I have done some phone canvassing at the John Kerry campaign office in Salem, OR. I'm thinking and hoping that Kerry's solid performance in his three debates with President Twitchy (thank you, James Wolcott) has resulted in an upswing of support for Kerry, at least among Oregon Democrats and Independents.
I recall how my late grandmother, whenever the subject of Richard Nixon came up, would remind us how proud she was to do phone canvassing work in California in 1962, to help then-Governor Pat Brown defeat Nixon in the state's gubernatorial race.
I probably won't crow as much about my relatively meager contributions to the Kerry campaign. But I am pleased that my online support of Democrats and Kerry (hundreds of posts and a couple of articles over the past four years) has in small ways helped forward the overall conversation about who oughta be president.
At Salon's popular Table Talk White House forum, informed posters build on each others' ideas and opinions, to work toward expressing bottom-line truths about political and social issues. As a participant there, I've often expanded upon ideas that others have introduced, and I've also noticed others expanding upon notions and rhetoric that I've contributed.
The net result is, as a team we often get to the heart of matters quicker and better than the paid punditry of the mainstream media. And once in awhile, our comments earn notice in said mainstream -- as mine did this week.
Thanks to NWHiker at Table Talk, I learned that one of my TT posts (under the pseudonym "Tom Slick") was quoted in a New York Times article on the third Kerry-Bush debate. The NYT reporter said I posted my "partisan" remarks three minutes before the end of Wednesday night's debate. For the record, I actually posted a few minutes after the debate ended, as a reaction to the first wave of post-debate poll results.
In any event, this Internetin' stuff sure can be fun. Thanks again, Al Gore.
