But thankfully, 62 million people voted for victory.
The world owes
the American people, for making the right decision
and re-electing
President George W. Bush.
Dennis Prager, Nov 11, 2008, says 2004 was a more important election than 2008.
He is trying to look on the bright side of Republican defeat in 2008,
and saying it would have been worse in 2004.
Only time will tell if he is right:
"Republicans won the election of 2004, an election that was more important to the future of America and the world than was this election. Had Sen. John Kerry won in 2004, America would have left Iraq in defeat and Islamists would have won their greatest victory ever. Millions of young Muslims would likely have seen in Islamic jihadism humanity's future and signed up for terror; and Iraq would have degenerated into genocidal chaos."
Orson Scott Card
- "I can think of many, many reasons why the Republicans should not control both houses of Congress and the White House. But right now,
if the alternative is the Democratic Party as led in Congress and as exemplified by the current candidates for the Democratic nomination,
then I can't be the only Democrat who will, with great reluctance, vote not just for George W. Bush, but also for every other candidate of
the only party that seems committed to fighting abroad to destroy the enemies that seek to kill us and our friends at home."
I'm not alone in being an atheist
who supports the religious Christian, George W. Bush,
in his war against Islamism:
Opinion survey, June 2004,
shows agnostics and atheists as
48 percent Kerry, but a non-trivial
24 percent Bush.
Ambition that blinds
- The heroic Iraqi blogger
and democracy pioneer
"Iraq the Model" on the anti-war jerk Howard Dean.
He defends the US military against the attacks from the
Democratic Party:
"And this is not directed only to Mr. Dean, it's for all the Americans
who support such allegations without being aware of their
consequences. What's it that you fight so hard for, showing your soldiers as
occupiers and murderers, the soldiers who I had
the honour of meeting many, and when talking to some of them, I didn't see anything
other than gentleness, honesty and good
will and faith in what they're doing."
"Please consider this for a moment, does winning the elections and getting rid of GWB and the republicans worth the damage
you're inflicting on your men and women's morale?
My heart goes with those brave people and the widows, orphans and mothers of the American soldiers who died while doing
this great service for their country, ours and humanity.
I can't imagine what their response would be to such thoughtless words motivated with nothing more than selfish ambitions."
On Soviet troops in postwar Austria when he was young:
"I saw their tanks in the streets. I saw Communism with my own eyes.
I remember the fear we had when we had to cross into the Soviet sector.
Growing up, we were told, "Don't look the soldiers in the eye. Just look straight ahead."
It was a common belief that Soviet soldiers could take a man out of his own car and ship him back to the Soviet Union
as slave labor.
Now, my family didn't have a car. But one day we were in my uncle's car.
It was near dark as we came to the Soviet checkpoint. I was a little boy. I was not an action hero back then.
But I remember. I remember how scared I was that the soldiers would pull my father or my uncle out of the car
and I would never see them again. My family and so many others lived in fear of the Soviet boot.
Today, the world no longer fears the Soviet Union, and it is because of the United States of America."
Miller speaks for all disillusioned Democrats and disillusioned leftists, like me.
See
Leaving the left.
His anger at the Democrats' refusal to support the War on Islamist Terror:
"Where are such statesmen today?
Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?
Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan,
our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession
to bring down our Commander in Chief.
What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?"
But
we are at war,
and the war is more important than all of these issues.
Every Christian, every Jew, every Hindu,
every liberal Muslim and
every atheist
in the world
should support Bush.
He's fighting for
our right to exist
in a world that would exterminate us.
The Islamic world must adopt freedom
and democracy and human rights.
Islamismmust be defeated.
If Islamism triumphs in
the Middle East, the whole world will be threatened.
The weak
John Kerry
shows every indication of
allowing this to happen.
This is perhaps the most serious US election in modern history.
Bush must win.
Update, after Bush finally left office in Jan 2009:
Bush was in retrospect a bit disappointing.
After 2004,
he lost momentum
for some time,
but then he finally won the Iraq War with the surge.
He failed to take on Iran and Syria.
He failed to do anything serious about America's "allies"
Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
He was not bad, but he was no Reagan.
Still, if Kerry had won in 2004,
America would have lost
the Iraq War.
More people voted for Bush (62 million)
than for any president in U.S. history.
Bush is the first president since
Bush senior in 1988
to win over 50 percent of the vote.
Clinton never won 50 percent.
The USA is not a "divided country".
This was just a normal election.
The "divided country" claim is now proved to be untrue.
Unless you claim that the US was a "divided country" all through the 1990s
- since the votes were far more divided then.
The fact is
Bush represents the majority,
in the same way that Clinton represented the majority.
2000, I agree, was different,
but there's nothing unusual about Bush's mandate now.
The fact is the winner-take-all system encourages a 2-party system,
which inevitably means something like a 55-45 split.
Getting even 60 percent is almost unheard of.
(It hasn't happened since 1972.)
"George W. Bush won a decisive endorsement from the American people
for the most radical presidency of modern times.
...
The triumph of this Churchillian conservatism will delight the President's friends and confound his critics,
but it will also strike fear into all enemies of America and the West."
"Americans voted in record numbers to return to the White House
a president who had been more reviled, at home and abroad, than ever before.
They have demonstrated once and for all that no power on Earth can intimidate a free nation."
Condescending Dems still don't get it
- Mark Steyn on the wisdom of the American voter:
"In this election, the plebs were more mature than the elites:
They understood that war is never cost-free and that you don't run away because
of a couple of setbacks; they did not accept that one jailhouse scandal
should determine America's national security interest"
"The East and West Coasts and the big cities may reflect the sway of the universities,
the media, Hollywood, and the arts, but the folks in between somehow ignore what the professors
preach to their children, what they read in the major newspapers, and what they are told on TV.
The Internet, right-wing radio, and cable news do not so much move Middle America as reflect
its preexisting deep skepticism of our aristocracy and its engineered morality imposed from on high."
"60 Minutes, Nightline, ABC News
- these are now seen by millions as mere highbrow versions of Fahrenheit 9/11."
"The farmers of Utah, the plant workers of Ohio, and the immigrants of Florida are not the same folk
as those of Spain.
America saw the election-eve face of bin Laden, heard his pathetic rant
- and shrugged that he, not it, was going down."
Mosh
(2004),
an unpleasant
anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War, anti-military,
anti-police,
pro-conspiracy theory
song by Eminem.
Uneducated moron!
Oddly enough, rule by gangs of street thugs doesn't appeal to most people.
The kind of gangsta waster who is impressed by Mosh
will be highly unlikely to get organised enough to vote.
And that is a good thing.
When the mainstream media have
the opposite view to me,
and all around me
my radio and TV are full of miserable people
trying to dampen the party,
I log on to LGF for some unrestrained, dance-in-the-street
celebration.
LGF may not have the most detailed analysis
compared to some other places,
but it serves an essential function.
Whether it is the fall of Iraq,
the capture of Saddam,
the killing of Yassin,
or the re-election of Bush,
one needs a place to go to let off steam
when so many people in "real life" are indifferent to these events
or even hostile.
LGF is that place, and I love it.
Comment
- "After a solid year of Michael Moore propaganda, insane hatred from the left side of the blogosphere,
outright partisanship by the MSM, and finally a campaign of lies from John Kerry
... we who stood against it deserve one day of gloating and schadenfreude."
Why Kerry lost
- "It seems the world stands in shock as we re-elect a President they feel brings nothing but "horror."
Maybe I can shed some light on why this may have occurred. The US truly is in a war mentality now
and not because of Iraq. War has been declared on us and us alone. Our allies get some fallout,
but we are truly the target. It was declared many years before Bush came into office and we just didn't listen.
Now we are listening and many people feel strongly that our actions in Iraq will ultimately bring peace and sovereignty
to (hopefully) the entire Middle East. No one knows how to fight this war.
It all came down to trust and John Kerry just didn't win America's trust. Hillary won't either.
The Democrats need a strong, solid leader if they want to challenge the Republicans in a time of war.
They chose the wrong candidate this time."
All over the world,
jihadis, Islamists, mullahs,
communists, dictators, anti-semites, racists,
religious fascists
and all America-haters are gutted today.
Seymour Hersh
bemoans the re-election of Bush:
"in my view, he's got his mandate and he's going to carry on with his mantra
- bringing democracy to the middle east. pretty scary"
All over the world,
brave democrats struggling against tyranny
have been given hope today.
Iranian democrats welcome massively Bush's re-election
- The Iranian democrats are so happy.
The regime is gutted.
"As Iranians and especially the younger generations have become happy,
those affiliated to the Islamic regime are seen deeply worried about their future."
Iranian democrats
and Iraqi Kurds
are celebrating.
"Just ponder this a little. Try and digest it fully.
The victims of a terrible, murderous oppression in the Kurdish area of Iraq,
and those now yearning for a democratic breakthrough against theocratic tyranny in Iran,
do not look for solidarity and support
to the massed ranks of the marching left,
the "peace" movement,
as it flatters itself to be; no, they look to a right-wing Republican president.
By your own lights, friends and comrades, is that not a truly extraordinary state of affairs?
If it doesn't cause you some troubling doubts, will anything ever?"
A healing message to Michael Moore and John Kerry after the election
(Glenn Beck's Gloatfest 2004).
Interview with John O'Neill, after it was all over and Kerry lost, early 2005.
Apart from stopping Kerry, perhaps the major impact was in at last reclaiming the honour
of the Vietnam vet:
TAE: "The story of the Swift Boat vets is a powerful one. Many of you hadn't seen each other in 32 years.
You came back together out of a sense of duty to stop a man you knew to be unfit for
the Presidency."
O'NEILL: "Have you ever heard the poem "Ulysses" by Alfred Lord Tennyson?
Ulysses is at the end of his life and gets his old crew together
and they sail around for one last great adventure
- not too different from Admiral Hoffmann getting all of us together for one last shot
that we thought was very much in the national interest of the United States.
The election aside, the attention focused on Vietnam has allowed the people who served there
to confront this myth and lie about the Vietnam War and I think it's made a permanent change in the American psyche
... I think that the people on the left are now afraid to repeat
the old myths that we were all war criminals."
TAE: "You believe what you've done has changed the way the public views the Vietnam War?"
O'NEILL: "I do. I think that the change was coming to some degree without us, but I think that the public
now realizes that the Vietnam War was a lost battle in a war that was won, the Cold War.
Vietnam lives in darkness
because we lost, but it's one lonely outpost of what used to be a vast threat to human freedom.
And I think they recognize that our service there, while in a losing battle, was noble service."
TAE: "Have you noticed a change among your fellow veterans since this started?
Has it changed the way they feel about themselves?"
O'NEILL: "I think they're prouder of their service than they were. I've had many survivors of veterans,
wives or children, tell me they felt liberated by what we did. They have endured the loss of a husband,
the loss of a father, and had this blemish placed on those they lost
by the radical elements of the Left in the late '60s and early '70s.
They feel like it's been removed.
They feel very liberated."
He bemoans the sell-out of
the Vietnam War:
"58,000 Americans died in Vietnam to stop the spread of communism, and then as a result of the anti-war sentiment,
the congress (led by Frank Church) handed Vietnam to the North on a silver platter."
And he then says:
"The silver lining: last year we beat John Kerry,
the man who wanted to be a war hero and an anti-war hero at the same tme.
We rose, as a grass roots insurgency of our own, fighting against the same monolithic press,
unsuccessful until the Swift Boat Vets and John O'Neil knocked down the Iron Curtain of the press.
For many of us, it was the first time we got together after the war (Sept 12, 2004 on the Capitol Mall).
It was cathartic and it was a feeling of brotherhood. We knew who lost the war, and we knew we had won it.
And we won it again by helping to defeat Kerry.
It was a good year ... at last.
If the traitor John Kerry ever runs again, we will be waiting."
It may surprise you,
but I would like to see the Democrats recover.
I would like to see them learn from their mistakes.
We need strong opposition.
And all things being equal,
I would prefer a liberal who was sound on the war
to a religious conservative who is sound on the war.
But the Democrats need to learn:
If you want to win, you need to propose someone who is
serious about the War on Islamism.
Someone who is serious about making America strong,
and taking the fight to its enemies.
You can't propose any more peaceniks, "anti-war" protesters
and borderline-traitors.
If you had just proposed someone who fought in Vietnam you could have won.
But no, you had to propose someone who fought in Vietnam
and was then a treacherous, demoralising anti-Vietnam War campaigner.
You should learn from this.
You will never
win an election unless you take national security seriously.
There is a war on.
It may last decades.
Do you want to be out of office for decades?
The polls
One thing to remember for next time
is that the polls (both advance polls and exit polls)
consistently underestimated Bush's support.
The reason, I think, is the same reason why my university is covered with
leftist posters, with no dissenting points of view.
Democratic voters are simply more likely to tell you
than Republican voters,
because Democratic voters won't get abuse for it,
but Republican voters will.
Note how the left thinks it is all about religion,
whereas the right thinks it is about foreign policy.
If the left thinks
that it's all about religion,
they will lose again in 2008.
The new media lie after the election is that Bush won
because of appealing to religious evangelicals, Bible-belt fundamentalists, or in short:
"God, guns and gays".
While these people may indeed have voted for Bush,
you do not get 62 million votes by just appealing to evangelicals.
There are simply not enough evangelicals in the country.
If you are so deluded as to think that Bush only won because of
Bible-reading fundamentalists,
then explain these quite respectable figures
from the
exit polls
(also here)
(and remember the exit polls may underestimate Bush's support):
And Bush has respectable figures among many non-traditional demographics,
and demographics where you would think (if you listened to the media)
Kerry would clean up:
44 percent of Hispanics voted for Bush.
44 percent of Asians voted for Bush.
45 percent of young people (18-29) voted for Bush.
44 percent of the most educated (postgrad-level) voted for Bush.
The majority of the next most educated level (college-level) voted for Bush.
The majority of veterans avoided Kerry (who saw combat)
and went for Bush (who didn't).
In summary, Bush does not represent the fringe. Bush is mainstream:
Among men: Bush 55, Kerry 44.
The average American man is a Bush supporter.
Among whites: Bush 58, Kerry 41.
The average American white is a Bush supporter.
Among white men: Bush 62, Kerry 37.
Among white women: Bush 55, Kerry 44.
Among married people: Bush 57, Kerry 42.
Among people married with children: Bush 59, Kerry 40.
Singles v. Married with children:
Interesting how it is a Bush landslide
among people married with children.
The young, single and childless view the married with children as having "sold out".
The married with children, of course,
think they understand the world in a far more profound way
than the young, single childless do.
They now understand
(as they never did before)
responsibility, duty, loyalty, sacrifice,
and protection of the vulnerable.
The very things the West must understand if it is to prevail against its enemies.
And there is hope: They are the future of the young anti-Bush voter.
They are what he will turn into.
That's why
the revolution
never happens, and never will.
"Moral Values" Myth
by Charles Krauthammer
- on the absurdity of conventional wisdom about this election.
"Whence comes this fable? With President Bush increasing his share of the vote among Hispanics,
Jews, women (especially married women), Catholics, seniors and even African Americans,
on what does this victory-of-the-homophobic-evangelical voter rest?"
He explains clearly what is obvious to any unbiased observer:
How the exit poll does NOT demonstrate that
"moral values" were the top issue.
Myths of the Republican Mullah-cracy
by John Hood
- The statistics show that foreign policy
won the election.
Other issues existed, but were
no more important this time round
than they were in 2000.
It was foreign policy that increased in importance
and swung it for Bush.
The Democrats ignoring this may make them feel better,
but will also make them lose again in 2008.
Atheists for Bush
by Brett A. Thomas
- "The big news for the Democrats of 2008 is that there is a big block of swing voters
that swung against you this year. Don't focus on the 50% of Bush voters that oppose gay marriage
- I agree you don't want them. But pay attention to us, the college-educated,
pro-choice, pro-civil-union (or better), non-evangelical Christian middle.
There are at least 15 million of us (who vote) and perhaps as many as 25 million.
We decided this election. If you want us to vote your way, you're going to have to come up
with something more compelling than
"fuck middle America."
I got news for you - we're middle America, and we just fucked you.
You need a new sign if you want us back next time."
American Atheists
(like all other organised atheist groups)
are left-wing and pro-Democrat.
But I don't see anything specifically wrong with their quotes in these ads.
(Except saying Christmas should not be a federal holiday - that's daft.
Christmas is a wonderful, ancient western festival that is older than Christianity.)
I find these Republican ads bigoted and ignorant.
I think many Republicans don't realise how many atheists support them.
Ultimately I have to shrug and say the war is more important.
I would prefer if the Democrats were strong on the war. But they're not.
The right-wing atheist Allahpundit:
"I never know what to make of the fact that I belong to such a tiny minority within my own side; there's no reason I can think of why faith should be some essential part of conservatism".
In summary, it's not about religion.
Bush's appeal is much broader than that.
If the Democrats
(and their supporters, the American and European media)
believe they lost because of Christian fundamentalism,
then they will lose again in 2008.
If however, the Democrats keep their liberal principles,
but become a party that is serious
about national security,
they will get back into power.
Update, after Bush finally left office in Jan 2009:
Since 1995.
