Interesting analysis of the 2004 elections

[Chmee]

Time to dig out my 'political parties' speech.

Basically, political parties have no fixed ideologies. They have no principles and no inherent ethics. They are machines designed for the purpose of getting votes.

That's not to say that individual members within the party do not have ethics, or a screed against the existance of parties. But it is a recognition of the facts.

I've said it in the past, but Chmee wasn't around for it- if the fundamentalist Christian base that the Republicans draw on for their solid support suddenly decided tomorrow that abortion was cool and boys kissing was no big deal, a good portion of the leadership would spin on the proverbial dime to accommodate the change. Likewise if the NEA went nuts and suddenly started yelling for school vouchers, watch the Democrats decide that it's a great issue to get behind.

Parties are a necessary evil for a republican system, but they should not have such things ascribed to them that they do not possess, such as inherent ethics.

So, you're saying if a big chunk of the party's membership changed what it wanted, the party might change its platform?

I'm shocked, shocked I say!

[Glocksman]

Ralph could only believe that if he paid 0% attention to local politics ... those debates occur within the parties 24x7, 365 a year

They sure do.
Remember the cold shoulder Tom Tancredo got from Karl Rove because he had the audacity to suggest that illegal immigrants be deported?

The division in the GOP between the midwestern conservatives and the eastern 'Rockefeller Republicans' is an old one that goes back a hundred years or more, and the Democrats are well known for infighting.

But what good does the internal debate do when the dynamics in both parties wind up presenting the voters with no alternative to the status quo at election time?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Ok, I know this is a losing argument with many folks on this issue, but I'll state my position just so we're clear. I have no faith in the average 'law-abiding citizen,' because I commute to work on a freeway every day. And every single day I see people who were licensed to operate a motor vehicle and operate it in a fashion that only a meth addict who had been dropped on his head repeatedly should operate it .... basically, everyday experience teaches me that a lot of people are simply IDIOTS.

So, in my view, how easy should it be for that idiot to get his hands on something with a fair degree of destructive power? Far easier than getting a driver's license, which I know they abuse maniacally?

When I go hiking, sport-shooting, anything involving outdoors time in our National Forests and Parks, I routinely come across evidence of some chuckleheads who have operated their firearms irresponsibly .... shooting up shit, not policing their spent rounds in a campsite, poaching ... whatever.

I would love to believe that people are generally responsible with dangerous instruments, but practical experience tells me that WAY too many of them aren't. So as a responsible gun owner, I know I am in the minority when I think that it's too frickin' easy, even today, for idiots to get their hands on powerful firearms. I wish it was harder. Not impossibly hard, but I'd like to see someone demonstrate a minimum amount of competence with a weapon before they can run out and buy them.

I'm not optimistic that the political support exists to make it happen ... but in the meantime, I'll support legislation that makes it easier to keep powerful instruments out of the hands of idiots before the fact, not after the tragic occurrence.

Guess what, shithead, the Ninth Amendment is in stark contrast to your elitist, statist pretentions.

And guess what, logic and statistics (and even anecdotals) support me. Your "vibe" doesn't mean shit.

[Chmee]

Guess what, shithead, the Ninth Amendment is in stark contrast to your elitist, statist pretentions.

And guess what, logic and statistics (and even anecdotals) support me. Your "vibe" doesn't mean shit.

When you're done wiping the spittle off your monitor, maybe you could clue me in as to what you actually meant by any of that.

[Illuminatus Primus]

When you're done wiping the spittle off your monitor,

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people

maybe you could clue me in as to what you actually meant by any of that.

Simple. Your opinion (which is still not an argument is quite frankly a waste of text in its present form) is baseless and in explicit contradiction to both logical analysis of the evidence and American political and legal philosophy.

[Darth Wong]

The reason the Democrats lost this election is simple: the majority of the country's population finds their stated policies unacceptable. You can argue all day about which particular policies were the hot buttons or whether this aversion to their policies is due to stupidity as opposed to "values", but whatever the reason, America has moved away from Democratic values.

Of course, there's also the issue of whether stated policies actually conform to policies in practice (a particular issue with the Republicans, who have a habit of promising things they have no intention of delivering, such as their laughable claims to be fiscally responsible), but that is a voter stupidity issue and on at least some level is irrelevant since you still have to look at how Democratic promises simply did not capture the imagination of the voting populace.

[Chmee]

When you're done wiping the spittle off your monitor,

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people

maybe you could clue me in as to what you actually meant by any of that.

Simple. Your opinion (which is still not an argument is quite frankly a waste of text in its present form) is baseless and in explicit contradiction to both logical analysis of the evidence and American political and legal philosophy.

Ah, sorry, I never found third-grader cussing to be particularly synonymous with 'mockery', I expect something actually clever or original to fit that definition. Probably expecting a lot in some cases.

It would be easier to follow your rationale for your opinion that what I stated was in contradiction with American political and legal philosophy if you actually talked about any of that ... but you neglected to, so I didn't get much out of the rant.

We regulate firearms in this country. The Supreme Court has ruled many of those regulations (but quite clearly not all) to be in conformity with the relevant amendments. Some citizens disagree with the Court's interpretation. There's a possibility that a future Court decision will dramatically alter the effect of prior rulings, but the tendency of courts to honor the principle of stare decisis makes it problematic to make drastic changes along those lines.

For future reference, that was an analysis involving political and legal philosophy .... try it, you might like it.

[Joe]

*snip*

No, it's more simple than that; the Democrats just ran a crappy campaign. This was not a popular wartime President; his approval ratings dropped below 50 percent regularly and his war did not enjoy broad support. During the summer quite frankly most people thought it was Kerry's election to lose, but the campaign just wasn't up to snuff; it relied too much on ultimately ineffective 527s funded by a shadowy billionaire (hmm, wonder why that didn't play with the voters), it did not immediately deal with the Swift Boat Veterans as it should have, it was never able to effectively respond to the flip-flopper attacks from the Bush camp, it had Teresa Heinz Kerry as an attack dog when that job should have been given to someone more competent like Edwards, and it could never really paint Kerry as the man of the people that he needed to appear to be. A competently-run campaign would have unseated the President.

[Darth Wong]

A competently-run campaign would have unseated the President.

We will never know that for certain, but I have rather serious doubts about that, unless this hypothetical well-run campaign made different promises than the ones Kerry made. The depth of right-wing anger (never have I seen people who are so fully in control of a country yet feel surrounded by such persecution) is something that I don't think the Democrats have any solution for right now.

[Chmee]

A competently-run campaign would have unseated the President.

We will never know that for certain, but I have rather serious doubts about that, unless this hypothetical well-run campaign made different promises than the ones Kerry made. The depth of right-wing anger (never have I seen people who are so fully in control of a country yet feel surrounded by such persecution) is something that I don't think the Democrats have any solution for right now.

The winner got 51% of the 60% who bothered to vote in a country where 40% of the voters think the planet was created in the last 10,000 years and that Hell is more than a mythic adaptation of pagan legends ......

You want to define a mandate or the mood of the country out of THAT?

[SirNitram]

You want to define a mandate or the mood of the country out of THAT?

Well, the government certainly took it as a mandate.

More seriously, however, the Republicans and their present tactics are being accepted by the majority. More people voted for the Republican Presidential Candidate. More voted for Republican Senators. And so on. And so forth. This is how we now have both Houses as Republican and the House.

And, by the way, the magic of STATISTICS would let us establish the mood with substantially less.

[Chmee]

You want to define a mandate or the mood of the country out of THAT?

Well, the government certainly took it as a mandate.

More seriously, however, the Republicans and their present tactics are being accepted by the majority. More people voted for the Republican Presidential Candidate. More voted for Republican Senators. And so on. And so forth. This is how we now have both Houses as Republican and the House.

And, by the way, the magic of STATISTICS would let us establish the mood with substantially less.

Yeah, I can't pretend to understand the 'mood' of the country. Our state has two liberal women in the Senate, a dem as governor, a democratic legislature, and Bush didn't get even 20% of the vote in Seattle .... maybe all the coffee just makes us more alert.

[Howedar]

A competently-run campaign would have unseated the President.

We will never know that for certain, but I have rather serious doubts about that, unless this hypothetical well-run campaign made different promises than the ones Kerry made. The depth of right-wing anger (never have I seen people who are so fully in control of a country yet feel surrounded by such persecution) is something that I don't think the Democrats have any solution for right now.

I think you're awful quick to write off charisma as a major factor. Kerry frankly acted like the walking dead, while George Bush (rightly or wrongly) is seen by many as "just another guy" who they could drink beer or watch football with. With a fair chunk of uneducated populace, I think that makes a big difference.

You are right, of course, in saying we'll never really know and that this is all subjective conjecture.

[Glocksman]

It's probably a combination of factors.

Kerry had all of the charisma of a stop sign, but we've elected Presidents with even less charm so that wasn't the only factor.
Disagreement with Kerry's proposals undoubtedly played a part.
Reluctance to 'switch horses in midstream' during wartime may have played a part but I don't think it was a huge factor. Just ask LBJ how his 1968 re-election campaign went.
The 'fundie factor' helped GWB. Not in the sense that they're a huge constitutentcy, but in that they are the people who volunteered to do the 'grunt work' for the Bush campaign. Kerry's campaign didn't have a volunteer base on that level.

IMHO the biggest factor was that the Kerry campaign was simply out-Generaled by Rove & Co. All of the resources in the world won't make a difference if you're incompetently led.

Bush came into the campaign with high negatives.
A lot of his base was dissatified with him on various issues (Iraq, the budget, economy, guns, etc.) and were willing to jump ship if offered a credible alternative.
Kerry failed to present himself as a credible alternative and thus Bush won.

Yeah, I can't pretend to understand the 'mood' of the country. Our state has two liberal women in the Senate, a dem as governor, a democratic legislature, and Bush didn't get even 20% of the vote in Seattle .... maybe all the coffee just makes us more alert.

Here in Indiana, which is as about as Republican as it gets, Bush won with ⅔rds of the vote, yet our Democratic Senator (also 2 term ex-Governor) Evan Bayh won re-election by an even bigger margin. Bayh's liberal by Indiana standards and considered a 'moderate' by national standards. So much so that he was frequently mentioned as a possible VP pick for Kerry.

Locally we had some strange results as well with Republicans taking control of the county commission yet during the 2003 city elections, the Democrats unseated the Republican mayor.

Of course this was due to the ex-Mayor's arrogance in trying to push through a new $20 million minor league ballpark when a clear majority of the people wanted nothing to do with it. It pissed off so many people that even the heavily Republican 1st ward went with the Democrats.

[Petrosjko]

So, you're saying if a big chunk of the party's membership changed what it wanted, the party might change its platform?

I'm shocked, shocked I say!

Gee, you mean abandoning principle in favor of polling?

[Chmee]

So, you're saying if a big chunk of the party's membership changed what it wanted, the party might change its platform?

I'm shocked, shocked I say!

Gee, you mean abandoning principle in favor of polling?

That wouldn't involve polling, it would be the result of party caucuses on a state-by-state basis. When the people who donate the money for your campaigns, and ring the doorbells, and man the phones, and everything else it takes to get elected .... when enough of them tell their party they want a change, it listens.

The party is not an individual. Individuals are supposed to have personal values and stick to them through the whims of polling. Parties are supposed to reflect the desires of their members, and nominate candidates who reflect those desires. Parties change their philosophy over time ... we've certainly seen that with both major American parties over the last few decades, and that's not going to change.

[Petrosjko]

That wouldn't involve polling, it would be the result of party caucuses on a state-by-state basis. When the people who donate the money for your campaigns, and ring the doorbells, and man the phones, and everything else it takes to get elected .... when enough of them tell their party they want a change, it listens.

The party is not an individual. Individuals are supposed to have personal values and stick to them through the whims of polling. Parties are supposed to reflect the desires of their members, and nominate candidates who reflect those desires. Parties change their philosophy over time ... we've certainly seen that with both major American parties over the last few decades, and that's not going to change.

And therein lies my point. If they want to broaden their base, they can actually step over on an issue that the leadership has hung onto with irrational fervency. Instead of adopting stances that require outright misrepresentation and mangling of statistics to stand on, they could try... oh... I don't know... honesty?

It's a shocking concept and utterly foreign to politics, of course. What the hell am I thinking anyway?

[Chmee]

That wouldn't involve polling, it would be the result of party caucuses on a state-by-state basis. When the people who donate the money for your campaigns, and ring the doorbells, and man the phones, and everything else it takes to get elected .... when enough of them tell their party they want a change, it listens.

The party is not an individual. Individuals are supposed to have personal values and stick to them through the whims of polling. Parties are supposed to reflect the desires of their members, and nominate candidates who reflect those desires. Parties change their philosophy over time ... we've certainly seen that with both major American parties over the last few decades, and that's not going to change.

And therein lies my point. If they want to broaden their base, they can actually step over on an issue that the leadership has hung onto with irrational fervency. Instead of adopting stances that require outright misrepresentation and mangling of statistics to stand on, they could try... oh... I don't know... honesty?

It's a shocking concept and utterly foreign to politics, of course. What the hell am I thinking anyway?

We'll have to agree to disagree that a big enough chunk of their membership actually wants that policy change ... they sure don't in this state.

[Petrosjko]

We'll have to agree to disagree that a big enough chunk of their membership actually wants that policy change ... they sure don't in this state.

Chmee, I'm going to shoot you again.

Let me point out the relevant portion of my statement.

If they want to broaden their base, they can actually step over on an issue that the leadership has hung onto with irrational fervency.

Now the question is will their rank and file in your state step away from them if they take a stance on the issue that isn't fueled by lies and misrepresentations?

Do they want a base than hangs onto an issue that has been deliberately distorted? What are they, rabid fundies?

[Chmee]

We'll have to agree to disagree that a big enough chunk of their membership actually wants that policy change ... they sure don't in this state.

Chmee, I'm going to shoot you again.

Let me point out the relevant portion of my statement.

If they want to broaden their base, they can actually step over on an issue that the leadership has hung onto with irrational fervency.

Now the question is will their rank and file in your state step away from them if they take a stance on the issue that isn't fueled by lies and misrepresentations?

Do they want a base than hangs onto an issue that has been deliberately distorted? What are they, rabid fundies?

What I'm saying is that a large part of their constituency simply doesn't agree with your analysis of the situation. "Broadening" your base by ignoring the people who are already in it tends to be counterproductive.

I say this without knowing exactly what it is that you think they should move toward to 'broaden'. No waiting periods on handgun purchases? No background checks for carry permits? With the Dems I know, those wouldn't be popular changes, and would be perceived to be just as radical as a proposal to ban all handgun sales. Neither proposal stands much chance with the current constituency, at least among those I know.

[Petrosjko]

What I'm saying is that a large part of their constituency simply doesn't agree with your analysis of the situation. "Broadening" your base by ignoring the people who are already in it tends to be counterproductive.

I say this without knowing exactly what it is that you think they should move toward to 'broaden'. No waiting periods on handgun purchases? No background checks for carry permits? With the Dems I know, those wouldn't be popular changes, and would be perceived to be just as radical as a proposal to ban all handgun sales. Neither proposal stands much chance with the current constituency, at least among those I know.

Waiting periods have not proven to be effective and are not the law in the majority of the country. They were a solution for a problem that didn't exist except in the minds of gun control advocates and hysterical media shriekers who ignored the fact that the supremely vast majority of murders are committed with either illegally owned or long owned weapons.

So they're wrong on the issue, period.

As for background checks, who said anything against performing background checks? That's precisely the sort of middle ground they should be aiming for, instead of hyping bullshit like the AWB to no good end. The fact is that the Brady Bunch et al have never gotten over the hard push they were on back in the day for complete confiscation of handguns and so on.

There is reasonable middle ground to be struck, but your Bradys, Feinsteins and their ilk would rather milk abberrational tragedies and get the funding they receive for said milking than actually engage in reasonable discourse.

That's why I've identified Bill Richardson as a dark horse candidate for the next Democratic presidental fooferah. He pushed concealed carry through in New Mexico, to the contentment of the majority of voters in the state and the vast displeasure of the weenie contingent in Santa Fe. Furthermore, he did so in a vociferous manner, identifying it properly as a matter of people being able to defend themselves against the predations of criminals.

[Chmee]

There is reasonable middle ground to be struck, but your Bradys, Feinsteins and their ilk would rather milk abberrational tragedies and get the funding they receive for said milking than actually engage in reasonable discourse.

To coin a phrase ... "there you go again." When you veer off into that kind of invective, I no longer know what you're talking about. Stick to policy specifics, then we have something to discuss.

You seem to be under the impression that these policy stances at the National party level are completely top-down, but that's not my impression. There's a lot of grass-roots supports for policies you clearly oppose ... if you want to change 'em, get out to your next party caucus and let 'em know how you feel.

Me, personally, I think it's way too easy for knuckleheads to get their hands on firearms, and there's no shortage of knuckleheads. I'm in favor of making it harder. If that sets off a bunch of paranoid foil-hat wearers who think I want to confiscate their guns, well, I'm sorry, I say what I mean and I mean what I say, it's not my job to talk them out of the bunker.

[Petrosjko]

To coin a phrase ... "there you go again." When you veer off into that kind of invective, I no longer know what you're talking about. Stick to policy specifics, then we have something to discuss.

Specifics. Patrick Purdy kills several children with a semiautomatic version of the AK-47. Within days, under a blitz of media hysteria, which mislabels the firearm as an assault rifle, the Brady bunch are declaring that 'assault weapons' are the weapon of choice of criminals and a deadly peril to citizens and the police.

Now this is fresh off of years of declaring that low-cost 'Saturday Night Specials' are the weapon of choice of the criminal element, because of their low cost and easy availability.

Within a month of the event, Dan Rather's 48 Hours has canceled its regularly schedule program to do one devoted to lies about so-called assault weapons. Among the distortions on the program is a segment where they show a gunsmith tooling around with an AK-47 with a screwdriver for about ten minutes, which allegedly magically converts it to a fully automatic weapon.

Specifics. Glock releases its first guns utilizing polymers in their construction. Hysteria is drummed up over non-existant plastic guns that can magically pass through metal detectors, ignoring the fact that every Glock I've ever owned will set off all the alarms at any airport I go to, and get me handcuffed and escorted to Federal housing shortly thereafter.

Specifics. They drum up hysteria over teflon-coated bullets, which they deem to be cop-killer bullets, and in trying to legislate against them just coincidentally happen to aim for a wide variety of non-AP ammo. This despite the fact that at that point no police officer had actually ever been killed with AP ammo. (And as of a few years ago, the only case on the books where one was killed with AP ammo, he was shot in the head. In fact, there has been speculation that the debate brought to the fore the fact that cops had taken to wearing body armor and caused more criminals to aim for the head.)

Specifics. They created the 'cooling down' period out of whole cloth, ignoring as I said the fact that the majority of killings are committed with illegally purchased/owned weapons, or ones that have been long held by the owner. One would have to dig around very hard to find cases where people were actually shot with weapons legally purchased within seven days of the shooting. The Hinckley assassination attempt was used for this, disregarding the fact that Hinckley did illegally purchase his firearm, and he did so a month before he tried to kill Reagan. So a seven day wait would not have done a damn bit of good, most likely.

Specifics. Every time shall-issue carry comes up, the usual suspects wail and scream about warfare in the streets. 38 states have now adopted shall-issue carry, and at least in Texas legal possessors of concealed carry licenses have a lower 'bad-shoot' rate than cops.

Specific enough for you?

You seem to be under the impression that these policy stances at the National party level are completely top-down, but that's not my impression. There's a lot of grass-roots supports for policies you clearly oppose ... if you want to change 'em, get out to your next party caucus and let 'em know how you feel.

Deal with liars and deceivers who take a fundamentally dishonest approach to the issue? I might as well go to church, thank you.

Me, personally, I think it's way too easy for knuckleheads to get their hands on firearms, and there's no shortage of knuckleheads. I'm in favor of making it harder. If that sets off a bunch of paranoid foil-hat wearers who think I want to confiscate their guns, well, I'm sorry, I say what I mean and I mean what I say, it's not my job to talk them out of the bunker.

Hooray for you. I'd much rather think that the people I know who are not so well-versed or capable of physically defending themselves have the best tools available for said defense. You remind me of a government professor I had in college who went into hysterics over the proposed concealed carry legislation in Texas, announcing that it meant "People could carry guns right into this class!"

Actually, it proposed nothing of the sort, but again asking for honesty is a totally naive thing when politics are concerned. But the irony of it was that it was precisely the place where such means of self defense were needed. I personally knew a woman who carried a gun into his class every time she attended during the previous semester, because she walked to school and had twice barely managed to evade being assaulted, once being chased to her apartment and barely managing to get the door locked before a man who outweighed her by probably a hundred pounds barreled into it full tilt. A semester later we had a man try to rape a woman in the women's restroom during the evening, when the building was pretty much unoccupied. Fortunately her pepper spray slowed him down long enough for her to make a getaway.

I'll accept the risk of an armed society if it means people will be able to defend themselves against predation from criminals. The police certainly can't, and unbeknownst to many, aren't even legally obligated to.

[Chmee]

Specific enough for you?

Well, it's closer. But you pepper the discussion with so many subjective, emotional labels, it's counterproductive. You applied a completely subjective description of opposing viewpoints as 'hysterical' or 'hysteria' no fewer than 4 times and threw in some winners like 'devoted to lies,' 'wail and scream,' 'liars and deceivers' when you weren't alleging hysteria. None of those are specifics, they're just denigrating everyone you disagree with.

Did your professor literally go into hysterics? I mean, did he have to be sedated? Was a straitjacket involved?

I'm perfectly in favor of the young woman in question having her gun with her at all times ... but I'd prefer she demonstrate a minimal proficiency with it before bringing it into my office, yeah. I'd like to know she actually has a prayer of hitting what she aims at, and can disassemble and clean the weapon without killing her neighbor with an accidental discharge ...

Did I put that preference too hysterically for you?

[Petrosjko]

Well, it's closer. But you pepper the discussion with so many subjective, emotional labels, it's counterproductive. You applied a completely subjective description of opposing viewpoints as 'hysterical' or 'hysteria' no fewer than 4 times and threw in some winners like 'devoted to lies,' 'wail and scream,' 'liars and deceivers' when you weren't alleging hysteria. None of those are specifics, they're just denigrating everyone you disagree with.

Did your professor literally go into hysterics? I mean, did he have to be sedated? Was a straitjacket involved?

I'm perfectly in favor of the young woman in question having her gun with her at all times ... but I'd prefer she demonstrate a minimal proficiency with it before bringing it into my office, yeah. I'd like to know she actually has a prayer of hitting what she aims at, and can disassemble and clean the weapon without killing her neighbor with an accidental discharge ...

Did I put that preference too hysterically for you?

I can point to lies, deceit and deliberate mongering of hysteria in the cases I cited. There has been a great deal of malice and forethought put into creating fallacious statistics on the part of the leading gun control adovcates, to create statistics which have emotional resonance. We don't see them as much today because the dissemination of information blows them apart upon arrival, but I remember well bullshit like "A thousand children die every year from gun accidents" and other such whoppers that used to be distributed as unvarnished truth.

The leading advocates of gun control in America have long worked to create an atmosphere of irrational hysteria with regards to firearms, and so I'm calling the spade a spade in this case. The nonsense with regards to semiautomatic weapons was a prime case in point, where they took weapons hardly ever used in crime and painted them as a massive threat to public safety.

So pardon me if you find my rhetoric overblown. We wouldn't want to grossly mischaracterize anyone by calling them 'paranoid tinfoil hat wearers', would we?

As for taking tests and establishing basic competency... golly gee whiz, that's precisely what passage of the concealed carry legislation my prof was so avidly against achieved.

(In his case hysterics was a bit overdoing it. He simply bugged his eyes out and got all dramatic in his intonation about 'That legislation would let people carry guns right into THIS class!" Not precisely hysterics, agreed.)