Comments on: Jesse Larner on Moore and Bush

By: Stephen M. St. Onge

Stephen M. St. Onge — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:41:00 +0000

Concerning the election of 2000, Jerry Pournelle had the best take. He said, based on his experience as deputy mayor of Los Angeles under Sam Yorty, that the important thing was to have a set of rules for any recount in place before the election.

For instance, in LA then, a punch card with a dimpled chad or one corner only detached was not counted, two or three corners detached was counted.

The mess in FL was a result of trying to change the rules after the polls had closed.

THE SAUDS MUST BE DESTROYED!

By: camojack

camojack — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:41:00 +0000

To be brutally frank, when I voted in the 2000 election, it was not so much for Bush as against Gore...who I perceived as merely an extension of the current (at the time) corrupt regime.

Much like yourself, 9-11-01 changed my perceptions; I was really impressed how Bush "came into his own", and did what needed to be done about a situation that had been worsening for years.

When I voted in 2004, it was FOR Bush, emphatically...

By: mizpants

mizpants — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:41:00 +0000

Like you, Neoneocon, I live surrounded by people who describe themselves as liberals and Democrats. (I would describe myself as a classical liberal, but never mind that distinction.) These are people who are shocked to hear my views on Bush - when I express them, that is, which is rarely. I find Bush unappealing, certainly, and his inability to speak correctly or persuasively mortifies me. But these are aesthetic concerns, and when Bush embarrasses me I think of that wonderful line from Freud about the narcissism of small differences. The point is that Bush is doing the right thing about Iraq and doing it in the only humane way possible.
The cognitive dissonance I endure daily is dizzying and disorienting, and sometimes I question my own motivations. Am I operating out of some perverse need to be contrarian, to keep people at a distance perhaps? How is it that EVERYONE I know disagrees with me?
Then I remember the claims of the stolen election, and I feel dizzy once again — as if I had been set spinning in reverse this time. I was watching, paying attention closely. There was no theft, and the fact that this ubermyth has become an item of unquestioning faith in the minds of everyone I know staggers me.(I like your suggestion that perhaps there was a failure of the legal system.) So I ask myself: am I reassured at this evidence that I’m right and everyone I know is wrong? Or would I find it less disturbing to be persuaded to believe the opposite? I think it’s the latter, because at least that belief would seem to be plausible.
I’m reading your blog daily, and gratefully.

By: ShrinkWrapped

ShrinkWrapped — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:41:00 +0000

I agree that liberal and left have always been distinguishable, but in practice, I think the left has taken over the Democratic party and is setting the agenda. Since the “liberal” wing of the party will never dissociate itself from the ACLU, UN, AI, New York Times, it is no longer inaccurate to conflate the left and the liberals. Real liberals, ie those who respect the opinions of others even when they disagree, and support freedom and democracy around the world, even when it is necessary to not only “talk softly” but to also “carry a big stick”, are no longer welcome in the Democratic party.

By: robert aldridge

robert aldridge — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:41:00 +0000

My “History of the Modern World” by Paul Johnson, talking about Kennedy’s victory over Nixon in 1960, asks “… if he did win it legally. Of nearly 69 million votes cast, Kennedy had a margin of only 120,000, and this was clouded by rival interpretations of the vote in Alabama. Kennedy had a majority of 84 in the electoral college, which was what mattered. But here again, irregularities in Texas and, still more, in Illinois by the notorious Daley machine, cast doubt on the validity of the Kennedy victory. Nixon did not challenge the result because he thought it would damage the presidency, and so, America. Such restraint earned him no credit.” I don’t know how true this is; but I agree with a previous post, that when, with a huge electorate, the candidates are pretty well neck and neck, and there is no constitutional way of determining precisely the result, that result will always be messy. I am also of the opinion that if the electorate is divided so evenly, in a way, it doesn’t matter WHO gets in, because half the electorate, either way, will feel disenfranchised; one might almost just toss a coin. The complexities of mass voting in a democracy are such that only decisive majorities show the election to have “worked”. I don’t really think it is a big deal. I’m glad Bush got in, but if he hadn’t, I would have judged any of his rivals on their performance - as indeed, I judge Bush. If he fouls up, he loses my support. Not that it makes much difference, since I’m not an American!

By: Pancho

Pancho — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:41:00 +0000

a creepy, conscienceless, arrogant, narcissistic, strutting little sociopath

It’s strange that so many types like Mr. Larner use qualities that they themselves undoubtedly possess when describing others. One would almost think, “self loathing”.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:41:00 +0000

The 2000 election was effectively a tie, in that the margin between the candidates was clearly less than the margin of error in the voting process. Unfortunatley, we have no legal definition of, or process for resolving, a tied election other than what we saw that November - a second campaign, conducted through the courts, which is guaranteed to leave the losers embittered.

Overall I felt like Bush had the stronger position because he had come out ahead through the “normal” process which took place before the closeness of the result was understood. After that point it was impossible for any of the actors to set aside the knowledge that their technical judgments (is that chad punched through, or not?) could decide the presidency.

By: Minh-Duc

Minh-Duc — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:41:00 +0000

If I am a anti-war advocate, I would consider Michale Moore to be a liability to the movement.

By: Goesh

Goesh — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:41:00 +0000

I had forgotten about M. Moore. I think many people have.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:41:00 +0000

I gave up on the interview pretty quickly because:

“There is no party in American contemporary life, for example, that seeks a national, single-payer health care system. Or that advocates a steeply graduated income tax. Or that proposes full civil rights for gay people. There is no movement or party doing these things, certainly not the national Democratic Party. So I don’t think that left politics exists in this country, and it’s important to understand that.”

The electorate defeated all these initiatives not once, but repeatedly. The problem with the Democratic left is that American voters reject their ideas. Back to the drawing board? Or just continue the strategy of trying to win via lawsuit and judicial fiat?