Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Ohio and the vote

About 400 people marched
in Columbus demanding a recount, some shouting "welcome to the Ukraine." Also see here.
But, in fact, there are no extraordinary problems with the vote or the vote count. This is much to do about nothing. The editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer said:
"We have been chasing them down as they come up, and a lot of them are so groundless. We are finding that there were some legitimate counting errors and glitches in the computer system. But they were found and we have found no evidence of conspiracies or anything showing that the outcome would have been any different." The editor of the Columbus Dispatch said: "We have written a lot about it, but we have found very little evidence that anything has happened in the election that didn’t happen in every other [Ohio] election. Every rock we have turned over, we’ve found nothing."

He cited the state’s biggest election problem being too few voting machines. "But our analysis shows they had waits everywhere, in Democratic and Republican precincts."

Steve Rosenthal, the CEO of America Coming Together, argues--based on exit polls--that the Democrats lost Ohio not because the GOP had a better mobilization effort.

"The reason Kerry lost the election had much more to do with the war in Iraq and terrorism than the political ground war in Ohio. Terrorism trumped other issues at the polls -- including moral values -- and anxious voters tended to side with Bush.

• By 54 percent to 41 percent, voters decided that Americans are now safer from terrorist threats than four years ago, national exit polls said.

• By 55 percent to 42 percent, voters accepted Bush’s view that Iraq is a part of the war on terrorism. By 51 percent to 45 percent, they still approved of the decision to go to war (though a majority expressed concerns about how the war is going).

• Just 40 percent said they trusted Kerry to do a good job handling the war on terrorism, compared with 58 percent who felt that way about the president.

The Bush campaign was able to persuade some voters who supported Gore in 2000 to turn to Bush in 2004 on the issues of terrorism, strength and leadership. Bush bested Kerry among those who voted in 2000 by five percentage points -- Bush bested Gore in 2000 by three points.

The other major factor was our side’s failure to win the economic debate. Despite an economy that was not delivering for many working people in Ohio, the exit poll results show that voters in Ohio did not see Kerry providing a clear alternative. Just 45 percent expressed confidence that Kerry could handle the economy, compared with Bush’s 49 percent."

Discussions - 10 Comments

Kerry conceded!!! People need to get over and start figuring out how we can make a dent in the Republican Congress in 2006 . . . what a waste of time . . . not to mention money. Sheesh . . .

Matt: We agree on something, finally. Get your people to focus on Ohio politics; rebuild a Dem Party that is dying on the vine; get a little juice into the dialogue, maybe even a few good Demo politicians (are there any in the state?) should come to the fore and say what you say publicly. It could go a long way. Now, get back to your school work, you’re waisting time! Try to figure out what Locke means by the Industrious and the Rational!


The Democratic party is no more reformable than the old Soviet Union, perhaps because it has so much in common with the Soviet Union. What Reagan said of them applies with remarkable precision to the Democratic party: They reserve unto themselves the right to lie, cheat, and steal as it suits them.

This party is sunk in irredeemable moral bankruptcy based on a radical misreading, if not outright denial, of human nature. It is increasingly behaving in ways that disqualify it from any constructive role in our society. I would not encourage any well-meaning person to do anything with this putrid institution but leave it, and once having left it, to attempt to do it as much damage as possible.

David,



I’m sorry you feel that way. I’m going to pretend that you did not just tell me that my party is made up only of people proud to lie, cheat, and steal. I’m also going to pretend that you did not say it has never done anything constructive for society. After all, without us who would keep all you crazy conservatives on your toes? :)



The Democratic Party can be saved. First, they have to stop ignoring the moral majority of America. We can’t let the Democratic Party become viewed as some sort of "transcendentalist, post-modern" political force. We need to somehow show Americans that we are just as religious, if not more, than the Republicans. That, honestly, is one of the few ways that we can win back America. It will take some serious revising of the platform . . . but if we want to see good things like welfare, quality education, social security, and excellent, low cost health care implemented (FINALLY) into our society, we may have to compromise some of our older and more traditional schools of thought. Sacrifices must be made. The Republicans made some and look at them now. They beat us to it. Fortunately, they have polarized a nation with the current President. For the next four years we have a strong base. It is utilizing it and energizing it that the old, fat, white Democrats on Capitol Hill can never do . . . *sigh* . . . weep with me . . .



Secondly, we need to stop the illusion (well, what should be an illusion) that we’re all about giving hand outs. Hand outs don’t work. I want hands up. I want programs that help to establish people in careers and stable jobs. I’m not going to preach about this . . . I know I’m preaching to the choir on welfare reform . . . but more needs to be done.



I would say more, but it’s late and I have class tomorrow. Please don’t call me a socialist and a unconstructive person simply because I love and support a party whose ideals I agree with. The Democrats are not socialists. They may agree with applying some socialist aspects into America, but I doubt (and hope) that many of them really want to rid of America of the "evil capitalism". True, capitalism runs off greed . . . but it works. :-D A hybrid of the combined two would be very nice . . . I can’t speak for all Democrats or all liberals, but I think that there is more to this party than you are giving it credit for.



Heh, thanks for reading. I hate writing to smart people who disagree with me.



And Dr. Schramm - No. I don’t think there are many good Democratic politicians in this state anymore. There are few in our country. But that goes for Republicans too . . . :-D



Howard Dean for President? Anyone???

So, in the span of one short comment, Mr. Frisk compares the Democratic Party to the Soviet Union, a country with a one-party government, and then advises us to work to damage/destroy the Democratic party in the U.S., effectively creating a one-party government here at home. Funny!

J. -



I think you’d be surprised how many people, Republicans and Democrats, wouldn’t have a problem with that. Pretty friggin’ scary . . .


To J., we already have two parties -- the liberal and conservative wings of the GOP.

To Matt, I did not say you are "a socialist or an unconstructive person." I did not say the Democratic party "is made up only of people proud to lie, cheat, and steal." And I did not say it has "never done anything constructive for society."

I said that it is useless for reasonable people to stay in the party; that the party as a whole lies, cheats, and steals; and that the Democratic party of TODAY has nothing constructive to contribute.

Why would anyone want the Democrat Party to reform itself? I am happy with it just the way it is - dysfunctional.

Unlike many Republicans, I enjoy the democrats going over this vote with a fine tooth comb, asking for endless recounts and challenging each result.

Better they spend their time and energy and money on these dead-end streets than obstruct the real business being conducted by President Bush in his cabinet and in congress. These liberal extremists are destined to be disappointed again and again, with lighter pockets after each attempt. All the while building a reputation with the public as obstructors and poor losers. This can only be a good thing.

Matt, I think first of all that as long as the Democratic Party can boast a few people like you, it has at least a glimmer of hope of again being a serious party that Americans may feel they can trust when it comes to crucial issues. (What did God tell Lot about even a handful of honest men . . .?)

Second, if you’re looking for a leader in the Democratic Party whom you can support robustly, and who will help steer it away from the Michael Moore fever-swampers and the bankrupt Ted Kennedy liberals, how about casting a glance westward across the Ohio line toward Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana? I’ve personally seen him speak to D.C. audiences on topics I happen to know something about. He’s got some good things to say (and make no mistake, I’m a Bush-loving Republican who finds most Democratic politicians hard to listen to for even a few minutes).

PS: If Bayh takes a dive into the liberal tank on Supreme Court nominations (he did, like all the other Senate Dems, support those disgraceful filibusters after all) then I take all the foregoing back. But as Dems go, he’s the best I’ve seen in quite a while.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/5510