a promise is a promise, dgrant

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 11:00am

well, it's the morning after (surprisingly no hangover, thanks) and ohio notwithstanding i think we can take a look at what last night tells us and see where some of it comes out.

with roughly 10% of 2004 voters in the 18-24 age group, this turned out to be almost a carbon copy of 2000's numbers. the youth vote upon which so many were depending turned out to be the same mirage that it does every time one side or the other depends on it. mikey, yer gonna need to do better than underwear next time to get those slackers to the polls.

as far as exit polls go, they prove once again that if you over sample any group (in this case it was women, minorites and urban voters), you get skewed numbers. how hard are the vns folks laughing today?

the popular vote. hunh. while gw's the first president since his daddy to manage a true simple majority (over 50%), it's offset by the fact that the challenger still pulled 48, hence the country is pretty clearly split. the 3.5 million vote victory bush pulled here (i know there's still provisional ballots, absentees, etc. to be counted) will stand up and basically is those 4 million evangelicals that sat home in 2000, just like it was predicted all along.

the gop didn't put a filibuster-proof majority in the senate so there's no way bush is gonna ram through any complete idealogues onto the supreme court. so take a breath, folks.

one seat pickup in the house doesn't do much for the gop.

governorships are a wash.

so now's the part where i reach across the aisle.

take heart in the fact that bush's last comment on civil unions might be what he actually believes and not just last minute pandering. with a senate and house still so divided there'll be no marriage amendment. this was not any gop miracle like 2002, and it's basically their last chance to pass some major bills improving the quality of life for most americans before the mid-terms of 2006 otherwise it will take a miracle for a sitting president (assuming things pan out in ohio) to improve or even hold on to both a house and senate majority. i think the economy will rebound once it's determined that there is a winner. uncertainty wreaks havoc on the markets (am i right on this boobs or am i talking out my a**?) and that plays with jobs and everything else.

i truly believe that bush ran to the right because he knew that he had to in order get re-elected (or elected as jrb would point out) and that he felt that the country truly would not be safe in uncertain times with kerry as cinc. does that excuse his more grotesque panders? nope, but it does give me hope that with no elections left to win and no need to pander that he will emerge as the uniter that he promised to be in 2000 reaching across the aisle to embrace democrats and strive for true bi-partisanship. whether the members of congress will be able to manage that is another story. i do hope that the politics of hatred and division that have rend this country apart can slowly begin to heal.

i must admit that i am sorry to see that barack obama did not manage to secure 90% of the vote in illinois.

[Plum]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 11:08am

Thanks, papa. I am so pissed right now it's ridiculous. And I still haven't done my homework.

I still don't get why you would vote for Bush. There's a disconnect here, something fundamental. I look at him and see a disaster. Maybe he's just really, really bad. Bad Presidents have been re-elected before.

My personal hope is that Bush's Supreme Court appointees won't turn out the way he thought they would. Which Republican's appointees turned out all liberal? Ford or Nixon? Eisenhower? I know I read about this somewhere. But then again, by today's standards those guys are limp-wristed pinko bleeding hearts.

As much as I tried to delude myself, the conservative era ain't over, and won't be for at least another 8 years, I don't think. Probably more like 20. But I don't think there will be another Republican President as strong as Bush, power-wise, for a very, very long time. And that's what's keeping me sane. Even a President can only do so much damage. The viscosity of this country makes it hard for bad changed to happen as well as good.

But at least we agree on one thing- in the words of Jon Stewart, who I love and adore, everyone who voted for Keyes is wearing tin foil hats and diapers. Updated On: 11/3/04 at 11:08 AM

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 11:10am

Would that you were typical of the rest of the party, papa...

But that is a fair and interesting analysis. Thanks. I'm still beside myself, but I'll regroup, with time, and hope you are right.

[Pip]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 1:04pm

Papa, our politics are different, but I greatly respect your political insight and the wit that usually comes along with it. Now that we're looking at 4 more years with this administration, I'm interested in your take on Dick Cheney's role. I've read articles that suggested this will be almost a co-presidency because of the influence that Cheney exerts over Bush. Speculation abounds that Colin Powell and possibly Condoleeza Rice will be out which, if true, would further solidify Cheney's influence on policy. I find that especially unsettling because my perception is that the hawk unchecked is particularly dangerous. Why shouldn't I believe that?

[Plum]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 1:06pm

Rice is just plain incompetent- let her go and see if I care. Powell...I don't know how he stands it in there. But if he still has any kind of influence I hope he stays.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 1:08pm

I didn't think that Condi would be on the chopping block, but come to speak of it, I haven't heard or seen her on TV in weeks. Where were they hiding her?

Posted: 11/3/04 at 1:23pm

Thanks, papa.

[NYadgal]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 1:24pm

Hey, DG. Today is one day closer to 2008... (keep looking for the silver lining.)

Updated On: 11/3/04 at 01:24 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 1:25pm

FYI --

William J. Brennan, one of the court's most liberal members for over three decades was appointed by Eisenhower. Someone in the administration saw Brennan, then a junior state court judge, deliver an ultraconservative speech and thought he would be perfect when the next opening came on the Supreme Court -- what they didn't realize was that the speech Brennan gave wasn't written by him, but was from the chief judge of his state court; the judge had taken ill and asked his young colleague Brennan to fill in for him and deliver the speech he had already written. Brennan was the bane of conservative for the next 34 years.

David Souter is one of the most liberal members of the current court and was appointed by Bush Sr. on the advice of his chief of staff John Sununu. Sununu somehow knew Souter from the New Hampshire state supreme court from when Sununu was governor of N.H. Not sure what he thought he knew about Souter, but whatever it was turned out to be wrong. Souter might be the most liberal member of the court.

John Paul Stevens, who appeared to be a Republican moderate when Ford appointed him almost 30 years ago, is now one of the court's most liberal members (and its oldest -- he's 84).

I'm sure Bush will be much more careful in making his picks for the court.

[B.B. Wolf]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 1:28pm

I know that Bush winning makes some happy and a lot of you angry (and some of us sorta angry but still kind of ambivalent). But does anyone else feel like the tension is broken a bit? A bit of relief just because A DECISION was made and it's OVER. Now we can all breathe.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 1:28pm

dick cheney will not last 4 years. he can't win in '08 and wouldn't even try. thus, i would think that they'd want to get someone like giuliani or pataki in there by the latter part of the 2nd year so that he can get some name recognition and some high profile experience in order to be able to survive what will be a out and out dogfight of a primary. neither of them could survive the primary process without some serious help due to their positions on "values" issues and that's what the title of vp would give them.

i think powell will stay. i have a feeling that some of the more hawkish elements (maybe rummy and almost definitely wolfie) of the leadership will be gently eased out as the administration slowly and haltingly moves to repair alliances and build on afghanistan and iraq. look at tommy franks to get offered something big in the defense architecture.

condi stays. c'mon, a black woman in a position of power like this? besides, bush loves her. the only way she goes is if tagliabue steps down and she's promised the position of nfl commissioner.

them's m'thoughts and i'm sticking to 'em.

[Plum]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 1:30pm

I sincerely hope you're right about removing the more hawkish elements, papa. The war's been started and we don't need anymore turmoil. Remember our old discussion about the apple cart? We need a steady hand.

[Pip]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 1:32pm

Interesting. Thanks, papa.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 1:34pm

I don't know about Giuliani and Pataki -- how does George sell either of those pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-stem cell, pro-affirmative action, non-religious guys to his fundamentalist base? Neither of those guys can do anything in the South and the midwest -- put either of them on the Republican ticket and 4 to 5 million evangelical christians automatically stay home.

[Plum]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 1:35pm

No way on Pataki and especially Guiliani. As I've said before, to a lot of the Republican base, New York City might as well be Gomorrah. No way they'd want anyone from the city, or quite likely the state, in national office.

I realize we have an NY-centric viewpoint here for a reason, but don't be silly. :)

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 1:39pm

today they don't get in, margo, but i've got four years to try to move my party gently towards the center. you're probably right that pataki could never get in, but giuliani's 9/11 street creds i think can get him enough of the right and the middle that they'd be able to survive the loss of the 1st church of the nazarene, but then i'm in incurable optimist when it comes to my party.

Updated On: 11/3/04 at 01:39 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 1:40pm

Here's to optimism. You hope your party will move towards the center. I hope mine will someday gain a semblence of a real agenda rather than just an anti-agenda.

[BT]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 1:44pm

papa- I wish more of your party had their heads pointed toward the center. Things are leaning way too far to the right for this friend of Dorothy.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 2:10pm

Papa, it was a very insightful post - I just wished I could believe your optimism. With Bush getting reelected and anti gay marriage ammendments passing all over the country, it is clear that the majority of Americans are homophobic and Bush , if he's not homophobic, played to that group to get elected. We have been shown clearly that at no point can we expect equality, safety from discrimination in our workplace, adoption rights, inheritance rights, any of the rights of marriage.

What we can expect is our limited rights that have been won over the last ten years to be taken away, appointments of judges who will put into law the right to discriminate, and more pandering by Bush to his extreme right wing to insure more hateful victories in the 2006 elections.

Right now I'm only talking on a personal level because I also fear for our country. I seriously doubt that we can heal our alliances with other countries with Bush as leader, jobs will be lost overseas, the rich will get richer, the poor poorer, and our country will become even more polarized.

What scares me the most is I've always had a optimistic outlook towards our country and that has been replaced with not only a very deep hatred for Bush but also a hatred for 52% of the American people.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 2:26pm

Pataki will never be able to make it past what he is right now. The man has no personality. Absolutely no charisma.

If Guiliani's cards are played right, he could rise in the ranks. He will continue to play the 9-11 mayor card, but he should let that rest and work on the theme that he cleaned up NYC and made it fun to go there again. But when people start rattling the Guiliani skeletons in the closet, you have to remember that he's on his third marriage and he wasn't too sweet about telling wife #2 that the marriage was over. Guiliani is a slippery slope that needs to have a little bit of sand thrown on it.

[Plum]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 2:27pm

Gee, not to mention he's *cough* pro-life. And he's from New York City. Not. Happening.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 2:31pm

Very well said, South Fl Marc. You took the words right out of my mouth.

Gotham, I concur about Pataki. I thought he came off like such a fool during the RNC.

Updated On: 11/3/04 at 02:31 PM

[B.B. Wolf]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 2:32pm

And Guiliani, whom I like a great deal, just felt like a pathetic partisan cheerleader. I thought he was better than that.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 2:37pm

Dottie, I don't understand my fellow New Yorkers and their choices. Pataki has no personality, Bloomberg is a whiny baby and Hillary is a self-serving wolf in sheep's clothing. It makes me sad that the state of my birth and residence can't produce good leaders.

[BT]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 2:46pm

It makes me more sad that this nation can't pick good leaders.