« I've soared with eagles and slithered with the snakes | Main | Clinton/Obama, 2008 »
and can you hear the sound of hysteria? the subliminal mindfuck america.
by mg at 07:23 AM on November 04, 2004
I wont say who I voted for, because at this point, who wants to hear me gloat or pout about whichever respective candidate I cast my meaningless ballot with? However, I will share my undying glee about two ear and eye gauge-worthy things the end of this election season means I’ll never have to hear or see again.
The first being my long and seething hatred of ABC’s “Vote 2004” logo. That damn thing has been up there for more than year. And not just on political and news programs, but on every ABC show. What did A Charlie Brown Christmas have to do with the election? What did Mark (another billionaire who can’t afford a decent haircut) Cuban’s dreadful Benefactor have to do with the election?
Now that the election is over and I am watching the amazing Lost I can relax and enjoy knowing I will never again be distracted by that little bastard “Vote 2004” logo in the lower right hand corner of the screen. The only thing that subdues my joy is that we are now only a month and a half from ABC putting up their “Vote 2008” logo on the screen.
<editors note>I wrote this last evening. A teaser for the local evening news last night had a promo for a story about 2008 presidential hopefuls. I berated the TV for a good two minutes after seeing that. Yes, I do have rage issues. What’s it to ya? </ed note>
The other half of my delight comes from never having to hear the phrase “Not my president” again. I’ll never have to read another “Re-Defeat Bush” bumper sticker. I’ll never have to hear another person talk about how Bush “stole” the presidency, or how it was the nine justices of the Supreme Court who really decided the election. I haven’t felt such bliss at the striking of a phrase from the English language since “Bennifer” broke up.
Now that we’ve got another presidential election as a buffer, I feel safe that I’ll never have to hear about Jeb Bush exerting some kind of undue influence over Florida election results. Forget the fact that none of it is true, that stories of Bush stealing the election are about as accurate as predictions of bin Laden having been captured and the news kept until right October to help win the election. Whatever the “crazy” beliefs about a pilfered election on November 2, 2004, one way or another, we would all remove the relevance of that conversation ever again.
If Bush lost the election all those people who’ve held onto that bitter little pill for that last four years would finally get some solace and be able to move on. What about if Bush won the election, especially if it was in a decisive fashion (as it was)? Well, if anyone still chooses to hold onto Election 2000, even after that (accurate) result has now been reinforced by the unquestionable accuracy of Election 2004, they are revealed as the whiney conspiracy theorist that they’ve always been.
I will actually miss something about the election season: Teresa Heinz-Kerry. How kick ass of a first lady would she have been? Comedians love Bush because you can never quite be sure what the hell will come out of his mouth. Same with Teresa, only much more of it would she says would have to be *bleeped*. Plus, what about that crazy accent? Maybe in 2008 we can get an Arnold Schwarzenegger - Teresa Heinz-Kerry slate and really do the uniting of America everyone else just yaps about. I’d vote for those two in a second.
comments (19)
Maybe it's because I am blind in my right eye but I watch and love Lost (next week looked great on the previews) yet I never saw that logo. Hmmm.
by anna at November 4, 2004 7:52 AM
You might have missed it in the flurry of other logos and teasers and intrusive nonsense that ABC (and all the other networks) has started running over the bottom quarter of the screen constantly. I'm pretty sure I don't need to be reminded what show I'm watching when it comes back from commercials, thank you.
by Adam L. at November 4, 2004 9:10 AM
Something actually relevant-- give it a couple of days for the hysteria and loony "I'm moving to Canada!" bidness to die down, then we'll start to hear some actual coherent analysis.
Also, isn't Ben Affleck doing Jennifer Garner now? It's Bennifer II! Run!
by Adam L. at November 4, 2004 9:11 AM
"Forget the fact that none of it is true, that stories of Bush stealing the election are about as accurate as predictions of bin Laden having been captured and the news kept until right October to help win the election."
"None of it is true." I didn't realize that all evidence suggesting that Gore won has been categorically disproven and put to rest! When did that happen? I have seen convincing material arguing both sides.
It's so easy to dismiss people by saying they had to swallow a bitter pill. That's a very effective way to discourage anyone from wishing to disagree.
Dude, I am TOTALLY pouting today. I wouldn't even be commenting on this normally.
by Linz at November 4, 2004 3:18 PM
But since I am, read some of the executive summary of the Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election Executive Summary report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights from April 2003.
Here is a choice quote from the Chairperson of that investigation:
Governor Jeb Bush’s Select Task Force on Election Procedures, Standards and Technology revealed that less than 1 percent of the problems minority voters faced during the election resulted from “voter error.”
"The Commission found that the problems Florida had during the 2000 presidential election were serious and not isolated. In many cases, they were foreseeable and should have been prevented. The failure to do so resulted in an extraordinarily high and inexcusable level of disenfranchisement, with a significantly disproportionate impact on African American voters. "
"This disenfranchisement of Florida voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans. Statewide, based on county-level statistical estimates, African American voters were nearly 10 times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in the November 2000 election."
I wonder if there is any possibility that the 537 vote margin would have been reversed if the African voters were just equally likely to have ballots rejected?
I don't think anyone knows for sure, to be honest.
by Linz at November 4, 2004 3:36 PM
*ahem*
African-American voters.
by Linz at November 4, 2004 3:37 PM
I don't like the term African-American because it discounts Carribbean blacks, like Haitians. Haitians always get a raw deal. They don't even get a complete island to themselves, having to share one with the Dominican
Republic or something.
by anna at November 4, 2004 6:13 PM
The report you quote found the problems in Florida 2000 was a failure to fully prepare, not a deliberate attempt to subvert votes. However, you choose to ignore that part of it, and instead subvert a couple quotes to suggest Jeb Bush was driving around Dade County personally knocking ballots out of black people's hands.
You may not like the fact that Geoerge W. Bush won the election in 2000, but he did. People with far more information than you'll be able to find in a Goodle search, and decades more experience deciding such legal matters than you or I came to that conclusion. Unless you've got some evidence other than some vague suggestions of bias from the governor of Florida or certain Supreme Court Justices, yes, the fact you are still holding on to this is just a bitter pill.
by mg at November 4, 2004 10:41 PM
Being a grad student MG, I think you've somewhat secluded yourself from the painful economic hardships of the working world for the past two years. I'm LOCKHEED and I approve of this message.
by LOCKHEED at November 5, 2004 12:58 AM
Oh, I see MG. I re-read your words and they were "Bush stole the election." I don't believe that. I just don't think he won fairly, i.e. would have won Florida if Florida had done things right.
I didn't ignore anything. When I see what you thought I was trying to say, I see why you're implying that. What I found in a Google search was the report of the commission that investigated this matter fully. Forgive me for not posting the entire report, and only taking quotes. I thought those quotes illustrated my point, and I certainly didn't say anywhere the things that you are suggesting.
I do think any states governor should ensure that their state's votes are counted properly & whatnot. Florida did a bang-up job this year, and I imagine many states were much improved (Jeans situation sucks though). One thing we share in common is disliking when people assume that every little thing that goes wrong in a human-run election is because of some sort of dark agenda. It's just that such an immense system, generally orchestrated by people, is going to have errors! I don't know the final number of complaints by voters, but I bet the percentage of problems this year was much smaller than last year.
I do have a powerful negative feeling about the 2000 election because the human errors I perceive were enough to very likely have affected the outcome of that election, and I think some very dark things have happened since then as a result of human error. That hurts me, it's not a bitter pill, it's my strong suspicion (that will never be proven or disproven) that we would not be in a war if Gore had won.
You don't see me complaining that this year's election results were a mistake. But I think the 2000 election was decided based on a state full of mistakes, and those mistakes most likely changed the course of our nation. It is somewhat vexing to me that no matter how many times I say this, you will just come back with "bitter pill." It's not a bitter pill. It's true. We will never know the real intention of Florida voters, due to mistakes. The end. You have this weird insistence that anyone that disagrees with you on this can't have a valid point. It must be nice to be so certain.
Look, I don't have any research or solid sources to suggest that Bush did not steal the election, but I'm certainly not going to simply believe you just because you say he didn't. I didn't realize your research was exhaustive.
I might be wrong, but I seem to notice a trend in your political posts, you are very trusting of the powers that be, and very dismissive of single people that might actually have a point. I still don't understand what you think my motives are.
by Linz at November 5, 2004 9:26 AM
I'm sorry. I missed your initial distinction between adminsitrative problems leading to a change in the outcome, and purposeful mishandling of votes to change the the outcome. I'm glad you don't think the election was stolen, but the distinction you make is one that seems to be lost on a lot of other people. I think there is a huge difference betwen an honestly run but mismanaged election and a conspiracy to disenranchise any part of the population, but it seems that many in the ABB (anybody but Bush) crowd don't see that difference.
I don't know if you read the rest of the report you quoted. I skimmed the whole thing, and it is an interesting read. But even in that report, there is a dissenting view that opposes many of the studies and statistical analysis that were used to reach the conclusions you quoted. I for one am always willing to believe that something has occured because of difference of opinion, or even ineptitude, or lack of information or planning, etc, than because of some dark agenda. Ineptitude isn't something we should accept, but I am more willing to believe that than in a purposeful conspiracy. I don't think that is a character defect in me, any more than your distrust in the government would be one in you. But because of that difference we often come to odds on things. I just am not willing to believe the worst of a person or of my government unless it has been proven to me. In this country, we have "innocent until proven guilty" - why wouldn't we apply that same notion to organizations, companies, and the actions of government?
I think the motives behind by the kind of comments you and others have expressed are this: You don't like or agree with Bush so anything that he does is immediately met with suspicion or derision. Bush won by a narrow margin in 2000 so there must have been election errors that changed the course of the election. There were no WMDs found in Iraq, so Bush must have purposefully withheld or subverted intelligence. Bush won again in 2004, so the people voting for him must be ignorant. These things may or may not be true, but they are not automatically so just because you didn't want Bush to win in 2000, or for us to go into Iraq, or for Bush to win again in 2004.
by mg at November 5, 2004 9:56 AM
Some comments on your idea of my stance.
"You don't like or agree with Bush so anything that he does is immediately met with suspicion or derision."
Well, that's not really true, I don't think. I WANT Bush to do right by me... and I don't actually enjoy finding fault with him. It's just so easy.
"Bush won by a narrow margin in 2000 so there must have been election errors that changed the course of the election."
There are a lot of points of evidence that uphold that suspicion, I did not grab it out of thin air or assume it. My logic is not simply a function of my beliefs. I would be just as hard on Kerry. Believe it or not. But we have never known each other during a Dem prez.
"There were no WMDs found in Iraq, so Bush must have purposefully withheld or subverted intelligence."
I don't agree with that either. A lot of Dems voted for this war, and I am pissed at all of them. Kerry included, and I did not approve of his campaign tool of trying to make it look like Bush misled with intelligence. Kerry had access to the same intelligence when he voted for this war, didn't he? I am not positive. Anyway, we shouldn't have gone to war. (I argued my bass player on this for days; I felt that the UN should have been given a little more time, he believed that the violation of tons of UN codes justified our move. I believed in a little more time the UN might have backed us... or, better, we could have prevented this.) I believe Bush rushed it more than Gore would have. And further, just because I am anti-war doesn't mean that my points on why we shouldn't have gone to this war are not valid, which you tend to suggest.
"Bush won again in 2004, so the people voting for him must be ignorant."
Look, I am trying to find reasons for something that makes absolutely no sense to me: Bush's re-election. It doesn't mean I'm illogical. Further, I suspect are that the terror scare and religion tactics really helped Bush. Would you disagree with that assertion?
"These things may or may not be true, but they are not automatically so just because you didn't want Bush to win in 2000, or for us to go into Iraq, or for Bush to win again in 2004."
Agreed. Nor are your points automatically so just because Bush got elected. You live in New York. I live in Georgia. One of Sean's flower shop customers, in a town an hour outside of Atlanta, is the mayor of that "city." Mister Mayor said, "No matter what a democrat said, even if I agreed with all of his politics, I wouldn't vote for him." I have met people who know not a single gay person, but want to make decisions for them. I have seen ignorance. And down here, it works in Bush's favor. Arguably in NYC, it works in Kerry's favor.
by Linz at November 5, 2004 11:33 AM
Beautifully stated Linz. There are a lot of minor points we could continue to quabble (is that a wod) over, but I think, at heart, the reason we disagree on this is that you see a "terror scare and religion tactics" while I think the people who voted for those reasons see terror as a valid and very significant threat, and maintain their religion as a central guiding force in their lives. Because you are not religious and think religions are silly (as do I), it doesn't mean that the people who believe in them are ignorant or lazy. I think we both agree that if an individual voted for Bush solely because the bible has some vauge things about men lying with other men is a nut-job. Which brings me the second half of our disagreement - on a personal level I feel very comfortable, as you may have noticed, saying "You are wrong about X because Y." I am not comfortable making a generalization about the reasons why a group of 59 million people voted the way they did. If you dismiss the votes of a group of people as ignorant because you assume they voted for canidate X because of cause Y, you are being as prejudiced and narrowminded as if someone said a person of have X quality because they belonged to race Y.
by mg at November 5, 2004 12:14 PM
I am glad that Bush won -- and by a large enough margin that it signifies a mandate from the American people -- that we can get on with the real agenda! Look for this to happen within the next 4 years:
1. Paris, watch out! You're getting your ass bombed.
2. Civil liberties? WHAT'S THAT?!?!
3. All bleeding heart liberals win an all-expense paid trip to Guantanamo!
by Eviltom at November 5, 2004 2:19 PM
Wally Backman is a loser!!!
by Gary Carter at November 5, 2004 2:21 PM
Was that a nonsequitor or did I miss something?
Anyway, mg, I think it's either quibble or squabble, both of which look equally ridiculous.
Not to cross topics, but you do it too, so yes... to cross topics: Why do you get so bent when I suggest that some people made ignorant decisions, and leap to their defense, yet, you don't give a shit about girls with eating disorders or low self-esteem? You make plenty of assumptions about eating disorders, and people with them, because you are Mister Nature, not Nurture, but yet you are a champion of not judging the ignorant (which Nurture or lack thereof is responsible for). Sorry, to be more PC, the "possibly ignorant." When they were handing out causes, I think you were taking a doodie.
Nice Evil Tom... Your comments, while rare, are always Grade A.
by Linz at November 5, 2004 3:13 PM
MY NAME IS JEFF AND I GOBBLE COCK
by JEFF FREE at November 18, 2004 2:24 PM
Good for you Jeff, good for you. Did you know that Wally Backman is a loser?
by Ezy at November 19, 2004 10:57 AM
Awwww....is someone angry because the world won't give him attention? Awwww!!!! We bad itty bitty Americans for not knowing a brilliant czar when we read one. I sorry!!
by Itty Bitty Baby at December 5, 2005 8:22 PM