Better Banter

If you're one of the few who took the time to read the papers on Thanksgiving day, you might have seen a review of the Clinton Presidential Museum/Library in the New York Times. The headline says it all: "Political Self-Celebration in a Library Guise." Reviewer Edward Rothstein juxtaposes the Clinton Library with the Truman Libary, and the result is a smoldering rebuke of a monument to propaganda. And browsing, in this case, means hearing Mr. Clinton's voice every few feet, speaking from multiple monitors, delivering State of the Union addresses or making stump speeches, his voice punctuated by historical films and comments from admirers and staff members... Every object, every piece of text, every sound is harnessed in service to an almost relentless message about Mr. Clinton's achievements... And each alcove highlights a specific Clintonian credit, including: "Putting People first," "Building a Global Community," "Preparing for

If you voted last week the chances are decent you did so in the basement of a local church. In my area, this was largely due to the security concerns of allowing voting in public schools while school is in session. Did the ACLU speak out against this? I could find nothing on their website complaning about voters having to go to churches to conduct state business. So let me get this straight: An atheist who stumbles across a religious symbol in a public park has the right to be outraged and demand the symbol's removal, on the grounds that the state is sponsoring religion and offending him. An atheist who, in order to participate in a national election, is forced to vote in a church basement, with all sorts of religious symbols prevalent, does not get offended, because the state is not sponsoring religion. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not pushing the theory there's anything wrong with voting in a church basement. It's multiculturalism at its best. If I h

Democrats took a drubbing in the polls a week ago today. The writing is on the wall: changes need to be made to the party. The end of Terry McAuliffe's disastrous term should be a welcome event for all Americans, and particularly for Democrats. But who will succeed him? The latest buzz is that Howard Dean wants the post. This is, of course, delicious news to conservatives, and a sign that the only reinvention of the party will be to make it more left-leaning. For the sake of the Democrats, I hope this does not happen, and that they select a chairman who will direct the party toward a more moderate path.

It seems clear, as U.S. Marines prepare for a likely invasion of Fallujah, that the time has come to cut out a festering cancer that is threatening the life and breath of a nascent democracy in Iraq. The U.S. had a chance to take care of the problem last April, of course, but for many reasons we hesitated and decided against it. One reason was that we wanted to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. Another that we wanted Iraqi forces to have a major role in the assault, so victory would end in something less like an occupation. Iraqi forces were not ready at the time, but could be ready for a part in an invasion now. The decision to not take Fallujah in April has been criticized by many hawks as emboldening the militants, and giving them a propaganda vehicle whereby they could claim they drove out "the infidel." One such critic, in hindsight, was John Kerry. No, he did not advocate an invasion at the time, but he has since pointed to it as a failure of the Bush admini

Arlen Specter was re-elected to the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, in large part due to the assistance of President Bush, who campaigned for Specter during the primaries against a true conservative, Pat Toomey. He risked alienating conservatives across the country in order to nominate a "more electable" man who might help the President carry a key swing state. Of course, Bush lost Pennsylvania. Now, to add insult to injury, not two full days after the election, Specter is already denouncing Bush and the Supreme Court, warning Bush to not appoint an ideologue (someone who would overturn Roe v. Wade) to the bench, and lamenting that there are no judicial heavyweights on the current court. The next time someone asks the President to name one of his mistakes, he should consider that America now has six more years of Specter, and no one is the better for it.

Almost as good as the Bush victory itself is the liberal reaction to it. BBC Radio this morning insisted that the election proved the country is just as "deeply divided" as 2000. This is, of course, laughable given that Bush has actually won a majority of the popular, the first time a president has done so since 1988. Does anyone recall the "deeply divided" being bandied about in 1996? Best of all is the headline in the Village Voice: It's Mourning in America. The article itself, (link above) is hilarious. The author, Rick Perlstein, does not give up hope of a Kerry victory, but his main purpose is to explain what went wrong. The answer, of course, is Republican lies. Specifically, and bizarrely, Perlstein focuses on the rantings of one evangelical minister in Ohio. James Dobson, a man with a radio program and head of the organization "Focus on the Family" has come out against the Ted Kennedy-sponsored hate crimes bill. Perlstein gives the fo

John Hillen has an interesting take in The Corner: A failure to concede by this morning can only mean the Dems, lacking anything to rally around for the next four years, want to keep the victim-magic going and will hang on long enough to create the auro[sic] of “another stolen election” for their base. I can see this being a strategy, but not not a good strategy. Look what it's done for them so far. The era of McAuliffe and Daschle is over. For the sake of the country and the Democratic party, I think the message will be sent to acknowledge defeat sooner rather than later, change the "sore loser" message we've heard from Al Gore and MoveOn for four years, and start a fresh message (whatever that may be) with 2008 in mind.

Do you suppose Terry has a timeshare at Dick Cheney's undisclosed location? Anyone seen hair or hide of that jackal this morning? I can't wait to not buy a car from him.

Why were the exit polls so far off? Do Republicans vote after work? Aside from the polls, when real numbers are in, it's interesting to see when states are called. As of right now, CNN has it Bush 254, Kerry 252, calling Wisconsin for Kerry despite just a 14,000 vote margin with 99% in. Ohio, New Mexico, and Iowa still show as undecided. All have Bush leading. Fox, on the other hand, has called Ohio for Bush, but has not called Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, or Wisconsin (CNN has called Nevada for Bush). Fox seems consistent in that they haven't called these close votes for either side. Look at the numbers and try to figure out why CNN has called Wisconsin and not Ohio, New Mexico, or Iowa: Bush Kerry Precincts Iowa 741,325 725,700 99 Ohio 2,794,346 2,658,125 100 New Mexico 335,331 323,691 99 Nevada 388,963 368,458 99 Wisconsin 1,466,963 1,480,256 99 In Iowa, Bush has a higher vote lead

My 270-268 projection included Florida, but not Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Missouri, all of which are currently breaking for the President. I also discounted New Hampshire, which is a toss-up. The New Mexico switch is looking likely at this point. Other than NH and OH, it's looking less likely Kerry takes away a red state. And I couldn't agree more with Mark about Specter. MSNBC has it 48-47 Specter with 65% precincts reporting.

"Projections: Bush strong in south, Kerry in Northeast."

Blackfive is reporting that his name disappeared from the registration log in Chicago. There were no provisional ballots. Others seemed to be having the same problem, all seemed to be Republicans. http://www.blackfive.net/main/2004/11/blackfives_vote.html Will be interesting to track developments.

Take the Columbus Dispatch survey via the link above. My scores came out: Badnarik: 200 Bush: 1600 Kerry: -50 Peroutka: 850 Seems like a pretty good tool, though I think the stem cell question could be worded better. What'd you get?

Despite having to wrangle with a HORRIBLY ANTIQUATED PUNCH CARD VOTING MACHINE, I believe I was able to cast a chadless, non-spoiled vote. I was in and out in half an hour, but most people I'm talking to waited much longer here in Ohio, upwards of 90 minutes in some cases. It's raining here, though not very hard. Will lukewarm Kerry supporters (as if there's another kind) brave the elements?

Maybe there's hope after all: CINCINNATI - A federal appeals court has cleared the way for political parties to challenge voters' eligibility at polling places throughout Ohio, ruling early Tuesday that their presence on Election Day was allowed under state law.

Would somebody please tell me why I can't get on a Delta shuttle without showing my driver's license, but I'm allowed to vote by simply making my signature look like the one on record? I'd feel better about it were the process for getting that signature on record a bit more stringent. Let's talk Ohio. Lots of different groups are registering people, naturally. Republicans have suspected that Democrats have been going overboard in registering non-existent, dead, or redundant voters. There may be little harm in this. Many outfits who are charged with voter registration compensate workers by the number of voters registered. A registration worker who registers Don Corleone has done something illegal, but it probably just for the $2 he's been promised, and the Don will not actually cast a vote. Or will he? This is the fear of Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. If I send in twenty different registration forms with different fake names and addresses in twenty diff

October 2, 2005 BOSTON (Reuters) -- As the Boston Red Sox wrap up a disastrous 2005 season and begin to prepare for the playoffs, many are wondering how such a beloved team has fallen so far, so fast, in the eyes of American sports fans. Margaret Reed, of the public relations firm Windsock Inc, has followed the rise and fall of the Sox. "When the Yankees beat the Red Sox in Game 7 of the ALCS in 2003, you really did have the world united with Boston. Everyone was a Red Sox fan. Everyone felt their pain. And this feeling of goodwill continued right through Game 3 of the 2004 ALCS." The Yankees had a 3-0 lead in that series, and it looked like Boston would lose again. It didn't happen. Reed continues, "They came back and just humiliated the Yankees, winning four straight. It had never been done before. And then they went on to sweep the Cardinals. Eight straight postseason wins. This is not the kind of thing you do if you want to galvanize the entire country