Archive for November 9th, 2005

Hell Hath No Fury… I Hope

This is another one of those posts where I try to crystallize some thoughts I’ve expressed here and there in Eschaton comments. I initially lumped it in with some post-VA/NJ election musings, but it didn’t really fit there, plus it ended up being long enough to rate its own post.

As Bush’s approval rating drills resolutely towards the Earth’s core, one of the interesting trends has been the erosion of his support among his own party. While still inexplicably high, it has dropped noticeably, from 89% to 77% since the start of the year, according to Pew.

So, assuming more Republican voters manage to piss the remaining Bush Kool-Aid out of their systems, is the backlash against him going to be worse than it would be for, say, George The First? Bush has achieved a truly scary level of trust from those who believe him to be a righteous, religious man – will their disappointment be magnified into anger by this added layer of deception?

Bush has not only lied about his policies, but he has lied about WHO HE IS. If they ever pierce the veil of lies, I think the evangelicals who still have some shred of sanity left may well react like jilted, deceived lovers, rather than just constituents whose elected representatives have let them down yet again (I mean, what can you expect from politicians, right?).

Again, of course, the key to all this is to connect a discredited Bush to Republican candidates in 2006 & 2008. Remind the voters of every time they stood by him and vouched for his sincerity and character while he smirked and lied about everything. Remind them that the Republicans are accomplices.

And if some primary challengers want to use this same strategy against, say, Joe Biden and/or Joe Lieberman, well, I’d be willing to look the other way. Hell, I might even be persuaded to slip them a few bucks on the down-low.

1 comment November 9th, 2005 at 06:09pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Bush,Democrats,Favorites,Politics,Polls,Republicans

Door, Meet Ass

Good riddance to bad rubbish:

The New York Times and Judith Miller, a veteran reporter for the paper, reached an agreement today that ends her 28-year career at the newspaper and caps more than two weeks of negotiations.

(snip)

Lawyers for Ms. Miller and the paper negotiated a severance package, the details of which they would not disclose. Under the agreement, Ms. Miller will retire from the newspaper, and The Times will print a letter she wrote to the editor explaining her position. Ms. Miller originally demanded that she be able to write an essay for the paper’s Op-Ed page challenging the allegations against her. The Times refused that demand – Gail Collins, editor of the editorial page, said, “We don’t use the Op-Ed page for back and forth between one part of the paper and another” – but agreed to let her write the letter.

In that letter, to be published in The New York Times on Thursday under the heading, “Judith Miller’s Farewell,” Ms. Miller said she was leaving partly because some of her colleagues disagreed with her decision to testify in the C.I.A. leak case.

“But mainly,” she wrote, “I have chosen to resign because over the last few months, I have become the news, something a New York Times reporter never wants to be.”

She noted that even before going to jail, she had “become a lightning rod for public fury over the intelligence failures that helped lead our country to war.” She said she regretted “that I was not permitted to pursue answers’ to questions about those intelligence failures.”

Poor, persecuted Judy. Such poignant regrets. She doesn’t even get a chance to find the real killers.

Whatever happened to a simple old-fashioned, “You’re fired”? Or even, “We’ve decided to go in a different direction”?

I wish they would.

1 comment November 9th, 2005 at 04:49pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Media,Wankers

Virginia Monologue

Some thoughts and questions inspired by the outcome of the VA and NJ gubernatorial elections:

Didn’t the pre-election polling in both states make both elections look pretty close? And yet the reality ended up being pretty overwhelmingly Democrat. Is there any underlying message we can divine from this? When we had the exact opposite discrepancy in 2004, I assumed that it reflected voter turnout, which can’t be adequately predicted by phone polling.

So does this mean that the Democrats won the turnout battle in VA & NJ? Does it mean that Democratic voters are becoming more energized and Republican ones more demoralized? Or is this just what elections look like without concerted tampering or voter suppression efforts?

2 comments November 9th, 2005 at 02:56pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Elections,Polls,Republicans


Contact Eli





Feeds

Linkedelia!

Most Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Calendar

November 2005
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  


Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter


View My Stats *