Blogger Norman Geras on the aftermath of the election:

“Liberals and leftists should stop wailing and ask themselves some tough questions: first and foremost, where they themselves might have gone wrong (so many of them), repeatedly wrong, in their alignment within international conflicts - and why. You lose a democratic battle, you fight on, that's all. You make the argument again or differently. You look to see whether there are mistakes, misconceptions, bad assumptions, bad practices, on your own side. You try to persuade people. You show some elementary civic respect to those on the other side.”

Good advice, I think. Read the whole thing.

The heart-breaking, horrifying slaughter of Theo van Gogh by Islamic extremists in Holland was a story that rather got lost in the midst of the election drama over here. It shouldn’t have done.

Now comes the tale (via the Live from Brussels blog) of what happened when Rotterdam artist Chris Ripke reacted to the killing by painting a mural that included the words "Gij zult niet doden" ("Thou Shalt Not Kill"). Fair comment, you might think. Apparently not. The head of the nearby mosque complained to the police that this text was 'offensive' and 'racist'. As a result, the police came and sent in city workers to sandblast this inconvenient text into oblivion.

“Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Erased, obliterated, unacceptable.

Much like Theo van Gogh.

From another reader:

Your correspondent is being silly. Brooks isn't saying that lefties would be morally superior had their opponents beaten them on an anti-gay-marriage agenda. He's saying that they would FEEL morally superior, by their own definitions of "moral" and "superior". When your moral code elevates gratification of self over the integrity of the institution of marriage, and an absolutist conception of "choice" over the right to life of unborn children, you can feel "morally superior" without being so. And someone else can acknowledge your conceit without validating it.

An interestingly different take, from a reader:

Brooks' column contains a pernicious underlying assumption: He implies that, if it were true that Republican votes were largely motivated by values such as gay marriage and abortion, then the liberals would be correct in feeling morally superior. Brooks cites Pew Research findings that (fortunately) indicate that this was not the case. Republicans were chiefly supporting Bush because he has made them feel safer. But what if it turns out that Pew is wrong, and that many Republicans were indeed voting socially conservative values. Why does Brooks concede to the liberals that these voters would then be morally inferior? What is wrong with wishing to preserve traditional marriage and to oppose abortion? Brooks doesn't say; he simply accepts at face value the idea that such views would say something distasteful about Republicans. I am concerned that Brooks undermines the conservative movement with such assumptions.

A press release from Centcom on what the "insurgents" are up to. Let's see how much the media plays it up:

November 5, 2004 Release Number: 04-11-12

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

INSURGENTS TARGET CHILDREN OF RAMADI

CAMP RAMADI, Iraq – An Army unit assigned to I Marine Expeditionary Force, discovered and defused an explosive-laden youth center in Ramadi Nov. 4, which was rigged by insurgents to detonate and potentially kill dozens of Iraqi children. They also discovered more than two tons of explosives hidden in a mosque.

The discoveries were made during a sweep of the city looking for improvised explosive devices.

After a thorough investigation of the youth center, the Soldiers discovered that the explosives were rigged to detonate three ways: through a light switch, a remote control and by wiring that ran from the youth center to the nearby Al-Haq Mosque, where the unit discovered the firing mechanism.

At another mosque, a search yielded the discovery of more than two tons of ammunition, explosives, mortar systems and RPGs. Artillery rounds; assault rifles and various IED-making materials were found, as well. Fifty suspected insurgents were also detained during the sweep.

Mosques are granted protective status due to their religious and cultural significance. However, when insurgents violate the sanctity of the mosque by using the structure for military purposes, the site loses its protective status.

Great care is taken by the Soldiers, Sailors and Marines of I Marine Expeditionary Force, who are committed to assisting Iraqi Interim Government in providing security to Iraqi people.

Quite a few folks have been asking me about the case of Elizabeth Nickson. She's a Canadian columnist for the National Post who was fired for allegedly plagiarizing a column of mine. These are the details, according to the Globe and Mail. I really don't know anything more than what appears in this article. I was notified by a reader a couple months ago about the plagiarism, but to be honest I never followed-up on it because I was so busy at the time and then I just plum forgot. I trust the editors of the National Post did what they think was right and as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the whole thing.

The morning after the Feb. 3 primaries, which vaulted Kerry into a virtual-ly insurmountable lead, the candidate was fuming over his missing hairbrush. He and his aides were riding in a van on the way to a Time magazine cover-photo shoot. Nicholson had left the hairbrush behind. "Sir, I don't have it," he said, after rummaging in the bags. "Marvin, f---!" Kerry said. The press secretary, David Wade, offered his brush. "I'm not using Wade's brush," the long-faced senator pouted. "Marvin, f---, it's my Time photo shoot."

Nicholson was having a bad day. Breakfast had been late and rushed and not quite right for the senator. In the van, Kerry was working his cell phone and heard the beep signaling that the phone was running out of juice. "Marvin, charger," he said without turning around. "Sorry, I don't have it," said Nicholson, who was sitting in the rear of the van. Now Kerry turned around. "I'm running this campaign myself," he said, looking at Nicholson and the other aides. "I get myself breakfast. I get myself hairbrushes. I get myself my cell-phone charger. It's pretty amazing." In silent frustration, Nicholson helplessly punched the car seat.

I went to the eye doctor. He put drops in my eyes. I can barely read the screen. That's why I've been absent.

Doing CNN around 3:30-3:45, not sure exact time.

Will also be on Inside Politics Sunday this, uh, sunday.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New U.S. jobs soared at the sharpest rate in seven months in October, the government reported on Friday, helped by a surge in construction activity as hurricane-battered areas in the Southeast were rebuilt.

Q: Clearly, you won a tremendous personal victory last night. But given the fact that the Republicans lost two seats in the Senate and that you didn't win as many seats in the House as you lost in the 1982 elections, how much of a mandate can the Republicans claim for next year?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I feel that the people of this country made it very plain that they approved what we've been doing. And we're going to continue what we've been doing and, if need be, we'll take our case to the people. But we have the same number of Senators that we had in 1981 when we got this program passed. And there's a possibility -- I know that there are some seats still to be decided in the House -- but there's a possibility of as many as 17, and that's more than have happened in elections of this kind -- mid- or second-term elections -- for Presidents in the past.

Q: Are you claiming a mandate then, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm claiming that I think the people made it very plain that they approved of what we're doing….And that's what we're going to continue to do.

Kyl's not getting enough phone calls. his office in tucson said i was the first today. can you remind everyone to call the local offices, too? i've had a tough time getting through to some washington offices, but got a friendly "hi, thanks for calling," from nearly every local office i've called. specter must, must go.

He is an abortion-rights absolutist, a dogged advocate of racial preferences, a bitter foe of tort reform, a firm friend of the International Criminal Court — the list is long. When Citizens Against Government Waste recently listed Specter in its "Pig Book" as one of the Senate's most profligate spenders, he shot back: "If they left me out, I'd be worried." In 1995, Specter briefly ran for president and pursued the unique strategy of attacking the base of his own party: His announcement speech lobbed a grenade at "the intolerant Right." After pressing this theme for several months, one poll showed him attracting support from a grand total of 1 percent of Republicans.

Yikes. Here I am, a new subscriber and ardent fan since Election Day, and you subject-line a post "You go, girl"?

Your apologies are not enough. You say it "just sounds cliched." Again, I must say, yikes.

In the sitcom business, we call that a clam. No one knows where the term originates, several people claim "clam" as their own, but the term describes any phrase which has had all traces of humor or wit sucked out by constant and careless use. "Houston, we have a problem." "Is that your final answer?" "Who are you are what have you done with Kathryn?"

Clams can also be references that have lost what little zing they might have once had. Viagra. Gandhi. White House interns. Milli Vanilli. (You can see that sitcom writers are a rigorous bunch.)

Using a clam is beneath you. Don't make me say, "You are the weakest link. Goodbye." (Which I believe broke the record for instantaneous clam status, becoming unfunny before it was ever funny.)

For much of Tuesday, campaign workers exuded confidence after surveys of voters leaving the polls showed Mr. Kerry with an edge over Mr. Bush. But as the night wore on, the real results told a different story. The critical moment came at 12:41 a.m. Wednesday, when, shortly after Florida had been painted red for Mr. Bush, Fox News declared that Ohio--and, very likely, the presidency--was in Republican hands. Howard Wolfson, a strategist, burst into the "boiler room" in Washington where the brain trust was huddled and said, "we have 30 seconds" to stop the other networks from following suit. The campaign's pollster, Mark Mellman, and the renowned organizer Michael Whouley quickly dialed ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC--and all but the last refrained from calling the race through the night. Then Mr. Wolfson banged out a simple, two-line statement expressing confidence that Mr. Kerry would win Ohio once the remaining ballots were counted.

I think contacting the members of the Judiciary committee is a wise suggestion. However, I would refrain from discouraging people from contacting Frist. He has already begun to run for President. Social conservatives pushed the president over the finish line this week. It would seem that Frist is the senator over whom we currently have the most leverage. I don't think he would want to alienate the conservative base out of the gate. It would doom him, and he would certainly be the fall guy if there is a problem. Frist needs this resolved favorably for the base as much as anyone does.

So many emails about here. I can't/won't post that many because she really does speak for herself better than we can do it for her. But here's a good/common point:

I do not read Slate, it's good someone does and can point to the odd, random article worth reading.

For me the best part of Smiley's effort is when she denounces the
Gadarene swine ... er ... Red State Voters (see Belmont for more
on that notion) for their Manichean worldview, while at the same time
insisting that the nation has been divided into the Land of Light and
the Domain of Darkness.

The irony of that comes pretty close to exceeding my Required Daily
Allowance of irony, frankly.

Specter's biggest impact probably has come on the Judiciary Committee. That makes sense, because he was a prominent lawyer before arriving in Washington. In addition to his work on the Warren Commission, he was twice elected district attorney in Philadelphia, where he earned a tough-on-crime reputation. On the Judiciary Committee, he has been tough on Republican judicial nominees. In 1986, Ronald Reagan selected Jeff Sessions of Alabama for the federal bench, but Specter joined his Democratic colleagues in defeating the nomination — it was only the second time the Judiciary Committee had turned down a nominee since the FDR era. Attorney general Ed Meese called it "an appalling surrender to the politics of ideology." Sessions didn't vanish from public life; in 1996, he was elected to the Senate. Now he sits with Specter on the Judiciary Committee. The two men don't talk about what passed between them 17 years ago, but Specter admits he made a mistake: "I've gotten to know him. I regret my vote."

Specter doesn't regret a more famous vote that took place the following year, on the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork. This was a watershed moment in Washington politics, when left-wing histrionics began to play a leading role in judicial confirmations — and the term "borking" was born. Bork had an impeccable record as a law professor and judge, but the debate over his nomination was dominated by the fevered rhetoric of his enemies, who said that confirming him would condemn women to back-alley abortions and blacks to segregated lunch counters. Fresh from his first re-election a few months earlier, Specter couldn't make up his mind about what to do. He questioned Bork for hours in his private chambers and at public hearings. In the end, he decided to vote against confirmation. "He called and said that he couldn't be sure about me," says Bork.

"I've never known what he meant by that." Specter's announcement doomed the nomination. As Bork lobbyist Tom Korologos put it at the time: "Specter hit the game-winning RBI." Conservatives, of course, resent that he was batting for the wrong team.

If you've been waiting for one writer to combine all of the sandpounding stupidity and visceral hatred of the left's reaction to "red America" this may be what you're looking for.

Just giving Airpower guy some grief. From him:

Jonah,

Re: strafing an elementary school.

Well, THAT would be a spirited debrief.

A couple of things:
-having a school 3.5 miles from a military firing range doesn't strike me as
the wisest zoning plan, and

-night range rides are challenging enough for guys who fly regularly, much
less Guardsmen who may not do this as often.

A nighttime bomb/strafe pass is disorienting enough as it is...sit in a
chair in a dark room, put a bag over your head, lean over one arm of the
chair, then roll out and stand up while staying bent 90 degrees at the
waist. That's about what it feels like to roll in on even a shallow pass in
the dark. Note: do this alone. Otherwise, Cosmo and the Fair Jessica might
start wondering about you...

This was a goof, obviously, but if he only fired 25 rounds, with a Vulcan
cannon, that was a really short burst, which leads me to believe he probably
thought something was wrong as soon as he pulled the trigger. Also, the
press reports said the bullets were made of lead. Um, I don't think
so--steel more'n likely.

Anyway, night ops can be really squirrelly even if you're current/proficient
and night range rides involve a lot of unnatural actions...thank God it was
only 20mm and that it happened on Wednesday, not Tuesday. Otherwise, I would not be surprised it being characterized as another attempt by Karl Rove to
intimidate Pennsylvania voters.

Cheers,
Instapilot

When Reagan won big for conservatism in the 1980s, the official line from the media was that he's telegenic, that he's an actor, that he's a smooth talker. But the line about Bush all along has been that he's lousy on TV (the debates), that he's abrasive (the swagger and the bluntness), and doesn't speak well (the gaffes). Now, W. has won big for conservatism. Isn't it time to admit that it's conservatism itself that wins big?

In the military, your boss yells at you when you do this right?

F-16 Accidentally Fires on School Thursday, November 04, 2004

LITTLE EGG HARBOR, N.J. — A National Guard F-16 fighter jet on a nighttime training mission Wednesday fired 25 rounds that tore through a Little Egg Harbor elementary school.

No one was injured.

The military is investigating the incident that damaged Little Egg Harbor Intermediate School shortly after eleven o'clock.

Police were called to the area when a custodian heard what sounded like someone running across the roof of the school.

Police Chief Mark Siino says police officers noticed punctures in the roof. Ceiling tiles had fallen into classrooms and there were scratch marks in the asphalt outside the building.

Folks, Moby's blog is High-larious. I found it because I was reading a "What now?" symposium at Salon. I never wondered why Moby's counsel isn't sought at the highest levels of government, academia and finance before, but I found the answer anyway. An excerpt:

.. some of us might long for a secession wherein certain parts of the country declare their sovereign autonomy, but given our current state of quasi-united states, well, bush won. tonight i realized that although america is possessed of a lot of progressive people, america is essentially a right-wing republican country. we might resist this fact, but it is a fact. it's not a fact in manhattan. it's not a fact in l.a or san francisco. but for 100+ million people it's a fact ... and now we ask ... what now? with another 4 years of a republican president/senate/house, well ... what do they want? the right-wing have re-asserted their dominance. what do they want? i do hope that the democrats in the house and senate do their best to impose sane restrictions upon the more extreme tendencies of the newly empowered right-wing ... the sun will rise tomorrow, and the people who voted for bush will: a) send their sons/daughters off to war in iraq; b) complain about unemployment; c) lament their lack of health care; d) complain about the high price of prescription drugs; e) complain about a low minimum wage; f) complain about high gas prices/heating oil costs; g) and so on; h) and so on ... the people have made their choice. and now, for better or worse, they have to live with their choice ... can someone remind me why secession is not an option at this point? i mean let's be realistic, we live in a divided country. can't we have the breakaway republics of 'north-east-istan' and 'pacific-stan'? wouldn't the red states be happier without us?"

November 3, 2004 Transcript

JORDAN: Senator, you didn't talk about the Judiciary Committee, it is something you are expected to Chair this January. With 3 Supreme Court Justices rumored to retire soon, starting with Rehnquist, how do you see this unfolding in the next couple of months and what part do you intend to play on it?

SPECTER: You know my approach is cautious with respect to the Judiciary Committee. I am in line, Senator Hatch is barred now by term limits and Senate Rules so that I am next in line. There has to be a vote of the Committee and I have already started to talk to some of my fellow committee members. I am respectful of Senate traditions, so I am not designating myself Chairman, I will wait for the Senate procedures to act in do course. You are right on the substance, the Chief Justice is gravely ill. I had known more about that than had appeared in the media. When he said he was going to be back on Monday, it was known inside that he was not going to be back on Monday. The full extent of his full incapacitation is really not known, I believe there will be cause for deliberation by the President. The Constitution has a clause called advise and consent, the advise part is traditionally not paid a whole lot of attention to, I wouldn't quite say ignored, but close to that. My hope that the Senate will be more involved in expressing our views. We start off with the basic fact that the Democrats are have filibustered and expect them to filibuster if the nominees are not within the broad range of acceptability. I think there is a very broad range of Presidential Discretion but there is a range.

ODOM: Is Mr. Bush, he just won the election, even with the popular vote as well. If he wants anti-abortion judges up there, you are caught in the middle of it what are you going to do? The party is going one way and you are saying this.

SPECTER: When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v Wade, I think that is unlikely. And I have said that bluntly during the course of the campaign and before. When the Inquirer endorsed me, they quoted my statement that Roe v Wade was inviolate. And that 1973 decision, which has been in effect now for 33 years, was buttressed by the 1992 decision, written by three Republican justices-O'Conner, Souter, and Kennedy-and nobody can doubt Anthony Kennedy's conservativism or pro-life position, but that's the fabric of the country. Nobody can be confirmed today who didn't agree with Brown v. Board of Education on integration, and I believe that while you traditionally do not ask a nominee how they're going to decide a specific case, there's a doctorate and a fancy label term, stari decisis, precedent which I think protects that issue. That is my view, now, before, and always.

ODOM: You are saying the President should not bother to send somebody up there like that.

SPECTER: Can't hear you

ODOM: You are saying the President should not bother or make the move to send somebody up there who is clearly anti-abortion.

SPECTER: I don't want to prejudge what the President is going to do. But the President is well aware of what happened when a number of his nominees were sent up, were filibustered, and the President has said he is not going to impose a litmus test, he faced that issue squarely in the third debate and I would not expect the President, I would expect the President to be mindful of the considerations that I mentioned.

JORDAN: However, Senator the President has President has sent up, as you know, a number of very very conservative judges socially, you have made a point in this campaign of saying that you have supported all of those ______ at least I the last two years, how is this going to square with what you are saying today about wanting the Republican party to be big tent and moderate.

SPECTER: I have been very careful in what I have said and what I have done. The nominees whom I supported in Committee, I had reservations on. As for judge Pryor, there had been an issue as to whether as Attorney General he had raised money, I said in voting him out of committee, that he did not have my vote on the floor until I satisfied myself about collateral matters. The woman judge out of California, who had dismissed a case on invasion of privacy where the doctor had permitted an insurance adjuster to watch a mammogram, I had a reservation on it, so I wanted to talk to her to see if that was aberrational or whether that really reflected her judgment on each and every one of those cases. This may be more detail than you want, but there was one judge for a district judgeship, Judge Holmes, in Arkansas, who was first in his class at the University of Arkansas, had a PhD from Duke, had a master's degree, was touted by both Democratic Arkansas Senators, was supported by 2 pro-choice women, Senator Landrieu and Senator Lincoln, highly regarded in the Arkansas editorial pages, and for a district court judgeship I thought. He had made two statements, and they were, one was in a religious context that a wife should be subservient to a husband, that was in a religious context. Then he made a statement doubting the potential for impregnation from rape, and made an absurd statement that it would be as rare as snow in Florida in July. That was about a 20 year-old statement and I brought him in and sat down, had a long talk with him and concluded that they were not disqualifiers. He was the only judge whom I voted to confirm on the floor vote where any question has been raised and I think that was the right decision for a district court judgeship, not to make that a disqualifier. There are few if any whose record if you go back over 30 or 40 years, and not find some dumb thing, I don't want you to take a to close a look at my 40 year record.

HIGHSMITH: Talk to us a little bit beyond judgeships, you said again today and last night that your goal now is to moderate the party, bring it to the center.

SPECTER: Correct

[BREAK-Bringing the Country Together Question]

[BREAK-Stem Cell Question]

MACINTOSH: What are the characteristics that you are looking for in any candidate for the high court who might come your way in the next year or two?

SPECTER: Well I would like to see a select someone in the mold of Holmes, Brandeis, Cardozo, or Marshall. With all due respect to the U.S. Supreme Court, we don't have one. And I haven't minced any words about that during the confirmation process.

MACINTOSH: Meaning?

SPECTER: Where I have questioned them all very closely. I had an argument before the Supreme Court of the United States on trying to keep the Navy base, and you should heard what the eight of them had to say to me. They were almost as tough as this gang here this morning.

ODOM: Senator, the judges you mentioned are obviously renown. Are you saying that there are no greatness on there, is that what you're driving at?

SPECTER: Yes. Can you take yes for an answer Vernon? I'm saying that we don't have anybody of the stature of Oliver Wendell Holmes, or Willy Brandeis, or Cardozo, or Marshall. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that we have a court which they're graduates from the Court of Appeals from the District of Columbia basically, some other Circuit Courts of Appeals. I think that we could use, and I am repeating myself again, a Holmes or a Brandeis.

ODOM: Would you resign to take the appointment? You're the only person I can think of?

SPECTER: I can think of quite a few other people.

JORDAN: Like who?

SPECTER: I think there's some possibility, just a slight possibility, I may not be offered the appointment.

JORDAN: Senator, who do you think would be a good candidate?

SPECTER: For the Supreme Court?

JORDAN: Yes.

SPECTER: I have some ideas but I'm going to withhold my comments. If, as, and when the President asks that question, Lara, I'll have some specific information for him. In the alternative, if you become President, I'll have it for you.

[BREAK-Election 2010 question]

[BREAK-Iraq questions]

Jordan: Do you expect to continue supporting all of President Bush's judicial nominees?

AS: I am hopeful that I'll be able to do that. That obviously depends upon the President's judicial nominees. I'm hopeful that I can support them.

[BREAK-Election question]

[End Press Conference]

Washington, D.C.- Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) made the following comments today on the judicial confirmation process.

"Contrary to press accounts, I did not warn the President about anything and was very respectful of his Constitutional authority on the appointment of federal judges.

"As the record shows, I have supported every one of President Bush’s nominees in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. I have never and would never apply any litmus test on the abortion issue and, as the record shows, I have voted to confirm Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Kennedy and led the fight to confirm Justice Thomas.

"I have already sponsored a protocol calling for a Judiciary Committee hearing within thirty days of a nomination, a vote out of Committee thirty days later, and floor action thirty days after that. I am committed to such prompt action by the Committee on all of President Bush’s nominees.

"In light of the repeated filibusters by the Democrats in the last Senate session, I am concerned about a potential repetition of such filibusters. I expect to work well with President Bush in the judicial confirmation process in the years ahead."

But like many liberals I'm betting on the Armageddon theory of politics. Bush and the GOP majorities in the House and Senate will make things so bad in the next four years that the country will never elect a Republican ever again. So here's hoping things get much, much worse!

Why were the initial exit poll results more Democratic than the actual tabulated vote? No one is sure, though the national sample at midafternoon, which showed Kerry ahead 50 to 49 percent, was 58 percent women. My own suspicion is that some Democrats-at the command level, or somewhere below-had an election-day project of slamming the results. New Hampshire, Minnesota and Pennsylvania initial exit poll results had huge margins for Kerry-much larger percentages than he won in any pre-election poll. If somebody had slipped some Democratic operative the list of exit poll sites-40 to 50 sites in each critical state-he or she could have slipped several hundred operatives into the polling places to take the exit poll ballots and vote for Kerry. The results would have shown Kerry much farther ahead than he actually was and, broadcast through drugdereport.com and other sources, could have heartened Kerry supporters during the afternoon and disheartened Bush supporters. When I was active in Democratic politics, in 1964-80, it would have occurred to us to do no such thing. But Democrats these days are so filled with a sense of grievance and with a feeling of justification for employing any dirty tactics to win, that this is not unthinkable. If people can game the exit polls, there's not much point to having exit polls any more.

DC office number is 202-224-3344 (fax is 202-228-1264)
Nashville office number is 615-352-9411
Majority Leader office number is 202-224-3135

If your a Tennessee resident, call the Nashville office

One of the obvious lessons of the electoral map: George Bush, Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie need to find a savvy, attractive, ruthless politician to fix the Illinois GOP.

Lots of email like this one:

Jonah,

With all due respect to your correspondent - there has been enough silence about Arafat for the last decade or more to suffice, I'd say. The press has treated this moron and major terrorist with a respect and dignity he does not deserve. He has STOLEN from the Palestinians, kept them mired in misery while pointing the finger at Israel and others, rewarded, aided, abetted, planned and implemented terrorist attacks, and called for the second terrorist intifada, among other things.

He is a billionare who encouraged sending Palestinian children to their deaths wearing bomb-vests.

The press is silent and incurious about the diagnosis of his terminal disease, they are incurious about his roots to terrorism and his involvement in the Palestinian quagmire, and will even say kind things about him in his obituary.

Let's just call this man what he is/was a MAJOR friggin' TERRORIST! A POX on the world. The model for corruption and incompetence. He defined bad faith and racism. He was a cynical manipulator and the world is better for his death.

telling the truth about this man does not, in any way, denigrate the Palestinians. If Arafat was, as your correspondent said, "the symbolic figure of Palestinian nationhood for several millions of human beings" then what does this say about those several millions of human beings? The man was a sewer. What kind of symbol is that for a nation?

I'm just asking.

Specter, as presumptive chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested that he would block any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court who opposed abortion rights. Reiterating his position that a woman's right to choose is "inviolate," he said overturning Roe v. Wade today would be akin to trying to reverse Brown v. Board of Education, the court's 1954 landmark desegregation decision.

Barring unforeseen GOP objections, Specter, 74, should assume the committee chairmanship in January. He also sent an unsubtle message to the White House that he expects nominees for the federal bench to be of the highest caliber, and took a critical swipe at the stature of the current court.

From a reader:

Jonah Goldberg

The worse news coming out of the 2004 election for libertarians in New Hampshire is that by all appearances New Hampshire will become nothing more than another Vermont in 20 years. I hope I am wrong but New Hampshire appears to be the fourth or fifth bluest state by county and getting bluer every minute. We are only less blue than MA, HA, VT, and CT.

It appears that West Virginia has joined the rest of the south and New Hampshire has joined the rest of the northeast. I just not prepared to accept Ben and Jerry has desirable icons for New Hampshire.

Maybe it is good that the Old Man did not live long enough to see this happen.

From a reader:

The key thing for public commentators is to recognize that self-indulgence is just that, and does nothing positive.

Although we can agree that Arafat was very bad, or evil, or wicked, or what have you, he is/was nevertheless the symbolic figure of Palestinian nationhood for several millions of human beings. Unless you want to simply dismiss those millions, it is probably best to greet the death of Arafat with silence.

From a reader:

From a column in today's Boston Globe...

"Some Kerry supporters were fairly bursting with anger yesterday. Jessica Johnson, 59, of Cambridge, who said she had volunteered for Kerry, said she was filled with optimism on Election Day, telling herself: ''When Kerry gets into the White House, this stone, this weight on my chest, will be lifted."

''He could have made a great president," Johnson said. ''Many Americans have nothing between their ears. Americans are fat, lazy, and stupid. I don't like this country anymore."

But none dare call them unpatriotic!!

I am generally sympathetic to the notion that you shouldn't speak ill of the dead. The recently dead, that is. I don't think there's anything wrong with speaking ill of the long dead. Woodrow Wilson was a terrible man, for example. But when political opponents go, the temptation is to score points. Most liberals behaved admirably when Ronald Reagan passed away and I would like to think that conservatives would do the same when various stars of the liberal pantheon depart.

But all that goes out the window with murderers and terrorists. This tradition is predicated on the assumption that ones opponents are not ones enemies. A poliical opponent shares a bedrock faith in political norms and (small L) liberal rules.

None of this applies to Yasser Arafat in my opinion. He's a bad man who's been terrible for his people and if there's any justice, when he dies he will receive 72 virgins who look exactly like him.

A reader forwarded me this post:

I really don't care what happens anymore. From here on out, we
get exactly what we deserve whether it's a fiscal depression,
increased poverty, return to witchhunts, terror attacks, whatever.
I don't blame the rest of the world for hating us. I hate us too."

Arafat clinically dead -- Israeli television JERUSALEM, Nov 4 (Reuters) - Palestinian President Yasser Arafat was determined to be clinically dead on Thursday in a French hospital, Israel's Channel Two television said citing French sources.

From a reader:

Jonah, I'm a college professor, and needless to say, I meet and know a lot of people who hate Bush. In the past week, three colleagues in different situations (when they found out that I support Bush) named Bush's record on the environment as his primary evil. Hearing this same line from unrelated sources made me wonder if I'd missed the talking points memo. But more than that, each of them spoke as though it were personal ("We're full of lead," said one, as though this were both factual and Bush's fault).

Which brings me to my question and my point: what is Bush's record on the environment and, if it is so bad, what can be done to improve both the perception and the facts? This isn't like abortion, where the conservative position is clear. The environment should be our concern and if the Republican president isn't strong on this issue, why not?

Thanks for your time, but don't post my name (I'm not tenured).

From an old e-buddy:

Your post was right, but let's not "leave gay marraige out of this for a moment." Because it seems undeniable (at least, no partisans on either side are arguing it) that Bush won re-election on the votes of people whose primary concern was gay marriage, abortion, and other "values" issues. While you, most of NRO, and most especially the right-wing bloggers were focused on foreign policy issues as the reason to vote for Bush, they apparently had little to do with why he won. Doesn't that bother and/or worry you a little? (It should worry the leftist bloggers even more, of course.) Is banning gay marriage really _that_ important? And doesn't Bush owe those folks a lot more than he owes the hawks?

"As for the ones who put him in, across the Bible Belt and the South, us outsiders can only feel pity...the self-righteous, gun-totin', military lovin', sister marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport ownin' red-necks, who believe God gave America the biggest d*** in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land "free and strong".

Someone, I think, needs a nice cup of tea - and urgent psychiatric attention.

Am listening to the Laura Ingraham radio show. She just related the story of her invitation yesterday afternoon from the Today booker to participate in this segment. She agreed, but only after repeatedly asking whether her invitation had been cleared by Katie Couric, who doesn't like to have Laura on the show. Later in the afternoon, she received an email that withdrew the invitation. Sounds like Katie isn't feeling particularly forgiving toward Republicans these days.

This election outcome should have been implausible, if not impossible. With a litany of complaints — bad economy, bad deficit, bad foreign war, bad gas prices — amplified by a national media that discarded any pretense of neutrality, a national opposition party should have won this election.

But the Democratic Party is no longer a national party. As difficult as the challenges are — both real and fabricated — Democrats offered no solution that was either believable or acceptable to vast regions of America.

I stayed up all night using my new Mozilla Firefox browser. In the tabs, I had FNC, CNN, MSNBC, Drudge, and "The Corner'. The Corner was always a half hour ahead of any of the on-line news services.

I just want to add my voice to the others who have said thanks for keeping them sane before and during the election. Your site was the voice of reason in the midst of it all...and may I say that in terms of up-to-the-minute coverage, you blew away any of the mainstream media sites. I should have done this before, but I am now a subscriber and will be back often!

I felt it not only an obligation, but a priviledge to thank you and your site for giving me a sense of sanity and calm I really needed. I am a diehard Republican and was for them all the way, I even volunteered for them in my state and gave my all. I was exhausted. As much as I knew we did all we could, I have to admit I was sweating it, panicky. The ups and downs I was hearing was playing havoc on me. I cried when MSNBC called Ohio for Bush and then seconds later Alaska also (I guess it all hit me at once: one of the ups I just mentioned) then the downs of too close to call Ohio, Iowa's machines breaking down, etc.

A friend told me about your site late election day afternoon and it kept me in check. I stayed up all night watching the polls and staying with you.

One thing I saw totally amazed me. I read a posting that told everyone they were only seeing Kerry/Edwards signs behind the newscasters and no b/c. I'll be darned if not 20 minutes or less later, the next time they went to those newscasters I saw Bush, Bush, Bush! I just knew it was due to what I had read and I was speechless.

Thank you for letting me share and for being there.

I've always preferred to call myself a mouse jockey. You're right, mouse potato sounds much, much too passive. Mouse jockeys, like regular jockeys, have to learn how to navigate around obstacles when it gets crowded and tight (think political blogs on election night). Plus, like horseracing, speed is the crucial element. The technology trinity of man, mouse, and high speed access all work together. If it all clicks, I win by getting in. If my DSL is slower than your cable access then I'm staring at overloaded server messages while you're reading to your heart's content.

The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism congratulates President George Bush on his victory and reelection to the presidency of the United States. Bush won a decisive victory and we wish him all the best in the next four years. President Bush has led the War on Terrorism with clarity and steadfastness. In the face of extreme criticism, President Bush never wavered. He continued to fight the War on Terrorism, despite political and personal risks. Since we formed, the Free Muslim Coalition endured criticism and attacks from all sides for our efforts in the War on Terrorism. We understand how difficult it is to fight the temptation to bend to constant criticism and stick to your principles, as Bush has done with confidence. President Bush is the leader we need to win this war and we are encouraged to have his courage and leadership. We also thank John Kerry for running a vigorous campaign, and we congratulate the voters that showed the world that America's democracy is strong and vibrant. Now that the campaign is over, we ask President George Bush and Senator John Kerry to work together to unite the people behind a more prosperous, stronger, and more secure America. The United States has many challenges ahead. However, no challenge is so great that a free and united country with strong leadership cannot overcome. For more information visit our website at: www.freemuslims.org

I'm not qualified to check the math (at least not quickly). But the Baseball crank contends that higher turnout was a huge boon for Bush, not Kerry. Take that conventional wisdom!

This is the standard trope, cliche or talking point used by Democrats and liberals to explain the sorts of issues they think their party is better at dealing with. If you ever watch West Wing, paid attention to Bill Clinton's eight year rule, listen to Hillary Clinton, read liberal magazines or blogs or care about politics at all than you've heard some variant of this 8 hundred katrillion times. I understand what they mean: Maternity leave, health care etc.

Fine. Good. Nice.

But here's the thing I'm missing. These people who hate Bush with such blinding passion, the ones who talk about fascism this and lost civil liberties that: when I ask them what they hate about Bush and his policies they almost never talk about the issues that affect their daily lives. It's all this righteous indignation about Abu Ghraib or Gitmo or Jose Padilla. Or it's about the Patriot Act. Or the tax cuts.

But in almost all of these cases these folks can't describe in concrete terms how Bush's policies affect their daily lives (let's leave gay marriage out of this for a moment). I think it is entirely legitimate, even necessary, to complain about political decisions on principle even if they have no affect on your own comfort. The Patriot Act, Abu Ghraib etc are all real issues. But they are not issues that affect 99.999999% of these gripers' daily lives. Show me a hundred thousand people picked at random who say the Patriot Act has made their life worse and I will show you nine hundred and ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine liars.

How you can talk about creeping fascism under the Bush administration and joke about how you might leave the country when nothing, nada, zip has happened to you or anyone you know that would provide evidence for such views is beyond me -- if your yardstick for political merit is how it affects your daily life.

It seems that the "affect our daily lives" criteria for politicians is really an expression of a preference for politicians who will "give me stuff." And politicians who don't give me stuff are automatically fascists.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

I'm going to be hanging out with that band of reprobates and moperers at KSFO at 8 AM West Coast Time. I'm also going to do my increasingly regular gig on that NPR show Day By Day. But I have no idea what time it airs and where since we don't get it in DC. Basically, Jacob Weisberg and I disagree on politics for a few minutes.

(And, yes, you should say "Radio...Radio" like the dude from Wall of Voodoo in the "Mexican Radio" video. I say this because now at least 1,300 Cornerites raised in the 1980s will have that song stuck in their heads for the rest of the day).

Yes, I know the story of Daniel in the Lion's Den. Yes, I know this story has been up on Drudge for a few days. Yes, I know I'm neither a Christian nor a theologian.

But I've got to say that when people try to convert lions to Christianity (or Budhism, Taoism, whatever) and then they get bit, it's a sign to me that the universe is humming along properly.

His email read:

Subject: congratulations

Let fascism ring.

___

Sent with my Treo

Thank you for your interest in employment with NASCAR. Because our continued success is dependent upon the quality of our workforce, we will carefully review your resume and keep it on file for six months. ...

Reason for Joy #9,974:

We're back to where we were pre-9/11, when John Kerry was just a nuisance.

I am actually a big believer in labels and I've written many times that I think people who say they don't believe in labels are essentially ashamed, embarrassed or otherwise uncomfortable with admitting they are liberals of one stripe or another. In Washington I meet scores of successful professionals (particularly journalists) who swear they are moderates or fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Let's leave the second part for another day since we've batted that around in here so many times. But these self-described moderates are very, very often simply liberals but who have a real problem saying so.

For these and related reasons I'm a bit dubious that all of these people who tell exit-pollsters that they're moderates are, in fact, moderates. Many probably are. Also there's the whole dull but complex issue of figuring out what a moderate actually is. But I'd bet a statistically super-significant chunk are just too ashamed to admit they're liberals.

Everyone seems to think Scheiber means this. Sounds fair to me:

I "think" what they mean is simply Bush made sure his base showed up. If the 4 million missing Christians theory was true, then, he just needed to get them to vote.

I am no linguist, so, I don't know if the term electorate means the group
eligible to vote, or those that actually voted. If the latter, then their
statement makes sense. If the former, then I understand your feeling that
it is a screwy one.

I DO think the country got more conservative on 9/11, easily a 5% swing.
But, you can't discount the effect that the Christians turning out for Bush
had.

Noam Scheiber writes (and Sullivan posts):

Not only did Kerry win by an 86-13 margin among self-described liberals, he also won by a 55-45 margin among self-described moderates. So how'd Bush pull it off? He won 84-15 among self-described conservatives, and, more importantly, he made sure conservatives comprised a much bigger chunk of the electorate than they did in 2000. (Conservatives comprised about 34 percent of the electorate yesterday, versus 29 percent in 2000 -- a huge shift, raw numbers-wise.) Anyone anticipating a conciliatory second Bush term should stop and consider how much Bush owes his base.

Me: I'm not being cute. I can't link to his full piece and I'm tired. But I don't get it. How did Bush "make sure" that conservatives comprised a much bigger chunk of the electorate? Couldn't it be the case that electorate is becoming more conservative?

(apologies to Warren Zevon).

Fine Andrew, go ahead and make sensible points. Hmm....how about Ambassador Zell Miller?

Or, more seriously, how about Ambassador Giuliani?

Jonah, I do think that it’s important that Bush be seen to be a good winner and I do know that you were only sort of serious, but Kerry is not the guy to send to Europe. To be effective over there, any such envoy would have to be known to have the ear of the president. Somehow I don’t think that Kerry is that guy.

Yeah, the more I think about it the more I think approach is not only smart but right (though for the record, Mass Governors no longer appoint Senators).

At minimum putting the pressure on Dems to make the war bipartisan makes sense. Put the ball in their court. Extend a hand. If the dems slap it, fine. Make hay. But I do agree with the pro-Kerry, pro-warriors that one appealing aspect of a Kerry win would have been making the Dems accountable on the war. I simply thought Kerry wouldn't rise to the challenge and that the price to be paid and risk involved in giving him a shot wasn't worth it. But that doesn't mean getting the Dems more on board wouldn't good for the Dems, the GOP, the war and the country.

From Poppa G:

First order of business for Bush should be changing the spelling of Faneuil Hall to Fannell Hall. As it stands now, the only American who can pronounce it as it originally was intended is the losing candidate, the French-speaking John Kerry. This would be followed, in the course of Bush's new term, by the substitution of K for Q in all those Arab names (Qadaffi to Kadaffi, the Qaaba to the Kaaba)) and the the elimination of the double A in the Middle east (Baath becomes Bath). Part of the confusion in Middle East politics is our inability to pronounce the names of people and places, which is why sometimes civilians are inadvertently killed. It is the same problem that keeps black Africa divided. How can you get on the phone in the Congo and say I want to speak with Mr. Bmdgrasa? How many times a day must the question be asked Would you spell that, please?, before giving up? We'll get to the Chinese names at some later date. (I'm assuming that Faneuil was a French name, but I could be wrong and it was a Gaelic name, in which case I say, "Whatever.")

From a reader:

Hey Jonah:

I just read the Josh Marshall article you linked. My favorite part is this:

"The fact that the president is 'convinced' that he won, is not only
meaningless but offensive. We have a system of rules for counting votes.
That's how we decide.

"(As I was writing this, word just went over the wires that Sen. Kerry
called President Bush to concede the election. I don't second-guess the
decision. They have a better handle on the numbers than anyone. And I'm
sure they can see that they are simply not there.)"

So, let's see ... it's meaningless and offensive for the President of
the United States to draw a conclusion based on the information at his
disposal, but for John Kerry to do the same is something that shouldn't
be "second guessed."

Then this guy moans for several paragraphs about how Bush has, more than
anyone, "bitterly" divided this nation, and just how tragic that is.
John Marshall's solution? Why, build a special secret
"Democratic-leaning counter-establishment ... with an alternative media,
activist groups, organized political giving, in short a political
infrastructure" to attack the Bushies and Red-Staters, that's what.
Sounds like a unifying gesture to me.

Judging from the consistency exhibited in this article, no wonder this
guy weeps for the Flip-Flop King.

I stopped cataloging instances of the cheese-eating surrender monkeys phrase propping up, but this one is too rich to pass up:

PARIS, Nov 3 (Reuters) - French President Jacques Chirac, who led Western opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, said on Wednesday that strong transatlantic ties were essential if Paris and Washington were to overcome the challenges they faced.

"Our cooperation, our joint fight against terrorism and our efforts to
promote freedom and democracy must continue to develop in a spirit of
dialogue, esteem and mutual respect," he said in a letter congratulating
President George W. Bush on his re-election.

"We will not be able to come up with satisfactory responses to the many
challenges we face today without a strong transatlantic partnership," he
added.

"On behalf of France and myself, I wish to extend my warmest congratulations
on your re-election to the presidency of the United States of America,"
Chirac said in the hand-written letter made available to the media.
Transatlantic relations were badly damaged by Chirac's opposition to the
U.S.-led war on Iraq, which prompted U.S. media to dub the French people
"cheese-eating surrender monkeys".

Chirac referred in his letter to the 60th anniversary last June of the World
War Two D-day landings in Normandy as a sign of strong Franco-American
relations, and said he hoped those links would be reinforced during Bush's
second term in office.

Bush is highly unpopular in France, where the majority of citizens would
have voted for Democratic candidate John Kerry -- who has relatives in
France -- if they had had a say in the U.S. election.

Kerry was at pains during his election campaign to play down his links with
France for fear of alienating U.S. voters.

John Kerry keeps saying "we're all Americans" etc.

Fine, good, nice.

But didn't his Veep just introduce him by insisting that "the battle rages on"? And didn't he buy his Veep's line that there are "two Americas"?

Hi Rod: You should see the streets of Paris, you should listen to the conversations at restaurants and cafés. Les défaitistes are defeated! Hilarious! We'll holding a victory party at an Italian, Bush-friendly, restaurant tomorrow night. Edwards and Kerry are speaking right now. what a day!

By the way, great call on switching parties! Seriously, boffo move my man!

From a reader:

Dear Jonah,

The mainstream media just suffered it's first post election credability casualty. I finally turned off NPR. I was listening to the arbiters of unvarnished truth tell me how Florida was, and would remain a swing state (Bush by 376,923). Pennsylvania swung decisively to Kerry (Kerry by 121,489) and was probably no longer a battleground state, while Bush eked out a narrow victory in Ohio (Bush by 136,218). They aren't even trying to base their opinions on reality.

*Stands for Can't Please Everybody. From a reader:

Dear Mr. Goldberg,

I am a regular NRO reader and NRODT subscriber who used to read your columns. I avoid them, as a general rule, as you have become the NR/NRO writer I'm least likely to read.

Your juvenile "F*** you" comment directed toward Osama bin Laden truly diminishes NRO's reputation. I frequently refer friends and acquaintences to NRO, but attitudes like yours do little to promote the conservative cause. John Derbyshire gloated thoughtfully in his column this morning. Articles like his are worth consideration. Comments like "F*** you"--well...consider your own reaction to emails from losers who disagree with you, but are only able to muster "F*** you" to register their disagreement.

I'm happy that Bush won. I'm grateful that Kerry, for whatever reason (and you know that he has a political motive), has conceded. I wish that OBL would be caught and executed for his murderous actions. But, please, let's promote conservatism intelligently. I seem to recall that NR used to have a slogan, "Reason over rhetoric."

I'm certain that you'll dismiss my letter (if you've even read this far) by claiming that we deserve a victory lap, or that conservative doesn't have to mean stuffy, or some other defense. That's fine. But, as a paying customer, I did want to take this opportunity to point out that I don't care for that product line, and that it hinders my endorsement of NRO as a reliable source of information.

You are our math guy, but you seem entirely uninterested in the statistical issues involved in the exit polls etc. Why is that?

Just curious.

The following is a statement by Admiral Roy Hoffmann, founder of Swift Vets and POWs for Truth concerning Sen. Kerry's decision to concede the presidential race.

"We are pleased with the fact that we were able to effectively bring attention to our issues and raise questions regarding Senator Kerry’s character, leadership ability and qualifications as a potential Commander in Chief. As we have stated since we formed, we believed that John Kerry’s actions in Vietnam, coupled with the reprehensible statements he made after he returned were serious and consequently made him unfit for command. The primary purpose of our organization was to provide a voice for the courageous and honorable veterans of Vietnam, more than 280 Swift Boat Vets, Coast Guardsmen and POWs who served their country with honor. Our national grassroots efforts produced donors in every state in the nation as we raised more than $26 million, with more than $7 million in online contributions. In addition, Swift Boat Veterans and former POW's visited dozens of states to take their message directly to the American people. We were the true embodiment of grassroots citizen action, complied fully with federal election law and had every right to participate in the public discussion of John Kerry's qualifications as Commander in Chief."

If I were a political cartoonist, I would draw Dan Rather or Katie Couric with a thought-bubble over his/her head. Inside would be the front page of the New York Times.

Banner Headline:
OBAMA WINS SENATE
Only Black Senator

Tiny headline below the fold:

Bush wins presidency, Fails to reach out to Blacks, Gays.
GOP picks up Senate, House Seats

Sidebar:
Hillary Clinton Congratulates Obama
"We can do great things together," NY Sen Declares.

To all the folks who've written notes like this:

Jonah, I must say a big thank you to NRO and The Corner. I spent 80% of my time last night hitting the refresh button. All my friends were in a panic, but I was calmer because I had been reading The Corner all day. You guys called it! I am encouraging my friends to go to NRO for trusted political commentary. I am a regular now!

(apologies to Al Pacino)

And Osama Bin Laden wherever you are out there ... f*** you too!

From a reader:

J- The disparity between the initial exit polls favoring Kerry and his subsequent loss to W tells me one thing: Most people voted for Kerry.......before they voted against him.

Their forums are closed to outsiders (i.e. unregistered DUers) today. But their blog is worth a gander.

Finally broke down and did it. Been a big NRO fan for a couple of years now. The Corner the past few days put me over the edge though. It's kind of like crack for political junkies -- I can't get enough of it. Keep up the great work!

286-252. [Shannen Coffin] That's my prediction. Bush holds Ohio and Florida. Picks up NM and IA. NH, overrun by Massachusetts libs who can talk a good game about the need for higher taxes but can't back it up by paying them, flips to Kerry. I wouldn't be entirely surprised, however, if I'm wrong on Wisconsin, which I currently have as a Dem hold. Actually, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if I am wrong on the entire damnable enterprise, since I rarely get these things right. I was just hoping I could have something else to laugh at NRO editors about (in addition to the Red Sox Series win), so I am taking a free shot. Posted at 01:02 PM

That's what Kos wants. I do agree with him that the current dufus in there has been the worst DNC chair in modern memory. He raised a lot of money, but he lost seats in the house, senate and statehouses. Bush won by a bigger margin than his hero-mentor Bill Clinton. McAuliffe far more than Karl Rove has helped make the Democratic Party a rump party.

As for Dean, I love that idea. The Democratic Party just got walloped on social issues -- particularly gays and religion -- and Kos thinks the money bet is on a guy who is completely tone deaf on religion and is associated (a bit unfairly) with the most pro-gay marriage wing of the party. Yes! Dean for DNC Chair. Heck Dean for President in '08 baby!

From a reader:

Dear Jonah,

I would say that the 90/10 Kerry split at the NIH is mirrored here.
Lots of Kerry/"I Love Choice" shirt, but today most students are
wearing long faces. 15-20% of students didn't even show up today. The
Federalist Society guys are giddy.

Best. Election. Ever.

Cheers,
Adam

Ramesh, I love it. Will Saletan can't stand Bush because he thinks Bush is a simpleton. He thinks being a simpleton makes you a bad president and bad for America. So, his conclusion: The Democrats need a simpleton!

From a reader:

Greetings from NIH Building 10. I'm guessing the popular vote in this building went 90%-10% Kerry, so everyone here today is really sad. Me, I've got a grin ear to ear. For what it's worth, all the Kerry supporters I've spoken with seem resigned to the fact Kerry lost, and lost fair and square. I haven't heard a single Moore-on try to claim the election was stolen or fixed. Just giving you the vibe from on the street.

North Carolina results in 2000: Bush 56%, Gore 43%

North Carolina results in 2004: Bush 56%, Kerry 43%

President Bush:
*** Became the first President to be re-elected while gaining seats in the House and Senate since 1936 and the first Republican President since 1924 to be re-elected while re-electing Republican House and Senate majorities.
*** Became the first President to win a majority of the popular vote since 1988.
*** Received 57.4 million votes - more than any other candidate in history. He broke President Reagan's 1984 mark of 54.5 million. (96% reporting)
***Increased the popular vote by seven million votes since 2000 - more than twice Clinton's increase from 1992 to 1996.
***Improved his percentage in every state except four (MD, OR, VT and WY). This includes a four percent increase in John Kerry's home state, Massachusetts.

It's the first time the House Republicans have expanded their majority in two successive elections, and the first time they've expanded their majority during a presidential election since 1928.

By 2008, the Democrats will have held the presidency for only 20 out of 56 years. (But for 40 out of 76 years.)

When I get back... if someone can explain to me what John Edwards did for that ticket, I'd love to know. He was supposed to make the south competitive. Brrrrrr: Wrong! He was supposed to gin up the rural voters. Brrrrr wrong! He was supposed to make economic populism work for Democrats.....Brrrrrr oh you get the point.

Edwards brought no substance, he brought no states, he brought (as far as I can tell right now) no vital demographics but he did bring pretty hair.

Just said on FM 96.9 in Boston (his radio show) that the Kerry campaign will issue a "directional" statement this AM and that Kerry will give a concession speech this afternoon. This was based on his "discussions" with the Kerry folks, who Barnicle is tight with.

FOR THE RECORD PEOPLE. It IS actually possible for an educated person to CHOOSE to be Republican. Get off your high horses and accept the fact that people think differently from you. Don't dare insult my beliefs unless you have a logical arguement to come at me with. Otherwise, I'm tired of it.

Go ahead, one more person, scream how its the uneducated in the country who choose Bush. Which, by the way, WONDERFUL sentiment, saying 51% of the country are fools. Pick a fight with me. I dare you.

YES. I am a 21 year old woman in college, even planning on graduate school. Yes I am middle class. YES, EVEN THIS MEANS I CAN BE A REPUBLICAN. Cause guess what? If I choose to be Democrat because of those things, THEN I'm not thinking. I think, and I choose Republican.

I just heard Tavis Smiley (an African American pundit) on ABC say that "George Bush has certainly raised the bar in terms of thanking the African American community for their support", citing DR. Rice and C. Powell, and that JFK, should he win "tonight or in the days ahead", will have to "clear the bar high bar that W set".

KLO, I take back everything I said yesterday regarding the early exit poll reporting you did. We all owe you a great deal of gratitude for your service, and by the way you have gained another subscriber. Job well done.

1. Catholics voted for President Bush over Senator Kerry by 51 to 48. That is a 4 percent gain over 2000.

2. Among regular Mass-attending Catholics, President Bush by 55-44 percent. This number was not reported in 2000, but the result is clearly impressive and debunks any suggestion that the Catholic vote is a myth.

3. The gain in Catholic support (4 points) surpassed the gain in the Protestant vote (2 points).

John Thune won in the closing weeks of the campaign because of the potency of two overlapping themes:

1) Daschle talks conservative in South Dakota but acts the opposite in Washington.

2) Daschle has lost touch with basic South Dakota values.

The issues that drove these two themes in the closing days were the Federal Marriage Amendment, Daschle’s patently false pro-life and pro-marriage claims, Daschle’s record of obstructionism – especially his blocking of President Bush’s conservative judicial nominees, and the brouhaha over Daschle’s official residency.

As NRO has noted, the 527 “You’re Fired” ran a massive television and radio campaign in the closing weeks of the campaign using Daschle’s opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment to question whether Daschle’s “heart is still in the heartland.” That phrase became a shorthand expression for the growing perception that the answer was “no.” The ad also raised the specter of liberal activist judges – complementary with the judicial obstruction charges being raised by Thune and others. The ad also linked Daschle to “his pals in Hollywood” effectively touching on the idea that Daschle does not share basic South Dakota values.

Daschle’s campaign also took the threat from the marriage issue so seriously that they ran an “over-the-top” ad saying Daschle was both pro-life and pro-marriage. Most observers agree that this ad backfired on Daschle – since his record – particularly on the life issue was so extensively the opposite of his claims.

At the end of the day, Daschle lost because what he had been doing for years finally caught up with him – and same sex marriage was the new issue in the equation that finally drove it home.

Re: There better be some riots tonight ... I can't believe Bush won. Where did we go wrong?

Personally, I played my bongos at many rallies to defeat Bush. I had some phat beats going sometimes for hours, I really gave it my all.

How could this happen?

ANN ARBOR, Mich. - Senator Tom Daschle was defeated tonight by challenger John Thune in a race whose outcome was largely determined by Daschle's betrayal of South Dakota values, particularly on the issue of abortion.

"The people of South Dakota have spoken that they want a Senator who will protect life," said Joseph Cella, executive Director of The Ave Maria List.

"South Dakotans are people of common sense and they have zero tolerance for politicians like Tom Daschle who say one thing in Washington and do another in their home state," said Cella. "Having a 90% pro-abortion voting record just doesn't square with a state that is 75% pro-life," Cella added....

Brokaw just said, after carefully explaining the Kedwards position, that "The President and his people feel as though they have won, fairly this time...."

Kerry sends Edwards with message of hope

By Nedra Pickler, Associated Press | November 3, 2004

BOSTON -- Unwilling to concede defeat, John Kerry dispatched smooth-talking running mate John Edwards to deliver his trademark message of hope to supporters and a divided nation waiting for a president. . . .

Kerry sends Edwards with message of hope

By Nedra Pickler, Associated Press | November 3, 2004

BOSTON -- Unwilling to concede defeat, John Kerry dispatched smooth-talking running mate John Edwards to deliver his trademark message of hope to supporters and a divided nation waiting for a president. . . .

Jonah, Some blowhards are presently marching down St. Mark's St. chanting, "NOT OUR PRESIDENT". We won. Best, Nick

K-Lo, "Anyone at the North Pole? Anywhere especially exotic?" I know of, and have myself, read NRO from inside the Arctic Circle! There are some oil fields west of ANWR in Alaska with a strong NRO fan-base!

Hey, thanks so much for staying up late and keeping these reports coming. I'm watching the election from Nanjing, China (where, of course, it is the middle of the day), and because of assorted internet screening techniques, I can't get most of the major US news outlets' webpages on my computer. National Review (thank goodness), is no problem.

Incidentally, every Nanjing taxi driver I've talked to in the last two weeks was hoping for Bush. They knew what to expect with him, and Powell made that nice, strong statement on Taiwan recently. My absentee Bush vote did not break the tide in Minnesota, but such is life.

South Dakota - 88%

Daschle - D 160,216 48.90%
Thune - R 167,439 51.10%

Difference for Thune: +7,223

Shannon and Todd Counties have not reported. These are the same counties that were outstanding two years ago when Tim Johnson "found" enough votes to defeat John Thune.

As the dust settles, we are beginning to see how heavily this election was influenced by concern about moral values. After a campaign focusing on the threat of terrorism and the war in Iraq, this development will surprise those from the Left –– and Right ––who dismissed moral issues and social conservatives as irrelevant. And, in fact, those who view the appeal to moral values as mere political manipulation and ideological posturing have a basic misunderstanding of people of faith and Main Street Americans. The moral values that were a top priority in this election –– abortion, embryonic stem cell research, same sex unions, etc. –– are values rooted in deep religious beliefs. In addition, at another level they are the values that form the basis of democracy –– moral boundaries and personal responsibility, respect for life and human dignity, freedom, etc. –– and are the essence of what it means to be American. President Bush embodies those values and, during his first term, put people and policies into place that supported those values. Further, there was no way that patriotic Americans would elect as president a person who betrayed his military buddies and trashed his nation’s reputation. Nor would Americans choose as president a person who surrendered the nation’s leadership in the world arena. Bush’s strong, resolute stance on terrorism as well as his unwavering position on pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family issues resonated with mainstream Americans. The Left has tried to portray these moral values as extremist; Americans have resoundingly said that these values are American.

Just went outside my house for a smoke on Q Street in Georgetown and the lights are going out on numerous Kerry parties all along the block... Quiet groups of well-heeled liberals traipsing home all around... Long faces, consoling hugs and muttering all around... Just a snippet for you from the epicenter neighborhood of Kedwards country...

But Kerry (and Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, Dan Rather, Alec Baldwin, Tom Daschle, Janeane Garafalo, Mohammed El Baradei, Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, Ron Suskind, Ron Reagan, Kofi Annan, Bon Jovi, Michael Stipe, P Diddy, Cameron Diaz, The New York Times, Al Franken, Molly Ivins, Graydon Carter and others) LOSE!

Our early numbers aren't that great but that's the absentee votes. Lines were very long here today and people were still voting over an hour after the polls closed (if they were in line at 6:00 they got to vote). It may be a while before we get good numbers. On the bright side - the more 'conservative' mayoral candidate in the hotly contested Honolulu County mayors race is ahead which should be good for us.

As for my 5 year olds take on it all:

upon going to pick up our mail today at the Print Shop where we have our mailbox. My 5 year old daughter announced to all who would listen that "we are voting for George Bush. John Kerry doesn't have a plan!"

Much Aloha

Elinor in Kailua, HI

He put this up in the last 20 minutes or so:

by kos
Wed Nov 3rd, 2004 at 04:05:18 GMT

So far, no big surprises. Like I wrote below, we need surprises to win the presidency.
Ohio is not out of contention, not as long as the urban areas (like Cuyahoga county) fail to report in. My brother, who has been crunching numbers all night (he likes math), makes a persuassive case that Bush will have a 20K lead in Ohio without absentees after all urban precincts report. The absentees would decide the race.

Florida won't be called tonight, not without so many absentee ballots outstanding (1 million). I don't feel good about Florida, but those absentees are mostly from Dem areas according to MSNBC. It's not over.

NH looks ready to go to Kerry. And early Nevada results look good. Same with the rest of the Gore states except for New Mexico.

If we hold the Gore states, which is quite a reasonable assumption, and flip Nevada and New Hampshire, then we have the dreaded 269-269 results.

But Ohio would be the big prize.

Update: Nevermind Florida. It's been called for Bush. Let's hope it's been called prematurely.

My buddy writes (I'll ID him in the Morning):

Allow me a purple moment:

It’s too soon to say (and I risk reading WAY too much into what is but one election) but if Bush wins in the way it’s looking he will win, with the states like Florida and Ohio breaking in the manner in which they are, I can’t help but think this is Jacksonian America – tribal, but wise -- asserting itself. And doing so without bravado, but nevertheless in a convincing manner; wishing to send a message to the rest of the world about the freedoms it guards with jealous intensity and its quiet but relentless faith in the future. If nothing else, I hope this gives enormous hope to the rest of the world that wondered if America would remain that “last best hope”. And I pray we ensure those hopes are not false ones.

From a reader:

Jonah,

I have to hand it to you, brother: you were right as rain on the youth vote. As a youth (23), I feared many of my compatriots would be lulled from their X-Box's to the polls by the all-powerful P Diddlypop & CO. You, sir, proved me wrong.

SWEET FAILURE!!!

Canadian TV (CTV) said it will be an early landslide (their word) for Kerry. They had inside information.

Californians pass Prop 71, spending $3 billion on embryonic stem cell research. So even if school children don’t have textbooks and highways crumble for lack of funding, Californians will still have to fund risky, unethical research for 10 years - even if, say in the third year, it proves unsuccessful.

And here’s an unexpected twist – this takes the wind out of the arguments for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. This stunning amount (yes, $3 billion, not million) dwarfs the federal spending on all stem cell research (adult and embryonic), which is about $300 million. So, Bush-bashers have lost an issue to attack him on.

If Thune and Bush win (!) – a bottle of Chianti of your choice to you and a subscription to NRODT for me and NROD as a gift to any deserving soul (again of your choice) from me.

It’s all that branch water talking…

KJL, The stem cell initiative may well be the most wildly misunderstood piece of legislation in American history. I work in Hollywood (roughly the same job as Rob Long) and everyone I work with was wildly supportive of the measure, and no one actually knew what the measure did. They didn't know how much money would be raised, who would get it, and how it would be repaid. But somehow the mighty stem cell became the thing you had to support if you're enlightened.

Things are looking very good in Ohio. With the exception of a few Appalachian counties, we’re running significantly ahead of where we were four years ago. For example, we lost Columbus County by 5,000 in 2000; we’re now ahead by 15,000. We’re also ahead by a couple of hundred votes in New Hampshire – and the worst parts of that state (for us) have already been counted. So we’re confident about both states.

25. The thought of looking at AWOL and his regime

Edited on Tue Nov-02-04 11:00 PM by JPace continue their dismantling of our country for another four years is so abhorant it makes one feel ill. Its like trying to kill a damed vampire....we shoot and shoot and the thing just keeps rising up and coming at you again.

Good day for Tom DeLay, as he will take out the top 5 D’s on his hit list. The diciest race for Republicans was CD 17, where incumbent Chet Edwards was perceived as having the edge over state Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth. However, Wohlgemuth leads the early vote by 2 points, with one smaller county from her state House district yet to report. The latest numbers show Edwards with a lead of nearly 1 point, but the only election-day vote to be counted is in the Waco sphere of influence. If Wohlgemuth gets any additional advantage out of Bryan/College Station today, she will likely win. Max Sandlin, Nick Lampson, Charles Stenholm, and Martin Frost are all being blown out.

Down ballot also looks positive for Republicans. Despite Democrats’ efforts to wrap the DeLay-machine indictments around every Republican legislator’s neck, the GOP will gain seats in the Texas House and likely top the 90-seat threshold.

checked out the demounderground after your post, love this post from there "I turned off my cell after my husband called me freaking, he works nights. You would think since ALL of us know that the media is slanted to the right that they would do the same for the election."

KLO - Have been up since 0300 local watching the returns via the Internet. The Internet cafe's here are full of soldiers interested in the outcome. The mood is electric.

I just saw the e-mail you posted from another Pennsylvania voter regarding the Specter/Hoeffel race and I wanted to add one more strike against he incumbent. Yesteday the local NPR station was running a piece on him, and he defended himself against the charge that he votes overwhelmingly with the president by claiming that his voting record matches John Kerry's somewhere between 70-80% of the time.

This is the republican that Dubya spent political capital defending in the primary? I don't feel even a little bit bad about not voting for him. We'll be better off without him as the chair of the Judiciary Committee, and if the GOP can't make up the lost seat elsewhere in the country it's their own fault for throwing him in the face of their conservative base in Pennsylvania.

Right now, Florida, Ohio and New Jersey are all at 52-47% - so how come they called NJ immediately - and still haven't called these others? (More of theFlorida vote is in than NJ which is merely 80% in now).

I saw your post on Battlegrounders about the Hoeffel/Specter race. The only Republican I didn't vote for was Specter. I had been going back and forth about whether to vote for him, but the last straw was his pro-stem cell research ad with Michael J. Fox. The issue ranks fairly low for me, but given that the Democrats had been attacking Bush on it and the ad ends with "Arlen Specter (emphasis mine) gets it" it was the last straw (along with the reports of the Specter-Kerry signs). Particularly given that I had thought he was far ahead in the polls, and the ad would only hurt Bush.

I even told a friend from Taiwan about voting for Hoeffel, saying something along the lines "it doesn't matter since Specter's up by 10 or 20 points". Oh well, but then again it might actually be easier to get the judges through without Specter as the chair of the Judiciary Committee (assuming that we pick up several seats in the Senate).

The huge margins for Kerry in the exit polling led the Dems to call off the lawyers (I've heard Lockhart and Estrich say so on FNC). They say the system worked, so no need to sue.

Now that it looks like Bush is doing MUCH better than the exit polls, the Dems are caught flat-footed.

A Rovian strategy?

I’ve learned something about conservative commentators: You all are a bunch of nervous Nellies. Everything looks as though the glass is half empty when you should be saying it is half full.

I was a Democrat for a large part of my life then switched to Republican in 1980. I think you act as though the new found majority in the House and Senate is going to slip from your grasp.

Show some fortitude. Bush will win.

The more interesting suit seems to be the one in Hamilton County involving the provisional ballot fight using Bush Vs. Gore as the precedent. Spokesman for the Ohio Department of State says they will fight the lawsuit, but won't worry about it until after the election. Can't say if the individual filing the suit is a Dem because opensecrets.org is down due to high traffic. Of course, the Dems hinted that they'd use the provisional ballot issue in this state as the main hammer, but we thought it would come AFTER the election, not before. Ohio govt can be expected to fight vigorously that its provisional ballot handling is uniform and fair.

Ohio State Dept. also says that a record turnout of about 5.8 million people is expected. From the look at the early returns, that is not good for Kerry. McAuliffe is complaining that the long lines in Ohio are the fault of Republicans not installing enough voting machines. State of Ohio scoffs at that. McAullife says people are still waiting in line in Ohio, and now it's cold!!!! State of Ohio says that's odd, since the 3-hour long line in Franklin County (Columbus area) was dissolved instantly and painlessly when those outside were handed paper ballots to fill out. (Gee, who'd have thunk common sense would win out in Ohio. Clearly, this is no Florida). State has no trouble with it, but GOP is expected to appeal.

We’re...watching the election results with a young man from Iraq who is in the U.S. speaking to groups around the country about the situation in Iraq. He is here to thank Americans for his liberation. I just finished explaining the electoral vote system to him. He is sitting here with a map of the U.S. following the results with an intensity that brings a tear to my eye. Guess who he would be voting for.

We are feeling very confident about Florida. So are people on the ground there, who know a good deal about these things. Among the specific facts worth noting:

In DuVal County, our goal was to win by a 40,000 person margin. We’re now at a 60,000 person margin.

Most of the Panhandle counties are outstanding.

Eighty percent of Broward County is in. We expected to be down 200,000 -- and our worst case was that we would be down 300,000. The latest information is that we are down by 170,000.

In addition, Ohio looks increasing good for us. Reports from the ground are that people are very upbeat about turnout (for example, in places like Franklin Country).

Let me make a broader, and very significant, point. The media are now changing the models they are using to estimate where things stand. The actual votes underscored how flawed the exit polling data was – and so the media are making adjustments in where things stand. What does that specifically mean: The final exit polls had us down by five to six points in Wisconsin; the estimates now are that we are even. The exit polls had us down three points in Iowa; the estimates now are that we are even. The exit polls had us down in New Mexico; the estimates now are that we are even.

The tide is turning in our direction. We aren’t ready to declare victory; but we ready to say that we feel very good about where things stand, and where things seem to be headed.

MIAMI The global implications of the U.S. election are undeniable, but international monitors at a polling station in southern Florida said Tuesday that voting procedures being used in the extremely close contest fell short in many ways from the best global practices.

The observers said they had less access to polls than in Kazakhstan, that the electronic voting had fewer fail-safes than in Venezuela, that the ballots were not so simple as in the Republic of Georgia and that no other country had such a complex national election system.

"To be honest, monitoring elections in Serbia a few months ago was much simpler," said Konrad Olszewski, an election observer stationed in Miami by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.