I just glanced at the vote tallies. Last time I looked Bush was at 33%. He’s crawled up two points now to an extremely impressive (… wait for it …) 35%, with some 350 votes cast. Bear in mind, this is a conservative web-site. Yes, some votes here were certainly cast by liberals. But think about this result. Bush isn’t a challenger but the incumbent president. Yes, polls like this are “unscientific” of course, because those voting weren’t randomly selected. But still. Imagine a liberal web-site taking an equally unscientific poll and the results coming out only 35% in favor of the Dem incumbent, and including 20% support for the Republican challenger! That combination would be inconceivable with any sort of poll conducted at a liberal web-site.
It’s easy of course to shoot one’s mouth off and prognosticate in a specialty—predicting outcomes of presidential elections—where the best experts are often completely wrong. No one knows who will win obviously. But poll numbers this abysmal, this inconceivable, at a conservative web-site three weeks before an election must mean something.
“If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.
Notice that with over three hundred votes cast, the poll shows only 33% favoring Bush—and this is a Republican/conservative web-site, polling readers on an incumbent president’s candidacy for re-election, a situation normally expected to elicit unusually strong support from the base and party supporters. Since this poll was first posted, I don’t think Bush has ever climbed above 40%. With a performance like that at a Republican/conservative site such as this, I’m hard-pressed to just dismiss the possibility that this may be a harbinger of things to come in November, Bush’s recent post-convention “bump in the polls” notwithstanding.
I certainly don’t want Kerry to win, and I don’t care about the stark fact that favoring Bush’s defeat—which I favor—amounts to favoring a Kerry victory. I don’t favor a Kerry victory. Would a Jew in 1930s Germany be expected to support, in some hypothetical election, say, Adolph Eichmann over Adolph Hitler or vice-versa, based on some painstaking calculation of which one was “less bad”? No. He’d either boycott the election or vote for some splinter party that had no chance of winning, knowing that no matter whom he himself voted for or who won the election, the outcome was going to be the same disaster.
The point is, the lesser-of-two-evils approach works only so long as at least one candidate still has any shred of decency left. Beyond a certain point of outrageousness it makes no sense to do detailed evaluations of which candidate is less evil, the evil of both making both simply unacceptable. The fervent hope that we’ll get a good president won’t motivate me on Election Day to vote for one unacceptably bad candidate merely in order to keep a rival unacceptably bad candidate out of office. If the choice were between, let’s say, Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty-Pimp Lawless Center and George Soros, would we be expected to wax all enthusiastic about one or the other as “the lesser of two evils” and go out and vote for him? Uhhhh … excuse me, but … gee … I sorta … don’t think so ….
alan greenspan is member from these political-religious cult.http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/raimondo1.html
From Steve’s blog tonight:
“The Essential Problem with this whole benighted election is that the incumbent has put together a record rather resembling Lyndon Baines Johnson’s in 1968, but his challenger is by nature even farther to the left. Kerry realizes there is a gaping opening to the right of Bush, so he makes feints toward traditional conservatism on foreign policy, the deficit, and immigration, but his heart just isn’t in it.”
(There was no permalink posted.)
Lawrence Auster sees a way in which some good might come of the November election—but it would depend on the Republicans’ winning strongly. Were Bush and the GOP in Congress to win decisively rather than just barely, he suggests, the overall position of D.C.’s non-liberal forces might strengthen enough to afford additional room for maneuver to that faction among them opposed to liberal Bushism—sort of “a rising Republican tide lifts all Republican boats including conservative ones” scenario—leading to a GOP shaped more by conservatism than at present. This makes sense and actually lets me feel a little better about what lies in store for November.
But there’s a paradox here, in that a strong Bush win is of course unlikely precisely because of Bush’s liberalism. If he were a conservative, brought immigration under control, and did a few other things his leftism makes him turn a blind eye to, there would be no head-scratching about whether he’d even be re-elected, let alone re-elected strongly and with coat-tails: the country would re-elect him in a landslide, and would send the GOP back to the House and Senate in greater numbers also.
In a way, rightness begets rightness and wrongness wrongness. Liberal Republicanism is wrongness, and begets only wrongness in turn.
I’ll just add if I may that although I voted for “Other” in this Turnabout poll when it was first posted (because I didn’t know at that point whom I was going to vote for, apart from knowing it wouldn’t be Bush or Kerry) I realized not long thereafter that Peroutka most faithfully reflected my political and social views, and nothing that’s occurred since has changed my mind. I’ll definitely be casting my vote for Peroutka two weeks from now.
Log entry at Steve Sailer’s web log:
“The American Conservative endorsements: From the November 8, 2004 issue, now available to electronic subscribers:
” ‘Unfortunately, this election does not offer traditional conservatives an easy or natural choice and has left our editors as split as our readership. In an effort to deepen our readers’ and our own understanding of the options before us, we’ve asked several of our editors and contributors to make “the conservative case” for their favored candidate: Pat Buchanan: George W. Bush; Taki: Michael Peroutka; Scott McConnell: John Kerry; Justin Raimondo: Ralph Nader; Howard Phillips: Michael Peroutka; Alan W. Bock: Michael Badnarik; Kara Hopkins: Nobody.’ “
It’s surprising that Buchanan would endorse Bush given his staunch opposition to Bush’s open-borders treason ( * ) and the attack on Iraq. But we knew it was coming, he having all but declared his endorsement outright in his new book and in his recent article in The American Conservative, which was excerpted from that book. Taki endorsing Peroutka is no surprise of course; neither is Raimondo’s choice of Nader. Howard Phillips’ endorsement of Peroutka goes without saying, he being the Constitution Party’s founder and previous candidate for president. The big surprise for me here is Scott McConnell’s endorsement of John Kerry. I assume it’s in the same spirit as Turnabout regular Mr. Murgos’ “endorsement” of that candidate: Bush must be gotten out, whatever the cost. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere I’m going with Taki’s and Howard Phillips’ choice. But I can certainly see the logic behind Mr. Murgos’ and Scott McConnell’s thinking.
( * Yes, treason: I’m not using that word hyberbolically or in any way rhetorically. Bush is as guilty of treason as ever Bill Clinton was and, just as he should, ought to be brought to justice for his crimes: he ought to be rotting in jail right now. Both of them should.)
when it comes to israelhttp://palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20041014053302686
Sam Francis, in a Vdare.com column up tonight, replies to Bush partisans who say conservatives should vote for Bush because his Supreme Court appointments will be more conservative than Kerry’s. Don’t bet on it, says Francis:
“I leave it to the conservative imagination to think of what [political factors] would motivate George W. Bush in his appointments [to the Supreme Court]. Professor Tushnet may be right that a justice appointed by President Bush would be ‘somewhat more conservative’ than one named by John Kerry, but then again he might well be wrong. The truth is that a Bush appointee might be far, far to the left of anyone Mr. Kerry could expect to get through the Senate. Vote for Mr. Bush if you will, but don’t bet your ballot on what will happen to the Supreme Court if you do.”
I can’t tell from the following if Pat Buchanan is officially endorsing Bush, but he’s declining to endorse an alternative:
“Still, Mr. Buchanan said he could not bring himself to support another candidate [than Bush]. ‘Conservative differences with a party led by John Kerry are monumental and legion,’ he wrote. In the interview, Mr. Buchanan said of the antiwar candidacy of Ralph Nader: ’ I like Ralph very much. He has been enormously courageous on trade issues and on the war issue, but I am right-to-life all the way.’ “
What he seems to be doing is absolutely skewering Bush with his book, but at the same time refusing to officially approve of an alternative who’d be even worse (which Kerry of course would be, although in my opinion Bush has been worse than Clinton—something I’d never have thought possible in a Republican).
Neither Pat Buchanan nor The American Conservative, the excellent conservative magazine he co-edits with Taki, has officially endorsed a candidate for president. I believe nevertheless that the following passage from an article entitled “Where the Right Went Wrong” in the Sept. 27th issue of TAC (the article being an excerpt from Pat’s new book of the same name) amounts indeed to Pat’s endorsement of a candidate: clearly, he’s endorsing George Bush here. Does anyone disagree? Judge for yourselves (the article isn’t available on TAC’s website so if I may, I’ll post the relevant passage here):
“Though millions of conservatives dissent from his policies on trade, immigration, amnesty for illegal aliens, Big Government, and invading Iraq, President Bush retains the support of 80-90 percent of Republicans. He had no challenger in the primaries, and almost all conservatives will vote for him in November. Their case runs thus:
“George W. Bush is a God-fearing and good man, and he and his First Lady restored dignity to the White House after the Clinton years. He kept his commitment to cut taxes, which means greater freedom and security for families. He has revived an economy sinking into recession when he took office. He has chosen fine judges. His willingness to accept international abuse by rejecting the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court show him to be a patriot who will not yield national sovereignty. After 9/11 he led America boldly and brilliantly in building an alliance to oust the Taliban and run al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan. Atop the rubble of the World Trade Center, George W. Bush bonded with the country in a way his father never had. From 9/11 to the summer of 2004, he defended the nation from new terror attacks. Through tough diplomacy, he disarmed Khadafi and has persuaded the Saudis to crack down on imams preaching jihad against our country. He speaks up and he speaks out for freedom.
“And while their disappointments with him are many and serious, conservative differences with a party led by John Kerry are monumental and legion. There is simply nothing a Kerry-led Democratic Party offers to the Right. And there is another reason they will stand by the president, a reason found in words Barry Goldwater used when he took the podium at the Chicago Convention of 1960 and admonished my generation, ‘Let’s grow up, Conservatives. We want to take this party back and I think, some day, we can.’
“Goldwater had refused to put Nixon’s name in nomination because of the Nixon ‘Pact of Fifth Avenue’ with Nelson Rockefeller. Goldwater was saying that a struggle for the soul of the party was coming. But not now. Now was Nixon’s turn. Sen. Goldwater began with these words: ‘We are conservatives. This great Republican house is our historic home. This is our home.’ For conservatives, it has ever been so.
“Tip O’Neill famously said that all politics are local. But when the quadrennial struggle for national leadership comes around, all politics are tribal. Almost all of the disputatious sons and alienated daughters come home. Goldwater himself, abandoned by the Rockefeller Republicans in ‘64, carried a huge majority of Republicans and conservatives. And they will come home for George W. Bush.”
If this passage is not an endorsement of Bush, what in the world else is it?
Paul Craig Roberts, in A letter to Readers, up tonight at Vdare, calls for Bush’s ouster in the November election, without explicitly endorsing an alternative by name:
”[…T]he only way Bush can be held accountable for Iraq is to be voted out of office. However unappealing the alternative candidate, if the electorate fails to hold Bush accountable for invading Iraq on false pretenses and multiplying the recruits to al-Qaeda, American democracy will have failed.”
I request your opinion about it.http://ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=4776
Read this column.
“What struck me the most was how much anger and hostility the President radiated on the split-screen while Senator Kerry was criticizing him. Especially during the first half of the debate, Bush kept pulling his lower lip up to make his mouth into a thin-lipped straight line as if he was biting his lip to keep himself from interrupting his opponent. […]. Kerry, in contrast, looked like a conventional stuffed shirt candidate. But he certainly appeared more in control of himself than the President, who occasionally seemed like he wanted to punch somebody. It seems pretty obvious to me that Bush is a mean little son-of-a-gun who has a big chip on his shoulder when he is criticized because he knows, deep down, that he’s in over his head in a job that’s just too big for him.”
(I agree one hundred percent with Steve’s last sentence here. Bush is in way over his head in the presidency. He does not know what to do. He can’t handle it. He’s way too narrow-minded, too small-minded for it.)
Lawrence Auster, speaking of Bush:
“Itâ€™s amazing to have a U.S. president who seems to have virtually no intellectual resources. Back in 2000, I said that Bush would be able to perform the duties of his office, but only barely.”
Interesting: Both my hushand and I took this poll and the results never changed. Hmmmmm?
I just checked out Peroutka’s web site. He seems to be a paleorepublican with some really good ideas, bring back the Old Republic, what a relief. I think American counterrevolutionaries should throw their support behind him.
This poll doesn’t even track other, larger, conservative web site internet polls. And it is far from anything we’ll see come election day.
The Libertarian Party will not receive 17% of the vote.
The Constitution Party will not receive 14%
The Green par ty will receive more than 0% percent.
(Nader plus the Greens will most likely receive more than the LP and Constitution Party combined).
A better way to look at this poll is Democrat and further left vs everything else.
From his column currently up at www.Vdare.com :
“If you’d like to cast a ballot for a conservative this year, forget George W. Bush and don’t even blink an eye at the liberal drip from Massachusetts who’s the hero of the week. Ralph Nader, believe it or not, actually has some interesting (not necessarily good or right) things to say, but it would be preposterous to claim he’s a conservative. The only conservative in the presidential race this year I know of is a gentleman named Michael Peroutka. […] The point of voting for Mr. Peroutka is not to win but to help create an alternative to the One Party. Of course you could do that by voting for Mr. Nader, but that would not be a conservative alternative. Mr. Peroutka is. The party’s platform (available on its web page at http://www.constitutionparty.com) spells out exactly what it’s for […]. The party defines itself as an explicitly Christian party, dedicated to preserving the Christian and biblical foundations on which the American republic and the U.S. Constitution were based. […] But it also supports a strong nationalist position. It’s opposed to the mass immigration that today is probably the greatest single threat to the nation and the survival of its people and civilization. It favors what it is fair to call a policy of ‘economic nationalism,’ and it strongly supports protecting national sovereignty. […] If I had written the plank myself, it couldn’t be better. […] Should you waste your vote on Michael Peroutka? […I]f you consider the alternatives, voting for him will not be a waste.”
( http://vdare.com/francis/peroutka.htm )
… LaRouche is a nutbar, but he’s way out there on the fringe, far from having any real popularity, and hence not really worth getting worked up about.
I should clarify that Bush is not a pure leftist of course, but a hideous chimera incorporating elements of leftism, Tranzism, Tex-Mex-border-style Mexican Mafia-ism (the Bush family has for decades profited from all kinds of shady dealings with Mexican Mafia overlords who’ve funded his political career and influence his inflexibility on open-borders-for-Mexican-unskilled-labor), Jimmy Carter style faux-born-again faux-Christian-Fundamentalism, and Wall-Street-style Godless Capitalism (“Godless” because, for example, no one who believed in God would deliberately lower U.S. workingmen’s wages via open borders the way Bush is doing solely in order to make his crony-capitalist Wall Street pals and crony-Mex-Mafia pals happy and rich, garnering himself more campaign contributions at the expense of his own country’s working class). There’s also the fact that—how to put this?—Bush is, well—not exactly, shall we say, … intellectually “incandescent.” (There are more vulgar words for this, of course—but let’s respect the web-site … not to mention the office of the presidency…)
Notice BTW that this alliance between neo-Marxist leftism, Tranzism, and the crassest Godless Wall-Street crony-capitalism, an utterly vile combination which is a big part of what Bush is, was never seen on the world stage prior to the fall of Communism in 1989 (Communism having been, as everyone now realizes to their unspeakable horror, only Phase-I of Marxism; we’re now fifteen years into Phase-II of that particular monstrosity, Phase-II being in part the above unholy alliance).
Bush isn’t Hitler as some on the left claim and he is not comparable to LBJ either. The 2004 election is not the same as the 1968 election. Kerry isn’t Hubert Humphrey or Trotsky despite some surface similarities. Iraq isn’t Vietnam just as Afghanistan, as Chomsky and others predicted it would be , was not Viet Nam either. Isn’t it time Sailor and others to “move on” past these shallow and meaningless analogies? They are designed to accomplish nothing but elicit an emotional reaction.
You may discuss this page in the Turnabout forum.
Email Jim Kalb