January 9, 2005


Election protest shows why Dems don't count (MARK STEYN, January 9, 2005, Chicago Sun-Times)

[I]'m beginning to wonder if Karl Rove didn't manage to slip something into the whine cellar at Democratic headquarters. It beggars belief that Rev. Jesse on the steps of Congress, and the Congressional Black Caucus in the House, and Barbara Boxer in the Senate would start the new term with yet another reprise of the same old song from the last four years -- that Bush, the World's Biggest Moron, somehow managed to steal another election. That makes three in a row. The GOP's obviously getting better at it.

As usual, the media did their best to string along with the Democrats' alternative reality. For the most part, the press now fulfill the same function for the party that kindly nurses do at the madhouse; if the guy thinks he's Napoleon, just smile affably and ask him how Waterloo's going. So Alan Fram of the Associated Press reported with a straight face that Sen. Boxer, Congressman Conyers and the other protesting Democrats ''hoped the showdown would underscore the problems such as missing voting machines and unusually long lines that plagued some Ohio districts, many in minority neighborhoods.''

I think not. What it underscores is that the Democrats are losers. Speaking as a foreigner -- which I believe entitles me to vote in up to three California congressional districts -- I've voted on paper ballots all my life and reckon all these American innovations -- levers, punch cards, touch screen -- are a lot of flim-flam. I would be all in favor of letting the head of Bangladesh's electoral commission design a uniform federal ballot for U.S. elections. But that's not the issue here. What happens on Election Day is that the Democrats lose and then decide it was because of ''unusually long lines'' in ''minority neighborhoods.'' What ''minority neighborhoods'' means is electoral districts run by Democrats. In Ohio in 2004 as in Florida in 2000, the ''problems'' all occur in counties where the Dems run the system. Sometimes, as in King County in Washington, they get lucky and find sufficient votes from the ''disenfranchised'' accidentally filed in the icebox at Democratic headquarters. But in Ohio, Bush managed to win not just beyond the margin of error but beyond the margin of lawyer. If there'd been anything to sue and resue and re-resue over, you can bet those 5,000 shysters the Kerry campaign flew in would be doing it. Instead, Boxer and Conyers & Co. are using a kind of parliamentary privilege to taint Bush's victory without even the flimsiest pretext.

And that's sure to work, isn't it? Another two years of Tom Daschle obstructionism and Michael Moore paranoia. You don't need to run a focus group to know that's the formula that will sweep Dems into office on Election Day 2006, right?

Until they can reconcile themselves to the fact that they keep losing elections it seems unlikely the Democrats can make the kind of changes they need if they're ever going start winning them again.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 9, 2005 3:20 PM

Here's hoping that the current crop of leading Democrats stays pathologically whiny and deluded, and that the Republicans continue to offer a warm welcome to reality-based Dems who want to switch parties. Once the Gore-Dean-Leahy-Carville-et-Cie sideshow has declined into the sort of pathetic irrelevance that has overtaken Britain's Tories, perhaps a new, more serious alternative to the GOP can flourish.

Posted by: Axel Kassel at January 9, 2005 4:29 PM

This is also another example of the liberal pathology and confidence game, i.e. incompetent administration is used to justify an increase. Thus: they are unable to conduct elections, hence the electoral system must be reformed; they waste tax dollars, hence taxes must be raised; gun control laws are ineffective, hence more must be passed; etc. etc. It is the same lame excuse made for Marxism -- the problem is never the political philosophy, but only that it has never been truly tried, and therefore it should be tried again, only this time with better, more committed Marxists.

Posted by: jd watson at January 9, 2005 5:39 PM