Sweet victory and sour grapes

It's a huge load off my mind knowing that the election is over, and without major litigation. To be sure, there were some tense moments. In the end, Kerry behaved like a gentleman (apparently learning some lessons from Mr. "I used to be President-Elect" Gore). I found it amazing that Kerry still had the nerve to mention the 6-year-old child who gave money to his campaign in his concession speech. Doesn't Kerry realize it's illegal to accept money from a minor? The most liberal parts of the mainstream media seem to be scrambling to figure out where they went wrong. At least some parts of the blogosphere seem to be "getting it" about the reason one party wins and another doesn't. Hint: it has nothing to do with a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

I've sat through aproximately 8 zillion heated conversations about how the reason libertarians don't have more power is that the electoral system is stacked against us, when it's crystal clear to me that the reason we don't have more power is that a clear majority of Americans don't agree with us.

I heard second hand that some of the commentators on CNN and MSNBC were talking about what the Democrats will have to do to reconnect with moral values to win the next election. I think the same mental disconnect is happening here as with the VRWC nuts - that disconnect being the assumption that everyone thinks like them. I hate to tell them, but with +51% of the country voting one way, that puts the MSM right splat in the minority. (Republican employees of the big networks are regularly told "you should be working for Fox" according to Powerline). Some of the MSM seem concerned that with a clear mandate, President Bush will "push the Republican agenda". Apart from the question of whether a Republican agenda is a good thing or a bad thing, when you've got over 51% of the popular vote (the highest popular percentage in history), how exactly is that going against the will of the people? Of course the President should see it as a mandate, because that's exactly what it was! Part of the media scramble is to figure out what went wrong with their exit polling. Powerline posts one theory then dispells it with something more realistic. To my way of thinking, the most damning argument against exit polls is the way the actual vote is tabulated. If it was reasonably accurate to take a sampling of the voters by any of the methods used by thousands of pollsters, we would certainly be looking at this method for the next election. The fact is that a sample is only accurate to within a margin of error, and even then the error can be magnified by factors not considered before taking the poll. In short, if exit polls worked, we wouldn't need a full ballot. Between both the media's spin on things and the problems this year with removal of Bush/Cheney signs, it seems to me that the left has gone too far, supporting free speech only as much as it supports their candidate. Even here in red-state Indiana, someone had removed the Bush/Cheney sign on the curb by our polling place. I fail to see how that helps the Kerry/Edwards cause one iota - might someone forget their names and vote the other way? A posted comment on Michael Moore's site said something to the effect of "when I look at all the red states, I realize I'm trapped in a country of idiots". (I wish I could find the page now.) So much for Patrick Henry's "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Blaming the voters won't get you any closer, in any case. Logic Times has an in-depth analysis of double-standards in the reporting of red and blue states last night. Blaming this phenomenon on bias would require the ability to read minds, but that seems like a likely possibility. Profit may be another - would a news network intentionally delay announcing the ending just so they could hang onto their viewers as long as the other networks? Michelle Malkin seems to be getting a bit peeved with the new rhetoric taking the place of the pre-election rhetoric. My favorite line is the last:

Yes, the country is divided. Divided between gracious winners and mud-slinging, hypocritical whiners who have nothing else to do now but point to their emotional boo-boos and decry the dirtiness of politics.

It is also interesting how many of the so-called "campaign issues" advanced by the Democrats have now evaporated. If President Bush had really alienated so many countries, why would the leaders of these countries now be so quick to praise, not denounce, the election outcome? France and Germany jumped on this ship without much prompting:

French President Jacques Chirac, a strong opponent of the US-led war in Iraq, expressed hope that Bush's second term "will provide an opportunity to reinforce France-American friendship" and the transatlantic partnership.

"On behalf of France, and on my personal behalf, I would like to express to you my most sincere congratulations for your re-election to the presidency of the United States of America," Chirac wrote in a letter to Bush. "I hope that your second term will provide an opportunity to reinforce the Franco-American friendship."

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who also clashed with Bush over Iraq, voiced hope that his country would continue its "good cooperation" with the United States.

As did Egypt, where we are seeing the population find their voices to speak out for a more democratic government. Russia's Putin even called Bush's reelection "a victory over terrorism". After all this, a few things are clearer to me now than at the start of this election:

• Most voters and news consumers are willing to be spoon-fed the facts as presented by the MSM without questioning it.
• The networks have learned this and, intentionally or not, are taking advantage of it to affect perceptions.
• Blogs have become an important part of a well-rounded news diet. Without a critical examination of the story as presented, it's too easy to believe lies.
• When selecting news sources, it's important to include some sources with which you don't agree. Listening only to people you agree with is one of the factors that gave us Dan Rather and most of the MSM movers and shakers.
• Always remember that you are one of the people who can be fooled some of the time. (Hopefully not all the time.) Actively searching for arguments against your own beliefs can be an intensely educational process, and just might save you from holding forth on something that sounds plausible but might turn out to be false. If nothing else, it will give you lots of information to blog about.