June 9, 2006

The real "Bush Country"

Remember how the hyenas on the right made such a big gloating to-do about the map of supposed "Bush Country" in the wake of the 2000 election?

How they skewed the facts by touting a map highlighting "square miles" for Bush (mostly sagebrush and coyotes.), and the number of counties for Bush, neither of which is any reflection of support from actual PEOPLE?

They preened and strutted and acted like this misleading map was proof of some overwhelming victory and therefore, a clear and convincing mandate for Bush. (the fact that Gore won the popular vote was... well, nothing, just reality and fact that you should safely ignore, thus setting the standards and practices they've relied on for 6 long years now.)

Thanks to alert reader Highxlr8r, who pointed me to the Springfield chapter of "Drinking Liberally" (remember when I tried to start a chapter here? Total flop.) which showed the map, which I then searched for (since no attribution was given) and found here...


This shows what "Bush Country" looks like today, reduced to three desolate western states, the only three which still approve of Bush's disasterous reign.


At 6/10/2006 8:32 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

This map is based on historical speculation, i.e. "What If?" But as you know, a lot can change in 6 months. So this map doesn't mean really anything. It would be like showing a map of Reagan's disapproval ratings in 1982, or the backlash against Clinton in 1994. Also, Dukakis was ahead of "Bush 41" by 20+ points in the summer of 1988.

But your new map makes disgruntled losers say "I told you so" and feel better about the future, so I guess that there is some intrinsic value in it.

It is too bad that "reality" in the 2000 Election wasn't close to this new map of yours, then Al Gore might have actually carried his home state of Tennessee.

But he didn't. That is why Bush won. It has nothing to do with Florida and recounts, yadda yadda. Get over it.

Al Gore was the first Democratic nominee since McGovern to lose his home state. Gore represented Tennessee in the Senate for many years. Why didn't he carry it?
Maybe the Democrats should have passed out whiskey in West Virginia like they did in the old days, because that is another Democratic state the Dems lost. Oh and Clinton's home state of Arkanas? There's another Red State, pal.

Instead of these rosy scenarios and delusions of have having won, why not take ownership for what went wrong?

At 6/10/2006 8:50 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You're right Nico, that map gives me a huge case of the warm and fuzzies. I feel GREAT every time I look at it.

I wish I had a poster sized print of it.

But you're right. A lot can change. I see Bush's approval going even lower. It's already about 3% around the world, I'm sure the U.S. will catch up eventually.

Also, I think all the historical instances you alluded to would look a heck of a lot better than this bloodbath.

As to Gore and the "losing TN is what lost the election" trope, that's like saying that the riveters who built her sunk the Titanic, rather than the iceberg.

Sure, if Gore had carried TN, he would have won in a way that even the Bush cronies on the Supreme Court, the Brooks Bros. riot in Miami, and the massive legal chicanery of Bush family fixer James Baker and all the other high-priced weasels couldn't have de-railed.

TN was a grievous tactical error with Gore, no doubt about it.

But trying to wish away the fact that Gore got more legitimate votes in Florida than Bush just isn't gonna fly.

The list is long and exhaustive, but Kathrine Harris's well documented collusion with a Republican company to "purge" voter roles of felons resulted in hundreds if not thousands of legitimate voters being denied the right to vote, that fraud alone would have been enough to put Gore over the top.

Credit even a fraction of the number of votes for Buchanon supposedly cast by elderly Jewish people in Palm Beach county, a clear farce, would have spelled victory for Gore.

The studies and recounts conducted by the consortium of news organizations after the election found that Gore would have won under 4 of 5 scenarios of vote re-counts.

The whole world saw that Bush's 2000 election was utterly illegitamate, and they've now seen that his presidency is as well.

It's an utter disaster by every measure.

I challenge you to name one thing Bush has done which has been a success, or ONE single instance where he's valued the interests and well-being of people like you over that of corporations. Just one.

Bush is clearly destined to be regarded by history as one of the worst presidents this country has ever had the misfortune to endure.

At 6/11/2006 8:41 PM, Blogger highxlr8r said...

By itself, the second map doesn't mean anything. It's basically just a response to the fact that the first map doesn't mean much either. Lots of square mileage is "red" but Bush still lost the popular vote. In the second, lots of area is "blue" but republicans are still in power running the show.

The problem with the first map is that like the DOpe and Drinking Liberally in Springfield said, R's touted the map as really meaning something when it first came out.

At 6/12/2006 4:23 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

I got a 600-tax rebate check in 2001. That special tax rebate idea was Bush's idea, but has quickly been forgotten.

For the record, I am just a poor old schoolteacher, not a rich 1%'er or a greedy corporation. When Clinton was in there, I was lucky to break even on my taxes. With Bush, let's just say I have done better. I can even afford to give more to charities.

I do not always agree with Bush, no. But if I were to vote my pocketbook, which most folks do, he stacks up pretty well.

On the war, I think he could have been more hawkish. If McCain were president, he definately would have been more hawkish. But I cannot make that call because I do not have the information that the Pres. has and I don't want to be an "armchair general" . I will give Bush credit for being consistent and on message, which is "stay the course". in light of such strong criticism.
There were people who were with Bush the day he picked up that bullhorn... but they were criticizng him 6 months later. These people thought it would be easy and they allowed themselves to get sidetracked with issues like Abu Graib and wiretapping and this kind of nonsense. That is such crap and I don't go for that. We are going to put partisanship aside and we are going to stand our ground and support our president and the troops. People laugh at that, but remember, GWB was re-elected with a 3.5 million vote plurality.

Kerry lost because the majority of Americans did not trust his resolve or believe that he would take the fight to the terrorists.
Zell Miller had it right.

Now sure, there are some things that I might not agree with Bush on. For example, The administration is fiscally irresponsible. There has been no discipline on spending. I know that No Child Left Behind is a huge boondoggle and I can't wait until it is scrapped. (On Immigration Policy, I am undecided, but Michael Reagan and Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham can't be wrong, can they?)
In politics, you won't agree with anyone all of the time and you have to look at the overall picture and settle for less. My friend who is a dentist says that history will show that Bush is an excellent president. Time will tell.

At 6/12/2006 6:58 PM, Blogger highxlr8r said...


Do you remember what you used the $600 for? And did you think about what kind of services that $600 might have cost you, or your family, or the kind of kids that you used to teach?

Tax cuts are great, and everyone feels better when they have more money in their pocket. But tax cuts, like freedom, are not free. They are costing someone on down the line, and may even be costing you, and you may not know it. The money saved in tax cuts may result in the local Fire Dept. not getting the truck they need that is going to save your house from a fire, or any number of other scenarios. Tax cuts are also cuts in services, and although you may not be one of the wealthiest people who recieved a windfall with these cuts, those people are out there and they have made a killing at the expense of a lot of us who don't have as much.

Voting for one's pocketbook is not always the right course of action. Sometimes we should for for what's best for the country, just like our representatives.

At 6/12/2006 11:49 PM, Blogger tiz said...

I remember a poll in 2002 or 2003 having Bush loose handily to a "democrat to be named later". And I really think anyone other than Kerry would have wiped the floor with Bush in 2004. Every non-partisian here in Iowa that I know who voted for Bush did so for one reason - they knew what they were getting and weren't sure about Kerry.
Nico - First, let me applaud your career path - it really takes one hell of a person to be a school teacher and I mean that. I am interested in your opinion (as a school teacher) about the various science policies of this administration. The NSF, NIMH, and various other agencies have seen their budgets shot to hell (while people are getting tax cuts), NASA and NOAA have a problem with political cronies trying to downplay global warming, and then we get the suggestion that creationism might not be that bad of a thing to teach in the classroom. And I'm not even going to touch abstinence-only sex ed. I mean absolutely no disprespect - I'm really interested in how you feel about these things as an educator who backs this administration. Do you think any or all of this will have an effect on the quality of public education?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home