In 2004, The Country Didn't Turn Right -- But The GOP Did

[TimeToGo]

Interesting

__________
In 2004, The Country Didn't Turn Right -- But The GOP Did

By Jonathan Rauch, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Friday, Nov. 12, 2004

The election of 2004 was one of the greatest of our era, but the post-election of 2004 was as bad as they come. Rarely have election returns been so widely but wrongly -- in fact, dangerously -- misconstrued.

A quick post-election exit poll: Which of the following two statements more accurately describes what happened on November 2?

A) The election was a stunning triumph for the president, the Republicans, and (especially) social conservatives. Because the country turned to the right, President Bush received a mandate, the Republicans consolidated their dominance, and the Democrats lost touch with the country.

B) Bush and the Republicans are on thin ice. Bush barely eked out a majority, the country is still divided 50-50, and the electoral landscape has hardly changed, except in one respect: The Republican Party has shifted precariously to the right of the country, and the world, that it leads.

Usual answer: A. Correct answer: B.

SNIP

Jonathan Rauch is a senior writer for National Journal magazine, where "Social Studies" appears.

Read more at:

http://nationaljournal.com/scripts/printpage.cgi?/rauch.htm

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. kick

[tk2kewl]

2. That's why...

dems need to get their shit together and have a clear oposition message and a philosophy that counters this right turn. 2006 should mean a democratic house and senate. don't fuck up!

[Eric J in MN]

3. The Republicans kept praising how non-partisan the

National Jouranl is, when they misquoted a National Journal study to say that Kerry is the most liberal Senator.

So I'm sure the Republicans will agree with every word of that article.

After all, they said we should trust the National Journal.