CAUTION- Windbag Alert!!!!

[Torlyn]

Likely won't even be from her assistant, but an auto remailer;

"The Hon C Parrish thanks you for your comments. If you would like to correspond further please contact......"

"...If you're an American Bastard, press 1.  If you are one of the idiots that voted for Bush, press 2.  If you want to tell me how much you love the liberals, press 3..." 

I haven't received a response yet, but usually when I get feedback from MP's, it takes a day or two and it's usually an assistant answering.  Either way, I figure if I don't write to complain to her, I shouldn't complain at all. 

T

 

[winchable]

I was reading in an article that the PM ripped her at some dinner.
Something about shooting her to mars.

I'll try and find it, I may have misread it.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

What I'm finding disturbing is the fact that some of you people are defending her" Americans, I hate those....."

Using your ethical "code" we could have MP's state,[sorry about the words but...]
Negro''s, God I hate those.....
Jew's, God I hate those....
I could go on but I think the picture [unfortunetly] has been made. I'm curious to hear how you would defend these statements.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Further, the high turnout was helped by the religious wackos coming out to vote to enshrine bigotry and hatred in their state constitutions by voting for the anti-gay marriage initiatives in many states.

So, many Bush supporters are uninformed and/or chose to ignore facts or simply voted for him because he is such a "good christian." I thought Iran and other countries had shown that theocracies are a bad thing?

"Many"?  Perhaps, but if you really look into the numbers there was a very large contingent (45%) of "moderates" and "liberals" who supported him, too.  I think you are oversimplifying to the point of being misleading.

Invasion of the theo-cons   

It's only been 24 hours, and already the media line on the US election has been set: It's all due to George Bush's cult-like hold on the religious right, wound up into a frenzy over gay marriage and other "values" issues and marched off to the polls in record numbers. The National was pushing this theme particularly hard tonight, complete with scary shots of marauding gangs of evangelicals in choir formation.

This fits with an earlier media framing device, to the effect that Bush's strategy relied on "turning out the base" rather than attracting undecided and swing voters, as in this post-election analysis from CBS News: "President Bush's campaign won re-election through the strategic gamble that there was more to gain from galvanizing conservatives and stressing moral issues than from reaching out to centrist voters." Or, more hysterically, this piece from arch-partisan Sidney Blumenthal, in the Guardian:

    The evangelical churches became instruments of political organisation. Ideology was enforced as theology, turning nonconformity into sin, and the faithful, following voter guides with biblical literalism, were shepherded to the polls as though to the rapture. White Protestants, especially in the south, especially married men, gave their souls and votes for flag and cross. The campaign was one long revival.

This, after Kerry campaigned from the pulpit in black churches on five straight Sundays.

All well in keeping with the prevailing Democratic/media view that only morons and blinkered zealots would vote for Bush. But not at all in keeping with the actual data on who voted and why, as revealed in the massive (13,660 respondents), comprehensive CNN exit poll.

True, it found the largest single block of voters identified "moral values" as the "most important election issue" -- a much cited factoid -- and that 80% of these respondents voted for Bush. But that hardly makes this election a triumph of theocracy. In the first place, "largest single block" turns out to mean 22%, meaning 78% of voters -- including two-thirds of Bush voters -- named some other issue. Second, the pollsters only managed to elevated "moral values" to number one by dividing up the other issues into subcategories. Thus "Iraq" and "Terrorism" are treated as separate issues, though grouped together as, say, "national security" they would have claimed the top spot, with 34% of the total. Likewise "taxes" and "economy" were named by a combined 25% of voters. Had "moral values" been split into "abortion" and "gay marriage," the spin would have been rather different.

Let's move on. 37% of voters identified themselves as Republicans, the same as the Democratic turnout: the first time that has happened for a long time, if ever. That fits with the "turn out the base" thesis (I'm not saying it's not true -- just that it's not the whole truth). But crunch the numbers a little further. Bush got roughly 90% of the Republican vote, plus 10% of the Democratic vote -- plus 50% of Independents. Add it up: that means fully one-third of Bush's vote came from non-Republicans -- the same proportion as the "moral values" voters.

Possibly there's some overlap -- or a lot -- between the two. That's the point. Even if it were true that Bush drew disproportionate support among moral-majority types, that's only one of many possible ways of slicing the data, and it's revealing that analysts would seize on it. (See Jacques Parizeau, "Money and the Ethnic Vote: A Study in Selective Interpretation.")

For example, we might also note that Bush's support increased significantly among women (at 48%, there was effectively no gender gap: indeed he led Kerry 55-44 among white women), among Hispanics (44%, a record for any Republican candidate), among blacks (okay, it was only 11%, up from 9% last time, but that's a one-fifth increase!), among Jews (at 25%, a one-third expansion), and among Catholics (where he beat Kerry, a Catholic, 52-47).

When a candidate draws increased numbers of votes from groups not traditionally identified with his party, we usually call that "broadening the base." So why the fascination with zombie hordes of theo-cons?

ADDENDA: More fascinating nuggets from the exit polls:

- About 45% of Bush's vote -- nearly half -- came from self-identified "moderates" or "liberals." (How do I get that figure? Jump about a fifth of the way down the page, where it breaks down the vote "by ideology." Liberals made up 21% of all voters, and Bush got 13% of their votes. Multiplying the two, that means 2.7% of voters were "liberals for Bush." Doing the same for moderates (45% of all voters, 45% of whom voted Bush) yields 20.3%: the number of moderate Bush voters. Adding these two tells us 23% of all voters were liberal or moderate Bushies. Those 23% represented 45% of all Bush voters, given these were 51% of the total vote.)

- Bush took 46% of first-time voters. He took 52% of college graduates. 48% of working women. 44% of those earning less than $50,000. 45% of those aged 18-29. Given these are conventionally supposed to be strongly Democratic demographic groups, it suggests the stereotype of Bush voters as middle-aged white guys is equally suspect.

- Bush, the AWOL Texas National Guard pilot, claimed 57% of the veterans vote, versus 41% for the "decorated war hero."

- Bush was the choice of 46% of those who said they made up their minds in the last week. The undecided split about evenly -- not 9 to 1 for the challenger, as was assumed in one pre-election poll.

- Bush was overwhelmingly favoured by those who said the most important quality in a president was either "religious faith," "honesty," "strong leader" or "clear stands on the issues." (The latter two were the most commonly cited criteria among Bush voters, religious faith the least.) Kerry enjoyed equally strong support among those who looked for "intelligence," "cares about people" or "will bring change."

- 80% of Bush voters said they voted for their candidate, rather than against the other one. Barely a third of Kerry voters said the same.

- 93% of voters said they were "very" or "somewhat" concerned about the cost and availability of health care. Yet despite making the issue one of the centrepieces of his campaign, Kerry could do no better than to split these voters with Bush.

- Though 52% of voters said the economy was "not good" or "poor," fewer voters trusted Kerry to handle the economy than Bush. Neither candidate was trusted by a majority.

- Only 56% said the Bin Laden videotape was important to their vote. Of these, the vote was split 50-50 between the candidates. The tape was not a factor.

The rest is more or less as you'd expect. http://andrewcoyne.com/archives/004035.php

 

[Brad Sallows]

I wonder how many Canadians would be looking to the applicable party for a little discipline if this was a non-Quebec MLA doing his part to poison the discussion during a round of sovereignty associationitis.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Thank you John. My gut proved right again. I wonder if there's anything on the Americans living in Canada and how they voted. Given the anti - Bush rhetoric put out in the last few weeks by the Communist Brainwashing Corporation and their ilk.

 

[winchable]

Forgive me if I'm being ignorant but I do read, watch and listen to CBC and, maybe I've missed it, I haven't seen or heard any anti-Bush/anti-American programming yet?
I mean I always hear about it, but I've yet to see any brainwashing attempts by the folks at CBC

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Forgive me if I'm being ignorant but I do read, watch and listen to CBC and, maybe I've missed it, I haven't seen or heard any anti-Bush/anti-American programming yet?
I mean I always hear about it, but I've yet to see any brainwashing attempts by the folks at CBC

  :blotto:???  BECAUSE IT'S WORKING!!!  ??? :blotto:

Seriously, there is major bias at the CBC: you note that the article I posted earlier is in response to "The National" ... there's a lot more here: http://www.cbcwatch.ca/?q=taxonomy/page/or/3 and here: http://www.cbcwatch.ca/?q=taxonomy/page/or/12 (just keep scrolling)!

 

[winchable]

After I thought about it a bit, I do remember there being an anti-Israeli bias in some coverage once.

To be honest I don't watch them for the news. Broadcasting specials sometimes Radio one on Sundays, and I rely on Google for news.

 

[Kirkhill]

Che:  You were right about Martin's crack about sending Parrish to Mars.  It was during the annual Press Gallery dinner in Ottawa where the Media types invite the Pols to an "off the record" roast.  This time it was recorded by CPAC.  And as regards the CBC?  Stick to Google...less hazardous to your health.

Bruce: I am not defending Parrish on her specific cracks about Americans just about her right to be an idiot and to demonstrate it by make loud noises from the bottom of a very empty vessel.  I agree with you that hate-mongering is hate-mongering and rethinking her comments all of them were specifically derogatory of Americans in a way which no other group would be expected to put up with.

With the possible exception of Scots..... ??? :-\

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I've yet to see any brainwashing attempts by the folks at CBC

I'm not sure what should be included in "brainwashing", but I'd guess that the prerequisite for detecting things like gratuitous bias and ideology would be to have a different editorial point of view.

 

[winchable]

I'm not sure what should be included in "brainwashing", but I'd guess that the prerequisite for detecting things like gratuitous bias and ideology would be to have a different editorial point of view.

Ah, I must not be enlightened enough to the correct ideology and point of view to pick it up.

 

[spenco]

>I've yet to see any brainwashing attempts by the folks at CBC

I'm not sure what should be included in "brainwashing", but I'd guess that the prerequisite for detecting things like gratuitous bias and ideology would be to have a different editorial point of view.

Have you seen this site?

http://www.cbcwatch.ca/

 

[Brad Sallows]

You don't have to have a "correct" ideology; you just have to be able to detect partisan bullshit when you hear it.

 

[winchable]

Both sides could stand to learn something from that I suppose.

Fair enough though, as stated I rethought my statement when I realised how very little I actually watch CBC.

 

[clasper]

Thank you John. My gut proved right again. I wonder if there's anything on the Americans living in Canada and how they voted. Given the anti - Bush rhetoric put out in the last few weeks by the Communist Brainwashing Corporation and their ilk.

I can't comment about Americans living in Canada, but there is a pub here in Paris that conducts an informal exit poll of American voters in the area.  Kerry won the exit poll by about 55%-45% (i don't recall the numbers exactly, and there were about 500 respondants).  These results are comparable to the large urban areas in the US, even though the media here is WAY more anti-Bush than the CBC, the NY Times, or the Washington Post.  I would think that the CBC had a similar non-effect on voters in their broadcast range.

 

[sigpig]

"Many"?   Perhaps, but if you really look into the numbers there was a very large contingent (45%) of "moderates" and "liberals" who supported him, too.   I think you are oversimplifying to the point of being misleading.

Wow, thanks for correcting me John. I feel so stupid just living in this country for six years and all and following things intently because they affect me personally.

And your source of info is such an unbiased and neutral observer of events that I must bow down to his genius:
"Andrew Coyne: Meaning (information, definition, explanation, facts)
Andrew Coyne is a Canadian journalist and columnist.

He wrote for The Globe and Mail until 1998, when he joined the fledgling National Post. He is one of the more conservative columnists in the Canadian media."

Recceguy, I guess that feeling in your gut was last night burritos....

 

[Guardian]

Back to Parrish. Why on earth did the voters of her constituency send her back to Parliament?

Martin should throw her out of caucus until she learns to put a cork in it. The last thing we need, at a time when mad-cow and fishing and sovereignty disputes are the norm and the Americans are starting to view Canada as an unlocked back door, is a loose cannon who hasn't the intelligence to frame her opinions and objections in a civilized manner. This MP is dangerous.

 

[rifleman]

Back to Parrish. Why on earth did the voters of her constituency send her back to Parliament?

maybe her constituents are "completely out of step with most of the free world"

 

[a_majoor]

maybe her constituents are "completely out of step with most of the free world"

I wonder.

The American Media have been relentlessly Anti Bush throughout his entire first administration, and subtly and not so subtly attempting to influence people by distorting the flow of information. To choose a relatively non controversial example, the US unemployment and economic growth rates have been presented as being very poor and examples of Bush's policies giving America a "weak economy". Going back in time, President Clinton was praised in glowing terms during his administration for overseeing a dynamic economy...with virtually the same rate of growth and unemployment that President Bush has!

I also notice that there is almost no analysis of how US economic policy affects Canada, even though 80% of our trade goes there. You would think a rapidly growing economy with low unemployment would be a good thing for us (more customers), and maybe there are some lessons to learn from them as well so we can get to a 4% annual increase in GDP and reduce unemployment to @ 5%.

Unless people have the time, energy and inclination to do the basic research, they will tend to believe that the "news" is presenting an accurate picture of the world, and react accordingly. Parrish and her supporters don't care enough to take the time and effort, and we are seeing the results.