On November 19, 1999, this weblog was born. Since that time, the web, this site, its author, and the world have seen countless changes.
It's time for another change. While I tear stuff up around here, WOIFM will be on hiatus. When it comes back, it might suck. Might not. Whatever the result, it will be somewhat different than now.
When it comes to talking about the election, Jason Kottke is smart.
I've been using MarsEdit 1.0 Beta for the last few days.
Two Three feature requests:
With those features, MarsEdit might be a must-buy.
Unlike Ann Althouse, I think John Kerry has every right to wait until Ohio's provisional ballots are counted before conceding. Kerry's concession would have no legal effect on that count and there remains the possibility, however remote, that Kerry could win 80% of those provisional votes in order to carry Ohio and win the electors necessary to become President.
Rumor on the infamous internets is that the states with the most discrepancy between exit polls and results are those with diebold machines
It must have been the voters. Three and a half million of 'em. All fraud.
I was a bit surprised at how good a night the Republicans has across the board. But for the last four years, the "selected not elected" crowd has been hammering the mantra that unless their guy wins, it must have been rigged. Nothing could be more damaging to our democracy than to embrace that view. Reasonable people can differ on the proper outcome of the 2000 election, but if this pattern continues, no election will be valid in the eyes of liberals unless conservatives lose.
Ultimately, democracy isn't about the ends. It's about the means. Whatever government we pick, whether left, right, or other, we get because it's an extension of the people's will. Our policies may differ, but that principle never varies. In this election, especially, liberals have been so focused on the ends - "anybody but Bush" - that they are willing now to taint the means by which we govern ourselves. Sure, there have been flaws in this election, just like any human endeavor the size and complexity of a national election. And we should work to eliminate those flaws. But to cast doubt on the whole process is irresponsible and it demeans everyone who cast a vote for someone other than John Kerry.
So far, no electoral votes for McCain. No big surprise there.
I'm going to go out on a limb. At this point, 54% of Florida precincts have reported. Ohio polls are still open. I think that Bush will win re-election if he keeps both of those states in his column. If he loses either, I can't see how he wins.
Really bold, I know. But that's my guess.
Momentum builds for McCain: Tom goes the write-in route.
UPDATE: The McCain train picks up more steam!
It took me over an hour, since I arrived at the polling place just after 9:00 am, but by the time I got to the voting booth the line had dwindled significantly.
Virginia has two constitutional amendments on the ballot, which I did not realize before today. I asked a poll worker for the text of the two amendments; he handed me a summary. I repeated my request; he went and found a summary of the two bond proposals. I shrugged and figured I would vote against any amendments I hadn't read verbatim.
Fortunately, the actual text was posted inside, and I saw that they were both reasonable and proper subjects for constitutional amendments (providing for succession of the governor, and clarifying that decennial redistricting would take effect after the completion of the then-current terms of the officeholders). I politely flagged down the poll worker and showed him what I had been looking for, and he seemed a bit sheepish.
My write-in vote went more smoothly than I expected. I just tapped the "write-in" button on the screen, typed the name "JOHN MCCAIN" (Virginia apparently figures all write-in voters are shouters) and hit enter.
I voted. Did you?
In the months preceding this presidential election, I have one quite a bit of thinking aloud here concerning my choice. For the last two presidential cycles, I have voted for the Libertarian Party's candidate. Last year about this time, I was still considering that option. Last week, I explained why I cannot vote for Bush, Kerry, or the Libertarian candidate, Badnarik.
So that left me with the prospect of a write-in vote. Libertarians (case insensitive) are out, because they almost uniformly advocate a quasi-isolationist foreign policy (the LP's position statement doesn't even mention national security) which I cannot support. I honestly haven't even considered any Democrats, because I can't think of one that comes anywhere close to my policy views. As for Republicans, I knew they would be few and far between.
Three months ago I had a conversation with my son's godfather. We toyed with the idea of who might replace Bush on the GOP ticket if he had to drop out for some reason. One of two possibilities we came up with was John McCain. Now I realize that he is someone I could support with a positive vote, rather than voting against some other candidate.
Why McCain? First off, he's a reliably small-government conservative. He fights corporate welfare and pork-barrel spending as a matter of principle, and generally believes in market-based solutions. In one instance, he combined these two ideals with his proposal to fund a national school choice initiative using funds saved by cutting gas, oil, sugar, and ethanol subsidies.
McCain also is beyond reproach on the one issue at the top of America's issue list: national security. No one could question his commitment to his country or his qualifications to be our commander in chief. If our enemies think Bush is tough, imagine what they would think of a President McCain.
Finally in the plus column, McCain is a leader who would have broad-based support among the electorate, a very useful quality in a President if he is to truly make a difference. Like California's new governor, he could use that support to change the way things are done in Washington.
McCain is not perfect. He's praised the President for imposing steel tariffs, so his free trade credentials are a bit suspect. He's also notoriously weak on free speech, given his support for ever more stringent restrictions on political fundraising activities. But the threat of any real harm to freedom of speech is probably behind us. Even if more restrictive laws passed, they'd probably cross the lines already drawn clearly by the courts. His lack of commitment to free speech is a matter of principle, but would have little practical effect. So I have no qualms about endorsing Sen. McCain for President in 2004.
As I was researching the Senator, I found that I am not the first to embrace McCain for this election cycle:
He's strong on defense and is a war veteran. McCain is a fiscal conservative and has been amongst the first to criticize the GOP for spending money like a drunken sailor.
Of course, that was long before the primaries had begun. Now that Bush is, and has been, the official nominee of his party, there's no way John McCain could become President. Right?
And if enough people write in John McCain tomorrow, instead of voting for the lesser evil, it just might happen.
(And some people think McCain could run next time.)