NEWS
Novak analyzes election
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Nathaniel Liedl:
- Officials discuss changes to Union South (February 17, 2005)
- Religious groups strong on campu (February 9, 2005)
- Organization asks SSFC for $672,000 (January 28, 2005)
- Citizens remember King's dreams (January 19, 2005)
- Police urge end-of-the-year safety (December 14, 2004)
Related Stories:
- Luntz: politicians should talk 'straight' (February 21, 2006)
- Bush wins after Ohio decision (November 4, 2004)
- Former GOP chairmain analyzes '08 election (November 15, 2007)
- Tight race leaves Bush with lead (November 3, 2004)
- State mirrors nation (November 3, 2004)
by Nathaniel Liedl
Thursday, December 2, 2004
Nationally syndicated columnist Robert Novak analyzed the 2004 election and outlined President Bush’s second-term agenda in a speech at the Union Theater Wednesday night as part of the Distinguished Lecture Series.
According to Novak, in a nation divided between blue and red states, Wisconsin is a purple state because John Kerry won it by less than 6,000 votes.
“In most of America [voters] were less undecided and less color-mixing than they were here in Wisconsin,” Novak said.
Novak said how people vote can be determined by certain demographic characteristics.
“If you were a non-Caucasian of any race there was a high probability you would vote for John Kerry,” Novak said. “On the other hand, if you were a white man, there was a high probability you would vote for George W. Bush.”
Annual income and population density of residency were also strong indications of voter tendencies in the election, Novak said. He believes the biggest difference between blue and red states is the people who want “more government and the people who want less government.”
“Do you regard the government as an institution that’s there to help you through tough times?” Novak said. “Or do you regard the government as an impediment — as something that is in your way of success … then you probably voted for George W. Bush.”
Novak said Kerry lost in part because he said he would raise taxes while Bush promised less government and lower taxes. According to Novak, the Democrats have put forth the same kind of election campaign as Kerry in each election.
“If making the same mistake over and over again is the working definition of insanity, the Democratic party is insane,” Novak said.
Besides losing the tax issue, Kerry confused voters on cultural issues, Novak said. Novak used the example of Kerry’s opposition to same-sex marriage while simultaneously being against an amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
“He was a terrible candidate,” Novak said.
“Nominating John Kerry was a mistake [Democrats] never recovered from.”
President Bush’s second-term agenda includes social-security reform, tax reform, controlling federal spending and the war in Iraq.
Novak said himself, President Bush and others advocate a system in which young people have the option to take some money out of their paychecks to put into private accounts. As for tax reform, Novak said Bush would like to repeal the income and payroll taxes and replace them with a consumption tax and a rebate system for families too poor to purchase anything.
“The more you consume, the more taxes you pay,” Novak said.
Novak said the war in Iraq will be President Bush’s greatest test during his second term.
“We cannot have a continual established occupation in Iraq,” Novak said.
University of Wisconsin junior Josh Pike enjoyed Novak’s speech but disagreed with him on many key issues.
Pike said the lack of government helped Novak get where he is today since Novak said he grew up poor and attended a public university in Illinois.
“The people on the bottom can’t afford to go to great universities, so how are they going to better themselves like [Novak] has?” Pike said. “He seemed to disregard everything that can be seen as a problem for Republican ideologues as unimportant.”
Anonymous (December 2, 2004 @ 6:11pm):
He also said he thought the gap between the rich and the poor was a good thing. In his words, "Viva la gap."
Does anyone know if he was joking or not? I thought he was at first, but then he seemed serious. His point was that he wasn't "a communist", which I guess is cool. Wrong decade, but whatever.
So was he serious or not?
