Small Mercies

I was a witness to a car accident on my way into the office today. A woman not
paying attention just sailed through a red into cross traffic. The car she hit
spun out and its driver momentarily lost consciousness so it started just kind
of drifting forward. It motored up onto the sidewalk and was just driving down
the sidewalk. This man was walking down the sidewalk with his small son, maybe
two or three years old. He was just staring at the car bearing down on him
like a deer in the headlights. I myself was standing in the middle of the
intersection. Seeing the car heading down on the man and his son people kind
of snapped awake and started yelling at him. At almost the last possible
second he seemed to snap back awake, grabbed his son and jumped out of the
way. The car soon after bumped a wall and came to a stop.

Thank God for small mercies. The drivers of both cars were OK (the one who
apparently lost consciousness for a moment didn't want an ambulance, but the
police talked her into accepting it). So, nobody hurt (or if so, none too
bad).

Watching that car bearing down on that child like that... a short, poignant case-study in the misery and fear of helplessness.

Another Great Article

From the Washington Post

Please read it.

Really good reading.

I recommend this article at TNR on the "pscyhology of the undecided voter."

It's a great read.

Posting to Resume

Shortly. I've been working on my suggestions for the Democratic Party. This is a quick follow-up to the post immediately below, regarding DoD Casualty Statistics. The DoD no longer makes an archive of the casualty reports available, but I noted four days ago, on November 12th that the Pentagon reported 791 KIA "post combat" and 4100 WNRTD (Wounded, Not Returning to Duty) "post combat."

Four days later, that count stands as follows:
831 KIA, 4478 WNRTD

That's 418 soldiers disabled or killed over the last four day period, almost 110 soldiers per day. Hopefully, this is just a blip attributable to the combination of intensive operations in Fallujah and an insurgent flare-up throughout Central Iraq. I don't see how U.S. Forces can sustain that kind of casualty rate on a regular basis without necessitating an increase in troop strength.

Hmmm...

I often check the DefenseLink Casualty Reports to get a sense of what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Checking today to see what the totals bode, it hit me how absurd the categories they use to classify when a casualty occurred. Casulaties are broken down into three categories:

• DoD Civilians
  
• "Combat Operations - 19 Mar 03 thru 30 Apr 03"
  
• "Post Combat Ops - 1 May thru Present
  

109 were KIA during "Combat Ops", whereas 791 have died "Post" combat... 411 wounded not returning to duty "during combat", 4100 wounded "post-combat." 138 dead "during combat", 1166 dead "post combat". 542 wounded "during combat", 7916 wounded "post combat".

It's really a very inapt classification - a stark indicator of the absurdity of our current worldview - that such a vast bulk of our casualties in this war would be considered "post-combat." I often get scolded for thinking too "short-term" in my pessimism about this war.

What then to say of the organizers of this war who arbitrarily divide it into a "combat" phase and a "post combat" phase?

Why Democrats Suck

GOD, I hate them! From today's NY Times:

While the selection of Mr. Gonzales as attorney general may create a public fight, some Senate Democrats said they might want to save their heavy ammunition for what is expected to be a battle over possible Supreme Court nominees rather than expending it on what is likely to be a losing cause for attorney general.

Hello, Democrats! All your causes are losing causes!

In the meantime, President Bush is appointing a lawyer deeply implicated in the Torture Memo scandal to the position of Attorney General. You know, that jurisprudential bodice-ripper with this sizzling finale:

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that torture as defined in and proscribed by Sections 2340-2340A, covers only extreme acts. Severe pain is generally of the kind difficult for the victim to endure. Where the pain is physical, it must be of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure. Severe mental pain requires suffering not just at the moment of infliction but it also requires lasting psychological harm, such as seen in mental disorders like posttraumatic stress disorder. Additionally, such sever mental pain can arise only from the predicate acts listed in Section 2340. Because the act inflicting torture are extreme, there is significant range of acts that though they might constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment fail to rise to the level of ttorture.

Further, we conclude that under the circumstances of the current war against al Qaeda and its allies, application of Section 2340A to interrogations undertaken pursuant to the President's Commander-in-Chief powers may be unconstitutional. Finally, even if an interrogation method might violate Section 2340A, necessity or self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability.

This IS the heavy ammunition. Sure, Democrats aren't likely to be able to prevent this nomination. But they damned well better use this opportunity to underscore just what a moral outarge this appointment would be.

Repulsive

I dunno much about this guy Adam Yoshida, but I hear he's a relatively prominent conservative blogger. Anyhow, the following passage was brought to my attention. I find it revolting:

Let’s face a hard truth: this was the bitterest Presidential campaign in living memory. The Democrats and their allies staked everything on the defeat of this President. All of the resources they had accumulated over a generation of struggle were thrown into this battle: and they have failed. Despite all of their tricks, despite all of their lies, the people have rejected them. They mean nothing. They are worth nothing. There’s no point in trying to reach out to them because they won’t be reached out to. We’ve got their teeth clutching the sidewalk and out boot above their head. Now’s the time to curb-stomp the bastards.

Tactics - The Senate

One thing I think the Democratic Party should focus on like a laser is consolidating its regional strength. Consider the following:

Senate Control, By State and Party

Red indicates both Senate seats are held by Republicans, Blue indicates both are held by Democrats, and green indicates a split delegation.

There are 9 Republican Senators hailing from "the Blue States." There are 16 Democratic Senators coming from "the Red States."

In the next class of Senators up for re-election, 18 are Democrats and 15 are Republicans.

I hate to say it, but those moderate New England liberal Republicans need to be brought down. Democrats need to make New England Republicanism as rare as Southern Democrats have become. There's not enough "blue states" to regain control of the Senate through regional dominance alone. But without regional dominance, we're driving without insurance. And Rick Santorum? He needs to be brought down. If we can't take that bigot out of Pennsylvania's Senate seat in 2006, we'll deserve what we get.

I'll spend more time over the next year looking at individual Senators and try to figure out who's weak and who's strong. My instinct suggests we should go after Bill Frist with a vengeance in 2006, just as they've done to Daschle (hey, Al Gore! Got any plans?). If not to win, at least to take him down a notch and to keep them fighting for home turf... But to do so, would require a concerted effort to "soften him up" by pinning as much credit for Republican "misbehavior" as possible. I'd like to think Trent Lott can be drawn into a nasty campaign that, like Alan Keyes in Illinois would provide enough drama to embarrass Republicans throughout the nation. A good competition against Lott in 2006 seems like it could do a lot of good for Democratic candidates in liberal states.

Knowing nothing about the incumbents and their reputations at home, I'd suspect that Virginia, Missouri, Nevada, and Ohio offer some shots. If John Kyl is who I think he is, he'd be a hard candidate to beat in Arizona without developing an authentic libertarian plank for the Democratic Platform (something I strongly believe we should, and will clarify later).

As for the Democrats, I suspect they'll face stiff competition in 2006 in Nebraska, Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, West Virgina, New Mexico, and North Dakota.

A Legacy or a Mandate?

As Democrats hash out the way to go forward, many will be tempted to flirt with the idea that Clinton brought them two victories, and thus the key lies with his counsel. Don't believe it. Bill Clinton did not win the kind of victories that the Democratic Party needs. The presence of Ross Perot on the ballot in 1992 and 1996 helped to mask the fundamental weakness of Clinton's support. However, if Dole had simply carried each state in which the combined total of Dole's votes and Perot's votes exceeded his own votes, he would have lost the election of '96.

Here is how the election actually turned out:


Here is how it would have turned out if Perot is added to Dole:


What a difference a freak makes. Bob Dole wins the second scenario by 288 electoral votse to Bill Clinton's 250. Clinton got lucky. Careful about putting your money on Clintonism.

Think you're angry?

Check out fuckthesouth.com

Lord Almighty...

Watching Scarborough Country... "they just don't get it, that an entire society is under attack" - referring to American liberals for... well... trying to live in accordance with their social values, so far as I can tell.

The Democrats are still to blame! If they weren't being "insane" or calling them "theocrats" there would be no problem! Feel the outrage! America, those liberals hate you AND your God!

What a victory party...

Drinking the Blues Away

All evidence indicates that Democrats will be frequently looking for consolation in the coming years of Republican hegemony. And, as you decadent coastal elitists surely know, nothing numbs the pain like a good shot of booze. So, I present to you my “Cocktails of Condolence – A Whine List for the Wearied.”

Kentucky Bourbon – This drink is a little rough going down, and the rougher the better. It should be drunk on the occasion of Democratic incumbents (any office) in the South or Midwest being defeated by arch-conservative Republicans.

Vodka – I recommend learning to drink vodka without mixer nor chaser. It is best drunk on the occasion of illiberal crackdowns in Russia by Vladimir Putin that go unremarked by the U.S. Administration.

Screwdriver – Best to drink when taking it straight in the eye. I recommend this soothing beverage in the event of a Bush Administration employee retaining his job after an amazingly egregious act of incompetence.

Manhattan – Should that next terrorist attack come, striking at a vulnerable urban target which still remains unsecured years after 9/11, this will be the only drink for you.

Rob Roy – Perfect for commiserating on the destruction of another cherished federal institution at the hands of some Republican firebrand.

Highballs - An old-fashioned beverage perfect for marking the appointment of a former lobbyist or corporate officer to the regulatory agency of the industry they used to represent.

Cognac - Reserve this beverage for the occasion of a senior Administration official crudely and sneeringly insulting traditional American allies. It would also be appropriate in the event of your political region being described by such a person as "practically French."

Irish Whiskey - Nothing serves better than this drink to lessen the pain of major new "moral values" legislation restricting the rights of gays, promoting abstinence-only "sex education," or further restricting women's access to legal abortion.

Rusty Nails - The perfect drink for news that makes you crave a vaccination. Imbibe heartily when reports are released of increased numbers without health insurance or major reductions in spending for programs delivering health care to society's poorest.

Malt Liquor - A beverage of solidarity, ideal for celebrating the release of the latest unemployment report. Especially prudent if you find yourself counted in the latest statistic.

Gin and Tonic - Easy drinking to accompany revised deficit projections or upward revisions to the federal credit limit.

Sex on the Beach - When the Administration advances a new "environmental protection" initiative that rolls back long-standing environmental regulations, nothing will drown your sorrows better.

Cosmopolitan - If your city is forced to lay off employees or scale back essential services on account of unfair federal redistributionism transferring your great city's wealth to America's anguished "heartland," you'll find the Cosmo resonating perfectly with your world-weary despair.

Scotch Whiskey - The only thing harder than understanding a Scottish dialect is making sense of the President's latest syntactically mangled proposal. When your President says something you just don't understand or too blunt to believe, help yourself to a night of Scotch.

The Radical Centrist Fringe

There are many changes that I feel the Democratic Party should adopt - both substantive and stylistic; conceptual and practical; regional and national. I'd like to begin by identifying what strikes me as a conceptual flaw in the way the national party has been thinking lately.

The mentality is perfectly embodied by former President Clinton, whose career was built by poaching the most popular elements of the Republican platform but saw very little advance in any of the domestic issues important to liberals. Apparently, before this election, Clinton's advice to Kerry was to endorse the anti-marriage referendums - a stance which Kerry, massively to his credit, rejected.

The operative logic of this conceit is that somewhere there is a "middle" of the American political spectrum waiting for a politician to sweep in from the skies and capture their hearts with personal charm and a bag full of "moderate" policies.

The problem with this logic is that it distorts the reality of the political process. Most people aren't moderates at all. They have some conservatives beliefs, some liberal beliefs. They endorse some conservative policies, and they endorse some liberal policies. If I could have a dime for every self-described moderate who came out with some outlandishly winger-sounding ideal, I'd be a wealthy man.

Generally speaking, the electorate cleaves into those who are party-ticket voters and those who are not. The moderates are those whose loyalty is ambivalent and can be swung by the right appeal. Average this lump together and ask them about their specific opinions, and you'll probably come up with the perfectly "moderate" agenda. But if one "moderate" is really big on universal health care and really big on free trade while the other "moderate" is opposed to both, the two are as likely to cancel each other out if you endorse both universal health care and protectionism - even if both together form the "moderate mean." What it leads to are victories like Clinton's - cheap and narrow victories of chance against a fractiously divided opponent. If the Democratic Party wants to spend a decade warming the bench during fraticidal Republican spats, then by all means, let us "chase" the moderates...

The alternative, however, is for the Democratic Party to start re-investing in the concept of "leadership" - smart, articulate, convincing proponents of a package of policies (more on what those policies should be) which drive the political debate back in our direction. Even silly stunts like Gingrich's TV-Guide "Contract for America" that get our vision and our plans into the public debate. Republicans have been talking about privatizing Social Security since 1994. Their proposal is certainly still unpopular. But they've reduced the voltage on politic's third-rail, and the more they keep at it, the more they will innoculate themselves against election-based punishment for it. Democrats don't need to expunge every unpopular idea they have. What they need to do is start launching a credible advocacy campaign for their unpopular opinions, and wed that to a "go-slow" approach at the policy level for any policy that is widely reviled - building confidence that our principles are consistent, but that we have no revolutionary intentions to ram them down anyone's throat.

So, going forward into the debate about whither the Democratic Party, I think it important to reject this idea that we have to chase the center. We have to lead it. And leadership begins with the assumption that those who are asked to follow don't necessarily know where they are trying to go, but will follow whoever offers the best vision of a destination and a route to get there.

Come, imbibe my potion...

one draught and all your defeats will be transformed into victories. I offer you the bitter brew of denial.

Liberals, we didn't lose the election! It was stolen from us! Somehow, the record turnout by Republicans in nearly every district of the country was merely a mirage... a phantasm sent by the cruelest of the Fates to obstruct your plans and deliver you into darkness.

Reject it! You really won a majority! It was just so silent nobody can hear its screams of protestations.

George W. Bush went to Iraq to discover weapons that didn't exist.

Paranoid Democrats nation-wide are going to the election results to discover a majority that didn't exist.

Please, my fellow Democrats. Be more like Bush. You must be prepared to destroy our democracy in your efforts to save it. Reject empirical evidence. Bend the truth, bend the facts, bend your very brains themselves to win back our mangled victory from the jaws of defeat.

My First Reactions

My, what an election! I've been reticent to weigh in with an immediate post-election reaction, because I figured a few days to cool off and sort things out would do me some good. And, I'm feeling better now. Some reflections on Tuesday's elections:

1. Congratulations, President Bush: I have to hand it to him. He won, and he won well. Over the last few days I've had to spend quite some time trying to wean despondent liberals away from the comforting illusion that this election was marred by some secret fraud. I've looked at the numbers, and I have to say that Bush won this election the hard way - by doing better than before almost everywhere. The Democrats incontestibly put on the best election of their life. We got within 100 thousand votes of the brass ring in Ohio, and Kerry netted 4 million more votes than Gore. And both of those candidates put Clinton's two election numbers to shame (he never did win a majority, I might remind you...). But Bush just turned it on at an even higher level. I'm obviously dejected that the wrong guy won. But at least he won the right way - by winning without technicalities. As I told one friend, it just doesn't pay to pretend against all evidence that a secret majority backs your point of view. That's what Communists do... and who wants to end up like that?
   
   
2. Congratulations, Senator Kerry: As you can see, Slate's already posed the question, "Why does America hate Democrats?" The question is inherently unfair. We won 48%, the President 51%. This was a vigorous and well-fought election. What's more, Kerry won more votes than even Ronald Reagan did in 1984. 55.9 million votes. We may have been defeated, but we didn't lose. This was the best Democratic campaign of my lifetime. It just wasn't good enough. Of course, we'll need to ask why we lost. And, more importantly, we'll need to ask how to win the next one. But we shouldn't let our defeat obscure our vision of just how well we did in this election.
   
   
3. Welcome to the Opposition: I find myself hoping that the Democrats will now come to terms with the outsideness of our new outsider status. More importantly than the Presidency, we got trounced in the Senate. The time has come to stop running on dire warnings of horrors to come, and start running as an opposition to what is. The Republicans have all the power, and as Democrats would do well to remember from their own time in power, with power comes corruption. A fiery Newt Gingrich began his party's reascendance by going after the ethical lapses of a House Majority leader. As the opposition, our party will be doing the nation a disservice if it doesn't ferret out abuses of power by the governing party and bring a spotlight to bear upon them. So, memo to Republican congressmen... be very scrupulous with those postage stamps.
   
   
4. The Republican Coalition: They've got a narrow but winning coalition right now. I disagree with Saletan that the way back to the big time is simply a matter of framing. It's also a matter of policy. The Democratic Party is going to need new policies, hopefully the kind of innovative policies that have always been the prerogative of the outsider party. More importantly, our goal shouldn't be to blunder into a majority by confusing a few befuddled suckers. That Republican juggernaut isn't invincible. There's a core Republican constituency that the Democratic Party can't have and shouldn't want - it's clear that there is in fact a values gulf dividing the "two Americas" and there's a moral hazard inherent in chasing the wrong demographic. But in the Republican tent, some folks are more equal than others. The trick is to identify ambivalent constituencies that have buoyed the Republican Party and to win them over, through genuine change, without sacrificing our core principles and beliefs. I'd pick Catholics and libertarians as the most vulnerable elements of their coalition, but I'll dwell on that at another time.
   
   
5. Hello, Federalism: It's clear that there's not just an ideological divide in America. There's a geographic one as well. Democrats would do well to push for a looser union. California just upped its top-tier income tax, we've committed to funding stem cell research, and we've proven an openness (through referendum, no less) to a wide variety of liberal-minded experiments. With newcomers to the Senate like DeMintt and Coburn, we should start pressing hard to let live and be let alone. We may be one country, but the best way to stay that way is to press ahead with multiple systems. I worry what a more autonomous South might decide to do, from my perspective of universal human rights, if the states were given a longer leash... but I worry more what a "Big Red Fed" is gonna' do to my beloved California.
   
   
6. Anti-Government: Liberals, take a deep breath and repeat after me - "It's their government." Are you counting on the judiciary to protect your rights from legislative encroachment? Give it up, now. That's a pipe dream. Roe v. Wade is doomed. If you want a consolation prize, consider a post Roe union with 30 states preserving a woman's right, and NARAL turning into a Greyhound travel agency. Gays like me? Don't look to the courts - we can hope for stare decisis to keep Lawrence in place for another 20 years. But in the meantime, we got to change some hearts and minds and get some laws passed. If we can't do it, then the writing's on the wall. The Democratic Party has gotten sucker-punched by issues delivered through the back-door of the democratic process. As for the laws we may or may not see in the next few years that will strike some of us as restricting essential liberties... I've got one mantra for you to keep chanting - "we seek the consent of the governed, not just their compliance."
   
   
7. Suffrage: On Election Night, I spoke with a friend of mine who lives in Ohio. He had gotten to his polling place at 7am, and waited in line for an hour and a half before having to give up and go to his job. He came back later and waited in line for another 5 and 1/2 hours. Reports came in from all across the country of people waiting in 6 or 7 hour lines just to vote. Elsewhere in this country, the entire process didn't take longer than twenty minutes. I'm willing to concede that those who abandoned the line probably didn't make a decisive difference to the race's outcome. But it's simply unacceptable to have people waiting in six-hour lines on a work day. I won't demand a particular solution. Perhaps it's expanded early voting. Perhaps it's an election-day holiday. Perhaps it's precincts equipped to deal with maximum turnout rather than anticipated turnout. But I hope we can all agree that no American citizen should be unable to cast their vote by a failure of the process.
   
   
8. E-voting: I still think this is a very bad idea (though I vote this manner myself). The paper trail would ameliorate it. But as a man who works professionally with computers, I think it's a fool's errand to entrust our nation's electoral process to them.
   
   
9. George W. Bush: My opinions of him should be well known, but just in case the aren't, I've hated him and thought he didn't deserve to be President. Morally, that may still be true, but he clearly earned the Presidency this time, whether deserving or no. I'm willing to give him a small "grace period." My private hope? That a second term will set him free from concern for his re-election and we'll find him a very different President than he's been. I've heard Ashcroft is retiring, which strikes me as good news. There's likely a Supreme Court appointment coming. Powell may be replaced. Rumsfeld should be. I'm not expecting a second term to be much different from the first, in which case I expect I'll soon be back to where I was. But, as long as I find the man a moral mediocrity, I can certainly hope that he's been a complete hypocrite all this time, and the second term will show a new man, beholden to noone and guided by some inner light less dim than what we've beheld...
   
   
10. Gay Marriage: We gays got a long road ahead of us. I don't believe our rights will mean a thing until they've been democratically ratified through the legislative or referendum process. I simply don't want my essential freedoms to hang upon the hooks of a judge's cloakroom. So, I figure I have a lifetime of hard work ahead of me persuading people that reciprocal love and reciprocal commitment are to be cherished wherever they're found. And, in that work, bitterness and resentment aren't going to help me one bit. But I hope you'll understand if I allow myself just one little burst of animosity: Fuck Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. And, more broadly, fuck all the voters who's primary rationale for voting Bush was fear of gay marriage. If there was some reason to think that gays already had the right to get married, I could understand this kind of thing. But a look at the generation under 30 shows me that the day is coming, and sliding constitutional padlocks onto the door of that emerging consensus really frustrates me. But, now that I've got that emotional reaction out of my system, we can revisit the issue's merits... as I'm sure I'll be doing for as many years as I'll be drawing breath...

Analyzing Defeat

So, we lost. Big time and fair and square. I'm in a period of reflection upon this. I invested a lot in the election, and I've got a lot to chew on after our defeat. Narrow, but substantial.

So, over the next few days, at no particularly guaranteed intervals and in no particular order, I'll be posting various elements of my emerging thought. I figure they'll break down into three categories:

1) Which way from here for the Democratic Party?

2) How to evangelize for my core beliefs and values (clearly not popular ones)?

3) What would New Liberalism look like? Why would it appeal to more people?

4) What have I misunderstood about the relation between evidence and reality? What have I misunderstood about politics?

5) Where next for me?

Hearkening Update

Email from a friend who received from a political operative:

As of 5 pm, John Kerry has gone up by over two points nationally. His
lead will increase to more than three. No one who is involved in the
exit poll operation or in any of the networks believe that Bush can win.

The only major surprise from the last update in that Kerry has gone two
points up in VIRGINIA. Also, the size of Kerry's showing in
Pennsyvlania (he's up by 14) is putting Hoeffel awfully close to
Specter. Daschle is still down, but not by as much. Knowles and
Salazar will win. Bunning's lead has fallen into the margin of error
and that race is too close to call. Castor looks like she's winning in
Florida. DeMint has pulled back ahead in SC but it's close.
Interestingly, North Carolina is now too-close-to-call, with four models
projecting Burr and three models projecting Bowles.

Internet Troubles

Won't be blogging much today in light of the massive server loads on everything. However, I've been following releases of early exit polls which indicate good news for Kerry. I've been following rumblings coming out of both parties, which indicate good news for Kerry. And just look at the latest results for Bush at Tradesports. He's lost 20 points since this morning! He is now trading at a 30% re-elect!

Truth Chases Fiction

Dismaying New from New Mexico:

She went to Valle Del Norte Community Center in Albuquerque, planning to vote for John Kerry. "I pushed his name, but a green check mark appeared before President Bush's name," she said.
Griffith erased the vote by touching the check mark at Bush's name. That's how a voter can alter a touch-screen ballot.
She again tried to vote for Kerry, but the screen again said she had voted for Bush. The third time, the screen agreed that her vote should go to Kerry.
She faced the same problem repeatedly as she filled out the rest of the ballot. On one item, "I had to vote five or six times," she said.
Michael Cadigan, president of the Albuquerque City Council, had a similar experience when he voted at City Hall.
"I cast my vote for president. I voted for Kerry and a check mark for Bush appeared," he said.
He reported the problem immediately and was shown how to alter the ballot.
...
In Sandoval County, three Rio Rancho residents said they had a similar problem, with opposite results. They said a touch-screen machine switched their presidential votes from Bush to Kerry.

Read this

Click this link

It's too bizarre to summarize. You'll laugh. Then maybe you'll cry. Then you'll probably start laughing again. Then you'll start to choke on your own snot because it's hard to laugh while crying. Then you'll just shake your head and wonder quietly to yourself "what the fuck?"

The Day Before...

Here's my averaged polling results for Monday November 1st. I'll put margins below:

Bush: Strong - 213; Weak - 19; Total - 232
Kerry: Strong - 203; Weak - 103; Total - 306

Bush Narrow Margins

(Average lead for Bush of 5 polls)
Nevada: Bush +2.80%
Colorado: Bush +2.80%
New Mexico: Bush +0.75%

Kerry Narrow Margins

(Average deficit for Bush of 5 polls)
Hawaii: Bush -2.67%
Minnseota: Bush -1.25%
Iowa: Bush -1.80%
Wisconsin: Bush -4.00%
Florida: Bush -1.40%
Ohio: Bush -0.20%
Pennsylvania: Bush -4.20%
New Hampshire: Bush -4.00%

That George Bush Charm

Only just now discovered the image below:

Apparently it comes from a story in his old Yale yearbook...

Here's the context that I found it in, if you care to double-check the photo's veracity. The photo apparently broke in the LA Times back in August.

Please, No...

Interesting article in The New Republic from Jason Zengerle on how the "Left Wing Media Conspiracy Didn't Emerge." The article does a survey of attempts by some so-called "liberals" to create a left-wing analog to the FOX News, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, New York Post, etc., etc. coordinate media machine. One of his big sources is David Brock, which some of you may remember as a Scaife-funded anti-Clinton zealot from the mid-90s. The idea that the liberal movement needs wingnuts poached from the margins of the far-right to make itself electorally viable is an insult.

Sure, the left takes some bruisings from bizarre episodes like the Swift Boat Veterans. But I can't think of a worse fate for America than to be captured between the conflict of two equally repulsive movements. According to David Brock:

"The disadvantage is in how you deliver your message," says Brock. "Rush [Limbaugh] reads their material on the air regularly. That's fifteen million people hearing that. I do go on Al Franken's show [on Air America] for half an hour every Wednesday, and [the nationally syndicated liberal talk-radio host] Ed Schultz's show for an hour every other Friday, but the reach isn't the same."

And this is a problem? Do we really want millions of people listening to slimeballs like David Brock?

If anything, the Democratic Party (certainly American liberals) need to double-down on the concept of "the national interest." The Democratic Party's a giant mess of an organism right now, but the inflow of anti-Conservatives to the party is a wonderful opportunity to break the special-interest death grip that has rendered the Party near obsolete and reorient the party to face the challenges confronting America with an eye to the broader issues. Lord help us if it becomes the moment the party sells out to the most cynical narcissistic firebrands who failed to cut it in the right-wing machine.

But if elections can't be won against the Republican Party without imitating it, then the nation's in grim trouble, indeed.

Friday Horse Race

The Final Edition

On the Tradesports Exchange, Bush continues to lead, albeit narrowly. The Bush Industrial Index stands at 3017.3 which is a pretty healthy figure. My absurdist Tradesports Popular Projection would give Kerry a win in the popular vote by a margin of 2.6 million votes, but Bush would win the electoral college with 276 votes. In order to win, Kerry would need to win in all of his favored states and pick up Wisconsin. The "Tradesports Scenario" would break as a tie if Iowa goes to Kerry but not Wisconsin or New Mexico.

Bush: Strong - 254; Weak - 22; Total - 276
Kerry: Strong - 242; Weak - 20; Total - 260

In the polls, the setup is much more favorable to Kerry. However, it should be warned that my methodology, which I stick to scrupulously, has been designed to counteract my wishful thinking. As daily tracking polls for critical swing states have begun to proliferate, it makes the results for states like Wisconsin or Florida somewhat arbitrary. These results represent an average of five polls, but the "swing polls" could have come from one source as easily as another, and had different polls met my criteria for inclusion, Bush could be winning several states that he's now losing. Anyhow, as it stands right now, there's a Kerry lead in the electoral college with 299 electoral votes. He is trailing in the popular vote projection by 1.1 million.

Bush: Strong - 202; Weak - 37; Total - 239
Kerry: Strong - 179; Weak - 120; Total 299

Understanding the Hundred Thousand

As you may know by now, Lancet has released a survey of "excess mortality" among civilians in Iraq which argues that 100,000 civilians have died as a direct result of the forces set in motion by the American invasion of Iraq. The method was to walk around from house to house asking people about family who have died since the invasion and then extrapolating the likely national total. On the one hand, this isn't a census of the dead, so it's not clear how much credence to assign it. On the ohter hand, it also catches things that previous surveys of hospitals and news accounts can't - the increased mortality directly attributable to rising lawlessness (as opposed to insurgent attacks) in the chaotic aftermath of the war.

Spencer Ackerman, over at The New Republic was somewhat skeptical of this staggeringly high number, and so he managed to get an interview with one of the scientists who helped conduct the survey and author its results. It's worth reading in full to get a handle on the methodology used, the amount of credence to ascribe to it, etc....

Understanding the Hundred Thousand

As you may know by now, Lancet has released a survey of "excess mortality" among civilians in Iraq which argues that 100,000 civilians have died as a direct result of the forces set in motion by the American invasion of Iraq. The method was to walk around from house to house asking people about family who have died since the invasion and then extrapolating the likely national total. On the one hand, this isn't a census of the dead, so it's not clear how much credence to assign it. On the ohter hand, it also catches things that previous surveys of hospitals and news accounts can't - the increased mortality directly attributable to rising lawlessness (as opposed to insurgent attacks) in the chaotic aftermath of the war.

Spencer Ackerman, over at The New Republic was somewhat skeptical of this staggeringly high number, and so he managed to get an interview with one of the scientists who helped conduct the survey and author its results. It's worth reading in full to get a handle on the methodology used, the amount of credence to ascribe to it, etc....

Worst Case Senario

This isn't the most likely tie scenario, but it seems to rank as the worst.


The scenario is predicated on Kerry losing both Ohio, Florida AND New Jersey but eking out a tie by narrowly carrying Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Mexico, Arkansas, and New Hampshire. Why is it worrisome?

Well, it has Kerry prevailing in 23 states while Bush carries 27 (pretty much the nearest to an outright majority of states Kerry seems likely to come). New Jersey and West Virginia would be two states with Democratic delegations backing a Republican candidate with Kerry winning the vote in a large number of states with Republican-dominated Congressional delegations. States with "conflicted leanings": Tennessee, West Virginia, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada (assume Texas goes Republican due to redistricting).

Criminey!

Interesting article on the phenomenon of double voting:

Other investigations revealed similar results elsewhere. The Orlando Sentinel found that 68,000 Florida voters are also registered in Georgia or North Carolina (the only two states it checked), 1,650 of whom voted twice in 2000 or 2002. The Kansas City Star discovered 300 "potential" cases of individual voter fraud, including Kansans voting in Missouri and St. Louisans voting in both the city and the surrounding suburbs.

Apparently, the number of double registrants is very large because not all states are diligent about removing voters who register elsewhere, or notifying elsewheres when new voters register in their districts. The number of "double voters" is far smaller.

But, y'know what they say...[finish that thought, cause I can't find a good aphorism]

Breaking News

UPDATE: Here's the link, with the "framing allegation worse than I realized:

The details about "Caging" and what the Republicans have planned to do are coming into view. The Republicans have been compiling lists (probably in the tens of thousands) of voters whom they have culled from lists of those newly registered, mailing registered mail to them, preparing lists of those who did not accept the Republican Party mailing, and then challenging their right to vote.

A correspondent has forwarded the following article to me (not yet available through Google News from a publication without subscription requirements):

ELECTION BOARD THROWS OUT 976 CHALLENGES BY REPUBLICAN
PARTY

GOP Challenger Barbara Miller Could be Indicted on
Felony Charges

AKRON, Ohio - The Summit County Board of Elections
abruptly threw out 976 challenges of voter eligibility
by the Republican Party today after Barbara Miller,
the challenger, revealed that she did not have any
personal information about the eligibility of any of
the challenged voters.

Instead, Miller said that her challenges were based on
a list of "undeliverable mail" given to her by the
Republican Party. The list was based on a GOP mailing
sent to registered voters throughout the state of
Ohio.

After Miller presented this as her evidence, Russell
Pry, Summit County Election Board member, told her
that she could be indicted for signing a sworn
challenge without any personal knowledge about the
eligibility of the voters. Miller's reaction was to
plead the Fifth Amendment.

Catherine Herold, the first voter challenged at the
hearing, told the board that she believes that she was
on the undeliverable list because she "refused the
letter when she saw that it came from the Republican
Party." She and many others expressed anger that their
eligibility had been challenged - which could force
them to vote by provisional ballot on Nov. 2.

"This is an outrage," Herold said. "I feel as if I am
being called a liar for claiming to live at my
address."

The Summit County Board of Elections has indicated
that they plan to call in the Department of Justice to
conduct a criminal investigation of the challenges.

Following is an excerpt from a transcript of today's
hearing (for email copies contact Emilie Karrick).
Catherine Herold and Neil Klingshirn, attorney for
several of the challenged voters, are available for
interviews.

What if it ties?

Below is a map indicating which party has a majority in which state's House delgation, based upon the 2002 House elections. I'll check the Constitution later to see if Senators should be included too and whether the 2004 House will make the decision or the 2002 House. But, preliminarily, what it indicates is that, in the event of an electoral college tie, Bush would crush Kerry in the House.


Red states are predominately Republican, Blue states Democrat, and Green states are equally divided between the two parties. If states were to vote on a strictly party-line basis, then Kerry would get a minimum of 15 states, 18 if you include the evens, and 19 if DC gets a vote (again, I'll check later).

However, more interesting is the evident lack of an overlap between any given state's Congressional delegation and the likely party its voters will support in the Presidential election. For example, if Arkansas and Tennessee were to go to Bush but their delegates were to vote for Kerry, what would happen? Would Congressional delegations feel any compulsion to vote for the candidate favored by their state rather than the one favored by the party?

The map below shows which states would be inordinately likely to face exactly such a dilemma - a Congressional delegation of one party representing a state that had tried to vote for the opposite party. In this map, "yellow" indicates no likely conflict, "blue" indicates a potential "Blue state" with a Republican delegation, and "red" indicates a potential "Red State" with a Democratic delegation. ("green" still represents a split delegation).


As you can see, there are as many as 12 states which might likely test the loyalty of their Republican congregations by endorsing Kerry (though some such as Missouri are greater stretches than others) and 6 states which might end up endorsing Bush against the party affiliation of their Representatives.

I'd imagine this situation could prove to be a true mess were the election to end in a tie. Later this evening, I'll try and come up with actual potential tie scenarios and nail down the exact Constitutional provisions for an electoral tie.

Equally Bizarre:

Man held in 'political' screwdriver attack:

Steven Soper liked his girlfriend, but authorities say he liked President Bush more.

When his girlfriend suggested this week she wanted to vote for Kerry, officials allege it was too much for the 18-year-old Bush backer. A political argument prompted him to end their two-year relationship — and that was just for starters.

Sheriff's officials say Soper, a Marines recruit, later became so upset that he dragged 18-year-old Stacey Silveira into his suburban Lake Worth home, beat her and held her hostage with a screwdriver.

The attack led to a standoff with a Palm Beach County Sheriff's deputy that ended with Soper being zapped with a Taser. It culminated in his arrest, endangering his chances of serving in the Marines.

Getting Ugly

My country... This one's really despicable, and the most worrisome thing done to a Republican that I've yet seen in the election run-up:

Representative Katherine Harris, Republican of Florida, and a group of supporters were almost hit by a speeding car on Tuesday evening, and the driver was charged on Wednesday with aggravated assault, the police said.

The driver, Barry M. Seltzer, 46, of Sarasota, told the police that he had been exercising "political expression."

Bystanders said a silver Cadillac sped through an intersection here and swerved onto the sidewalk. The car headed toward Ms. Harris before swerving and driving away, the police said. No one was injured.

Witnesses gave the car's license plate number to the police, who tracked it to Mr. Seltzer, a real estate investor and a registered Democrat. He went to the police station on Wednesday and said that Ms. Harris's supporters had been standing in the street, impeding traffic.

"I intimidated them with my car," Mr. Seltzer told the police. "I was exercising my political expression. I did not run them down."

Oh, why OK then... you just wanted them to think you were prepared to kill them. No problemo...

My Endorsement - John Kerry

In another election, he might not get my vote. Though I do believe he's a good man and his biography is a testament to his commitment to the service of this country, I don't find him a particularly strong nor compelling politician. I think his manner of speech is genuinely incoherent, which is a poor quality in a leader. I believe his tendency to switch topics mid-sentence illuminates his reputation for indecisiveness - he's not simply an incoherent speaker - he's an incoherent thinker. Not all the time (as shown by his debate performance), but certainly by nature (as shown by his extemporizing). I look forward to a Kerry administration with a good deal of trepidation.

But I think he does bring certain strengths into office. It'd be a welcome sight to see the adults return to Washington. Given the talent pool he's likely to draw from, I expect we will see more pragmatists and fewer visionaries, which strikes me as a good thing. I think he brings a broader perspective than the current President. Unlike President Bush, Kerry understands that, though a good offense may score points, no team is likely to be a contender if it can't play well on both sides of the field. I trust he will make good on his word to invest resources into shoring up domestic security at home. Even his innate defensiveness could prove a virtue, focusing his attention on inconvenient issues that need to be addressed.

I expect he will be cautious, more cautious than I would like in world affairs. I don't expect him to confront our loathsome allies in the Middle East, despite the necessity of doing so. But a timorousness abroad may be exactly what we need if America is to "reload the guns" of its power - military, political, and moral. Our moral credibility is spent. The domestic consequences of supporting our policies and agendas has grown so severe in many countries that reflexive anti-Americanism has become a useful political strategy - for many of our allies as well as our enemies. Our military is over-extended and facing strategic setbacks at the hands of jihadists with rifles and home-made bombs. I do expect John Kerry to make some progress in restoring our "ammunition" in each of these respects.

Most importantly, though, I am voting to defeat George W. Bush. I was never happy with the manner in which he came to office, and would welcome a change of power in Washington for no other reason than to prove our democracy is still functioning properly.

But, my feelings are much stronger than that. Over the course of the last four years, I have watched George W. Bush's character unfold before the nation, and I have been repulsed by what I have seen. I'm tempted to recite the litany of petty indicators and grievances which mark me as a "Bush-hater," but I will limit myself to just one - his decision to taunt the Iraqi resistance to "bring 'em on." The audacity of a sitting President - probably the most physically secure man on the entire planet; guarded by batteries of the world's most professional officers and attended by batteries of the world's most competent physicians - jocularly enticing America's enemies to attack our troops speaks volumes about the character of this president. As they have indeed "brought 'em on" - and on and on by the thousands - the President has betrayed no remorse for having made light of the terrible consequences of his actions. Many times he's talked about the human costs of his decision to wage this war in Iraq. But he betrays his callousness each time he denies the truth of the mounting troubles in that country. I don't doubt he genuinely mourns for every fallen life and every wounded soldier. But I don't believe he genuinely feels responsible for them. I don't believe George W. Bush has the proper appreciation for the gravity of his office nor the consequences of his actions to hold the position of President of the United States.

On the level of policy, this President has disgraced my country, and thereby humiliated me, time and time again. His failure to realize his vow to capture Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" three years after the attack on the World Trade Center has made a mockery of United States power. To this day he continues to treat Afghanistan as a "victory" in the war on terror, despite obvious evidence that the enemy remains upon the field inflicting casualties on United States forces three years after the invasion. He prematurely declared victory in Iraq, again making our nation look like fools who fail to grasp the strategic nature of war, preferring short orgies of violence followed by shameless posturing to the measured and determined achievement of our goals by peace or by force. His overstatement of the case for war in Iraq has damaged American credibility, both at home and abroad. His decision to abandon a second Security Council resolution after vigorously pressing for it exposed America as a hypocrite on the importance of international law. His Administration's decision to hold American citizens for years without trial or charges, then release them without trial or charges when the Supreme Court ruled against this practice, has made a mockery of our respect for our own laws. The lawlessness of Abu Ghraib that stained America's honor, and the refusal to hold those most responsible - Secretary Rumsfeld - for allowing that lawlessness to develop is a colossal moral failing. To the extent that Bush's actions reflect upon all of us, he has caused me great shame as an American patriot.

Domestically, I feel Bush's fiscal profligacy has needlessly injured this country, constraining its ability to face both its apparent challenges and the unanticipated needs of the future. I find his endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment to our Constitution to be a monstrous act of cynicism aimed at one of America's most unfairly reviled minorities. The sneering disdain he expressed for Massachusetts at the debates strike me as an excellent example of his penchant for divisiveness - a willingness to carve Americans themselves into those who are "with us" and those who are "against us."

So, I will vote for Kerry next week. I may do so with some nervousness for the next four years. But I won't do so with even the slightest remorse.

Compare and Contrast

War is a continuation of politics by other means - Clausewitz

Political Objectives - 4 Results:

• "There can be no peace, in the President's opinion, if people use suicide bombings as a way to achieve their political objectives." - Ari Fleischer, April 1, 2002
  
  
• "But obviously, it's another example of the kind of problem we've got with those who resort to terror to try achieve their political objectives as happened in that case" - Dick Cheney, September 7, 2004
  
  
• "Is the President troubled at all that members of his own political party, at a time of war, days after Americans were killed in a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, would have the gall to use federal resources designed to protect the country against terrorists in order to pursue partisan political objectives?" - Reporter to Ari Fleisher, May 16, 2003

Military Objectives, 11 results:

• "With new tactics and precision weapons, coalition forces demonstrated that we can achieve military objectives while directing violence away from civilians." - Declaration of Victory in Iraq, May 2, 2003
  
  
• "Sometimes people say to me, well, you know, clarify the military objectives. There's no difficulty about doing that at all. It's al Qaeda and the terrorist network shut down, it's the Taliban regime out, it's a new regime in that is broad-based, and it's a decent future for the people of Afghanistan, based on some stability and progress, not based on a regime that oppresses its people, treats its people appallingly, is a threat to regional stability, and basically thrives on the drugs trade." - British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, November 7, 2001
  
  
• "In addition to pursuing our nation's military objectives overseas, our Defense Department is making a critical contribution to protect our national citizens and infrastructure as well." - Tom Ridge, November 27, 2001
  
  
• "I assured him exactly what I've been assuring the American people, that I've got the patience necessary to achieve our objective in the Afghan theater, and the objective is to bring the al Qaeda to justice, and to make sure that Afghanistan has got a stable form of government after we leave. I also told the Prime Minister that we're achieving our military objectives." - President Bush, November 9, 2001
  
  
• "The Air Force's global reach enables us to project our power anywhere in the world within a matter of hours. Its new tactics and precision weapons help us achieve our military objectives while minimizing collateral damage." - Vice President Dick Cheney, September 17, 2003
  
  
• "What's always important is in pursuit of the military objectives, as the United States does in Afghanistan, to always exercise every restraint to minimize those losses of life." - Ari Fleisher, July 23, 2002
  
  
• "A war on terrorism has begun, and while there has been success in achieving specific military objectives, the shape and dimension of the subsequent phases of the campaign will remain a work in progress for some time to come." Defense Fact Sheet, August 17, 2004

Just a coincidentally observed difference of terminology...

One Week Out

I've started monitoring the data on the race daily. I won't blog the daily results. But today is the first time I can remember that my method actually yielded a Kerry win. Don't read too much into it, as states like Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin are orbiting around a margin of error, and when four states flip to a two-point advantage there's no statistical reason to believe that the candidate is winning.

But, nevertheless, the electoral college as it stands right now:

Strong Bush - 189; Weak Bush - 60; Total Bush - 249
Strong Kerry - 203; Weak Kerry - 86; Total Kerry - 289

Up Al Qa Qaa Creek

Yesterday, in a briefing to reporters, Scott McClellan offered some defenses of the Administration on the al-Qa-Qaa matter which, if true, make for a pretty scary picture of this Administration's behavior. So, to look at the substance of McClellan's comments:

1) This issue is important: "When there are munitions missing, it's -- and we learn about it, it's always a priority. And as I pointed out, that's why we've already destroyed more than 243,000 munitions and have another nearly 363,000 on line to be destroyed. "

2) Bush reacted to it: "And the President wants to make sure that we get to the bottom of this. Now, the Pentagon, upon learning of this, directed the multinational forces and the Iraqi survey group to look into this matter, and that's what they are currently doing."

3) Bush didn't know until October 10th: "That's why I said, we were informed on October 15th. Condi Rice was informed days after that. This is all in the last, what, 10 days now."

4) The military did know or could/should have known sooner: "So -- and obviously there is an effort to go and secure these sites. The Department of Defense can talk to you about -- because they did go in and look at this site and look to see whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction there. So you need to talk to Department of Defense, because I think that would clarify that for you and set that record straight"

5) The military did not tell George Bush: "Well, the Iraqi government told the International Atomic Energy Agency on October 10th that these munitions or these high explosives were missing, because of looting that occurred sometime after April 9th, 2003... The IAEA informed the U.S. mission in Vienna first. And then -- and then, as I said, Condi was informed days after that and she informed the President."

This scenario really bothers me, because it would indicate that the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces isn't receiving important information needed to make the command decisions. Whether the munitions were looted before April 9th of 2003 or shortly thereafter, any operation which was able to "loot" 380 TONS of explosive materials would have to be of a size, scale, and sophistication to be obviously worrisome from a strategic point of view. If the President wasn't even informed that operations of this magnitude were being conducted during the war or its aftermath, then the only conclusion possible would be that his own military was misleading the President about the nature of the insurgency it was faced with. Such a datum as the events at Al Qa Qaa should, at the very least, have provided evidence that preparations were underway for a large-scale and widespread insurgency with some kind of high-level command-and-control capacity. That the interrogations of Abu Ghraib, for instance, yielded no clues as to the looters of 380 tons of munitions, nor their whereabouts, would further indicate a failure to make serious progress against enemies whose presence and operations could be reasonably deduced simply by looking at the operation at this facility.

Listening to the "generals on the ground" is all well and good, but that doesn't absolve Bush of his duties as Commander-in-Chief. And if those "generals on the ground" are suppressing information that the Commander-in-Chief needs to hear in order to make informed decisions, then there is a catastrophic breakdown in the chain of command.

The Case Against Kerry

I recommend watching the full thing:
Click Here

The Other Election

Don't forget to cast your vote

Registration Numbers - Colorado

The voter registration breakdowns for Colorado are an unsightly mess but here's the skinny:
Democrats: 936,496
Republicans: 1,114,576
Unaffiliated: 1,001,752
Third-Party: 12,403

No wonder its such a tight race. Unlike Nevada, where registered independents are about one third the number of registered partisans, in Colorado the unaligned represent a full third of the electorate. I can't determine what the registration picture looked like in November of But in Colorado's case, Kerry can win the state with a lead among independents. The necessary size of that lead will naturally depend on Democratic turnout.

Registration Numbers - Nevada

Here's how the voter registration picture looks in the state of Nevada. In January of 2000 the registration picture was:
Democrats: 380,302
Republicans: 379,302
Non-Partisan: 130,072
Third-Party: 26,861

By October of 2000 the picture had changed to:
Democrats: 365,593
Republicans: 366,431
Non-Partisan: 122,339
Third-Party: 24,607

Final votes for candidates in 2000 broke down as follows:
Democrat: 279,978
Republican: 301,575
Third-Party: 27,417

Here's the breakdown for January 2004:
Democrats: 339,503
Republicans: 352,730
Non-Partisan: 128,039
Third-Party: 26,215

And here it is for October 2004:
Democrats: 429,808
Republicans: 434,239
Non-Partisan: 161,620
Third-Party: 45,434

In 2000, the number of registered voters in each party declined over the course of the year. In contrast, in 2004, the number of registered voters has spiked dramatically for all parties. This indicates that the turnout is going to be quite high. Democrats failed to best the Republicans in the registration game despite an intense effort. Given the generally higher turnout rate of Republicans and Bush's comparatively stronger support amongst his own party, it's gonna' be a tough fight in Nevada. If non-partisan voters break significantly in Kerry's favor, he might squeak over the top. But recent polls suggest its unlikely.

Responding to a Reader

Reader Shahn Hogan comments:

Um, why on earth would you go to vote and NOT bring multiple forms of identification. These requirements are mailed to all registered voters weeks before the election.

I'm not sure whether Shahn has ever voted before. If he has, I'm sure he realizes that "multiple forms of identification" are not required to vote and never have been. To register, one must be an American citizen. To vote, one must be registered. That's it. There is no requirement that you have a driver's license or a credit card or a passport. Citizenship is the only requirement.

My fears.

OK. So, I'm a partisan Democrat. Republicans worry about mobs of dead people showing up to the poll. I worry about stuff like this:

By requiring identification only from newcomers who haven't visited the county clerk's office, hava entrusts local election officials to decide whether voters are who they claim to be. And it ultimately protects voters by telling states to set up rules for counting provisional ballots. "Hava does not require identification in order to have a vote counted," says Wendy Weiser, a lawyer with New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. But many Republican election officials are conducting this year's vote as if it does.

The article raises some distressing questions about the way in which HAVA may be used to demand photo ID of ALL voters at the polling place, thus preventing legitimately registered voters even those who are not newly registered from voting. It even comes with examples of Colorado Democrat voters who have been prevented from voting. Most worrisome graf:

Around the country, GOP officials are downplaying or ignoring hava's voter protections. South Carolina's election workers' manual--authorized by the state elections commission, which is chaired by a Republican--contradicts hava's provisional ballot requirements. "If a person presents himself ... without a valid [photo ID or registration certificate]," it says, "he/she should not be allowed to vote." In Colorado, where the chief election officer is also a Republican, the new voter registration form lists a driver's license or state-issued ID number as "required," even though the law allows other documents. And, in Bond's home state of Missouri, the law lets partisan poll workers waive ID requirements. It requires documents from "some government agency" or a post-secondary school at the polling place. (Poorer people are less likely to attend college.) But, if Ashcroft leaves his wallet in the car, he'll have no hassle. "Personal knowledge of the voter by two supervisory election judges is acceptable voter identification," says the law. Hypothetically, partisan election judges could waive in voters from their own party whom they "recognize," while barring others from the polling place.

Friday Horse Race

The penultimate edition....

I'm starting to think that TradeSports is an illustration of the fundmental foolishness of markets. But hey, that's just me. Bush's chances escalated sharply over the week, and the Bush Index (price of once contract in all 50 states) climbed back above 3,000. It presently stands at 3055.9. It's not that I think the market is wrong, but based on polling data, several close-call states seem radically overvalued - especially Colorado and Ohio. But we'll see. Here's the electoral outlook of the traders:

Odds

Bush: Strong - 254; Weak - 37; Total - 291
Kerry: Strong - 238; Weak - 9; Total - 247

Meanwhile, the race is turning into a nail-biter across the country if the polls are to be believed. In my projected popular vote, Bush is leading by about 800,000 votes. He is registering a slight edge in a broad number of states, but with the loss of Ohio he's only holding the electoral college by a slim majority. If early accounts of voter registrations are accurate, this doesn't bode well for Bush - as early evidence indicates there will be a number of new voters who don't appear in the polls. But don't pay any mind to my aspirational ramblings. If we just stick to the data at hand, here's the picture today:

Polls

Bush: Strong - 178; Weak - 98; Total - 276
Kerry: Strong - 186; Weak - 76; Total - 262

Notice, under this scenario, if you assume that green states break for Kerry (on the assumption that the challenger will do better among the undecideds), then Bush is the one skating on super-thin ice. The only states he can afford to lose are New Mexico, West Virginia and Nevada in this scenario. If he loses two of them, its over. Loses Iowa alone it's a tie. Anything else, it's Kerry's win.

If, on the other hand, you assume that remaining undecideds will skew towards Bush, then this race is already over.

Mystery Solved

Regarding the questionable registration of college kids in Florida, at any rate.

Here's the story:

Local elections officials said suspicious registration forms and questionable tactics also have been coming from a group working in Florida for the Republican National Committee. That group, Sacramento-based Arno Political Consultants, also is pledging to cooperate with investigators.

The company was hired for $136,000 to boost the number of registered Republicans in Florida. Owner Bill Arno said the work was conducted by a subcontractor who worked ``at an arms length.'' The subcontractor, Mark Jacoby, a California man who travels the county fulfilling voter registration contracts, did not return repeated calls seeking comment. His assignments took him to the Gainesville and Tampa areas. Arno insists his subcontractor did not operate fraudulently.

So, it appears the RNC may have hired someone to "boost Republican registration" and thus we find people with fake petitions re-registering college students as Republicans. Not to alter the numbers in the state - just to fulfill the terms of a contract. Petty enough for plausibility.

However, the consequences can nevertheless be quite severe:

Elections supervisors said the alleged scams could disenfranchise many students who are newly registered in their college counties but have already received absentee ballots from the counties of their permanent residence. If these students now submit the absentee ballot, supervisors will be forced to throw it out because only the most recent registration is active.

Crow Before Dinner

Well, if you remember, after the third debate, yours truly, amiable amateurish pundit, declared:

Kerry's contesting the Catholic vote. And quite frankly, I don't think Bush OR Rove have fully appreciated the difference between a traditionalist Catholic and a traditionalist evangelical Protestant. Bush's rhetoric seems custom-designed to alienate conservative Catholics. We'll know in less than a month whether I'm right on that, but my guess is that Kerry is going to crush Bush in the Catholic vote. Most Catholics know how difficult it is to square the religious positions of the Catholic Church with the civic obligations of an American citizen. Bush is unwarrantedly disdainful of that kind of "nuance." I can't say what a WASP in Atlanta will hear in that debate... but I suspect a Catholic in Atlanta is going to have second thoughts about Bush.

So, check out this article:

A Pew Research Center poll released Wednesday has Kerry winning among white Catholics 50%-43%--a huge change from the October 3 poll which had Bush leading 49% to 33%.

By comparison, George Bush beat Al Gore among white Catholics by about seven points.

An October 14 ABC News poll showed a similar dramatic shift.

Kerry's favorable vs. unfavorable rating among white Catholics before the debates was 36% vs. 50%. After the debate: 50% vs. 41%. Kerry improved across the board, but the shift was more stark for white Catholics than just about any other group the poll measured. (By comparison, his standing among women improved from 41% favorable vs. 42% unfavorable up to 53% vs. 38% after the debate.)

In both cases, the improvement seemed to come from undecided Catholics choosing Kerry, not Bush Catholics switching.

Neither poll teases out the causes for this, but in both cases the shift happened after the second and third presidential debates. It was in the third debate that Kerry had his most expansive declaration of his personal faith.

Sorry to brag, but it's nice to get at least one right... oh, and I find it interesting.

What's the deal?

OK. Once is weird. Twice is strange. Thrice? Unacceptable. And worst, I haven't a clue of why. Here's the story:

1. Oregon: "Students passing through the Park Blocks yesterday afternoon were shocked to discover that a group of petitioners may have misled them into changing their party affiliation to Republican on their voter registration."
   
   
2. Pennsylvania: "Students who signed a petition that was being circulated last month on the Blue Bell campus to legalize marijuana for primarily medicinal purposes have now learned they were registered as Republicans"
   
   
3. Florida: "Students at the University of Central Florida and two community colleges claim they were duped into switching their party affiliations from Democrat to Republican, campus police officials said Tuesday."
   

Anybody got any good conspiracy theories on WHY there might be an effort in swing states to deceptively register college students as Republicans? I'll accept any and all theories, and skullduggery by either party (or any third party) if it offers even a remotely plausible account for this behavior.

What's Wrong with Andrew Sullivan?

I confess, I've been reading him lately. I was really disgusted by his charge immediately after 9/11 that the "decadent left" (which he identified as America's coastal states) was going to pose a "fifth-column" to our efforts in Afghanistan. It still rankles as one of the most despicable sentiments ever issued by a pundit.

But, he's a smart guy, keeps writing for publications I read regularly, and represents an interesting combination of stances.

But then, sometimes... he's super creepy.

THE BEST LINE: Well, there are many in "Team America," which I saw again last night. (Hey, it's the only thing keeping me optimistic these days.) But my favorite was Susan Sarandon's last words, before she is hurled over a balcony and smashes into bloody little bits on the ground (yes, the scene drew cheers in the movie theater both times). Her last words to "Team America" are the classic Fonda-esque: "You will die a peasant's death." You just know she reads the Nation.

I have every intention of seeing Team America and expect I'll enjoy it. But that closing comment (in boldface) really seems to speak to the disconcerting part of him. What does it mean?

Does it mean that he relishes the fictional dramatization of Susan Sarandon's violent death because he believes she is in reality a Nation reader?

Does it mean that he believes Nation readers (of which I'm an almost always disapproving one) are all stuck-up assholes?

Does it mean what it seems at first to mean - that this representation of Susan Sarandon somehow validates his imperssion of who she is as a person?

I don't get it. But sometimes this guy strikes me as one loose bolt away from Coulter...

Fun with Baldness

Operation Clark County

An email from me, sent to the UK Guardian, responding to their Operation Clark County:

What an unfortunate decision on the part of your paper to launch this letter writing campaign! I have no doubt that your hearts are in the right place, but surely you must realize how patronizing this entire endeavor is. Just looking at the sampling of "prominent" letter writers, the condescension and exagerration oozes off the page.

John LeCarre: "While Bush was waging his father's war at your expense, he was also ruining your country."

Now, I'm a liberal and will be casting my vote for John Kerry. But an American with eyes in their head can see when an accusation outruns the available facts. Bush hasn't been good for this country, but no sincere American patriot is likely to agree that he's "ruined" us, nor that the normal exercise of our democratic process would lead to our "ruination" - even if it leads to another four years of Bush.

Antonia Fraser offers another slap in the face of an American patriot with her charge "if you back Kerry, you will be voting against a savage militaristic foreign policy of pre-emptive killing which has stained the great name of the US so hideously in recent times." Certainly, Bush's policies since he's taken office have embarrassed many of us Americans tremendously. But at the risk of pointing fingers here... our largest such "stain" is an occupation of Iraq done in alliance with... well, your country. Many Americans are willing to say that the war in Iraq was a mistake, and in many ways a disaster. But again, it is possible to overstate the case. Ms. Fraser offers an excellent template for doing so.

It's certainly gracious of Richard Dawkins to concede that our President's flawed character "doesn't justify an assassination attempt." But with roughly half of Americans inclined to vote for him and a substantially larger number ambivalent about his character, calling the President of our Republic a "sly, mendacious and vindictive" "idiot" isn't likely to win many friends in Ohio.

What really hurts me, as an American liberal, is my knowledge of how counter-productive this entire endeavor is. Liberal and Conservative, we are above all Americans, and as nasty as our partisan intramural politics might get, it does not change that fundamental fact. I imagine the likelihood of these letters swaying an undecided American voter is quite slim, though if one were to do so, I fear it would have an unintended effect of provoking the famous American stubborn streak (which, I'm told, we've inherited from our British ancestors).

The people of Britain are no shrinking violets in world affairs. Despite our feared "unilateralism", President Bush would never have possessed the political capital or credibility to launch his invasion of Iraq without the support of your Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

I humbly suggest that if you are concerned with making your impact felt, you turn your efforts closer to home. Like us, you live in a democratic society and have tremendous power as citizens. Those of us on "this side of the lake" have our own efforts to attend to. When we go to cast our ballots on November 2nd we will be forced to consider a wide range of factors - from how we shall face our domestic political challenges, to how our nation shall conduct itself on the world stage.

Most American citizens are aware that we have inherited an obligation towards the world larger than that of most foreign nationals. It is a consequence of history that American force is presently arrayed across the globe - more often than not, at the invitation of nations which have sought the protection we can bestow. American forces are on the front lines of, or prepared to intervene in, dozens of global flashpoints - Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Taiwan, the Korean peninsula, Japan, Germany, Eastern Europe. It's a tremendous responsibility and none of us have asked to inherit it. It may even well be true that we often do a poor job of living up to this responsibility (though some of us take pride that our empire is at least far less rapacious and far more humanely idealistic than other recent global empires we might name), but our responsibility remains. Throughout our history, the proper conduct of foreign affairs has been a source of vigorous debate, and this is one of those years where this issue is especially prominent. But we, as Americans, trust that our democratic process will yield the best result we can hope for - one based upon the outcome of a fair election conducted after vigorous debate.

The United States of America are our Republic, and this Republic is our responsibility. Though your opinion is welcome, your efforts to lobby individual voters will strike most Americans as incredibly rude. It certainly strike me as inappropriate. I hope you and your readers will consider channeling your admirable zeal into your own political system, where it is far more likely to have a beneficial effect. This misguided effort is unlikely to do anyone much good.

Sullivan makes a fair point

Here:

It does strike me as astounding that in four debates lasting six hours, the horrors of Abu Ghraib were never mentioned.

That was a failure of the moderators, wasn't it?

Didj'a catch Jon Stewart?

No? Well then, the following link is to a video clip:
Link

Whether you agree with Jon or not, it's good watching for any who enjoy rhetorical bloodsport.

Support the Troops?

Taking a look through Stars & Stripes, I found this article on a pending DoD rule barring the use of prostitutes by servicemembers. According to the article:

The Pentagon wants to add to the UCMJ a charge specifically addressing prostitution, and affixing a maximum punishment of one year of confinement and a dishonorable discharge for anyone convicted of paying a prostitute for sex.

A few days later, this article was followed by one summarizing the reactions of U.S. troops to this looming policy change:

Troops stationed in Germany are seeing red over the Pentagon’s proposal to add an anti-prostitution charge to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and it’s not just the glow from the local red light district. Military personnel and their families on Rhein Main Air Base, only minutes from one of the largest red light districts in the world, are angered by the Department of Defense announcement to change the UCMJ. Those interviewed largely agree that Germany is not the place to enforce such a law.

Further surveys of troop opinions were offered, here and here

Most intriguing is the firestorm of controversy this has unleashed in the Letters Pages.

For example, one soldier, based in Kuwait writes:

I am disturbed by the severity of the proposed anti-prostitution law as described in “DOD: Soliciting prostitute could end career” (Sept. 23), and that so many people agree with it because they feel prostitution is “morally wrong.” ... I think the Department of Defense really needs to reconsider this issue, and the gray areas in it, before the first freedom-loving GI’s life is destroyed by it.

Another, stationed in Okinawa, complains, "As if it’s not bad enough that we are already the laughingstock of the world for our puritanical views on sex, now someone feels the need to reinforce these beliefs with a new rule!" A former Air Force soldier now working as a contractor in Japan worries "I really don’t like the way this law (or rule) is headed. The change in policy by the extreme conservative minority seems to be the start to a whole series of rules to come."

One soldier, stationed in Okinawa wrote in to support the proposed rule, arguing:

An airman’s comment that “if it’s illegal in the United States, then it should be illegal for the U.S. military” is right on. However, it’s more than an issue of legality: It’s an issue of morality. It is illegal to engage in prostitution because sex outside of marriage is wrong, much less sex engaged in for profit and/or recreation — not to mention against Christian principles and God’s law. The overwhelming majority of Americans profess to be Christians, and yet, to even consider prostitution as situationally acceptable is in direct violation of the basic tenets of Christianity.

Another soldier agrees, asserting "I was appalled after reading a letter to the editor to find out there are Americans who think they can do whatever they want and be justified. Prostitution is not only illegal, it is also immoral and degrading to the men who purchase sex and the women who sell it."

In contrast, a long-time soldier writes: "OK, enough is enough. As a member of the Army for 13 years, I have seen some rather stupid rules and regulations. Do we really need this type of regulation [against prostitution]?"

One airman stationed in Japan tactfully asserts: "Making a law against prostitution part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is a little too personal. If this new law is implemented, you are adding and compounding problems. They’re demanding too much and the punishments will be too harsh."

One soldier colorfully notes:

When I read the article about the proposed ban on soldiers contracting prostitutes (“DOD: Soliciting prostitute should end career,” Sept. 23), I almost fell off my chair. Who could think of such a thing with a straight face?

An interesting debate...

Cheap? Sure...

OK. To be clear, I'm not endorsing this point of view, and I think it's the kind of speculation that wildly outruns any factual basis for believing it. But I'd recommend checking out this video clip comparing Bush's 1994 debate with his 2004 debates. Even though the premise - that it indicates Bush is suffering from presenile dementia - is absurd, the raw footage is interesting.

Shame

I once had an argument with one of my friends (not a U.S. citizen) about the relative difference between Iraqi prisons and American prisons. Naturally, I was of the opinion that our prisons, for all their faults, were still far from the level of unconscionable action of Iraq, and cited as an example the use of anal rape of prisoners by Saddam. To which he replied, "well, anal rape happens all the time in U.S. prisons."

I objected - that there wasn't evidence that it was done to such level, and at any rate, it wasn't an instrument of prison policy. In one of those sobering moments that happens to me from time to time, he simply stated (to paraphrase), "Geoff, get real. You Americans JOKE about prison rape. You all know it happens, and make no bones about it. Of course it's American policy. Americans endorse, or jokingly tolerate, prison rape so that people will try to avoid prison. These are PRISONS - these people use the bathroom on a schedule, and you seriously believe they can't prevent systematic prison rape?"

My skin's crawled every time I've heard a "Bubba" joke since. It was a humbling point.

Which brings up back to today's NY Times article:

Under the protocols of the prison gangs at Allred, gay prisoners must take women's names. Then they are assigned to one of the gangs.

"The Crips already had a homosexual that was with them," Mr. Johnson explained. "The Gangster Disciples, from what I understand, hadn't had a homosexual under them in a while. So that's why I was automatically, like, given to them."

According to court papers and his own detailed account, the Gangster Disciples and then other gangs treated Mr. Johnson as a sex slave. They bought and sold him, and they rented him out. Some sex acts cost $5, others $10.

Last month, a federal appeals court allowed a civil rights lawsuit that Mr. Johnson has filed against prison officials to go to trial. The ruling, the first to acknowledge the equal protection rights of homosexuals abused in prison, said the evidence in the case was "horrific."
...
Mr. Johnson's suit says he begged prison officials to move him to a unit called safekeeping, where white and Hispanic homosexuals, former gang members and convicted police officers lived. He asked seven times, in writing.

The officials did nothing, saying Mr. Johnson's claims could not be corroborated. At prison hearings, Mr. Johnson said, officials would take pleasure in his plight. They suggested that he was enjoying the rapes, he said.

Mr. Johnson said they told him he had two choices. One was to fight. The other was to engage in sex. The officials deny they mishandled the complaints and the ugly comments attributed to them.

Carl Reynolds, the general counsel of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which runs the Texas prisons, said Mr. Johnson's complaints were properly handled.

"These allegations were investigated by the internal affairs branch of our agency," he said. "There seems to have been a lot of doubt about his motives and his ability to present evidence."

You know, I really do believe this is an ongoing human rights catastrophe which puts a really dark stain on this nation's soul...

This is seriously creepy.

A memo sent to MTV's Rock the Vote by Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee (emphasis added):

It has been brought to the attention of the Republican National Committee - and was confirmed in the Los Angeles Times yesterday - that your organization is sponsoring and promoting a false and misleading Internet campaign designed to scare America's youth into believing that they may be drafted to serve in the military.

Int he Times article your Political Director said, "I don't see why candidates get to talk about war all day long and we can't talk about a draft." Yet, as you must be aware, this urban myth regarding a draft has been thoroughly debunked by no less than the President of the United States, who explicitly stated, "We don't need the draft. Look, the all-volunteer Army is working...," as well as the Vice President, who explained, "And the notion that somebody's peddling out there that there is a secret plan to reinstitute the draft, hogwash, not true." Additionally, the Secretary of Defense, "heatedly, denied yesterday that the military plans to bring back the draft and boost reserves and National Guard callups after the November election.'That is aboslute nonsense,' Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. 'It's absolutely false that anyone in this administration is considering reinstituting the draft."

In light of the above statements, the only conclusion to be drawn is that your Rock the Vote "Draft Your Friends" campaign is being conducting [sic] with malicious intent and a reckless disregard for the truth. As a "non-partisan" organization that enjoys the benefits of being formed under §501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, you have an obligation to immediately cease and desist from promoting or conducting your "Draft" campaign.

The Republican National Committee shares the goal of your organization to encourage voter registration and "empower young people to change the world." ...We've found younger votes care about the same issues that older Americans care about; winning the War on Terror, creating jobs, improving our public schools, making health care more affordable, etc.

It is unfortunate that you feel the need to engage in a misinformation campaign regarding an alleged draft to energize young voters. This is the sort of malicious political deception that is likely to increase voter cynicism and in fact decrease the youth vote, as well as raising serious legal issues regarding the political motivations of your efforts.

It's hard to find a way to comment on this letter without sounding... uh... "shrill." I'd like to think that it's just universally obvious to Americans why we don't think it's kosher for politicians to intimidate private organizations and accuse them of near treason for merely discussing issues. I find it particularly galling that the memo's logic rests upon the "thorough debunk[ing]" of our President - as if skepticism towards Bush should be an actionable offense.

But hey, I strive to be fair. So, let's go visit Rock the Vote and see what they're saying that's so "malicious":

A NEW MILITARY DRAFT?

It's on everyone's lips. And it directly affects YOU.

There's no question about it: the United States military is being stretched thin. Our Armed Forces are not only on active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in some areas of the former Soviet Union, South Korea and Europe.

At a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week about post-occupation Iraq, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) thrust the issue of reinstituting a military draft right into the public debate. "There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future. Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" The Senator went further and argued that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."

The Nebraska Republican added, "those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class." The draft, he argues, would spread the responsibility of military service in Iraq equally among all Americans.

Senator Hagel's remarks come on the heels of statements by both the U.S. General in charge of American forces in Iraq, General John Abizaid, as well as Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who are insisting that the United States needs more soldiers to help with the situation in Iraq.

These leaders are not the only ones talking about the looming personnel crisis in our military. Options that don't include a draft have also been presented by other members of Congress, including a proposal by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) to move forces that are currently stationed in Europe to Iraq.

The push to reinstate the draft is not a one party issue. It has support from both Republicans and Democrats alike. Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY), a prominent African American leader, has been a long time supporter of reinstating a draft. "As a veteran, I strongly believe that fighting for our country must be fairly shared by all racial and economic groups. Nobody wants to go to war, but the burden of service cannot fall only on volunteers who, no matter how patriotic, are attracted to the military for financial reasons."

Why all of the sudden is there interest by politicians in the draft?

These recent statements stem from a growing belief that the U.S. government's original plan to scale back our military presence in Iraq by this summer will be stalled by the continuing difficulties there. Despite the President's promised June 30 th deadline to give back control of Iraq's government to the Iraqis under the United Nations, it's not clear under the current state of affairs when our military role there will begin to wind down even if we hand over power on time.

Why all of the sudden, should YOU be interested in the draft?

You are the generation of Americans that would be drafted into military duty, not the politicians talking about it. And so we ask you. Do you think the draft is FAIR? Our country was a different place in the 1970's, when the last draft occurred. We have new factors to consider in 2004:

• In 2004, women serve in the military--many have died in Iraq. Back in the day, women were not drafted. Should women be drafted today?
  
• In 2004, its "don't ask, don't tell." The military's policy towards homosexuals in the military prevents them from serving openly. Should the military discharge draftees who indicate their sexual orientation when asked to serve?
  
• In 2004, nearly two-thirds of high school graduates are enrolling in college. During the last draft, this number was lower and college students could defer the draft in order to finish school. With more draft eligible people attending college, should the United States continue that policy?

Some things to think about.

Now, let's leave aside questions of whether this is somehow less extreme than something to which Gillespie is responding to. After all, he's allegedly responding to an LA Times Article (at the time of this posting, the LA Times website was down) in which the offensive comment was, to quote Gillespie "I don't see why candidates get to talk about war all day long and we can't talk about a draft."

His response? You can't talk about the draft, because the President says it won't happen. Never mind that the campaign is about voter registration... which last I checked had the potential to impact more races than just the President's... and despite the very real record of public debate by elected officials on the merits of the draft, including even a floor vote on the issue.

What Gillespie seems to be saying is, "don't talk about this issue, because young people don't care about it, and the President rules it out. And you may face legal consequences if you continue to discuss it."

What I don't hear Gillespie saying, which would seem to give him a point I could at least respect is - "your campaign is misrepresenting the President's position and creating a false impression that he supports instituting a draft." If that were the case, I could see how Gillespie's concern and threat were warranted. But he's simply saying don't talk about this. It could hurt the President.

I find that despicable.