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.

Friday Horse Race

Not much new to report.

In the Tradesports exchange, Bush is slightly lower than last week. The Bush Industrial Average (the price of one contract in every state) stands at 2953.6, about a 30 point drop since last week. Kerry's position has improved but it has more to do if Kerry's going to have a chance:

Odds

Bush: Strong - 254; Weak - 30; Total - 284
Kerry: Strong - 243; Weak - 4; Total - 247
Tied: Iowa (7)

In the averaged polls, Bush's lead slipped some more, with his lead in the projected popular vote falling to 1.25 million. Bush is still winning the electoral college handily, but those swing states are starting to spin on their pivots.

Polls

Bush: Strong - 206; Weak - 83; Total - 289
Kerry: Strong - 196; Weak - 53; Total - 249

Mary Cheney's Privacy

I hate to see so many people of so much integrity giving a pass to what can only be considered gay baiting. Mary Cheney doesn't have to wear the weight of the world on her shoulders, and nothing Dick Cheney has stated justifies the way that family is being treated. Some more evidence for presuming bad motives on the part of Kerry & Edwards:

• August, 2004: "As for Mary refusing to be questioned about her sexual identity, she is not obliged to do so. Nor is she obliged to be a gay rights activist just because she's gay. Her responsibility to the campaign is to support her father - nothing more and nothing less"
  
  
• February, 2004: Now that Mary, 34, is a senior campaign official, the Web site hopes to shame her back into the spotlight. Still, the effort's ultimate target isn't Mary but her dad's boss. This week they plan an e-mail ad picturing Mary's face on a milk carton. HAVE YOU SEEN ME? it asks
  
  
• September, 2000: The position that Mary Cheney finds herself in is hardly unique. Other gay and lesbian children of conservative politicians—from Chastity Bono to Dee Mosbacher—have had to strike a balance between relationships with their families and belief in gay rights. Do one’s loyalties lie on one side, the other, or somehow on both? The same tension has played itself out across thousands of dining tables in families without famous politicians at the head of them.
  
  
• September, 2004: "The absence on stage of Mary Cheney followed a series of attacks on her and the Vice President by Illinois Republican Alan Keyes. The Senate hopeful called Mary a "sinner" and a a "selfish hedonist." "
  
  
• This is just funny: Hard-hitting reporting on Mary Cheney's efforts to get into Baghdad before the Iraq war as a human shield: "American Vice-president Dick Cheney would soon come to the Jordan capital to "give a lecture" to the daughter"
  
  
• August, 2004: "A host of influential social conservatives dropped their collective jaw, with Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention saying, "If it were Cheney running for president, it would guarantee the defeat of the Republican ticket"
  
  
• July, 2004: Yet the crushing July 12 defeat of FMA in the Senate -- and the critical role the Cheney family played in it -- warrants a second look at Mary Cheney's political acumen and courage. By avoiding a public spat with her father and playing the insider's role of the loyal opposition, she may have helped bring down an amendment that proposes to write anti-gay animus into the nation's founding document.
  
  
• September, 2004: "It's disappointing - but not surprising that a father would stand up for his daughter," agreed Georgene Rice, spokeswoman for the Defense of Marriage Coalition, the group backing Constitutional Amendment 36. Party leaders described the issue as too private for public debate. "His family situation involving his daughter is very personal and if you ask me, it's nobody's business. Parents don't get to decide the lifestyle of their children," said Kevin Mannix, chairman of Oregon's Republican Party. ... While Republicans are playing down the issues raised by Mary Cheney's presence in a party which opposes gay marriage, proponents have cited her as a weak link in the Republican's conservative armor. Nationally, gay rights groups have attempted to use Mary Cheney as a lever against her conservative father
  
  
• February, 2001: "it’s unlikely that she will make any public statements about the Administration’s positions on gay and lesbian issues—partly, said Witeck, because “activism is just not part of her complexion"
  
  
• August, 2004: "If Ms. Cheney was gratified by his remarks about gay marriage, she has not let it show, two campaign aides said. But aides say she was clearly displeased the next day to find the cameras of the traveling press corps craning for shots of her face. "She does not seek the limelight," said Mary Matalin, an adviser to Mr. Cheney and friend of the family."
  
  
• June, 2004: "A new Internet ad campaign launched on Monday targets US Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter Mary and her silence about the Bush administration's support for the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage."
  
  
• October, 2004:"Mary Cheney has been a controversial figure, both within the Republican party (for being openly gay) and within the gay community (for being openly Republican, and not the Log Cabin kind). She has been unable to escape the public eye despite repeated attempts to keep a low profile, and her sexuality seems to be a lightning rod for both Democrats and Republicans, as evidenced by conservative Illinois Republican Alan Keyes's recent description of Mary Cheney as "a selfish hedonist" on a radio talk show."
  
  
• Premeditated Gaybaiting:On August 26 Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards took Cheney to task on the gay marriage issue using unusually harsh words at a Colorado forum that included undecided voters. Edwards, responding to a question about the Democratic ticket’s stance on civil unions, referenced Cheney’s remarks by noting that “the vice president disagrees with the president on this.” Then referring to Cheney, Edwards said sarcastically “Somebody forgot to tell him what he was supposed to say I guess.”
  
  
• October, 2000: "The Cheneys repeated their assertion that Mary's sexual orientation was a private family matter. When pressed, candidate Cheney was adamant. "I'm simply not going to discuss that aspect of Mary's life," Mr. Cheney said of his daughter"
  
  
• DearMary.Com. Too despicable to merit comment.
  

Letter to Sullivan

Look, Andrew. I don't know what your story is with your family, but family gets REALLY complicated. And I'm sure it gets even more complicated when your conservative Christian Republican father starts going "off-reservation" in front of Republican donors about his opinions on your right to get married. You're a gay dude, you KNOW that Mary Cheney's been catching shit within our community for "disappearing" lately. And I'm pretty sure you DO know that this "disappearance" has had something to do with the damage that Cheney's relationship with his daughter was having on his career prospects. The Dems are trying to draw this out, and they're trying to draw it out because they know exactly how uncomfortable it makes Cheney. This article today articulates what I've been trying to tell people more elegantly than I've managed to say it myself, while identifying something going on in OUR community that's been bothering me for months (years in some cases):

-------------------

But then, at the Republican National Convention last month, Mary held her own National Going-Back-In Day. Whether by personal choice or out of family pressure, she did not appear on stage with the rest of the Cheneys after the vice-presidential acceptance speech, or with the Bushes during the closing moments of the convention. And my guess is that even if Mary "had" taken her rightful place onstage, it would have been without her partner.

For this, Mary Cheney has been pilloried, even though gay people are in comparable situations all the time across America. The big difference is that our fathers aren't vice president, and our family dramas aren't nationally televised. Consider, however, the times you've been asked by a family member to be "discreet" - say, when your father bemoaned your plans to march in the local gay-rights parade, because his boss might see you on the TV news; or when your mother asked you not to complain because your same-sex partner wasn't invited to a family wedding.

In a strange way, we have more in common with Mary Cheney than we would like to think. Maybe that's why we all love to hate her so much, because she "is" us

-----------------------------
I've very much appreciated your standing up against the bullies in DC who are trying to destroy the careers of gay Republicans. It shocks me to see you adopting such a double standard to the attempts of a gay person to BALANCE the consequences of their orientation with their efforts to accomplish their agenda.

This comment didn't fall out of the sky without a context. Cheney did openly acknowledge his gay daughter back in August, and he's caught a lot of shit for it. If Kerry's comment was sincerely motivated by a sense that it's just so perfectly normal in this world that one can mention such a thing completely off the cuff, that'd be one thing. But the comment is dropped in a context of Kerry trying to highlight an element of Cheney's private family life that he has been trying to downplay.

It's true that Cheney's love for his daughter and public embrace of her has exposed him to some potential consequences. But we're gay people. Just because Cheney can be damaged by bringing attention to his admirable treatment of his daughter doesn't mean he SHOULD. To argue that this is all just so much innocence on Kerry's part is the height of wilfull naivete.

Cheney hasn't just publicly embraced his daughter. He's also publicly tried to bring that aspect of his public life back under control. That is his right.

Feeling the need to share this.

Marshall asks of Kerry's GAY DAUGHTER moment: "And more to the point: what's the problem exactly unless you instinctively believe that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of?"

I felt compelled to respond "As a gay man..."

I have to disagree with you about Mary Cheney. You say: "And more to the point: what's the problem exactly unless you instinctively believe that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of? "

Well, I don't believe that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of. But I also recognize that my parents are Conservative Christians. And I tend to see the negotiation of our relationship as an issue that is best kept between us.

Dick Cheney has acknowledged his daughter, rather than disowning her, and he's to be commended for that. He's taken a risk WITHOUT Kerry's or Edwards' help. It isn't easy to be a conservative Republican running on such an explicitly Christian ticket and to refuse to disown or even disacknowledge one's gay daughter during this campaign.

Dick Cheney's defense of his daughter is HURTING his re-election chances. As a gay man, I find it disgraceful that loving one's gay daughter can destroy one's political career, ESPECIALLY if one's a Republican. To see Kerry and Edwards smearing salt in that wound STINGS.

I wish they'd stop it. Fine, Cheney's base doesn't like that he has a gay daughter. But there's NO legitimate reason why Kerry should have referenced Mary Cheney. He could have staid at the same levels of general abstraction as he did with the rest of his response ("some people.") But he chose to emphasize Cheney's private family relationship. And in so doing, he sure came across to THIS gay man as trying to punish Dick Cheney for having done right by his GAY DAUGHTER.

That makes me ashamed, and, though I could never vote in a million years for George W. Bush, it makes me feel a little less good about casting my vote for John Kerry.

Bush did OK.

I wouldn't say he "knocked it out of the park." But he did OK. We'll get back to that, but first...

1) Let's just get this off the table. Kerry embarrassed himself with his answer to the gay marriage question. John Kerry embarrassed me. Fine, fundamentalist Christians don't like to be reminded of Cheney's GAY DAUGHTER. And gays like me hate to see Democrats pandering to the rankest kind of homophobic bigotry. I see Bush's evangelical codewords, "Dred Scott" or "stewardship" and I know what they mean. But they're neither half so abhorrent, nor half so crass as this despicable discussion of Cheney's daughter. That's private business, and... well, if Edwards was put in an awkward situation, Kerry just manufactured and uncomfortable situation.

But anyhow...

2) I would have liked to hear more about Bush's reservations about believing "major news organizations." Unfortunately for me, he chose (quite explicitly) not to go there....

3) I still think Bush lost this debate. I'm sure the CW is likely to say it was a "draw" and thus it was a Bush victory, but I doubt it. I'll give Bush credit - he didn't come across as psychopathic tonight. I dunno if they doped him up on lithium, or if he just spent a lot of time listening to light jazz before his performance, but this was the first debate that he did not come across as an asshole. Good for him. But on issues, I still think Kerry trounced Bush.

4) 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.

5) On health care. My company outsources it's human-resources department. I originally had a Blue Shield High PPO, which was a great plan. Of course, they abandoned that plan, and I've been forced into a HealthNet PPO, which has been a bane in the life of more than one of my friends and family members. When Kerry talks about choice, my guess is that people with actual jobs will hear a resonance they don't find in Bush's discussion of litigation reform. More people have probably lost a good HMO for a cheaper alternative than have been involved in a medical malpractice suit.

6) Bush on jobs. "Go back to elementary school." It may be a Blue State phenomenon - but many people HAVE lost jobs in the last four years. Education is great, but a lot of people are worried about their own joblessness. And I don't see how a better education for third graders is going to help with that.

7) Bush on taxes - Come on, really. How much have you seen?

8) Bush on Kerry's record - I thought he sounded pathetic. The charge that Kerrry voted to raise taxes "227" times just SOUNDS absurd. He's only been a Senator for 20 years! My guess is that they've seized on this number as a mistaken gamble for clarity. It sounds absurd. My guess is that most people will think it rings of fishy numbers. Twelve times, I bet the critique would have some bite. But 227? Sounds nutty.

9) Kerry's defeated the "flip-flop" charge in the debates. He's willing to argue for things that are not popular. One of Bush's big failures has been to recognize Kerry's growing ownership and refutation of the "flip-flop issue".

10) I doubt "normal people" caught it. But wasn't it silly to hear Bush sneering that "Kerry makes Ted Kennedy the CONSERVATIVE Senator from Massachussetts" and then to hear him a few minutes later boasting about how he worked with Ted Kennedy to pass the "No Child Left Behind Act." That's Bush's idea of bi-partisanship. I'll brag about having worked with you once, but I'll use your name as the proxy for an insult at a moment's notice. I'm sure the French are familiar with that feeling - that schizophrenic emphasis on his interest in "diplomacy" combined with the sneering disdain with the putative objects of that exact same diplomacy.

So, overall, I'd say this debate was a "draw." But I think that it was a draw which is going to HURT Bush more than help him. People are likely to say that a "draw" is better for Bush than Kerry, but I suspect they'll be wrong. Kerry grabbed the momentum, and Bush failed to take it back. My guess is that for average people, Bush's failure, even at his best to decisively call into question Kerry's fitness for office is likely to cinch the deal for Kerry.

If I were to call the election based solely on the results of this debate, I'd say it's all Kerry's race from this point forward.

How Reassuring

Am I wrong to suspect that Republicans might be behaving anti-democratically?

Bill Janklow's commenting on the resignation of six people connected with the state Republican Party over absentee ballot applications.

The former [Republican] governor and congressman says the national GOP is encouraging campaign workers to cheat. He says his ire is directed at the Republican Party's Victory operation, which helps register people and get them to the polls.

Janklow says his problem with the organization goes back to 2002 when he was a candidate for the US House.

Jason Glodt with the Republican Party says the absentee ballot problem was an honest mistake and has been handled, and that cheating won't be allowed.

Janklow served 100 days in jail for causing an accident that killed a man. He says his comments have nothing to do with his friendship with Democratic Senator Tom Daschle, who's in a close race with Republican John Thune.

Your America - Your Issues

From Oklahoma:

Tuesday, [Republican Senate candidate] Coburn also said no when asked whether he thought there are so many lesbians in the schools that girls couldn't go to the bathroom.

Getting Queasy

Stories like this one make me sick to my stomach with worry for this country.

The allegation is that a Republican company directly sponosred by the Republican National Committee has been running "registration drives" in several key swing states. In Nevada, at least, it would appear that the company may have been following a policy of destroying Democratic registration forms - a former employee managed to salvage a pile of shredded registration forms from a trash-bin and the news team has verified that the registrations were never submitted to the Nevada Election Department.

I don't know how widespread this was. It may have been a simple rogue supervisor. I certainly hope so. But I do regret to say that I find such stories more plausible than I want to find them.

Don't Forget Poland

My blogging's been lighter than usual lately because Blogger has been sucking!!! Seriously, it's been sporadically eating my posts and refusing to publish and just all around deteriorating in reliability... with luck it will begin to improve its behavior.

In the meantime, DON'T FORGET POLAND!!!

About Those Swing States

Interesting poll of various metropolitan areas' reactions to the first presidential debate.

So, to look at Arizona, Bush wins in Phoenix by 42-40. Loses in Tucson by 38-48. It's strange that the perception that Bush "clearly won the debate" is so geographically linked. I'd like to say that Kerry's smashing victory in Saint Louis (50-28) augurs well. But it's a known quantity that the Saint Louis metropolitan area is not a representative microcosm of the Show-Me State as a whole. The 49-33 victory in Las Vegas is potentially good news for Nevada.

Still, a solid performance of 45-31 in Florida is certainly good news. Intriguingly, the highest viewership rates appear to have been in Colorado and Florida, which indicates that swing states are taking this election seriously.

Was it Really a Tie?

I must've missed something. I even watched the late night rerun. I can't believe people are calling it a tie. Look at this Gallup recap:

Democrats rallied behind Kerry's performance by 87% to 8%, while Republicans rallied behind Bush's performance by a slightly smaller margin, 83% to 10%. But independents chose Kerry by a 16-point margin, 53% to 37%.

The reason the overall figures show only a slight advantage for Kerry, despite his greater margin among his own party and winning the independent vote, is that the sample of viewers had more Republicans (38%) than Democrats (32%) or independents (30%). Also, the sample of viewers support Bush over Kerry in the presidential race by 50% to 46%.

The poll shows a modest gender gap in the rating of the two candidates, with women choosing Kerry as the winner by a nine-point margin (50% to 41%), and men leaning toward Bush by a three-point margin (48% to 45%). In the first debate, male and female viewers gave virtually identical responses.

Is there some reason to think that 40% of Americans are partisan Republicans? Or are normal people ("Independents") likely to give Bush a decisive win? I don't undestand the gender distinction. How can you lead by 9 among 50% of the population and trail by 3 among the other 50% and come out with a tie? Are there that many more men in their group?

UPDATE: They appear to have ADDED 2% more Republicans since the first post-debate poll:

In this poll, 36 percent of those interviewed after the debate said they were Republican and 32 percent each said they were Democrats or independents.

Does this stem from assumptions of who was watching the debate?

Oh...My...God...

Did I see what I think I saw tonight? If so, I saw the worst debate performance in my life delivered by the sitting President of the United States. I think he chunked it, and in a way that even surpasses his own demonstrated capacity for failure. And, while he slowly strangled himself on stage, I thought Kerry actually did a superlative job, not that mattered much in comparison to the President's dramatic implosion.

What can one say about policy? Not much. President Bush didn't seem to bring it up too much. But let's look at what I would consider "unforgivable" gaffes on the part of the President:

1) A woman stands up and asks him to name "three mistakes" he's made as President of the United States. First, he refuses to name any. Then, he says that the mistakes were probably appointees of his, but he doesn't want to name them because they might get upset. Now, if you're like me, you're wondering, "what kind of CEO is this? If your mistakes were appointees, why haven't you fired them." Donald Trump manages to fire one person a week. If your only mistakes as "America's CEO" were in your hiring practices, why not fire your mistakes? But wait. It gets worse. President Bush then says, to the very sweet-looking lady who asked this question: "But let me tell you what people are really talking about when they tell me to talk about mistakes. They're talking about Iraq." Now first of all, he's just told a woman to her face that she's not really talking about what she's saying. I can't imagine she didn't resent that implication. And then, after being asked quite simply "name your mistakes" he starts talking about Iraq. Now, listen to this. You say - "What's a mistake?" President Bush says "Iraq." Then he says, "Iraq wasn't a mistake." So, you can't name a mistake but if anybody asks you to name one, you're going to talk about Iraq? If it's such a brilliant idea, why is it the first thing that leaps to mind when asked about your mistakes? I'd loan you a shovel to dig your own grave, but you're doing so well with your mouth...

2) The environment question. First, assume you care about the environment. Not that you're brilliant, but just that you care. Do you get the impression the President knows what he's talking about when he says he's going to develop "hydrogen-generated cars?" What the hell is a hydrogen-generated car? Hydrogen powered? I've heard of that. But hydrogen generated? Are you awake? But wait. It gets better. He's going to increase wet lands by three million. Three million what? Don't ask. Bush certainly didn't bother to say. OK. But maybe you're not an environmentalist. Maybe you're one of these NASCAR dads or something. The very first thing he chose to emphasize is that we've cut emissions in off-road diesel vehicles by 90%. Now, do you have an off-road vehicle? Does it run on diesel? Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I'm pretty sure not too many off-road vehicles run on diesel. Is there anyone in America who cares about off-roading that things off-road diesel omissions are a significant source of pollution? How common are such vehicles? My guess is that anyone with a familiarity with these things will know "not very." About the only person who knows what an off-road diesel vehicle is is going to be in agriculture and construction. And I don't think they're going to be thrilled by the President's proposal. Though I will note he strategically used the word "steward" in relation to the environment. So, point with evangelicals, deftly executed.

2b) Speaking of staggering misstatements - the internets?!?!?!? Where's HE been?

3) OK. So, enough with the President's staggeringly abysmal performance. Let's look at when he went head-to-head with Kerry. First of all, Kerry continued to piss him off, and visibly so. He even admitted it. "If anything would make me want to scowl..." Sure, it was amiable and self-deprecating. But it was also obvious the man was pissed. Did you see him shout down the moderator like that? Did you see him call Kerry "Senator Kennedy, the most liberal senator in America?" When Kerry mentioned that Bush files as a small-business based upon his receipts from a timber investment, he acted like he'd never heard of such a thing. Now, maybe Kerry made this up, but I'm willing to bet he'll turn out right, and we'll find out that Bush doesn't even understand his own taxes. SCORE! Kerry spoke the exact words Americans want to hear when he talked about abortion - "I don't want to legislate my faith." The original Senator Kennedy had to promise he wouldn't surrender American sovereignty to the Vatican, this one has to promise not to surrender it to Paris. But he just did it in a way that will appeal to Catholics (who are vaguely distrustful of Protestant bias against them) and appeal to moderate non-Catholics by reassuring them that he won't cram his faith down their throats. But on stem cells, he was absolutely devastating. I could swear Bush leapt out of his chair when Kerry accused him of flip-flopping on it. But he swore up and down, "I respect your values on this issue, but we have to look at these embryos, which will be thrown away, and wonder why we can't do this?" It's the glaring inconsistency in the conservative Christian position. If we don't use them for research these embryos get flushed down the toilet. I think he made that point clearly and succinctly, while Bush was left stammeringly trying to defend that it's OK to mutilate previously killed life, but not life that will be destroyed as a matter of course.

I don't know what to say. I thought Bush hung himself up there tonight. He didn't EVEN fail as badly, in my eyes, as he did last week. This was probably the most atrocious debate performance I have ever seen. Far worse than the mediocrity which was last Thursday.

Recognizing, of course, that's just my subjective impression. But Bush came across as a man who doesn't understand his country, doesn't understand his own finances (but can use the word "facile" to mean "easy" correctly in a sentence, indicating a closet "big-word" user...), and doesn't even sound like he knows what he's talking about when he talks about the lives of ordinary Americans.

The man was a portrait of incompetence. I've never thought he was a good President. But I felt he demonstrated a level of unfitness for office tonight which exceeded even my worst previous impressions of him.