Rob's Politics Blog

Christopher Hitchens writes a painful but necessary column on the lamentable tendency of liberals to root for bad things in Iraq and Afghanistan (not all liberals, probably not most, but too many).

I've encounted the same thing, though anecdotally - someone who solemnly swears that the Bush administration has bin Laden on ice for a hasty October thawing. Seen another way, such individuals will not celebrate when a mass murderer like Osama is brought to justice; they'll knash their teeth and look for a conspiracy. Picture Republicans complaining about the Japanese surrender in 1945 because it invalidated their campaign plans for 1946 and you get roughly the same thing.

I don't know that the phenomenon is as widespread as Hitchens thinks it is, but it's troubling nonetheless. There is an intellectual disconnect between one wing of the party and the present situation - the blind willingness to believe that all will be better once we get Kerry in the White House. It won't be that simple. John Kerry is campaigning to be president at one of the most trying times of the last 100 years. All these cocktail party conspiracy theorists would do far better to think long and hard about how Osama is to be caught than theorizing (against all evidence) that he's already in secret custody. If they don't get their acts in gear, they'll have another four years for insipid theorizing.

A hilarious nugget from Nader's efforts to make the PA ballot: Nader's Lawyer 'Tortured the Law'

A Pennsylvania court denied Nader's efforts to prevent it from viewing his ballot signatures.

In Thursday's opinion, President Judge James Garner Colins singled out West Chester attorney Samuel C. Stretton, who has represented the Nader campaign, for filing a "duplicitous and disingenuous" pleading.

"In over 24 years of judicial service, this court has never encountered a pleading which has more misstated the facts and tortured the law as the instant" motion to strike, Colins began his opinion.

Yeah, sounds about right. Nader may finally be getting on some of the swing state ballots he wanted, but the farcical nature of his petition drive and legal efforts has undermined him as a candidate.

The latest poll from South Dakota now has Daschle up 50-45. Thune's attempt to besmirch Daschle's patriotism doesn't seem to have worked.

Despicable Politics

I haven't posted about the South Dakota race in a while - the latest is that in a debate on Meet the Press, Thune said that Daschle's criticisms of the administration were "emboldening the enemy." A prominent leader in the South Dakota GOP said that Daschle offers "comfort" to America's enemies. This is a common theme in Republican attacks against Kerry and - one assumes - in other races. It's also despicable.

The South Dakota race remains tight - Thune was up 3 in one poll - but I'd hate to think that such attacks will benefit Thune. Daschle is a known entity in South Dakota - the notion that he's unpatriotic should be ridiculous to most voters. Still, one hopes that the notoriously soft-spoken senator is able to respond with some passion to this round of attacks.

Confirming Porter Goss was a disaster.

Yes, he has a background with the CIA and his legislative background is certainly valuable. But his record as a partisan shill, critizing the Clinton administration and exonerating the Bush administration whenever possible, his scornful reaction to the Plame affair (remarking inanely that he'd be interested if it featured a blue dress), and his basic lack of independence from the administration make him wholly inadequate for the job. The CIA needs a real reformer, not a spin artist. There's the hope that Kerry might be elected and bring his own director in - actually that's all the hope there is. Maybe there was a political argument for not stalling the nomination - Daschle's reelection bid is one possible factor - but this was one worth fighting.

Those Assholes!

CNN reports:

When a reporter asked Hastert if he thought al Qaeda would operate with more comfort if Kerry were elected, the speaker said, 'That's my opinion, yes.'

This election is rapidly eroding my faith in the two party system. Not in the sense that I support a third party. In the sense that I wonder if it can survive a wartime election, when one party is so determined to cravenly capitalize on the war, to imply that the opposition party represents weakness, or the favorite of the terrorist adversary.

Dennis Hastert is an elevated mediocrity, chosen not for his talents but his pliability. But his saying this on the heels of Cheney saying that Al Qaeda would likely attack in the event of a Kerry victory indicates that a broader strategy is at work on the part of the GOP - that of destroying the concept of a loyal opposition.

If they are successful, the future of democracy in this country will be hazy. A vigilant electorate is all we have at this point, and I don't think we can afford to lose this election.

A Dangerous Idea

There's one thing Kerry can do to help refocus the campaign on the issue that suits him, namely Iraq. It's a very dangerous move, but it could certainly help him.

He could go to Iraq.

Not in the sense of popping in, serving turkey, and popping out. Going there and spending at least a night there. Touring the country. Letting the soldiers there know that they're not forgotten, that we haven't turned our attention to Scott Peterson and the Swift Boat clowns while they're bleeding on a daily basis. Assuring them personally that he (Kerry) will do everything to make their jobs easier and expedite their return.

Kerry is currently hurting in the heartland. Ohio and Missouri, which looked so favorable over the summer, are leaning toward Bush. If there's one thing he can do to appeal to middle-leaning voters it is to focus their attention on the economy and on Iraq and to underscore Bush's failings with both issues. Going to Iraq, spending at least a night there will do that. And it will subtly remind them that Kerry is no stranger to war zones, and that he will be a far better commander in chief.

The risks are certainly there. The trip could not be announced in advance, for fear of making it even more dangerous. The Iraqi insurgents would love to kill an American presidential candidate. But the benefits of visiting the troops, and the reasonable likeliness that Kerry would be well-guarded during his stay make it worth thinking about. He needs to blow this race wide open and going to Iraq would do that.

Nader's back in Florida

At heart, I really don't think he'll be as much of a spoiler this year. In 2000, after 8 years of Clinton, wavering liberals were in a position to be tempted. The question of how Dubya would rule was hypothetical. That's just no longer true.

After 4 galvanizing years, any wavering liberals prone to supporting Nader in 2000 who haven't moved over to Kerry are unlikely to heed any combination of appeals or logic. They're not like you and I. In some fundamental way, they don't care.

Frankly, I doubt that there are many in this category. What remains of Nader's support comes from fringes that a liberal Democrat has little hope of reaching.

Nader, himself, is different this year. I think the bloom is now well off. The absence of well-known supporters dogs him. His fundraising has been meager. He's been off-message and surrounded by a pathetic cadre of sycophants like the earnest Kevin Zeese. His campaign appearances have been small scale: a church here, a school auditorium there. The novelty factor he had in 2000 is diminished. And his stridency has increased, with a corresponding diminution of his self-control. This is not his year. I don't believe that he has the power to make or break John Kerry. He'd like - if he could - deny another Democrat the Presidency, but his power base is altogether too feeble and deranged to do it.

Something here needs to be said:

Dan Rather kicks ass. There.

Rather is a straight-shooting, down-to-earth champion of the newshour. He lacks Brokaw's gravelly hauteur and Jennings' smarminess. He's a smart, committed guy. If these memos turn out to be false, and if he expresses contrition about them, let that be it. He acted honestly in pursuing them. That's what counts. There are way too many bullshit artists and self-appointed pundits in news with no accountability. Whatever happens, Rather owns up to his own work. Losing him would be a damn shame.

Grim news from Florida, via the NYT: The Return of Katherine Harris

Glenda Hood shows every sign of being as bad as her predecessor - blatantly using her office to favor Bush and disenfranchise likely Kerry voters.

Conduct this blantant casts a shroud over democracy itself. If this becomes a norm in Florida, it will inevitably taint national elections for years to come, and probably spread into other states.

The row about the Bush memos goes on, now entering its third round. New sources make the memos seem more credible - it could have been typed on a 70s-vintage typewriter.

Has anyone tested the ink? Confirming the ink is usually an ironclad way of dating a document. Inks change all the time, and a would-be forger would have to seriously go out of his or her way to match inks.

Glorious News
A circuit judge has ruled that Ralph Nader failed to qualify as a third party candidate. Where? Florida

"I'm quite confident in the ruling. There's at least 15 reasons as to why they won't qualify, at least 15 that I counted up,' Davey said. 'If it was one or two, I'd be worried about it, but there's a whole lot of reasons."

Once again, the nomination of a virtually defunct party doesn't count for much. We'll have to see how this plays out, but it's encouraging thus far.

Virginia has confirmed that Nader failed to get enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. This may help bring Kerry within reach of Dubya in the state; the latest Zogby poll has them separated by 5 points.

Dick Cheney just keeps going lower and lower into the rhetorical abyss, saying in Des Moines, Iowa:

It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we are not really at war.

Absolutely contemptible. Let's not let him forget he said this. Vote for Dubya or the terrorists will attack. There are Bushies right now wishing they could have chucked him and grabbed some nice, vacuous, telegenic conservative.

It's Not All Bad

After a week of crappy news on the poll front, the release of the latest Zogby battleground polls provides a much-needed batch of good news. These are dated August 30-September 3 and occurred largely after the GOP convention.

To sum up:
- The upper Midwest is still Kerry's. He leads by a good margin in Minnesota and Michigan, a smaller margin in Iowa and a tight 2.5 points in Wisconsin. But hey: he's up in Wisconsin. The last few polls to come out of beaver country had Dubya up.
- The West isn't bad. He's up by nearly 10 points in Oregon and New Mexico, 8.5 in Washington, and .6 in Nevada. Nevada always has tight margins; they're just like that out there.
- Pennsylvania is tight but not disastrous - Kerry is up 2.8 points
- Missouri is narrowly his, by .4 points. This is too close, but also comparable to where he stood before the GOP convention
- Florida is another spot of good news. Kerry is up there by .3 - the last Zogby had him up by .6. Statistically speaking, that's not a significant trend.

There is bad news, of course
- Bush leads by 10.9 in Ohio. That can't be allowed - Ohio at the least needs to be competitive
- Tennessee, after some promising polls earlier, is now in solid Bush territory. He has a 9.6 point lead there
- West Virginia has gone red again, with Dubya up 9 points.

Still, award all the states Kerry leads in to him, and he gets 307 electoral votes. This poll was taken at Kerry's low water mark. Dubya has some rough steering ahead, and Kerry might have better times ahead, now that Dubya can't hog a convention spotlight. As Journey would say, don't stop believin'.

Several polls have come out in the last few weeks on the South Dakota senate race. A poll by the Daschle campaign has him up 53-45. A Thune campaign poll has him leading 50-48. Also a NRSC poll had Daschle up 48-45. The Thune polls has a strikingly low number of undecideds, as does the Daschle poll. Given prior polling data in the race, a thin but stable Daschle lead seems most likely.

Also in the American News, a portrait of small-state politics at work - 400 turn out for Daschle, pancakes:

Many identified themselves as Republicans, saying they stopped by to let Daschle know he had their support. Those from both parties thanked the senator for his support of the troops, and his efforts to lower the cost of health care.

Others approached him with personal concerns. One woman said her husband, a veteran, had been exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam and had received inadequate attention from Veterans Affairs for his pain. A young boy walked up to Daschle and complained about Bush's "No Child Left Behind" policies, and an elderly woman went into detail about her painful experience with the Medicare bureaucracy.

There were also many people who expressed sympathy for the senator because of what they called the negative campaign advertisements against him.

John Thune's choice to bring in out-of-state heavies may be backfiring. South Dakotans aren't generally fond of negative ads.

One citizen's letter to the Aberdeen American News: Support Daschle:

I am writing in response to all the negative ads that John Thune is running against Tom Daschle. Daschle is and has done so much for the state of South Dakota. He has done so much by getting us the ethanol plants up and getting a better price for corn for farmers, he has helped by getting us money for roads and water projects. All Thune can say is negative things that are not true.

The Aberdeen area is probably a strong area for Daschle, who was born there. Still, this is the type of argument that will do the most for him: he's helped his state and Thune is engaging in ungentlemanly campaigning.

Who Cares About Darfur? - as the Washington Post chronicles, momentum toward intervention there seems to be slowing. Momentum toward mass murder there is not, however. Do we mean what we say when we condemn genocide there?

Best wishes to Bill Clinton for a speedy and complete recovery.

The invaluable EJ Dionne writes of Wednesday night's debacle in The GOP's Dirty Z-Bomb:

It's impressive that Miller has proved to be such a fast learner in the folkways of the crowd he's now running with. Miller will proudly stand as the man who gave one of the most vicious and demagogic convention speeches in the television age. From Miller's speech, you could assume that the Democrats had nominated Saddam Hussein from his jail cell.

Amen.

There is something deeply vile about Zell Miller. I don't simply say this as a Democrat who dislikes turncoat Democrats - my anger at onetime defectors like Richard Shelby and Benedict Nighthorse Campbell doesn't really compare to what I feel about Zell Miller.

Due to the fact I don't presently have any TV reception, I didn't watch Miller's speech, but it sounds like it was the most deeply obscene address at an RNC since Pat Buchanan's in 1992. As quoted at Slate, Miller said:

While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

In [Democratic leaders'] warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.

As Will Saletan at Slate points out, all of these charges are false. The bottom line is that Miller isn't happy just to leave his party, but wants to take the lead in demonizing it, in caricaturing it to cater to the basic GOP stereotype of unbound 60s radicalism. The image of self-hating lefties that he promulgates doesn't describe the Democratic Party that gave Bush authority to act in Iraq. Actually, it doesn't describe any Democratic Party of recent memory. As a longtime member of that party, Miller should know better than to prostitute himself so basely.

Worse even is Miller's reductionism: criticism of a failing national security strategy is unpatriotic. This nation has a vital history of debating issues of national security at times of crisis. Miller is verbally destroying the line that separates these debates from treasonous conduct. Electorally speaking, you're either with Bush or you're against America. Shame on him.

I've been spared this RNC due to choice and the absence of cable, but I feel some regret at not seeing it. Back in 1992, I can remember watching Pat Buchanan's address, seeing how angry and extreme it was, and sensing that he was doing real damage to the Republican Party. Perhaps the same is occurring now at what sounds to be a deeply self-righteous event.