Saturday, October 30, 2004
After a night's sleep on it, I'm convinced that the bin Laden video will not really shape the campaign. The coverage I've seen of it online has a certain evenness to it - the preferred spin is that it is rattling both campaigns, and that it does not help one in particular. Add that to the factors I noted yesterday, and it starts to seem that the net effect here is just an escalation of the tension level of both campaigns. Moreover, with the release three days before Election Day, there is the strong possibility of Iraq and campaign news balancing it out. Nothing's for certain, and I'd be interested to see polls on its impact. But I don't think this is the big October surprise that people feared.
(BTW: all the folks claiming that Bin Laden was somewhere in captivity all these months can do us the favor of reconsidering certain articles of faith now that it's clear he's still on the loose.)
(BTW: all the folks claiming that Bin Laden was somewhere in captivity all these months can do us the favor of reconsidering certain articles of faith now that it's clear he's still on the loose.)
Friday, October 29, 2004
Heavens to Betsy, what's all this to do about the bin Laden video? We've all had a pretty good inkling that the bastard was still alive and there has been no shortage of audio tapes from him or his deputy. For good measure, Al Qaeda decided that Allah wanted them to blow up some Egyptians and Israelis earlier this month. There was no noticeable impact on the American presidential election. The notion of some that this is a gift to Bush is fanciful.
Both candidates have declared that they're in earnest about pursuing Al Qaeda; Bush has no monopoly on the claim that we're at war with the terror network. Kerry hasn't run away from that - actually some of his best points have been about how the administration has neglected to address critical weaknesses, to say nothing of the charge that the Iraq war diverted us from the hunt for bin Laden.
How many Americans are going to see the video or read a transcript of its text? How many of those will be swayable at this point? How many of those will have thought that terror was not a threat? Almost everyone knows that it still is - public opinion polling has found a grim resignation to future attacks on the part of the American public. The likelihood that this will have an impact in the battleground states strikes me as being pretty small. John Kerry is right to respond dismissively to this. OBL may think he can intervene in our election, but this is very far from being his first miscalculation.
Both candidates have declared that they're in earnest about pursuing Al Qaeda; Bush has no monopoly on the claim that we're at war with the terror network. Kerry hasn't run away from that - actually some of his best points have been about how the administration has neglected to address critical weaknesses, to say nothing of the charge that the Iraq war diverted us from the hunt for bin Laden.
How many Americans are going to see the video or read a transcript of its text? How many of those will be swayable at this point? How many of those will have thought that terror was not a threat? Almost everyone knows that it still is - public opinion polling has found a grim resignation to future attacks on the part of the American public. The likelihood that this will have an impact in the battleground states strikes me as being pretty small. John Kerry is right to respond dismissively to this. OBL may think he can intervene in our election, but this is very far from being his first miscalculation.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
The Outlook
We're approaching the final weekend and it's looking tight but somewhat favorable for Kerry. Polling of battleground states is getting intense now. Ohio is looking good - close but Kerry leads in most polls. Florida is a tougher call to make - Dubya seems to be leading at least as often as Kerry, or you have outright ties. Kerry would still do well to put some weight down there. In some ways, Florida is better territory for him than it was for Gore, who had very high negatives in Miami.
Arkansas is reputedly in a near tie. Clinton's return may give Kerry some momentum there. New Hampshire is looking good for Kerry, and he really does need it.
The Upper Midwest is his top concern. As a rule, Kerry can't lose two states there (well he can, but it requires him to pick up Florida). Wisconsin, thankfully seems to be trending back his way. Maybe Iowa too, which is evenly balanced.
The general rule of thumb is that Dubya is in trouble if he has 47% or less, since undecideds tend to break against the incumbent. A lot of faith is being placed in that rule, but Dubya happens to be a pretty abrasive incumbent. If you don't like him now, he's not going to win your heart in 4.5 days.
GOP efforts at vote suppression are starting to get press. Some truly contemptible shit has been happening. It may be decisive, or - more likely - it may spur voters to the polls. It's probably the equivalent of trying to cap a geyser. All they'll get is scalded - and this will only be before we have a Department of Justice that will invest the time to look into this.
There are no certainties in our half-assed flawed electoral process but I feel a Kerry victory is on the way. Please do everything you can to help it along, but whatever you do, don't despair, even if the next 4 days prove trying. This thing is eminently winnable; actually it's in the process of being won.
We're approaching the final weekend and it's looking tight but somewhat favorable for Kerry. Polling of battleground states is getting intense now. Ohio is looking good - close but Kerry leads in most polls. Florida is a tougher call to make - Dubya seems to be leading at least as often as Kerry, or you have outright ties. Kerry would still do well to put some weight down there. In some ways, Florida is better territory for him than it was for Gore, who had very high negatives in Miami.
Arkansas is reputedly in a near tie. Clinton's return may give Kerry some momentum there. New Hampshire is looking good for Kerry, and he really does need it.
The Upper Midwest is his top concern. As a rule, Kerry can't lose two states there (well he can, but it requires him to pick up Florida). Wisconsin, thankfully seems to be trending back his way. Maybe Iowa too, which is evenly balanced.
The general rule of thumb is that Dubya is in trouble if he has 47% or less, since undecideds tend to break against the incumbent. A lot of faith is being placed in that rule, but Dubya happens to be a pretty abrasive incumbent. If you don't like him now, he's not going to win your heart in 4.5 days.
GOP efforts at vote suppression are starting to get press. Some truly contemptible shit has been happening. It may be decisive, or - more likely - it may spur voters to the polls. It's probably the equivalent of trying to cap a geyser. All they'll get is scalded - and this will only be before we have a Department of Justice that will invest the time to look into this.
There are no certainties in our half-assed flawed electoral process but I feel a Kerry victory is on the way. Please do everything you can to help it along, but whatever you do, don't despair, even if the next 4 days prove trying. This thing is eminently winnable; actually it's in the process of being won.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal by the Nader campaign over a court decision to keep Nader off the ballot in Ohio. This follows an earlier ruling by the Court that Nader was ineligible to appear on the ballot in Pennsylvania. Nader is still on the ballot in Florida, Wisconsin and Iowa, among other key states, but this is a really blow to his spoiler aspirations. OH and PA mark 2/3 of this election's Big Three. Next time, try getting signatures from actual people.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
The Big Three
In 2000, they were MI, PA and FL. Gore conceded OH early and was rewarded with a surprisingly narrow loss. Oops.
This year, Kerry wants OH very badly. MI has been more solidly pro-Kerry than it was for Gore. In fact, it's been more reliable than MN or WI. PA has been largely in Kerry's camp, except during the horrible month of Bush ascendance. FL - well who knows what the devil is going on down there. Hurricanes and electoral interference and Lord knows what else.
My guess is that Kerry will win both OH and FL, at least before you take Republican interference into account. He'll win fairly clearly in PA as well. There are too many unknowns in this deeply unsavory election.
In 2000, they were MI, PA and FL. Gore conceded OH early and was rewarded with a surprisingly narrow loss. Oops.
This year, Kerry wants OH very badly. MI has been more solidly pro-Kerry than it was for Gore. In fact, it's been more reliable than MN or WI. PA has been largely in Kerry's camp, except during the horrible month of Bush ascendance. FL - well who knows what the devil is going on down there. Hurricanes and electoral interference and Lord knows what else.
My guess is that Kerry will win both OH and FL, at least before you take Republican interference into account. He'll win fairly clearly in PA as well. There are too many unknowns in this deeply unsavory election.
Spain Disrupts Terror Plot
I guess that Iraq pullout didn't do the trick? Quick, find something to pull out of!
- Spanish authorities said Tuesday they disrupted a plot by a cell of Islamic radicals to blow up a Madrid court complex that serves as the home for the country's top anti-terrorism investigators and judges.
I guess that Iraq pullout didn't do the trick? Quick, find something to pull out of!
Winona LaDuke
1996: Campaigns as Ralph Nader's vice presidential running mate
2000: Campaigns as Ralph Nader's vice presidential running mate
2004: Endorses John Kerry and declares that she is voting her conscience.
Beautiful.
1996: Campaigns as Ralph Nader's vice presidential running mate
2000: Campaigns as Ralph Nader's vice presidential running mate
2004: Endorses John Kerry and declares that she is voting her conscience.
Beautiful.
Corporate Stalinism
Jonathan Lieberman, the Washington bureau chief of the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, criticized the company for its choce to air an anti-Kerry film as news. He was fired yesterday.
Sinclair's stock has dropped from around $7.50 to $6.49. Given how low it is already, that's a significant plunge. Stock analysts have expressed concern that the company's politics are leading to unsound management. The New York Times wrote yesterday that Sinclair faces a double whammy - either encouraging opposition to further deregulation in Congress, or incurring the wrath of a Kerry administration and its chosen FCC appointee. Payback, in this case, should be sweet.
Jonathan Lieberman, the Washington bureau chief of the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, criticized the company for its choce to air an anti-Kerry film as news. He was fired yesterday.
Sinclair's stock has dropped from around $7.50 to $6.49. Given how low it is already, that's a significant plunge. Stock analysts have expressed concern that the company's politics are leading to unsound management. The New York Times wrote yesterday that Sinclair faces a double whammy - either encouraging opposition to further deregulation in Congress, or incurring the wrath of a Kerry administration and its chosen FCC appointee. Payback, in this case, should be sweet.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Let's hear it for Indian law enforcement
The infamous criminal Veerappan, who has been linked to 120 deaths and the killing of some 2000 elephants, was shot and killed. Veerappan got international attention when he kidnapped the acclaimed actor Rajkumar. This is a major domestic triumph for India, though most credit may go to the Tamil Nadu state government.
While alive, Veerappan was known for his notable mustache as well as his murderous habits.
The infamous criminal Veerappan, who has been linked to 120 deaths and the killing of some 2000 elephants, was shot and killed. Veerappan got international attention when he kidnapped the acclaimed actor Rajkumar. This is a major domestic triumph for India, though most credit may go to the Tamil Nadu state government.
While alive, Veerappan was known for his notable mustache as well as his murderous habits.
The Washington Post has a decent look at the SD race this morning, but not one that looks too deeply at the polling trends in the race.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
There's Something About Mary Cheney
The Vice President's daughter has been in the news lately, with a lot of press being given to her parents' indignant reaction to John Kerry's having mentioned her at the debate. Pollsters are attributing a slight jump in Dubya's polls to this.
Frankly, I think this is a tempest in a teacup. Dubya's favorable numbers jumped 2 points - within the margin of error. Interpreting this is a largely wishful enterprise.
Mary Cheney's orientation has been known to the world for years - it was reasonably common knowledge the last time out. She has been public about it. And if people didn't know, they might have caught Dick or Lynne mentioning it on the campaign trail, or John Edwards mentioning it in the second debate.
Thus, methinks they doth protest too much.
A WaPo poll found that a majority of people viewing the third debate thought that Kerry's mention of Mary was inappropriate. Somehow, that didn't keep Kerry from raking in a solid lead in post-debate "who won" polls. If viewers didn't approve, it doesn't seem that it really affected how they viewed the debate.
The best argument about this is that it disrupted the Democratic post-debate narrative - about Dubya's deceitfulness. I think that point can still be made and it remains up to the Democrats to make it. It's simply too early to tell. Voters are far more likely to ask if they can trust the president when they are sealed in the voting cubicle than they are to ask anything about l'affaire Mary. There's 18 days to go. Chin up.
The Vice President's daughter has been in the news lately, with a lot of press being given to her parents' indignant reaction to John Kerry's having mentioned her at the debate. Pollsters are attributing a slight jump in Dubya's polls to this.
Frankly, I think this is a tempest in a teacup. Dubya's favorable numbers jumped 2 points - within the margin of error. Interpreting this is a largely wishful enterprise.
Mary Cheney's orientation has been known to the world for years - it was reasonably common knowledge the last time out. She has been public about it. And if people didn't know, they might have caught Dick or Lynne mentioning it on the campaign trail, or John Edwards mentioning it in the second debate.
Thus, methinks they doth protest too much.
A WaPo poll found that a majority of people viewing the third debate thought that Kerry's mention of Mary was inappropriate. Somehow, that didn't keep Kerry from raking in a solid lead in post-debate "who won" polls. If viewers didn't approve, it doesn't seem that it really affected how they viewed the debate.
The best argument about this is that it disrupted the Democratic post-debate narrative - about Dubya's deceitfulness. I think that point can still be made and it remains up to the Democrats to make it. It's simply too early to tell. Voters are far more likely to ask if they can trust the president when they are sealed in the voting cubicle than they are to ask anything about l'affaire Mary. There's 18 days to go. Chin up.
Friday, October 15, 2004
And Now in West Virginia
In WV's Eastern Panhandle, a GOP stronghold, Democrats received phone calls telling them that they were not eligible to vote on election day. A local NBC station reports that several of these voters then verified that they could vote. The calls they received were traced to the local Republican headquarters.
See a pattern?
In WV's Eastern Panhandle, a GOP stronghold, Democrats received phone calls telling them that they were not eligible to vote on election day. A local NBC station reports that several of these voters then verified that they could vote. The calls they received were traced to the local Republican headquarters.
See a pattern?
Good News From Ohio
Kenneth Blackwell - the Midwestern equivalent of Katherine Harris - was trying to prevent Ohio voters who show up at the wrong precinct from getting provisional ballots. An Ohio judge has ruled that they are indeed entitled to ballots if they are still in the correct county. This is good news. Blackwell will appeal, but at least for now I can feel some gratitude for the existence of an independent judiciary.
Kenneth Blackwell - the Midwestern equivalent of Katherine Harris - was trying to prevent Ohio voters who show up at the wrong precinct from getting provisional ballots. An Ohio judge has ruled that they are indeed entitled to ballots if they are still in the correct county. This is good news. Blackwell will appeal, but at least for now I can feel some gratitude for the existence of an independent judiciary.
The behavior of the Sinclair Broadcasting Group is another reason to think that our democratic system is in danger of starting to look like Russia's.
The short of it is that Sinclair, which owns 62 television stations across the country, is forcing its affiliates to show an anti-Kerry documentary. This is a blatant effort to influence the election. Normally, broadcasters are required to balance their programming. Sinclair claims it invited Kerry to participate in a discussion afterward. Simply put, this is the most egregious abuse of public airwaves. It is every bit an effort to influence the election.
It's a nasty first step toward media companies using their unique and privileged position to influence elections. I don't know that anyone will be as craven as Sinclair - indeed the backlash may reaffirm the dividing line between advocacy and reporting - but it's creepy. I can only hope that the financial and legal consequences of Sinclair's misdeeds are so immense that no one ever thinks of following in their footsteps.
The short of it is that Sinclair, which owns 62 television stations across the country, is forcing its affiliates to show an anti-Kerry documentary. This is a blatant effort to influence the election. Normally, broadcasters are required to balance their programming. Sinclair claims it invited Kerry to participate in a discussion afterward. Simply put, this is the most egregious abuse of public airwaves. It is every bit an effort to influence the election.
It's a nasty first step toward media companies using their unique and privileged position to influence elections. I don't know that anyone will be as craven as Sinclair - indeed the backlash may reaffirm the dividing line between advocacy and reporting - but it's creepy. I can only hope that the financial and legal consequences of Sinclair's misdeeds are so immense that no one ever thinks of following in their footsteps.
Democracy in America?
I've not been a big fan of Paul Krugman. I think he's wrong a lot of the time. Last year, I thought his monomania about Bush led to his writing some truly shitty columns about Tony Blair and Mohammed Mahathir.
But, things change in an election year. In an instance of pigs taking wing, I'll favorably cite a column of his.
Actually, Krugman's latest is a helpful list of things Republicans nationwide are doing to restrict the vote. I'm scared.
Republicans in positions of authority are doing what they can to disallow voter registration on technicalities. Ohio's secretary of state tried to insist that registration forms only be accepted if they were filled out on a certain stock of paper (the law he cited was passed in the 19th century). Glenda Hood (expect to read a lot more about her) the successor to Katherine Harris, is voiding registration forms that were signed but lack a checked box affirming US citizenship. The catch is that the signature legally affirms citizenship anyway. In Wisconsin, a Republican is trying to give Milwaukee fewer ballots this year than it had in 2000 (guess how Milwaukee votes).
And - of course - there's the instance of the Nevada company that shredded Democratic registration forms.
I'm starting to think that federalism has left our electoral process in deep danger of being corrupted by abuses at the state and local level. Our last election lacked credibility, simply put. We moved blissfully on into an amnesiac trance - particularly after 9/11.
But watching all this unfold in slow motion brings it all back. Voter registration deadlines have largely passed. All that can be done now is to shine a bright spotlight on the polling places, to assiduously document odd events as they occur.
I have less confidence in my electoral process than I do of that of other countries. And that pains me.
I've not been a big fan of Paul Krugman. I think he's wrong a lot of the time. Last year, I thought his monomania about Bush led to his writing some truly shitty columns about Tony Blair and Mohammed Mahathir.
But, things change in an election year. In an instance of pigs taking wing, I'll favorably cite a column of his.
Actually, Krugman's latest is a helpful list of things Republicans nationwide are doing to restrict the vote. I'm scared.
Republicans in positions of authority are doing what they can to disallow voter registration on technicalities. Ohio's secretary of state tried to insist that registration forms only be accepted if they were filled out on a certain stock of paper (the law he cited was passed in the 19th century). Glenda Hood (expect to read a lot more about her) the successor to Katherine Harris, is voiding registration forms that were signed but lack a checked box affirming US citizenship. The catch is that the signature legally affirms citizenship anyway. In Wisconsin, a Republican is trying to give Milwaukee fewer ballots this year than it had in 2000 (guess how Milwaukee votes).
And - of course - there's the instance of the Nevada company that shredded Democratic registration forms.
I'm starting to think that federalism has left our electoral process in deep danger of being corrupted by abuses at the state and local level. Our last election lacked credibility, simply put. We moved blissfully on into an amnesiac trance - particularly after 9/11.
But watching all this unfold in slow motion brings it all back. Voter registration deadlines have largely passed. All that can be done now is to shine a bright spotlight on the polling places, to assiduously document odd events as they occur.
I have less confidence in my electoral process than I do of that of other countries. And that pains me.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Dissension in SD
One recent mini-scandal in South Dakota is undermining John Thune's efforts to unseat Tom Daschle. Six Republicans have resigned over allegations of cheating in filling out absentee ballot applications. Individuals not qualified to do so have been acting as notaries
Former GOP governor Bill Janklow, who still speaks for a lot of South Dakota Republicans (in spite of his manslaughter conviction) criticized the national party for encouraging cheating.
Earlier coverage of the SD GOP indicated the presence of a rift between Janklow and Thune. This goes further toward demonstrating it.
One recent mini-scandal in South Dakota is undermining John Thune's efforts to unseat Tom Daschle. Six Republicans have resigned over allegations of cheating in filling out absentee ballot applications. Individuals not qualified to do so have been acting as notaries
Former GOP governor Bill Janklow, who still speaks for a lot of South Dakota Republicans (in spite of his manslaughter conviction) criticized the national party for encouraging cheating.
Earlier coverage of the SD GOP indicated the presence of a rift between Janklow and Thune. This goes further toward demonstrating it.
Oklahoma . . . The Lesbian State?
The GOP is running a deranged maniac for Oklahoma's Senate seat. Tom Coburn says weird shit whenever he opens his mouth, but his oddest statement has to be his recent claim that "lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom."
A school superintendent from SE Oklahoma has gone on record being amused by that, remarking that Coburn "knows something I don't know. We have not identified anything like that. We have not had to deal with any issues on that subject - ever."
Part of the risk of being so established in states, as the GOP is in OK, is taking your advantage for granted. The Republicans have gone and nominated a maniac for the Senate race, while the Democrats have nominated the highly electable Brad Carson. Carson is running ahead in most polls because he's popular (face it folks, he's not particularly liberal) and because his opponent is clearly unhinged. OK is looking like a nice pickup opportunity for the Democrats.
The GOP is running a deranged maniac for Oklahoma's Senate seat. Tom Coburn says weird shit whenever he opens his mouth, but his oddest statement has to be his recent claim that "lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom."
A school superintendent from SE Oklahoma has gone on record being amused by that, remarking that Coburn "knows something I don't know. We have not identified anything like that. We have not had to deal with any issues on that subject - ever."
Part of the risk of being so established in states, as the GOP is in OK, is taking your advantage for granted. The Republicans have gone and nominated a maniac for the Senate race, while the Democrats have nominated the highly electable Brad Carson. Carson is running ahead in most polls because he's popular (face it folks, he's not particularly liberal) and because his opponent is clearly unhinged. OK is looking like a nice pickup opportunity for the Democrats.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Those Fuckers!
Excuse the profanity. I don't know what else to say when reading the following story from a Las Vegas-area TV station: a Republican affiliated voter registration company collected registration forms outside of supermarkets but only submitted those from people registering Republicans. Forms by avowed Democrats were shredded by company supervisors.
Untold numbers of Nevadans are going to walk into polling places three weeks from today thinking that they're set to vote. There will be virtually no way to prove that they registered.
Once again: those fuckers!! I am steadily starting to doubt the durability of democracy in this country.
Excuse the profanity. I don't know what else to say when reading the following story from a Las Vegas-area TV station: a Republican affiliated voter registration company collected registration forms outside of supermarkets but only submitted those from people registering Republicans. Forms by avowed Democrats were shredded by company supervisors.
Untold numbers of Nevadans are going to walk into polling places three weeks from today thinking that they're set to vote. There will be virtually no way to prove that they registered.
Once again: those fuckers!! I am steadily starting to doubt the durability of democracy in this country.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
I'm not normally one for this sort of speculation, but the bulge does look pretty fishy. Maybe Kerry should bring a short-range radio jammer on stage and see what happens.
The Turning of the Tide
In 2000, the Oregonian endorsed Bush. They have not repeated that shameful mistake in 2004. Oregon has not been as volatile this time out - it has been close but Kerry has generally led there. Still, this speaks to a broader shift in opinion about Bush; hopefully one we'll also see in Ohio, Florida and Missouri
In 2000, the Oregonian endorsed Bush. They have not repeated that shameful mistake in 2004. Oregon has not been as volatile this time out - it has been close but Kerry has generally led there. Still, this speaks to a broader shift in opinion about Bush; hopefully one we'll also see in Ohio, Florida and Missouri
Nader Out of Luck
Luck, Wisconsin that is. The Washington Post reports from a small pacifist commune in the Western part of the state on a political segment that should by Saint Ralph's natural base.
What goes for Luck, holds for elsewhere in Wisconsin. Just ask Nader's statewide coordinator:
At this time in 2000 I was worried about Nader. I just don't feel the same about him this time out. Progressives largely get what this election is about and they're not going to dick around with Saint Ralph.
Luck, Wisconsin that is. The Washington Post reports from a small pacifist commune in the Western part of the state on a political segment that should by Saint Ralph's natural base.
Leaders of several peace organizations across the country say that Nader is unlikely to earn widespread backing from their members this year. "I think a lot of us are wondering why he is running again," said Woody Powell, executive director of St. Louis-based Veterans for Peace. "It's not clear what there is to gain by voting for him."
What goes for Luck, holds for elsewhere in Wisconsin. Just ask Nader's statewide coordinator:
"With our peace message, you'd think Madison might be friendly terrain, but, to be honest, we get yelled at a lot when we go out to campaign. I've been legitimately worried we were going to be attacked"
At this time in 2000 I was worried about Nader. I just don't feel the same about him this time out. Progressives largely get what this election is about and they're not going to dick around with Saint Ralph.
Don't let anyone tell you the second debate was a draw. Gallup adheres to the tie narrative, but buries the fact that independents thought Kerry won 53-37. Independent voters are still out there and are disproportionately likely to be wavering or undecided. Kerry and Edwards have done better with this group in opinion polls and debate scoring and this will count for them.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
One of the great things about the town hall format debate is that you can see audience reactions. These can reveal a lot about how the candidates are doing. One woman was consistantly visible behind Bush. Let's call her "Meg." She was visibly irked by his statement, at one point covering her face with her hands. For much of the rest of the debate she had a sour expression on her face when Bush spoke. For a while, she held her neck from the front, looking as though she was about to choke herself. If Bush loses this election, I'll refer here to the Meg Factor - the critical segment of the American electorate who think this guy is consistently tiresome and full of shit.
I can't believe I forgot the most notable moment of the debate - Dubya's curious critique of the Dred Scott decision of 1857. Admittedly I worry about his philosophy of judicial appointments, but I can now shelve my fear that he may reappoint Roger Taney.
John Howard's victory in the Australian elections is good news for the US - not just for Bush or for Kerry, but for America.
With the steady whittling away of the coalition in Iraq, this reaffirmation of Australia's solidarity is important. The solution to the problem of Iraq won't come through any upping of the Australian contribution, but at the least this may help us stave off a further round of desertions. And, maybe, coalition governments can take heart from Howard's victory and perceive that they can hold office, in spite of Iraq. Whoever is president on January 20 will need an ally like Australia - several in fact.
With the steady whittling away of the coalition in Iraq, this reaffirmation of Australia's solidarity is important. The solution to the problem of Iraq won't come through any upping of the Australian contribution, but at the least this may help us stave off a further round of desertions. And, maybe, coalition governments can take heart from Howard's victory and perceive that they can hold office, in spite of Iraq. Whoever is president on January 20 will need an ally like Australia - several in fact.
The Second (Big) Debate
This was not as weird as the first one. Bush managed to keep his mouth under control, though there was something interesting going on with his eyes. Bush amped himself up for this with occasionally weird results. Early on he just started yelling - not in a way that demonstrated consistent control. He still sounded irritated. It wasn't as bad as last week, but it was noticeable.
Worse yet was his brazenly challenging the bemused Charles Gibson so he could vent about Kerry allegedly insulting our allies. It was mostly an odd moment - the point itself is pretty contrived and Dubya's apparent passion misplaced.
Kerry was just as able to land blows this week. Nicely, he updated his repertoire. Devising new attacks is key to staying ahead; it hurt John Edwards somewhat to be reprising Kerry attacks in his own debate.
By far the best points Kerry made involved citing things that Dubya said 4 years ago. It meant a lot more than Bush ranting about Kerry's Senate record. Kerry was a Massachusetts senator then. Bush was campaigning for president. He made promises to the nation as a whole about things like Canadian drug importation.
Kerry missed a very very fat pitch after Dubya failed to say a single thing he'd done wrong. Maybe it didn't matter - Bush's failure was so obvious and explicit that it scarcely needed saying.
I'm getting tired of the Iraq talking points. Suffice it to say I think Kerry continued to hold his own and Bush continued to sound like someone in denial. The daily headlines coming out of there just aren't going to help him. Nor was the fact that he once again just started repeating himself
If you're reading this blog, you know where I stand and it won't surprise you that I'm handing this one to Kerry. The best thing that can be said for Dubya's performance is that it didn't suck as badly as last Thursday's. That still doesn't give him momentum. I'm sure he's pleasing his base, but I doubt he's making inroads.
The third debate will play to Kerry's strong suit - he can rail about failures in health policy, the economy and the environment and piss Bush off. Arizona should be good.
This was not as weird as the first one. Bush managed to keep his mouth under control, though there was something interesting going on with his eyes. Bush amped himself up for this with occasionally weird results. Early on he just started yelling - not in a way that demonstrated consistent control. He still sounded irritated. It wasn't as bad as last week, but it was noticeable.
Worse yet was his brazenly challenging the bemused Charles Gibson so he could vent about Kerry allegedly insulting our allies. It was mostly an odd moment - the point itself is pretty contrived and Dubya's apparent passion misplaced.
Kerry was just as able to land blows this week. Nicely, he updated his repertoire. Devising new attacks is key to staying ahead; it hurt John Edwards somewhat to be reprising Kerry attacks in his own debate.
By far the best points Kerry made involved citing things that Dubya said 4 years ago. It meant a lot more than Bush ranting about Kerry's Senate record. Kerry was a Massachusetts senator then. Bush was campaigning for president. He made promises to the nation as a whole about things like Canadian drug importation.
Kerry missed a very very fat pitch after Dubya failed to say a single thing he'd done wrong. Maybe it didn't matter - Bush's failure was so obvious and explicit that it scarcely needed saying.
I'm getting tired of the Iraq talking points. Suffice it to say I think Kerry continued to hold his own and Bush continued to sound like someone in denial. The daily headlines coming out of there just aren't going to help him. Nor was the fact that he once again just started repeating himself
If you're reading this blog, you know where I stand and it won't surprise you that I'm handing this one to Kerry. The best thing that can be said for Dubya's performance is that it didn't suck as badly as last Thursday's. That still doesn't give him momentum. I'm sure he's pleasing his base, but I doubt he's making inroads.
The third debate will play to Kerry's strong suit - he can rail about failures in health policy, the economy and the environment and piss Bush off. Arizona should be good.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Car Bomb Kills 39 in Pakistan
I need to take a break from election blogging. I've been slighting foreign news, but an item like this is worth mentioning.
A major car bombing in Pakistan targeted a gathering of Sunni Muslims, leading to speculation that it was Shiite retaliation for a bombing in a Shiite mosque last week.
The sectarian character of this is noteworthy - it's important for Westerners to remember that the first victims of fundamentalist terror are often within the same basic faith. Zarqawi in Iraq is making no secret of his desire to kill Shiites. Perhaps, as the article suggests, tensions between Shiites and Sunnis in Pakistan remain low. But events like this can only inflame a dangerous situation - made more dangerous by the haphazard control that the Pakistani government is exerting over militants.
I need to take a break from election blogging. I've been slighting foreign news, but an item like this is worth mentioning.
A major car bombing in Pakistan targeted a gathering of Sunni Muslims, leading to speculation that it was Shiite retaliation for a bombing in a Shiite mosque last week.
The sectarian character of this is noteworthy - it's important for Westerners to remember that the first victims of fundamentalist terror are often within the same basic faith. Zarqawi in Iraq is making no secret of his desire to kill Shiites. Perhaps, as the article suggests, tensions between Shiites and Sunnis in Pakistan remain low. But events like this can only inflame a dangerous situation - made more dangerous by the haphazard control that the Pakistani government is exerting over militants.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Proof of the tightening and the reinvigoration of the Kerry campaign - Kerry/Edwards have just barely pulled ahead in Ohio. During the nasty month of Bush ascendance, Ohio fell out of reach. Now Kerry's up 49-48 there. Ohio is vital. We can't count on Florida; between the hurricanes and the corrupt voting officials, you just can't count on it. Ohio is insurance, particularly since Missouri is still out of reach. Voter registration in predominantly Democratic Cleveland is way up compared to the rest of the state. Ohio is winnable, and the two upcoming bread and butter debates will be essential to getting it.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
VP Debate Thoughts
Not too coherent right now. I'm back and forth on this one and wonder if I need to sleep on it to come to a verdict.
1.) Cheney didn't keep his cool as well as Edwards did. At points he got plain nasty and it showed.
2.) Edwards did not bring new arguments to the Iraq debate. He used Kerry's lines and Cheney had ready rebuttals. He connected on the basic question of administration credibility, but he did miss an opportunity to nail Cheney. Still, the basic point he made holds - the daily news does not lead one to believe the administration
3.) Edwards played his closing like a lawyer addressing the jury box and it worked wonderfully - a nice focused solemnity to it.
4.) At some point in the debate Cheney seemed spent and couldn't summon up his earlier sarcasm. Edwards too seemed to tone it down a bit. This occurred just after the midway point
5.) CBS news polled undecideds who found for Edwards 41-29. That's good news. Those are the people who needed to be reached.
6.) ABC found for Cheney across all voters by 43-35. The problem is that they oversampled Republicans and undersampled Democrats - recalibrating that actually puts Edwards ahead.
7.) Still, Edwards needed new points on Iraq and terror and he needed to quote Cheney's claims of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link. He missed a chance to really hold Cheney to the fire, and moreover to nail him on some of his more recent statements.
8.) Some good points were scored off of Cheney on the resume side - both the Halliburton issue and some of the more bizarre votes he's made on MLK Day, plastic handguns etc.
Bottom line - Edwards probably did better with the people he needed to influence. He did not score as many minor points as Cheney, but he kept an even keel and stayed on message. The CBS poll found women more susceptible to him - and widening the gender gap is a priority for the Kerry/Edwards campaign. I doubt this will impact the election much. At worst it's a draw; at best a slight win for Edwards. Given Cheney's policy expertise, my hopes of tearing him a new one may have been too lofty. This debate won't change the race much, but it won't worsen things.
Not too coherent right now. I'm back and forth on this one and wonder if I need to sleep on it to come to a verdict.
1.) Cheney didn't keep his cool as well as Edwards did. At points he got plain nasty and it showed.
2.) Edwards did not bring new arguments to the Iraq debate. He used Kerry's lines and Cheney had ready rebuttals. He connected on the basic question of administration credibility, but he did miss an opportunity to nail Cheney. Still, the basic point he made holds - the daily news does not lead one to believe the administration
3.) Edwards played his closing like a lawyer addressing the jury box and it worked wonderfully - a nice focused solemnity to it.
4.) At some point in the debate Cheney seemed spent and couldn't summon up his earlier sarcasm. Edwards too seemed to tone it down a bit. This occurred just after the midway point
5.) CBS news polled undecideds who found for Edwards 41-29. That's good news. Those are the people who needed to be reached.
6.) ABC found for Cheney across all voters by 43-35. The problem is that they oversampled Republicans and undersampled Democrats - recalibrating that actually puts Edwards ahead.
7.) Still, Edwards needed new points on Iraq and terror and he needed to quote Cheney's claims of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link. He missed a chance to really hold Cheney to the fire, and moreover to nail him on some of his more recent statements.
8.) Some good points were scored off of Cheney on the resume side - both the Halliburton issue and some of the more bizarre votes he's made on MLK Day, plastic handguns etc.
Bottom line - Edwards probably did better with the people he needed to influence. He did not score as many minor points as Cheney, but he kept an even keel and stayed on message. The CBS poll found women more susceptible to him - and widening the gender gap is a priority for the Kerry/Edwards campaign. I doubt this will impact the election much. At worst it's a draw; at best a slight win for Edwards. Given Cheney's policy expertise, my hopes of tearing him a new one may have been too lofty. This debate won't change the race much, but it won't worsen things.
Edwards v. Cheney
The vice presidential debate usually gets second billing in the debate season. Before 2000, the VP tended to play a ceremonial and somewhat significant advisory role. If only that were the case now. Dick Cheney, the man who has largely driven policy for the last four years, will be getting up there tonight and John Edwards has a onetime opportunity to take him down.
The two debaters are such contrasts. Cheney is someone who easily could have been cast in Harry Potter IV in the role of Lord Voldemort - a glowering, smug, arrogant mess of a man. When someone mentions John Edwards, on the other hand, I have a hard time not picturing him in the lead role in a Disney musical, marching along and singing "Zippity-do-da" as exuberant children and small animals follow him.
The thing to remember is that Edwards is not just a friendly face. In courtroom settings he kicks ass. That needs to be on display tonight. Cheney is the ultimate recalcitrant CEO and Edwards is just the populist to bring him down. Cheney is certainly well in command of the facts - and he will be a dangerous opponent. But Edwards needs to trash him thoroughly - hold him responsible for all the mistakes of the last four years and particularly for the loathesome remarks he's made more recently. A draw won't do. Kerry/Edwards needs to sustain its momentum. Nothing short of a TKO will suffice.
I supported Edwards to the end, based on the premise that he'd be the man for just this kind of event (albeit at the presidential level). Prove me right. Kick some ass, John.
The vice presidential debate usually gets second billing in the debate season. Before 2000, the VP tended to play a ceremonial and somewhat significant advisory role. If only that were the case now. Dick Cheney, the man who has largely driven policy for the last four years, will be getting up there tonight and John Edwards has a onetime opportunity to take him down.
The two debaters are such contrasts. Cheney is someone who easily could have been cast in Harry Potter IV in the role of Lord Voldemort - a glowering, smug, arrogant mess of a man. When someone mentions John Edwards, on the other hand, I have a hard time not picturing him in the lead role in a Disney musical, marching along and singing "Zippity-do-da" as exuberant children and small animals follow him.
The thing to remember is that Edwards is not just a friendly face. In courtroom settings he kicks ass. That needs to be on display tonight. Cheney is the ultimate recalcitrant CEO and Edwards is just the populist to bring him down. Cheney is certainly well in command of the facts - and he will be a dangerous opponent. But Edwards needs to trash him thoroughly - hold him responsible for all the mistakes of the last four years and particularly for the loathesome remarks he's made more recently. A draw won't do. Kerry/Edwards needs to sustain its momentum. Nothing short of a TKO will suffice.
I supported Edwards to the end, based on the premise that he'd be the man for just this kind of event (albeit at the presidential level). Prove me right. Kick some ass, John.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Believing the Hype
One of my persistent themes here has been the self-indulgent and self-defeating consequences of liberals attacking Bush's intelligence. For various reasons, I find these attacks unseemly and unbecoming. More to the point, I find them dangerously self-destructive - showing a distasteful degree of smugness and self-attributed superiority. Moderate voters still matter and they're not generally impressed by such things.
This problem exists on the left, but it now seems to me that the right is even more afflicted. The problem with constantly caricaturing your adversary is that after a while you might start to believe it and underestimate him. Democrats owe it to themselves to understand that Bush is a capable adversary. Bush, too, would have been well advised to consider the possibility that John Kerry is actually a smart and dangerous opponent.
Somewhere in the last month's crescendo of negative advertising, the Republicans forgot to respect their adversary. They started to believe their own wild advertising. They had a hard time concealing just how receptive they were to the claims of the Swift Boat clowns - the disgusting purple heart bandages on display at the RNC were one sign of that. They got so plugged into the exuberance of their convention and the post-convention polling bounce that they essentially forgot that Kerry had led them decisively for a month. To some degree, they can't help it. The image of a Democratic candidate as wishy-washy predates this election by decades. The image was set a long time before Bush journeyed forth from Crawford. And it's been useful more often than not.
This time, they woefully underestimated Kerry. Bush was deeply unprepared on Thursday and was clearly rattled. This represents more than his own failure - it's the failure of his advisors. They lost the fruits of a smear campaign that cost them hundreds of millions and suffered a defeat that cannot fully be undone. Thursday was supposed to be Dubya's night to shine on security issues. He can fight to drag them in next Friday, but this was supposed to be his to win.
The same wishful thinking that has so undermined Bush's governance is now unraveling his reelection bid. There's something excellent about that.
One of my persistent themes here has been the self-indulgent and self-defeating consequences of liberals attacking Bush's intelligence. For various reasons, I find these attacks unseemly and unbecoming. More to the point, I find them dangerously self-destructive - showing a distasteful degree of smugness and self-attributed superiority. Moderate voters still matter and they're not generally impressed by such things.
This problem exists on the left, but it now seems to me that the right is even more afflicted. The problem with constantly caricaturing your adversary is that after a while you might start to believe it and underestimate him. Democrats owe it to themselves to understand that Bush is a capable adversary. Bush, too, would have been well advised to consider the possibility that John Kerry is actually a smart and dangerous opponent.
Somewhere in the last month's crescendo of negative advertising, the Republicans forgot to respect their adversary. They started to believe their own wild advertising. They had a hard time concealing just how receptive they were to the claims of the Swift Boat clowns - the disgusting purple heart bandages on display at the RNC were one sign of that. They got so plugged into the exuberance of their convention and the post-convention polling bounce that they essentially forgot that Kerry had led them decisively for a month. To some degree, they can't help it. The image of a Democratic candidate as wishy-washy predates this election by decades. The image was set a long time before Bush journeyed forth from Crawford. And it's been useful more often than not.
This time, they woefully underestimated Kerry. Bush was deeply unprepared on Thursday and was clearly rattled. This represents more than his own failure - it's the failure of his advisors. They lost the fruits of a smear campaign that cost them hundreds of millions and suffered a defeat that cannot fully be undone. Thursday was supposed to be Dubya's night to shine on security issues. He can fight to drag them in next Friday, but this was supposed to be his to win.
The same wishful thinking that has so undermined Bush's governance is now unraveling his reelection bid. There's something excellent about that.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
The First Debate
I awaited the first debate with a turbulent mix of anticipation and dread, seeing it as an opportunity for Kerry to turn things around, but fearing that he would flounder around on stage and make incomprehensible statements. I think I bought the CW that Bush is an invincible debater.
In other words, Team Bush lost the pre-debate round of expectation setting in which they attempted to paint John Kerry as the reincarnation of Daniel Webster.
Kerry's first response was not deeply assuring - it seemed to have some fairly standard lines in it, but his delibery seemed notable. But it did work as a summation, because Kerry steadfastly went after each bullet point he listed.
I was not pleased when Kerry passed up an opportunity to hammer Bush on negative campaigning when the president dodged Jim Lehrer's question: "Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?" The softballs don't get any better than that.
But, over the course of the first fifteen minutes of the debate a basic pattern was set - Kerry was crisp and clear in his responses. Dubya's responses had a rambling quality to them and a certain defensiveness. And, of camera, he was clearly squirming. The suggestion has been made that he is now ill-conditioned for debating, having curtailed his press conferences. It showed.
Amidst this pattern of exchanges, the Bush campaign's efforts to paint Kerry as an indecisive flip-flopper collapsed utterly. This guy had a plan, had confidence and was making common sense arguments about keeping one's mind open. The debate was utterly captured by Bush's efforts to claim that Kerry was not projecting certainty and Kerry's calm rejoinder that while it's important to be certain, it's also important to know that one can be certain and wrong at the same time.
Kerry won on line items. He had a clear command of facts and was able to state them concisely in the service of a larger argument. As such, he was able to deliver a number of deft jabs to Dubya, while the president struggled to deliver the same haymaker several times. Kerry's delivery let him parry Dubya's attacks to a much greater degree, while he landed damning charges - notably about how underequipped our troops are.
Kerry was particularly impressive on homeland security, listing problems with securing our ports, bridges, intersections, chemical plant - in the last case mentioning how the chemical lobby successfully argued against improving protections. Dubya's response to that was pretty ill-considered: "I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises." Dubya proceeded to mention that there are another 1000 policeman on our Mexican border. Wow. All in one place?
To Kerry's followup, which noted the FBI's failure to translate thousands of hours of Al Qaeda tapes, Dubya got indignant: "Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America!" Really?
This sort of vexed denial seemed more premised on Dubya's irritation with being there than any conviction. Kerry played it to his advantage when debating North Korea later, telling the world that just because Dubya says bilateral talks are impossible doesn't really make them so.
Dubya came off as someone who responds to criticism with irritation. He repeated things that sounded like stump lines. And he had trouble filling the time.
Kerry, by comparsion was polished and generally in a good mood. He delivered his best lines in short sentences. The time limits worked to his advantage and kept him focused. He was patient - if he didn't make his point on one exchange he looked for future opportunities to deliver it.
This is the debate that Dubya should have won. If he was half as presidential here as he was at his convention, he'd have at least won a draw. National security issues were supposed to belong to him, but he came off as less presidential than a liberal senator from Massachusetts. And he may have known it. Future debates will not suit him as well - the next one is the "random crowd of voters format." The third one favors Kerry - domestic issues are where Democrats are generally at home. If John Kerry approaches the next two with the calm focus and command of detail he used here, the debates will be the turning point in this campaign. Perhaps the impact is already being felt.
Post-debate polling by Survey USA found that 45% of Floridians gave the debate to Kerry, compared to 31% for Bush. Kerry won among Pennsylvanians 47-25, among Arkansans 46-34, among Oregonians 50-31. Dubya did win in Texas, by the unconvincing margin of 41-39. The outcome of this debate, as reflected in presidential preference polls, may take some time to materialize, but should be detectable at the state level. One of the pillars supporting Bush's campaign strategy has crumbled; this cannot fail to affect the race.
I awaited the first debate with a turbulent mix of anticipation and dread, seeing it as an opportunity for Kerry to turn things around, but fearing that he would flounder around on stage and make incomprehensible statements. I think I bought the CW that Bush is an invincible debater.
In other words, Team Bush lost the pre-debate round of expectation setting in which they attempted to paint John Kerry as the reincarnation of Daniel Webster.
Kerry's first response was not deeply assuring - it seemed to have some fairly standard lines in it, but his delibery seemed notable. But it did work as a summation, because Kerry steadfastly went after each bullet point he listed.
I was not pleased when Kerry passed up an opportunity to hammer Bush on negative campaigning when the president dodged Jim Lehrer's question: "Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?" The softballs don't get any better than that.
But, over the course of the first fifteen minutes of the debate a basic pattern was set - Kerry was crisp and clear in his responses. Dubya's responses had a rambling quality to them and a certain defensiveness. And, of camera, he was clearly squirming. The suggestion has been made that he is now ill-conditioned for debating, having curtailed his press conferences. It showed.
Amidst this pattern of exchanges, the Bush campaign's efforts to paint Kerry as an indecisive flip-flopper collapsed utterly. This guy had a plan, had confidence and was making common sense arguments about keeping one's mind open. The debate was utterly captured by Bush's efforts to claim that Kerry was not projecting certainty and Kerry's calm rejoinder that while it's important to be certain, it's also important to know that one can be certain and wrong at the same time.
Kerry won on line items. He had a clear command of facts and was able to state them concisely in the service of a larger argument. As such, he was able to deliver a number of deft jabs to Dubya, while the president struggled to deliver the same haymaker several times. Kerry's delivery let him parry Dubya's attacks to a much greater degree, while he landed damning charges - notably about how underequipped our troops are.
Kerry was particularly impressive on homeland security, listing problems with securing our ports, bridges, intersections, chemical plant - in the last case mentioning how the chemical lobby successfully argued against improving protections. Dubya's response to that was pretty ill-considered: "I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises." Dubya proceeded to mention that there are another 1000 policeman on our Mexican border. Wow. All in one place?
To Kerry's followup, which noted the FBI's failure to translate thousands of hours of Al Qaeda tapes, Dubya got indignant: "Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America!" Really?
This sort of vexed denial seemed more premised on Dubya's irritation with being there than any conviction. Kerry played it to his advantage when debating North Korea later, telling the world that just because Dubya says bilateral talks are impossible doesn't really make them so.
Dubya came off as someone who responds to criticism with irritation. He repeated things that sounded like stump lines. And he had trouble filling the time.
Kerry, by comparsion was polished and generally in a good mood. He delivered his best lines in short sentences. The time limits worked to his advantage and kept him focused. He was patient - if he didn't make his point on one exchange he looked for future opportunities to deliver it.
This is the debate that Dubya should have won. If he was half as presidential here as he was at his convention, he'd have at least won a draw. National security issues were supposed to belong to him, but he came off as less presidential than a liberal senator from Massachusetts. And he may have known it. Future debates will not suit him as well - the next one is the "random crowd of voters format." The third one favors Kerry - domestic issues are where Democrats are generally at home. If John Kerry approaches the next two with the calm focus and command of detail he used here, the debates will be the turning point in this campaign. Perhaps the impact is already being felt.
Post-debate polling by Survey USA found that 45% of Floridians gave the debate to Kerry, compared to 31% for Bush. Kerry won among Pennsylvanians 47-25, among Arkansans 46-34, among Oregonians 50-31. Dubya did win in Texas, by the unconvincing margin of 41-39. The outcome of this debate, as reflected in presidential preference polls, may take some time to materialize, but should be detectable at the state level. One of the pillars supporting Bush's campaign strategy has crumbled; this cannot fail to affect the race.
