Sunday, November 28, 2004
Goodness, has it been two weeks? Don't say you weren't warned.
One notable bit of news from overseas: Nicolas Sarkozy has seized the reigns of the governing party in France. Sarkozy is the next big thing in French politics - an extremely popular right-of-center politician who gathered acclaim from his management of the Interior Ministry before being shifted over to finance. Jacques Chirac loathes him - and that is reason enough to like the guy.
Sarkozy, as you might notice, is not a French name. His family emigrated from Hungary, but he still observes a connection to his ancestral land. Should he win the presidency – which he is expected to try for in 2007 – expect a less chauvinistic French foreign policy. I don't know how Sarkozy stands on the question of trans-Atlantic relations, but one shouldn't expect him to adopt his predecessor's tactic of bullying Eastern Europe. Odds are that his ascent will be good for France and for America as well.
One notable bit of news from overseas: Nicolas Sarkozy has seized the reigns of the governing party in France. Sarkozy is the next big thing in French politics - an extremely popular right-of-center politician who gathered acclaim from his management of the Interior Ministry before being shifted over to finance. Jacques Chirac loathes him - and that is reason enough to like the guy.
Sarkozy, as you might notice, is not a French name. His family emigrated from Hungary, but he still observes a connection to his ancestral land. Should he win the presidency – which he is expected to try for in 2007 – expect a less chauvinistic French foreign policy. I don't know how Sarkozy stands on the question of trans-Atlantic relations, but one shouldn't expect him to adopt his predecessor's tactic of bullying Eastern Europe. Odds are that his ascent will be good for France and for America as well.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Weekend at Yasser's
Of Yasser Arafat it must be said that classic line about the old Thane of Cawdor: nothing in his life became him like the leaving it. Arafat lay suspended between worlds while his place of burial was debated in a political argument devoid of any but the most spurious significance. His batty trophy wife even chimed in.
Up to a point, Arafat was a successful publicist for his people. Nothing like a bloody hijacking or massacre to get people's attention. This was what he did best. As a head of state, he was a disaster. He devised corrupt redundant bureaucracies and looked on as they stepped over each other. His people skimmed from the top, middle and bottom - a recent Jim Hoagland column recounts the time when Arafat asked a German banker to give him a loan in cash.
At his core, he was not ever serious about peace and reconciliation. Had he been so, he'd have taken steps to prepare his people for what everyone knew was inevitable: compromise on Jerusalem and a renunciation of return. He never did that. He assured Westerners that his strident appeals to Palestinian nationalism were necessary to maintain his legitimacy. After a while, the guise wore thin and we got the suspicion that we'd been had.
In 1994, Arafat told a South African audience that Oslo was a mere truce on the road to the recovery of all of Palestine. More should have been made of this statement. More, too, should have been made of his rhetorical defense of Hamas in the critical 1995-96 period, when he eulogized the bomber Yahya Ayyash. Had Westerners taken greater heed, they might have been able to brace themselves for Camp David and its aftermath.
At Camp David, Arafat simply refused to make counterproposals (complaints about Barak's opening offer are thus, beside the point). He flat out told his counterparts that Jerusalem had no Jewish history, and therefore belonged to Palestine. Defenses made of his behavior - that he wasn't ready to negotiate so comprehensively - simply don't hold water. The same people fault Ehud Barak for prioritizing the Syrian track and wasting months on that. The argument also forgets the fundamental fact that Arafat was in power from 1993 onward. If he felt rushed in 2000, it could only have come from his failure to prepare his people for the inevitable concessions.
Confronted, he turned back to violence, his own familiar standby. Those who argue for the spontaneity of the outbreak of violence in September overlook the obvious signs of Arafat's preparation - the increasingly aggressive tone of PA propaganda and the en masse release of Hamas prisoners. In the process, he destroyed his last true negotiating partner. Barak's aloofness is well known, but he was ultimately sincere. His negotiating style left much to be desired, but this was an obstacle that Bill Clinton's careful mediation did much to overcome. Clinton's efforts were futile in the face of Arafat's obstinence.
Clinton made some sage observations about Arafat, which can be found in his memoir: the aging revolutionary was "not at the top of his game," unable to make the transition between revolutionary and statesman. He seemed "confused" and not in command of the facts. In their last conversation, Clinton told Arafat "that he was single-handedly electing Sharon and that he would reap the whirlwind. (943-44)"
Whatever the tragedies of the past four years, Arafat got what he deserved in Sharon - an implacable adversary who has progressively humiliated him and reduced him to irrelevance. The last four years have been disastrous, but it was Arafat's intifada that set all this in motion. There is some justice to be found that he will die before the inevitable establishment of a Palestinian state, having callously squandered far better opportunities to establish one.
Arafat is not to be pitied or mourned. The countless innocent victims of his folly - both Palestinian and Israeli - are. Let's hope that Arafat's successors pay more heed to these victims than they do their failed predecessor.
Of Yasser Arafat it must be said that classic line about the old Thane of Cawdor: nothing in his life became him like the leaving it. Arafat lay suspended between worlds while his place of burial was debated in a political argument devoid of any but the most spurious significance. His batty trophy wife even chimed in.
Up to a point, Arafat was a successful publicist for his people. Nothing like a bloody hijacking or massacre to get people's attention. This was what he did best. As a head of state, he was a disaster. He devised corrupt redundant bureaucracies and looked on as they stepped over each other. His people skimmed from the top, middle and bottom - a recent Jim Hoagland column recounts the time when Arafat asked a German banker to give him a loan in cash.
At his core, he was not ever serious about peace and reconciliation. Had he been so, he'd have taken steps to prepare his people for what everyone knew was inevitable: compromise on Jerusalem and a renunciation of return. He never did that. He assured Westerners that his strident appeals to Palestinian nationalism were necessary to maintain his legitimacy. After a while, the guise wore thin and we got the suspicion that we'd been had.
In 1994, Arafat told a South African audience that Oslo was a mere truce on the road to the recovery of all of Palestine. More should have been made of this statement. More, too, should have been made of his rhetorical defense of Hamas in the critical 1995-96 period, when he eulogized the bomber Yahya Ayyash. Had Westerners taken greater heed, they might have been able to brace themselves for Camp David and its aftermath.
At Camp David, Arafat simply refused to make counterproposals (complaints about Barak's opening offer are thus, beside the point). He flat out told his counterparts that Jerusalem had no Jewish history, and therefore belonged to Palestine. Defenses made of his behavior - that he wasn't ready to negotiate so comprehensively - simply don't hold water. The same people fault Ehud Barak for prioritizing the Syrian track and wasting months on that. The argument also forgets the fundamental fact that Arafat was in power from 1993 onward. If he felt rushed in 2000, it could only have come from his failure to prepare his people for the inevitable concessions.
Confronted, he turned back to violence, his own familiar standby. Those who argue for the spontaneity of the outbreak of violence in September overlook the obvious signs of Arafat's preparation - the increasingly aggressive tone of PA propaganda and the en masse release of Hamas prisoners. In the process, he destroyed his last true negotiating partner. Barak's aloofness is well known, but he was ultimately sincere. His negotiating style left much to be desired, but this was an obstacle that Bill Clinton's careful mediation did much to overcome. Clinton's efforts were futile in the face of Arafat's obstinence.
Clinton made some sage observations about Arafat, which can be found in his memoir: the aging revolutionary was "not at the top of his game," unable to make the transition between revolutionary and statesman. He seemed "confused" and not in command of the facts. In their last conversation, Clinton told Arafat "that he was single-handedly electing Sharon and that he would reap the whirlwind. (943-44)"
Whatever the tragedies of the past four years, Arafat got what he deserved in Sharon - an implacable adversary who has progressively humiliated him and reduced him to irrelevance. The last four years have been disastrous, but it was Arafat's intifada that set all this in motion. There is some justice to be found that he will die before the inevitable establishment of a Palestinian state, having callously squandered far better opportunities to establish one.
Arafat is not to be pitied or mourned. The countless innocent victims of his folly - both Palestinian and Israeli - are. Let's hope that Arafat's successors pay more heed to these victims than they do their failed predecessor.
Monday, November 08, 2004
A Thought on Cote d'Ivoire
Why attack France? France is a first world power with a robust, capable military. Outside of Britain, it is the country in Western Europe best able to project force, and is pretty unapologetic about it. Gung ho, you might say.
Nonetheless, the government of Cote d'Ivoire seems intent on attacking the French presence in their country. Why?
They could simply be unbalanced or irrational.
But then the question would be why now?
I'm going to guess that they're taking a hard look at events in Iraq. Watching the slow-motion withdrawal of the international community from Iraq would lead one to believe that international resolve to engage in costly rebuilding or monitoring operations is low. Granted, France isn't involved in Iraq, but it could be that the Ivorian government thinks the lesson applies there: countries that take losses pull their troops out.
Iraq turns out to be even more important now, in that sense. It is where the credibility of national-building and peacekeeping efforts for the coming decades will either be salvaged or lost. Opportunistic actors like the Ivorian government are watching . . .
Why attack France? France is a first world power with a robust, capable military. Outside of Britain, it is the country in Western Europe best able to project force, and is pretty unapologetic about it. Gung ho, you might say.
Nonetheless, the government of Cote d'Ivoire seems intent on attacking the French presence in their country. Why?
They could simply be unbalanced or irrational.
But then the question would be why now?
I'm going to guess that they're taking a hard look at events in Iraq. Watching the slow-motion withdrawal of the international community from Iraq would lead one to believe that international resolve to engage in costly rebuilding or monitoring operations is low. Granted, France isn't involved in Iraq, but it could be that the Ivorian government thinks the lesson applies there: countries that take losses pull their troops out.
Iraq turns out to be even more important now, in that sense. It is where the credibility of national-building and peacekeeping efforts for the coming decades will either be salvaged or lost. Opportunistic actors like the Ivorian government are watching . . .
John Kerry won't be going away anytime soon, and that's a good thing.
With the loss of Daschle, the Senate Democrats need all the star power they can get. Kerry won't likely be a candidate for the presidency again, but he can serve as a valuable spokesman for the party in the Senate. He can help draw the spotlight to the minority's efforts.
At this point, the Senate is all we have left. The House is rigged against us and the Supreme Court . . . well don't get me started. The Senate and the filibustering ability of the minority are all we've got for the present time. Having Kerry onhand will help, even as we determine who next leads the party.
With the loss of Daschle, the Senate Democrats need all the star power they can get. Kerry won't likely be a candidate for the presidency again, but he can serve as a valuable spokesman for the party in the Senate. He can help draw the spotlight to the minority's efforts.
At this point, the Senate is all we have left. The House is rigged against us and the Supreme Court . . . well don't get me started. The Senate and the filibustering ability of the minority are all we've got for the present time. Having Kerry onhand will help, even as we determine who next leads the party.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
France at War?
Government forces in the Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivoire) has attacked French troops supervising a disintegrating ceasefire. France incurred a lot of resentment in the country for seemingly forcing it to bargain with separatists in the north. French troops have been onhand for two years, but the government seems to have decided to target them.
France has retaliated by destroying the Ivorian air force, but it remains to be seen whether that will break the resolve of the government. French citizens have had to be evacuated elsewhere in the country.
Whether France has the stomach for a protracted war in Africa remains to be seen.
Government forces in the Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivoire) has attacked French troops supervising a disintegrating ceasefire. France incurred a lot of resentment in the country for seemingly forcing it to bargain with separatists in the north. French troops have been onhand for two years, but the government seems to have decided to target them.
France has retaliated by destroying the Ivorian air force, but it remains to be seen whether that will break the resolve of the government. French citizens have had to be evacuated elsewhere in the country.
Whether France has the stomach for a protracted war in Africa remains to be seen.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
The Exodus Continues
Hungary has announced plans to withdraw its troops from Iraq by March.
As allies go, Hungary is a pretty serious one. The anti-Americanism that complicated the Spanish deployment is not present in the case of Hungary. They're in good company, though. Poland is pulling out, as is the Netherlands.
Back in 2003, Hungary committed itself to a pro-American policy, incurring French and German wrath. They apparently feel ill-rewarded for the risks they took and who can blame them? Dubya's coalition of the willing is frittering away and he won't be able to assemble anything like it in the future.
Hungary has announced plans to withdraw its troops from Iraq by March.
As allies go, Hungary is a pretty serious one. The anti-Americanism that complicated the Spanish deployment is not present in the case of Hungary. They're in good company, though. Poland is pulling out, as is the Netherlands.
Back in 2003, Hungary committed itself to a pro-American policy, incurring French and German wrath. They apparently feel ill-rewarded for the risks they took and who can blame them? Dubya's coalition of the willing is frittering away and he won't be able to assemble anything like it in the future.
On Being Wrong
A few of the forecasts I made yesterday were right. Those happened to be the easy ones. All things considered, I might as well have picked a Catholic to be the next Pope. On the big races I was way off. Maybe it came down to a few states and maybe it was fluky - Kerry did come through in iffy states like Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Maine and Pennsylvania. Yesterday's mid-day exit polls made me very very happy. Oh well. False bliss feels real enough at the moment.
I might not have been so heady if I didn't feel that I was mostly on in 2000. You'll have to take my word for it, but I did basically predict the final map except for Florida. Here, things went awry and I'm far from being the only one to be egregiously wrong.
I don't get this country. I don't get this electorate. Without falling utterly into paroxysms of Bush-loathing (which I've generally tried to avoid doing here) I cannot fathom how the man could have won so handily with a popular majority. It reflects badly on us as a nation: on our values, our wisdom and our basic understanding of the world around us. I'm generally at pains to stress that faults people see in Americans are not unique to us - far from it - but are in fact particular variations on common human flaws. Still, I don't see how this happened.
People will bash Kerry the candidate. That's only valuable to a point. If the bashers are former Dean supporters, don't drink the Kool-aid. Bush would have wiped the floor with Dean. Dean wouldn't have been able to compete in Florida at all - look at how poorly he did with southern voters in the primaries. Dean lacks the military service or the experience with foreign policy that were genuine Kerry strengths. He would not have fared better.
It genuinely pleases me to say that Nader was not a factor this time out. He became a shrill self-parody, grousing at the margins. In other words, he's now a boring 3rd party candidate like the others. His performance in Florida was pitiful - he got a third of his vote total from 2000. He failed to make the Ohio ballot at all.
The loss of Daschle is a truly bitter blow. Thune ran a disgraceful campaign and was rewarded for it by a narrow margin. South Dakotans replaced a proven leader with a telegenic hack and I suspect their reward for it will be a greater obscurity.
It promises to be a long four years. Maybe in a few months I'll have words of encouragement, but I wouldn't encourage you to check this blog too frequently. I frankly don't know if its raison d'etre still holds in this scary new world. A basic optimism has usually supported my observations about the world, but clinging to that now would make this blog ridiculous. At the same time, I see little point in posting gloom and doom; there's little service in that. Maybe I'll fixate on foreign issues that are interesting and not ominous, or maybe I'll take a holiday from all this unpleasantness. Stay tuned, I guess.
A few of the forecasts I made yesterday were right. Those happened to be the easy ones. All things considered, I might as well have picked a Catholic to be the next Pope. On the big races I was way off. Maybe it came down to a few states and maybe it was fluky - Kerry did come through in iffy states like Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Maine and Pennsylvania. Yesterday's mid-day exit polls made me very very happy. Oh well. False bliss feels real enough at the moment.
I might not have been so heady if I didn't feel that I was mostly on in 2000. You'll have to take my word for it, but I did basically predict the final map except for Florida. Here, things went awry and I'm far from being the only one to be egregiously wrong.
I don't get this country. I don't get this electorate. Without falling utterly into paroxysms of Bush-loathing (which I've generally tried to avoid doing here) I cannot fathom how the man could have won so handily with a popular majority. It reflects badly on us as a nation: on our values, our wisdom and our basic understanding of the world around us. I'm generally at pains to stress that faults people see in Americans are not unique to us - far from it - but are in fact particular variations on common human flaws. Still, I don't see how this happened.
People will bash Kerry the candidate. That's only valuable to a point. If the bashers are former Dean supporters, don't drink the Kool-aid. Bush would have wiped the floor with Dean. Dean wouldn't have been able to compete in Florida at all - look at how poorly he did with southern voters in the primaries. Dean lacks the military service or the experience with foreign policy that were genuine Kerry strengths. He would not have fared better.
It genuinely pleases me to say that Nader was not a factor this time out. He became a shrill self-parody, grousing at the margins. In other words, he's now a boring 3rd party candidate like the others. His performance in Florida was pitiful - he got a third of his vote total from 2000. He failed to make the Ohio ballot at all.
The loss of Daschle is a truly bitter blow. Thune ran a disgraceful campaign and was rewarded for it by a narrow margin. South Dakotans replaced a proven leader with a telegenic hack and I suspect their reward for it will be a greater obscurity.
It promises to be a long four years. Maybe in a few months I'll have words of encouragement, but I wouldn't encourage you to check this blog too frequently. I frankly don't know if its raison d'etre still holds in this scary new world. A basic optimism has usually supported my observations about the world, but clinging to that now would make this blog ridiculous. At the same time, I see little point in posting gloom and doom; there's little service in that. Maybe I'll fixate on foreign issues that are interesting and not ominous, or maybe I'll take a holiday from all this unpleasantness. Stay tuned, I guess.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Daschle in South Dakota
I'm going to go further out on a limb and forecast a Daschle victory. Daschle has a proven track record of helping South Dakota. He is the model of an effective small state politician - how many other senators drive through each of their state's counties each year? His opponent has waged a fairly nasty campaign in a state with an avowed preference for civility. I think this will backfire. Thune will come close but in the end Daschle's record and possibly the sense of South Dakotans of the likelihood of a Kerry victory will keep Tom in office. The White House failed the last time they tried to back Thune; from the conduct of this campaign, it's not clear that they learned anything from the experience.
A few other predictions while I'm at it:
Salazar (D) over Coors (R) in Colorado. Coors hasn't found the momentum to challenge Salazar.
Knowles (D) of Murkowski (R) in Alaska. Knowles is as solid a Democrat as Alaska has and he's retained an edge for most of the campaign
Carson (D) over Coburn (R) in Oklahoma. Coburn is out of his gourd and Carson is a very solid candidate who has retained a lead in most polls.
Obama (D) will take over 65%. Not bad for a first run.
DeMint (R) over Tenenbaum (D) in South Carolina. This pains me, but Tenenbaum never got the edge.
Bunning (R) v. Mongiardo (D) - I honestly don't know. Are Kentuckians willing to elect a senator to be named later? Or to run the risk of being represented by a man with some form of senility? Good grief.
Bowles (D) over Burr (R) in North Carolina. Bowles has had solid name recognition and has run an effective campaign. This one is currently too close to call, but I'll give him the edge.
Castor (D) over Martinez (R) in Florida. Betty Castor is a solid candidate and her foe Martinez's attacks haven't worked very well - some have boomeranged badly against him in fact.
Louisiana - Heaven only knows.
Predicting a final Senate is beyond my limited means. The GOP won't be widening their majority, methinks. If I'm right, and Tom Daschle returns, the Democrats will have the best man available to coordinate with the Kerry White House.
I'm going to go further out on a limb and forecast a Daschle victory. Daschle has a proven track record of helping South Dakota. He is the model of an effective small state politician - how many other senators drive through each of their state's counties each year? His opponent has waged a fairly nasty campaign in a state with an avowed preference for civility. I think this will backfire. Thune will come close but in the end Daschle's record and possibly the sense of South Dakotans of the likelihood of a Kerry victory will keep Tom in office. The White House failed the last time they tried to back Thune; from the conduct of this campaign, it's not clear that they learned anything from the experience.
A few other predictions while I'm at it:
Predicting a final Senate is beyond my limited means. The GOP won't be widening their majority, methinks. If I'm right, and Tom Daschle returns, the Democrats will have the best man available to coordinate with the Kerry White House.
Monday, November 01, 2004
Forecasting
I believe John Kerry will win tomorrow. In spite of what seems to be a mounting pile of reports of contemptible tricks by GOP operatives (falsely reporting a change in precinct location, making false claims that people with parking tickets who vote will be sent to jail, acting to preemptively disqualify minority voters) I think that a groundswell of popular support - particularly from newly registered voters - will push Kerry into office.
New voters favor Kerry by wide margins and voter registration is way up this year. A half a million new voters joined the rolls in Ohio. Similar gains have been reported in Florida and Iowa among other states. A lot of new voters are not being captured in the polls - just as in 2000, when most pre-election polls forecast a Bush victory in the popular vote. Polling organizations are demonstrably worse at capturing Democratic support. Be prepared to be surprised.
State level polling has largely offered good news to the Kerry campaign. With the exception of a couple of recent polls, Ohio has seemed winnable. Florida has moved into Kerry's column. Concerns about Wisconsin and Iowa have been ameliorated a bit by recent polls. In Iowa, polls of voters report that some 30% have already voted and those who have favor Kerry by an 8 point margin. Not bad so far.
The Bush campaign has fundamentally misplayed this election. It cast John Kerry as a hapless flip flopper and thereby set the bar so low that Kerry's strong debate performances utterly destroyed the fruits of a month's worth of negative campaigning. As Iraq has continued to worsen, the president's indignant denial that he's made any mistakes precluded any real improvement in his favorability ratings. His only shot was to get people to think about 9/11 and not Iraq; job growth in the last year and a half but not between 2001 and 2003. A more articulate or wise man might have managed such sleight of hand. Dubya fell far short of that.
The president showed himself to make a fetish out of his certainty. He did not shirk from implying through subordinates that a Kerry victory would endanger America. His campaign pursued numerous dirty tricks just under the counter - the current vote suppression efforts are only the latest. It was all very transparent. The Republicans have savaged one Democrat after another in this fashion, accusing them of inconsistency or excess liberalism or both. People have heard all this before. These tricks seemed ineffective in Kerry's October, when Bush's post convention lead shriveled up.
My bet is that Kerry will pick up Ohio, Florida and New Hampshire, while holding down Iowa and Wisconsin and hopefully New Mexico. Ohio is probably iffier. Florida is iffy for other reasons. But this time we know what we can expect. The irregularities of 2000 have been studied in depth. There is real cause for hope now. No incumbent in recent history has entered the home stretch with approval ratings so low and won. Not in the age of television.
There is one thing to remember about the Bushies: they never know when they're beat. Overconfidence is their cardinal flaw and they've never managed to address it. From Tora Bora to Baghdad, from Jim Jeffords to John Kerry they simply have a hard time recognizing when strategies fail them. As a faith based administration, they cannot adapt. They've mismanaged this country, its relations abroad, the occupation of Iraq and their own reelection campaign. Sooner or later the bill comes due. Tomorrow they're going to get their asses kicked and the rest of us will be able to breathe again.
I believe John Kerry will win tomorrow. In spite of what seems to be a mounting pile of reports of contemptible tricks by GOP operatives (falsely reporting a change in precinct location, making false claims that people with parking tickets who vote will be sent to jail, acting to preemptively disqualify minority voters) I think that a groundswell of popular support - particularly from newly registered voters - will push Kerry into office.
New voters favor Kerry by wide margins and voter registration is way up this year. A half a million new voters joined the rolls in Ohio. Similar gains have been reported in Florida and Iowa among other states. A lot of new voters are not being captured in the polls - just as in 2000, when most pre-election polls forecast a Bush victory in the popular vote. Polling organizations are demonstrably worse at capturing Democratic support. Be prepared to be surprised.
State level polling has largely offered good news to the Kerry campaign. With the exception of a couple of recent polls, Ohio has seemed winnable. Florida has moved into Kerry's column. Concerns about Wisconsin and Iowa have been ameliorated a bit by recent polls. In Iowa, polls of voters report that some 30% have already voted and those who have favor Kerry by an 8 point margin. Not bad so far.
The Bush campaign has fundamentally misplayed this election. It cast John Kerry as a hapless flip flopper and thereby set the bar so low that Kerry's strong debate performances utterly destroyed the fruits of a month's worth of negative campaigning. As Iraq has continued to worsen, the president's indignant denial that he's made any mistakes precluded any real improvement in his favorability ratings. His only shot was to get people to think about 9/11 and not Iraq; job growth in the last year and a half but not between 2001 and 2003. A more articulate or wise man might have managed such sleight of hand. Dubya fell far short of that.
The president showed himself to make a fetish out of his certainty. He did not shirk from implying through subordinates that a Kerry victory would endanger America. His campaign pursued numerous dirty tricks just under the counter - the current vote suppression efforts are only the latest. It was all very transparent. The Republicans have savaged one Democrat after another in this fashion, accusing them of inconsistency or excess liberalism or both. People have heard all this before. These tricks seemed ineffective in Kerry's October, when Bush's post convention lead shriveled up.
My bet is that Kerry will pick up Ohio, Florida and New Hampshire, while holding down Iowa and Wisconsin and hopefully New Mexico. Ohio is probably iffier. Florida is iffy for other reasons. But this time we know what we can expect. The irregularities of 2000 have been studied in depth. There is real cause for hope now. No incumbent in recent history has entered the home stretch with approval ratings so low and won. Not in the age of television.
There is one thing to remember about the Bushies: they never know when they're beat. Overconfidence is their cardinal flaw and they've never managed to address it. From Tora Bora to Baghdad, from Jim Jeffords to John Kerry they simply have a hard time recognizing when strategies fail them. As a faith based administration, they cannot adapt. They've mismanaged this country, its relations abroad, the occupation of Iraq and their own reelection campaign. Sooner or later the bill comes due. Tomorrow they're going to get their asses kicked and the rest of us will be able to breathe again.
