|
|
|
Demagoguery |
|
|
|
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, November 05, 2004 |
|
|
|
These People Love the GOP (TPLGOP)
The other day I was thinking about all the crazy things that Right-Wingers say and how those things never seem to do any damage to the Republican party or President Bush.
Every time Michael Moore says something stupid, his remarks are seen as indicative of everything liberals or Democrats stand for. But all of the idiotic/hateful thing uttered by the myriad of ultra-conservative Bush-loving religious zealots out there are totally ignored or viewed as the ravings of a few isolated loons.
I was thinking that I should start a new blog feature where I simply post these crazy remarks as I come across them under the heading "These People Love the GOP" (or "TPLGOP" for short) just as an informative service to all those moderate voters out there who seem totally unaware that Bush and the party he heads are fundamentally controlled, supported and beholden to a relatively small group of obsessively paranoid Christian crusaders.
To these voters I say "Your swing vote does not serve as a moderating influence on the Republican party. In fact, it does the opposite by endorsing a fanatic religious and cultural ideology that you would probably find terrifying if you were actually aware of it. So, for your edification, here is whom you've chosen to side with."
Of course, those sorts of people are not reading this blog, so I'm just going to do it for my own pleasure.
Today, Kevin Drum uncovered a beauty so I figure I'll just steal from him and start with this one Christian talk-radio host Frank Pastore:
The left bewitches with its potions and elixirs, served daily in its strongholds of academe, Hollywood and old media. It vomits upon the morals, values and traditions we hold sacred: God, family and country. As we learned Tuesday, it is clear the left holds the majority of Americans, the majority of us, in contempt.
Frank Pastore loves the GOP. These people got Bush elected and they did so because he is one of them, as are most congressional Republicans. As such, I am starting this simple feature merely to highlight the deranged ravings of the GOP's most devoted supporters.
There are going to be lots of Republican nutjobs making stupid comments in the coming months, and since I am hoping to make this a semi-regular feature, I ask that you e-mail me anything you come across that fits this format so that I can post it.
I assume we'll have a pretty big collection by 2008.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 3:17 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not Funny
My previous post was a bit lighthearted, but what's going on over here is really not amusing. If you want to be seriously creeped out, check this out.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 3:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boy, Do I Feel Safe Now
AMSTERDAM — The Dutch Cabinet has declared war on Islamic extremism, Deputy Prime Minister Gerrit Zalm has announced....Zalm rejected speculation the Government had fallen behind in the fight against Islamic extremism, pointing out that many people who had been threatened with death had not been killed. As a new resident of the Low Countries, I can't tell you how relieved I am.
This post is a small service I provide to those who may be thinking right now that the American government is uniquely idiotic. I found moving to Japan 15 years ago and observing their truly bizarre politics made me feel much better after the Lee Atwater-Willie Horton election of 1988.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 3:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Darfur
Jan Pronk says the situation is deteriorating and that "Darfur may easily enter a state of anarchy; a total collapse of law and order."
Amid fears of new violence, aid agencies are suspending operations and evacuating their staff.
Khartoum is refusing to sign a security deal with rebels, claiming that the document drafted by African Union mediators is too one-sided.
The rebels have apparently killed a mayor, wounded four police officers and abducted 10 children in El-Feshir.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 1:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If Only We Understood
From Thursday’s news conference at the White House:REPORTER: Thank you, Mr. President. How will you go about bringing people together? Will you seek a consensus candidate for the Supreme Court if there's an opening? Will you bring some Democrats into your cabinet?
BUSH: … first of all, there's no vacancy for the Supreme Court. And I will deal with a vacancy when there is one. … I haven't made any decisions on the cabinet yet.
REPORTER: How else will you bring people together?
BUSH: We'll put out an agenda that everybody understands and work with people to achieve the agenda … plenty of places for us to work together. I particularly liked Bush’s suggestion that there is something inherently unifying about putting out an agenda “that everybody understands."
If our president wants to ensure that everybody is clear on his agenda, perhaps this is what he should have said at the news conference:"Over the next four years, I will make permanent a tax cut that redistributes money to the wealthiest taxpayers, continue to weaken environmental standards, and appoint more right-wing neanderthals to serve on the nation's highest courts.
"Understand?" For the past four years, I have had no difficulty understanding Bush’s agenda. Funny, but my understanding didn’t make that agenda any less deplorable.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 1:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bush's "Capital" “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital. And now I intend to spend it.”
George W. Bush, Nov. 4, 2004 press conference If Bush believes he has earned or received some kind of mandate to “spend” as he will, then he is choosing to ignore history.
Looking back over the past 100 years, seven presidents (including Bush) have been elected to multiple terms in office. Using Electoral Votes as a barometer of whether a president has won a genuine mandate, compare the average EVs per election that these seven presidents received: Ronald Reagan (R) 1980/1984 …….......…….. 507
Franklin Roosevelt (D) 1932/36/40/44 ….... 469
Dwight Eisenhower (R) 1952/1956 ….......... 450
Richard Nixon (R) 1968/1972 …................... 411
Bill Clinton (D) 1992/1996 ..…..……........….…. 375
Woodrow Wilson (D) 1912/1916 ….........….. 356
George W. Bush (R) 2000/2004 …….........…… 279
NOTE: All averages were rounded up to the nearest whole number.
Bush’s two-election average assumes he has won 286 Electoral Votes this time around. This figure includes Iowa and New Mexico, which media outlets are now confirming as Bush states. Bush’s EV average of 279 is only nine EVs above the minimum needed to get elected -- not exactly a resounding approval of one’s policies.
In fact, looking over the past 100 years, only two presidential victors have won an election with fewer Electoral Votes than Bush's 286 EVs -- Woodrow Wilson in 1916 and Bush himself in 2000.
Bear in mind, there were only 531 Electoral Votes at stake when Woodrow Wilson was elected in both 1912 and 1916 so Wilson's average of 356 EVs would probably be slightly higher in a 538-EV universe. Even so, Wilson’s average EV is more than 27% higher than Bush’s EV average.
This White House would like to pretend that there's no difference between winning an election and winning a mandate.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 1:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bush Country, Part 2
From Texas, censorship:
A vote on some middle and high school health textbooks was delayed Thursday after a State Board of Education member raised concerns that language referring to "couples" and "partners" in the books legitimizes homosexuality.
Terri Leo, a Republican board member from Spring, also asked publishers to include language in the books' teacher editions saying that gays and lesbians "are more prone to self-destructive behaviors like depression, illegal drug use and suicide."
"Neutrality — the word 'partners' — when you use neutrality, the very purpose of using that language is to be inclusive of homosexuality," Leo said.
Leo proposed dozens of language revisions that would change the wording to "husbands and wives" and "men and women." From Arizona, fear:
Arizona Latino leaders say they have been inundated with calls since voters approved Proposition 200 Tuesday, asking whether immigrant parents should send their children to school or whether it's safe to go shopping.
Representatives of the Valley's Head Start program said attendance dropped substantially Wednesday as worried parents kept their children home from school. In one classroom, only two children showed up. Normally, there are 20.
[edit]
Martin Delgado, a legal resident, said he fears for his wife, Antonia, because she's here illegally. She is among the estimated 300,000 to 350,000 undocumented immigrants in Arizona who, Latino leaders fear, may be forced to go further underground. "She fears even to go out to walk because anyone can ask her for legal papers," said Delgado, 33, who works at a grocery store in Phoenix. "She doesn't have any type of identification, and now it will be harder to go around."
posted by
Helena Montana at 1:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, November 04, 2004 |
|
|
|
Bush Country
You just can't make this stuff up [Roy] Moore's former spokesman, Tom Parker, was one of three victorious GOP Supreme Court candidates. Parker was Moore's legal adviser when Moore was ousted from office for refusing to remove a monument to the commandments from the rotunda of the state judicial building. Moore was removed from the bench for displaying the Ten Commandments. The guy who told him that doing that was legally a-ok was just elected to the same bench.
Elsewhere in Alabama, voters decided NOT to remove racist language from the state constitution ... because it might lead to higher taxes The narrow failure of Amendment 2 confused some voters who thought removing segregation-era language from the state constitution was a good idea.
The failed measure would have re-written an education section of the constitution, specifically taking out a line about separate schools for "white and colored children."
"It would be better to re-do it, you know, and kind of put a lot of people's minds at ease," said Quincy Moore, of the Magic City Barber Shop.
"We decided it was a bad amendment, and we voted against it," said Percy Hornbuckle.
Hornbuckle worried that Amendment 2 was a backdoor to higher taxes and didn't think out-dated racist laws were a problem for the modern black community.
"We're full-fledged Americans, and whatever anybody else gets, we ought to be entitled to the same thing," said Hornbuckle.
High-profile political candidates, like Supreme Court Justice-elect Tom Parker, claimed victory for the failure of Amendment 2. Tom Parker? Hey, that name sounds familiar.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 4:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Republican Country
Every conservative blogger seems to be linking to this USA Today map showing the entire country more or less bathed in Republican Red Apparently political support is now measured purely in land mass.
I know that I'm never going to be able to convince any Republican to stop milking this electoral optical illusion, but I did a little research here and I think that it is at least worth pointing out that Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma have a combined land mass of 227,354 square miles and a population of 7,974,330.
Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut have a combined land mass of 13,730 square miles and a population of 10,992,958. Just keep that in mind.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 2:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not a Shy Guy
The agenda of the World's Biggest Asshole:"The Republican Party is a permanent majority for the future of this country," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, told supporters Wednesday. "We're going to be able to lead this country in the direction we've been dreaming of for years. . . . We're going to put God back into the public square."
First, thanks to the good folks over at MyDD we are reminded that what Bush has is not a mandate and that Bush only won by the 161,989 votes that put him over the magic 270 (subject to change after absentees, provisional votes are counted). Also 1% over 50% is not a landslide victory, it is a slim majority in a winner-take-all system, which is exactly what we'd be hearing if Kerry was where Bush is right now.
So buck up little campers. I think they'll have a harder time than they think trying to drag us backwards. Most Americans did not vote for the right-wing Christian conservative agenda, they voted for Dubya, a guy they'd like to have a beer with because he seems like a "real" guy. Backlash does and can go both ways. The harder they push, the harder we will push back. So, if they're foolish to push for an even more radical agenda and if we fail to expose them for the nutty idealogues that they are, then we are doomed. But I have more faith than that in the 48% of the voters who voted against Bush's second term. Don't you?
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 2:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worried: yes, desperate: no
I realize that some are still in the early stages of post-electoral angst, but I have already turned back to watching the Right. I figure it's more important now than ever. And I want to point out two egregious items that stand out from the generic pack of right-wing triumphalism.
You might have already seen the first. Grover stunk up the joint again with the following quote from the Washington Post:
"Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such." And Chuck Colson basically tells Religious Right voters that it's sinful to enjoy the electoral victory, because if the dirty gays convince any of their kids that "fairness" matters, they will have still lost. Ugh.
When our youth are influenced by the “fairness” argument for gay “marriage,” help them understand that matrimonial law is not based on “feelings” or “fairness,” but on moral and natural law judgments that marriage is inherently heterosexual, monogamous, fruitful, and permanent.
Even with a believer in the White House, Christians are not released from our obligation to teach worldview and to work for righteousness. As agents of God’s common grace, we are called to help sustain and renew His creation, to uphold the created institutions of family and society. So that's the worry part. Why am I not desperate? Because this was a close election in wartime circumstances. On top of that, there are some other results that aren't so bad. The fight on the state level is more important then ever. Check it out.
Early results indicate that the Republican Party lost some of the ground it gained in state legislative races in 2002 and that the 2004 elections have deepened the political divide in statehouses.
Democrats and Republicans pulled out a number of close but concrete victories in the 44 states that held elections, flipping political control in at least 10 legislative chambers. Power in two legislatures – the Maine Senate and Oregon House – was riding on the outcome of races still too close to call.
posted by
Helena Montana at 1:40 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Electoral College
This is way off topic and probably totally irrelevant, but the issue of the fairness of the Electoral College seems to have died down since Al Gore got screwed over four years ago. Nonetheless, in the weeks running up to Election Day, I recall seeing several analysis pieces commenting on the possibility that a similar situation could unfold again this year, one in which the candidate won the popular vote lost the electoral vote.
As much as I would have loved to see exactly that sort of situation unfold to Bush's disadvantage, I also don't think it is exactly fair and I am glad that it didn't happen. But it got me thinking that we ought to try to remedy this loophole so that whoever wins the popular vote ought to at least get some sort of advantage in the Electoral College.
My (admittedly naive) proposal is that Congress ought to amend the Constitution to provide an additional 11 electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote.
In 2000, there were 537 electoral votes - Bush won 271,while Gore won 266 despite his narrow popular vote victory. 537 electoral votes means that the average state is worth about 11 and I think that the popular vote winner ought to be rewarded for winning the popular vote with an additional 11 electoral votes. Had this program been in place in 2000, it would have increased the number of electoral votes to 547, meaning that a candidate needed 274 to win. With the 11 additional votes awarded for winning the popular vote, Gore would have won.
In nearly every other election in US history, these additional votes would have simply been added to the winner's already clear victory and would not have influenced the outcome in any way. It it were in place today, Bush would still have won, with 296 votes to Kerry's 252. The way I see it, this change would never impact any race where there is a clear and obvious winner, but it would help to alleviate some of the unfairness in our system that creates situations in which the candidate who wins the popular vote still loses the electoral vote.
It also have the advantage of ensuring the every vote truly does matter - Republican votes in New York and California, Democratic votes in Texas and South Carolina.
There ought to be an advantage to winning the popular vote, especially in a close race, and this seems to me to be a very fair and common sense solution (which is exactly why it'll probably never be enacted. Well, that and the fact that I am a complete nobody writing about it on a blog that hardly anybody reads.)
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:29 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More Evidence of Al-Qaqaa Lies
Remember the news about the missing explosives from the Al-Qaqaa site in Iraq? Conservatives claimed the charge was all just a liberal media frenzy to discredit President Bush. The president and Cheney both attacked John Kerry for even raising the issue, saying he didn't have his facts straight.
Well, unless U.S. troops are just hapless dupes of the media, today there is yet more evidence -- not just that looting occurred, but that it occurred under the very eyes of the U.S. military: Explosives were looted from the Al-Qaqaa ammunitions site in Iraq while outnumbered U.S. soldiers assigned to guard the materials watched helplessly, soldiers told the Los Angeles Times.
About a dozen U.S. troops were guarding the sprawling facility in the weeks after the April 2003 fall of Baghdad when Iraqi looters raided the site, the newspaper quoted a group of unidentified soldiers as saying.
U.S. Army reservists and National Guardsmen witnessed the looting and some soldiers sent messages to commanders in Baghdad requesting help, but received no reply, they said. "It was complete chaos. It was looting like L.A. during the Rodney King riots," one officer said.
The eyewitness accounts reported by the Times are the first provided by U.S. soldiers and bolster claims that the U.S. military had failed to safeguard the powerful explosives, the newspaper said. Since these soldiers told the newspaper that they contacted commanders to report what was happening, these revelations (if true) would mean that the Bush administration has been publicly and knowlingly lying about this for the past week (unless, of course, Rumsfeld kept the truth both from the public and the president).
It would now appear that the Bush campaign's chief goal was not so much to hide the truth forever as it was to simply "run out the clock," deceive the public about the Al-Qaqaa looting at least through Election Day.
It's so good to know, as Eugene reminded us yesterday, that Americans believe they re-elected such an honest and trustworthy administration.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:18 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Darfur
The State Department urged Sudan to arrange for the return of thousands of people in Darfur whom they have forcibly removed from camps "We stand with the international community in holding the government of Sudan responsible for the violations, and we request immediate return of all displaced persons back to the camp at El Geer where they were moved from," Boucher said. The US requests immediate return - we're not demanding or requiring or even calling for an immediate return. We're simply requesting one. While we're at it, maybe we ought to request that they stop committing genocide.
Oops, wait - here is the State Department's press release We call on the Government of Sudan to cease the forcible relocation of civilians, disengage forces surrounding other camps and allow humanitarian workers immediate access. They are indeed "calling on" Sudan to stop. I guess they really are serious. My mistake.
For it's part, Khartoum is flat out denying that it forcibly relocated anyone.
Meanwhile, a new UN report says the violence has intensified and that there are strong indications of war crimes being committed "on a large and systematic scale."
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:05 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, November 03, 2004 |
|
|
|
Filling the Daschle Vacancy
Although I'd have preferred to see the Dems hold onto the Senate seat that was contested in South Dakota, I was never enamored by Tom Daschle's leadership qualities. His defeat on Tuesday creates a vacancy for Senate Minority Leader.
The Dems' #2 leadership post is currently held by Nevada Senator Harry Reid, who won his re-election bid this year. But I hope Reid is content to stay where he is -- he's every bit as bland and ineffectual as Daschle was. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut (who also won re-election on Tuesday) is considered a probable candidate for the top slot.
But I'd like to see Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois make a bid for minority leader. Durbin has been one of the more aggressive critics of the administration's misuse and manipulation of WMD-related intelligence. And when a handful of prominent conservatives used two or three issues to portray some Catholic politicians as more Catholic than others, Durbin responded forcefully. He compiled an issue scorecard showing that Senate Dems compared favorably to GOP Catholics when a more complete range of church issues were evaluated.
Durbin is quite adept at exposing or debunking arguments that are fact-challenged or misleading. I think he would be up to the task -- every bit as much as Dodd would be.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And How Would You Like Your Crow Cooked, Sir?"
Pollster John Zogby is eating a lot of crow these days.
Bush's re-election would be disheartening in and of itself. But perhaps the biggest reason why I still feel as though someone played a cruel and twisted joke on me is the prediction made by Zogby International just a few hours before polls closed on the East Coast.
Hours earlier, exit polls that gained wide circulation suggested that Kerry was running strongly in all large swing states. Then, at 5 o'clock Eastern Time, Zogby posted a prediction to his website that Kerry would win every major swing state -- FL, OH, MI, PA, WI, and MN -- and at least 311 electoral votes. (According to Zogby, the states of NV and CO were still too close to call; in the end, both went for Bush.)
On Wednesday, this was an excerpt of the "oops" message posted by Zogby on his firm's website:"We feel strongly that our pre-election polls were accurate on virtually every state. Our predictions on many of the key battleground states like Ohio and Florida were within the margin of error. I thought we captured a trend, but apparently that result didn’t materialize." Apparently.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moving On
I've been swimming in a sea of mixed emotions today, as I'm sure everyone else has.
I've been angry, indignant, despondent, frustrated, sad, crushed and bewildered. Suprisingly, as the reality of what happened sinks in, I'm also feeling relieved. Relieved that it's finally over. This campaign season has been especially brutal-- brutal in its intensity, brutal in its length, but mostly brutal because of the overwhelming feeling that the stakes are so inexplicably high. I don't think there has been a day in the past two years where I haven't been thinking about today-- November 3rd.
But it is time to move on. It is time to regroup. It is time to reflect. It is time to relax and take care of ourselves a little more. I feel as though I'll never understand exactly what happened, how so many brilliant, insightful people could have been so far off the mark. But I'm looking forward to taking time to examine the smaller picture instead of being so obsessed with the big picture.
It's also time to really look at America, not for what it could be but for what it is. We are a deeply divided country, this fact is undeniable, and I think many of us underestimated the culture war that was still raging. Right now my newest hope is that we can find ways to build inroads, to soften the edges, to move on.
I'm sure this will change, but for now I just need to rest, think a little less intensely, and concern myself with the present as well as the future.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 8:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I Don't Hate Polls
I just hate people.
I think this one figure from CNN's exit poll data pretty much sums up my complete shock and disbelief today Amongst the 11% of voters who reported that "Honest/Trustworthy" was the most important quality they wanted in a President, 70% chose Bush and 29% chose Kerry. For the life of me, I am fundamentally incapable of understanding how people who claim to believe that honesty and trustworthiness are key qualities could so overwhelmingly vote for Bush.
I am completely at a loss.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 3:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bright Side
Most Dutch people are distressed at the outcome of the U.S. election, but they've been distracted from brooding over that disaster by the news that the suspected killer of Theo van Gogh left a note on van Gogh's body appealing for jihad. He carried a similar letter on his own person. Meanwhile, Member of Parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali is received a death letter saying, "Van Gogh is cleared; you're next," and a young Muslim man was ringing doorbells between 4:30 and 5:00 a.m. in the neighborhood where she spent the night (she's been living in safe houses) , asking to speak to her.
Unfortunately, it is harder to get firearms here than it is in the U.S., so I don't have enough energy to shoot myself. On the other hand, given Bush's non-policy on global warming and refusal to accept scientific consensus, and that fact that I'm living below sea level, I can just sit here and wait to drown.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 1:09 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curiouser and Curiouser
There's some interesting speculation going on over at Kos. It's hard to judge at this point if it will amount to anything, or if it's just a meeting of a sleep deprived, tin-foil-hat club, but it could be the start of a buzz.
-1.6 million votes still not counted yet in Florida, which also "may not include uncounted provisionals or absentee votes" -unknown number of provisionals in Ohio -exit polls and actual polls which hint at mysterious discrepencies in areas with paperless Diebold ballots -speculation (rumor?) that certain precincts in Ohio had too few voting machines in precints with high populations
Then I got to thinking-- even if Bush has won by a comfortable margin, does anyone out there really believe he won it fair and square? Think about 2000, think about the Diebold machines we've all been so concerned about, think about their shameless "by any means neccesary" approach to nearly everything they do. While I'm a far cry from cautiously optimistic for a Kerry/Edwards victory, I'm not ready to let go of the possibility that an unearthed election scandal lies ahead of us.
In other words, let's not presume that it is over until it is really, truly over. Every vote must be counted, regardless of who it may favor. Dems must show some spine when it really counts-- right now.
Prologue: It appears that Bush/Cheney was able to get Kerry/Edwards to concede BEFORE the election results are officially finalized and certified and BEFORE Bush/Cheney reaches 270+. What the f*ck is up with that? Waiting a day to sort this out would not have hurt the country. Also, Steele just acknowledged that there may be as many as 175,000 provisional ballots in Ohio. I just don't get it. Somebody explain it to me, please. Why the hell did Kerry/Edwards concede so early?
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 10:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Darfur
The UN is accusing Sudan of forcibly relocating thousands of refugees out of camps, in clear violation of international law.
The French-based aid group Medecins du Monde claims that Sudanese security forces raided at least one refugee camp in southern Darfur, forcibly moved some 500 occupants and then razed the camp to the ground.
Eric Reeves offers up an insightful and timely analysis of what this all means.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:12 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Devastation
Yesterday we were overrun and outmanuevered by aggressive, arrogant demagogues, plain and simple.
I don't know what to think about Ohio at this point. I don't know what to think about how many provisional ballots there are. The gap is +/- 144,000. The GOP says there are only 135,000 provisional ballots, others say there are more, maybe a lot more, as many as 250,000. However, the margin for an Ohio surprise is desperately weak and it would take a small miracle to recucitate Kerry/Edwards.
Regardless, the other major casualties of this election are obviously Tom Daschle and a seismic vote in 11 states against basic rights and equal protection for gay and lesbian families. Which only supports my point that we lost because to a bunch of demagogues. We might have won Ohio if it weren't for Amendment 1, but it turned out the anti-gay vote. In a time of terror and uncertainty, gay people are clearly the biggest threat to people WHO DON'T EVEN KNOW ANY.
Sorry for rambly rant. I went to bed at 4, woke up at 7:30. I'm a sleepy tired Zoe.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 7:52 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sore Loserman--With Style
It's been a while since I plugged the excellent, exciting, "not a self-described Bush-hating lesbian" Mikhaela Reid. I think she captures what I was feeling for much of the early morning.
Merriam-Webster defines "despondent" thus: "experiencing or expressing an all but complete loss of hope or sense of defeat." Buy Attitude 2 or Eviction Notice 1 & 2 and cheer Mikhaela up. A little.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 7:42 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That Would Be Too Painful
As of 6:13 a.m. EST on 3 November 2004, C-Span has projected Wisconsin and Michigan for Kerry. If that's right, and the other consensus projections hold up, then it all comes down to Ohio. The two remaining uncalled states, New Mexico and Iowa, wouldn't matter; they could boost the winner's margin, but whoever wins Ohio would win the election with at least 272 electoral votes (Kerry) or 274 electoral votes (Bush).
However: Wisconsin returns show 99% of precincts reporting and, by my eyeball calculation, a margin for Kerry of fewer than 0.5% of the votes. In most states, a margin that small triggers an automatic recount, without the other candidate's even having to ask (you may remember that the initial Florida recount in 2000 was automatic). So Wisconsin could certainly tip back to Bush. In fact, I have to believe it's more likely that Wisconsin will end up in Bush's column than that Ohio will go to Kerry--far more likely, to tell the truth.
If that happens, then Bush wouldn't need Ohio; either of the other two "uncalled" states would do. Iowa would put him over the top, and New Mexico would limit Kerry to 269 electoral votes, throwing the election to the House of Representatives, where Bush would win. I can't figure out why N.M. hasn't been called for Bush already, and he's fractionally ahead in Iowa as well. In other words, Wisconsin is essential for Kerry.
In scanning that 0.5% margin, which amounts to fewer than 14,000 votes, I noticed an interesting fact: Ralph Nader has a little more than 16,000 votes in Wisconsin. If this election eventually turns on Wisconsin (granted, not a highly probable event), and if Bush wins there, it is quite conceivable that Nader will end up with more votes than the margin of Bush's victory in the decisive state--again.
I don't want to restart the pissing contest between 2000 Naderites and those who voted for Gore. Lots of factors will have gone into the Dems' losing both races, and I'm neither trying to give Nader the largest share of the blame nor saying that Kerry would have won Wisconsin had Nader not been on the ballot.
What I am saying is that it would be very, very painful if this scenario should come to pass, and I will be extremely peeved at 16,000 cheeseheads.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 6:13 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where's George Santayana When You Need Him?
The cutesy line before the election was "Which state will be the next Florida." It was obvious that Ohio was the most likely candidate, more likely even than Florida itself, but I don't think many of us thought the script would be so similar to the one we suffered through in 2000. Did we learn nothing?
Now that I know more, I'm frankly outraged that Fox and NBC "called" Ohio. With Fox, you can't completely exclude the possibility of GOP election tactics dictating the coverage outright, but you'd think NBC would have learned its lesson last time--when it rushed to call Florida after Dubya's cousin called it on Fox.
To be clear, I accept that as the situation stands, it seems probable that George Bush got more votes in Ohio. The odds of a Kerry win are uncertain, but they can't be close to 50%. In fact, there is a reasonable possibility--maybe even a probability--that Bush's margin will soon be great enough to forestall any further controversy.
Professor Dan Tokaji has an excellent summary of the situation on the ground (and in the courts) in Ohio, including the (thank God!) news that it probably won't be 11 days before they start counting the provisional ballots. The longer this drags on, the worse for the country, no matter who wins in the end. We should make sure all the votes that should be counted are counted--Kerry shouldn't give in just to save time, in other words, and Bush surely won't do that--but that should and can be done quickly. Except, of course, that we can expect whichever side is currently ahead (i.e., most likely the GOP) to litigate to the bitter end before allowing any counting to progress. The courts really need to put their collective foot down, particularly when dealing with requests for TROs and preliminary injunctions (and injunctions pending appeal).
But this does make semi-serious the point about getting troops into Ohio. For one thing, we're almost surely in for an eery replay of Bush v. Gore if (a big if) the vote is close enough. Ohio hasn't promulgated uniform standards for how provisional ballots should be counted, so each county may have to decide for itself how to handle them. Sound familiar? A lawsuit has already been commenced (surprise) arguing that Bush v. Gore requires uniform standards statewide--an argument that at first blush seems pretty strong, but I must stress I know none of the details. See Prof. Tokaji for more.
So if this is Bush v. Gore II, shouldn't we be prepared for the possibility of similar thuggishness being deployed if at some stage the GOP thinks it's to their advantage? They've already got hundreds (thousands?) of "challengers" in the state for their "ballot security" program, plus who knows how many campaign workers and volunteers in this battleground state. This election should be won at the ballot box if at all possible, with some judicial oversight if absolutely necessary, and by physical force in the streets only if we allow the other side to get away with it.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 5:01 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stay Awake, Dammit!
I've been up all night; you can do it, too. Meanwhile, I've got to go wake up Mrs. California and the kids, feed them breakfast, and get them out the door.
Actually, you in America can do better than just staying awake. Maybe it's time to send a caravan to Ohio to reprise the GOP's orchestrated riot outside the Miami-Dade election board offices in 2000. Or something.
The early indications--and the coverage has been shamefully spotty--suggest real reason to worry that they're going to pull off their disenfranchisement strategy in Ohio. But not with the precinct challengers, as I and others had feared. Not with the 35,000 bogus pre-election challenges based on a registered-mail scam that the national GOP had agreed to desist from 20 years ago. But in the courts (after, of course, whining about the Dems' army of lawyers and how the Dems were going to try to steal the election through litigation). I've got to hand it to them: they paved the way well with their incessantly repeated, anecdotal claims that there was a significant amount of voter fraud. Somehow, they will translate that vague and essentially unsupported claim into a feeling that it's legitimate to prevent thousands of voters who were in line when the polls closed from voting, contrary to state law. As if that particular set of voters were the same as the set of fraudulent voters. After all, there's no reason to start being logical now.
If Bush really won, I'll have to learn to deal with it. But for God's sake, let's count the bloody votes this time before we decide.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 12:24 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, November 02, 2004 |
|
|
|
Do We Own Him?
Remember the line about Iraq that went something like: "Whether or not you favored the war, now we own Iraq and have to fix it before we leave"?
Different dynamic, but if we elect Bush, we own him. All of us.
I want to say "not my president," but I'm an American, and whoever wins represents us all whether we like it or not. And so far as the rest of the world is concerned, if we collectively keep him in office, he's our responsibility.
Kind of like a dog. He's had his one free bite, and now we're liable for the next victim--unless we put him to sleep.
Ahhh, sleeeeep.
What was I saying again?
The Dutch TV personalities gave up at 5:30 a.m. and went home. The Kerry supporters seemed pretty glum and were talking about Obama '08, while the most loudmouthed guy on the set, a Bush supporter, bemoaned the fact that a Bush win would open the way for Hillary Clinton to run next time. Even over here, the wingers are obsessed with her. But Max Westerman, of Max and the City fame (I blogged this a few weeks ago), and his brave four-man crew in their closet-sized NY studio emphasized that it will probably come down to Ohio, and we won't know about Ohio until the provisional ballots and other litigated issues are sorted out.
I told a Swiss friend the other day that I just hoped the damned thing ran right this time, so we didn't look stupid. She said, "You already look stupid." She was joking. Mostly. I think.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 11:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They Must Have a Wire to the Pennsylvania Dutch
My C-Span dynamic map doesn't show it, but Dutch TV is calling Pennsylvania for Kerry. How can they know first?
posted by
Arnold P. California at 10:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, This Pleases Me Too
Alan Keyes got his ass handed to him Barack Obama, 1,083,197 (80%) Alan Keyes 237,585 (17.6%) It is not really a surprise, but it still makes me happy.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant Europeans
On Dutch TV, the Bush and Kerry partisans are at it hammer and tongs (same talking points, different language). Anyway, they're quoting "Bushisms" (in English) and making fun of his problems with English. The ringleader has a Turkish name; English may be at least her third language.
Arrogant b**ch.
Patriotic but poor American youth: get ready for going Freedom on your dates.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 10:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No Dreams
I got home at midnight (on my bicycle like a good Dutchman) to find that Mrs. California had the BBC election coverage on the radio in the bedroom. I was surprised (and a little disappointed) that she could fall asleep while Republicans were continually repeating the long-since discredited claim that machines in Philadelphia had votes registered before the polls opened. I found it more understandable that the little Californias (3, 6, and 6 years old (yes, twins)) dozed off. In any case, I couldn't, and I've decided, at 3:15 in the morning, to concede: no way I'm sleeping tonight.
American voters, you'd better make this worth my while, because I'll be really p** off if I have to face the prospect of 4 more awful years while my psychological defenses are down from lack of sleep.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 9:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sweet Dreams?
Mrs. California just called to remind me I have a home (OK, it's only half a home, with no bathroom until a few hours ago, no kitchen, and the California kids in sleeping bags, but still). I've decided that with the first large bloc of states not being "called" until probably close to 4 a.m. here, I should go home and get some sleep.
There are several very different ways the world could look when I next see the light of day. For all of you doing GOTV work, monitoring voter "challengers," or just doing the most basic act--voting--please, please, please keep up the good work, and give me a pleasant good morning when I flip on the radio at the Maison Californie tomorrow.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 5:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting Rationale
This afternoon, I was working with volunteers in LaCrosse, Wisc., where I approached a voter and handed her a pro-Kerry leaflet.
"Oh, no, I've already voted for Bush," she explained. "I'd rather have America fight a war in Iraq than have to fight that war here at home and have the chance of being attacked on our own soil."
I was perplexed. I had no idea that all terrorists abide by a rulebook with the following rule:If you want to launch a terrorist attack on a particular country, you must refrain from launching said attack if that country has placed troops in the Middle East. So I guess it's a sign of Bush's genius that he invaded Iraq, knowing full well that al Qaeda et al would be forbidden from launching an attack on any domestic U.S. targets.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 4:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heavy Turnout In Wisconsin
Checking in from Western Wisconsin, all signs point to a heavy turnout in this battleground state. Long lines at polling sites greeted voters across the state this morning. Heavy turnout was reported in Dane County, one of the state's Democratic strongholds.
Wisconsin Public Radio reported at noon today that the state's 12 largest municipalities had received 45,000 more absentee ballots than they received in the 2000 election.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 4:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Theo van Gogh Is Dead
Not Vincent's brother Theo; I believe he's been dead for a long while now. But if you want a break from election news, consider the story that's dominating the Dutch media today.
Theo van Gogh was a colorful character, a journalist and filmmaker who was overweight, smoked a lot, and was essentially a charismatic curmudgeon. He had a TV show and a regular newspaper column, both of which were popular. He had put his considerable weight into one of today's most controversial topics in the Netherlands: relations between native Dutch and Muslim immigrants from Turkey and North Africa. Van Gogh took the anti-multiculturalist position.
A while back, a Dutch Member of Parliament named Ayaan Hirsi Ali approached him about making a short film. Ali comes from Somalia and is Muslim. She apparently suffered some pretty foul treatment at the hands of her family, at least partly in the name of Islam (or a particular brand of Islam), and her political career was founded on her vocal opposition to fundamentalist Islam.
Ali wrote the 10-minute film, "Submission" (which I believe is the meaning of the Arabic word islam), and van Gogh directed it. It aired on Dutch TV two months ago. The film featured veiled women--but the garments were see-through, so you could see the women's bodies, including their breasts. Anti-woman verses from the Koran were written on their bodies, and the women described physical abuse against women that had occurred in the Muslim community here.
As you might imagine, the film was controversial. Ali was moved to a secret location. And when van Gogh was murdered last night in Amsterdam and the suspect turned out to have dual Dutch-Morroccan nationality, everyone thought their worst fears had materialized.
A demonstration in favor of free speech, expected to be large, will be held in about 45 minutes in central Amsterdam. Tragic events are normally marked with silent marches in the Netherlands, but not this time; Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen said silence "would conflict with van Gogh's character." The position of Muslims here is a very, very delicate question, and there is considerable concern that this could be the spark that touches off a big explosion.
Stories about the murder, the film, and the possible effect on Dutch society are here, here, here, and here.
A popular Dutch talk show is going to be on all night tonight (until 6 a.m. tomorrow) covering the U.S. election. I had wondered how they were going to fill the relatively dull hours before 3 a.m. here, when the Eastern Time Zone states' polls close. That's not going to be a problem now.
Update 9:32 p.m. Dutch time (3:32 p.m. EST): I was on my way to dinner when the demonstration began. Though I'm too far from the center to hear the demonstration itself, the church bells all over Amsterdam were ringing. According to the press, 20,000 people showed up to participate in a "din vigil." Van Gogh's family opted against the traditional silent memorial, and instead there was a deafening roar of voices, fireworks, drums, and every other source of noise you can imagine.
Meanwhile, the talk show Barend & van Dorp is going ahead with plans for all-night coverage of the election, though "in a more sober mood than had been planned." The first hour will be devoted to van Gogh's death. Check out the Barend & van Dorp page on the U.S. election-night show to see just how much the attention the Netherlands is paying to our election. You can even vote in the online poll: Will Bush remain president? (with 12,000 votes in, "no" is winning 67%-33%). Also, add your reactions to those of other viewers to Vladimir Putin's remark: "A vote against Bush is a vote for terrorism." Take a quiz on U.S. presidential history (in Dutch, of course). And you can even watch the show streaming live by clicking the "livestream" button after 10:50 tonight (4:50 EST). The whole world is watching!
posted by
Arnold P. California at 1:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting For (Civic) Duty
In my neighborhood-- which is reliably Democratic-- the line was 2 hours long this morning. We both had the morning off, so went a little later to stay out of the way of people who needed to vote before work, so we arrived at 8:30, left after 10:30. I chatted with a poll worker and was told that the lines were incredible at 7 am, around the corner and over 3 blocks long! We waited for 2 hours and the line outside was less than 1/2 a block! WOW!
We encountered a handful of people who were complaining about the long lines, but my parnter just kept asking them-- 2 hours or 4 more years? People would laugh and then would not leave. When we came out to our car there was a sweet homemade Kerry flier on our car describing him as an honorable man who cares about poor, working families. (Our neighborhood precinct is lower and middle class, mostly African-American, Latino and minority white.) Overall, it was really great experience. (Even if they were Diebold voting machines without paper trails.)
Then we worked 2 hours phonebanking for Kerry in a local congressman's office. In our GOTV effort we were supposed to be helping people find out there polling locations and coordinate rides to the polls. However, everyone I talked to had already voted, one older gentleman even said very sweetly "You really don't need to call anyone today, everyone is voting. But thanks just the same."
I have a really giddy feeling about this. People were waiting in lines for several hours in VERY SAFE democratic districts in a VERY SAFE blue state.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 1:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Darfur
Just this - but it is important The Sudanese army has surrounded two refugee camps housing thousands of people in the Darfur region and denied access to groups providing humanitarian aid, a United Nations official said Tuesday.
The action came about 3 a.m. with no warning at the Abu Sharif and Otash camps in the Nyala region, said Christiane Berthiaume, spokeswoman for the World Food Program, a U.N. food agency, in Geneva. The Otash camp alone holds 17,000 refugees.
Army officials explained the move by saying they are relocating the refugees to a larger camp, Berthiaume said. But WFP is concerned the refugees will be sent back to their villages, where there is less protection from government-backed militias known as the Janjaweed.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 12:48 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bad Omen?
With all of the Florida Div. I-A football teams having lost on Saturday--a couple in rather embarrassing upsets--should we expect the state to continue its recent run of ruin with another election fiasco?
posted by
Arnold P. California at 8:19 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gracious Winners
Last night I was chatting with my dad, a Clevelander, about offering Bush some special assistance.
My pops said Bush needs to know that he could have his own personal volunteer army ready to help him move back to Texas, FREE OF CHARGE. My dad said he'd be the first to sign up-- and he'd drive himself there, provide his own gloves, sweat and muscle, even rent him a truck, and he promises not to drop or scratch a thing. I added that at the day we'd even buy the Bushes near-beer and pizza instead of the other way around.
I thought that sounded pretty good. I mean, everyone hates moving right? I'd do just about anything to avoid moving. Maybe if Bush knew that we'd have a lot of friendly help packing up and transporting his stuff to Crawford, he might be more resigned to go.
If you haven't signed up to help the Bushes move, go do it now.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 6:52 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“What the Heck is Going on in Ohio?”
You know things are messed up when the above words are uttered by Rick Hasen, a leading professor of election law and proprietor of a blog and a listserv that have been following the Ohio litigation on an almost real-time basis. Another clue of the Alice-in Wonderland state of play is the fact that the fate of the GOP’s Ohio “ballot security” program may be decided by a federal judge in New Jersey—and that there’s actually a decent legal basis for him to do so.
I wasn’t surprised that the Sixth Circuit stayed the injunction against the GOP’s challengers. Apart from the fact that there are a few political hacks on that court who might decide the case based simply on partisan loyalty, I have my doubts about whether the lower courts got it right. It’s not clear to me that the Ohio statutes permitting challengers are unconstitutional simply because of how the GOP is taking advantage of them.
Which raises a point often forgotten by non-lawyers as well as lawyers: just because it’s legal for you to do something doesn’t mean it’s right. This is the flip side of the anti-”judicial activism” point that just because something is a bad idea doesn’t mean it’s illegal or unconstitutional.
It’s doubtful whether Ohio’s allowing the challengers into polling places is unconstitutional; but it’s certain that the GOP’s assault on the right to vote is immoral. The GOP has no evidence that its “ballot security programs” have historically stopped any significant number of ineligible people from voting, let alone that that number equals or exceeds the number of eligible voters that are prevented from voting by the attendant delay, intimidation, and erroneously upheld challenges. Yet it’s going forward anyway with a program that will interfere with people’s right to vote. The fact that it demonstrably affects African-Americans much more than voters of other races (even if one assumes that’s not the GOP’s intention) only makes it worse.
Finally, can someone explain to me Judge Ryan’s concurrence (pdf) in the decision to grant a stay? The vote to stay the injunction (and therefore to let the GOP challengers in) was 2-1. Judge Rogers said (pdf) he simply didn’t think the longer lines, delays, and confusion amounted to a constitutional violation. As I said earlier, I think he may be right. Judge Cole disagreed (pdf), saying there was sufficient evidence of voter intimidation to establish a likely violation of the Constitution, especially given the disparate effect on African-Americans. Fair enough: a legitimate disagreement between two judges over a debatable legal question.
But Judge Ryan said he didn’t have to decide which of his colleagues was right about the Constitution. As Ohio State Law School Professor Ned Foley summarizes the opinion, Judge Ryanasserted that the risk of chaos, confusion, or inordinate delays from the announced plans for challenges this year was “wholly speculative, conjectural, and hypothetical.” (p. 1-2). “The plaintiffs have offered no evidence that the injury they allege will occur tomorrow [Nov. 2].” Judge Ryan added: “Should the inordinate delay and related horrors the plaintiffs posit become a reality tomorrow, the federal courts will be open to respond to proof-supported allegations of an unconstitutional burden on Ohio citizens' right to vote.” Especially after Justice Scalia’s apologium (pdf) for the stay in Bush v. Gore (i.e., the decision to stop the recount, not the decision a few days later to reverse the Florida Supreme Court), Judge Ryan’s analysis must be wrong. If, as Scalia wrote, Bush would suffer an “irreparable harm” if the recount found that Gore had received more votes—even if the Court could later say those votes hadn't been legally cast and declare Bush the winner—then voters must suffer an irreparable harm when they are stopped from voting—a violation the courts can’t fix later on. Two lower-court judges heard the evidence and found, as a matter of fact, that “inordinate delay and related horrors” were likely to occur if the challengers were let in, which is the sort of factual finding that appellate courts are supposed to defer to even on the merits of an appeal, let alone on an extraordinary motion for a stay.
Worst of all was Judge Ryan’s decision to ask for still more litigation rather than settling it once and for all before Election Day. Inviting the plaintiffs back to court today when things start to go wrong is asking for chaos: a series of orders, stays, emergency appeals, and conflicting opinions from different courts; uncertainty among poll workers, voters, and party operatives as to what the rules are now (as opposed to 15 minutes ago); and different regimes being enforced at different polling places.
As I say, it’s possible that the injunctions never should have been issued in the first place. If so, the Sixth Circuit got to the right outcome. But if it did, it’s only because of luck, given Judge Ryan’s failure to come to grips with the constitutional issue at hand. Maybe Judge Rogers was right; maybe Judge Cole was right; but Judge Ryan was definitely wrong.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 6:21 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, November 01, 2004 |
|
|
|
Hope on the Horizon?
An eloquent essay and election eve prediction from our old friend Tyler Texas. (Yes, instead of penning my own predictions, I'm phoning it in. My brain is of a soup-like texture, sloshing around in my skull in a very useless manner.)
---------------------- From Tyler Texas: ---------------------- Finally, the curtains are descending upon one of the closest elections in U.S. history.
I want to start by offering up my prediction for what will happen in the presidential race, followed by an explanation of what to look for when the votes start coming in at 6 p.m. Central Standard Time tomorrow.
But first, let me predict what will not happen. We will not see a repeat of 2000. We will know who the winner is Tuesday evening – I think by 10 p.m. Central time if not 9 p.m. There will be lots of election day litigation. In Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and Michigan, for instance, it’s going to be litigation city. Maybe we’ll see the same in Missouri, New Mexico and Nevada. But I think the margin of victory will be such that we will have a candidate conceding the race Tuesday evening, so the litigation won’t prevent the declaration of a winner, like it did in 2000 for weeks on end.
So what is my prediction? I suggest that we have a tsunami in the making. A tsunami is a wave that travels sometimes underneath the surface of the ocean, sometimes at a rate of hundreds of miles an hour. The thing about tsunamis is, you can’t see them coming. Tsnuamis can be caused by earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions, explosions, even by falling meteorites. They attack coastlines, cause devastating property damage and, sometimes, loss of life.
Of course, we’re just talking about an election here, not loss of life or property damage. But I think what we are seeing develop is a hidden event that is not being picked up by conventional polls. Consider the following:
First, young people are poised to make a huge difference in this election. In the Washington Post’s final election analysis, it found that Kerry leads Bush among 18- to 29-year-old voters 60 percent to 37 percent. Furthermore, 61 percent of all first-time voters plan to vote for Kerry.
We don’t really know what is motivating young people. Is it a fear of the draft? Is it uncertainty about the economy? Is it a realization that, in light of Florida in 2000, every vote counts? Is it Drew Barrymore’s Rock-the-Vote appearance on Oprah, P. Diddy’s Vote or Die campaign, or Eminem’s new anti-Bush video that urges his followers to vote November 2nd? More than likely, it is a combination of some or all of these things. But the bottom line is this could be the first presidential election ever where the votes of younger voters prove decisive.
Second, voter registration and early voting numbers are up significantly. In the key states of Florida and Iowa, Kerry has a double digit lead among early voters. In fact, the Democrats’ get-out-the-early-vote program is so strong that one Republican official posted the following message on her party’s official web site:
“I want to tell you, it's been a culture shock. If you don't get yourselves out of your routines and your comfort zones and do what is necessary to support the president between now and November 2, I am afraid that we are all in for a little culture shock that will last beyond the next four years.” So, what is my prediction? I see a John Kerry victory that is both modest and powerful. The victory will be modest in that I only see him winning the popular vote by 2 to 3 percentage points. The victory will be powerful in that I see Kerry gaining an Electoral College victory of 316 electoral votes to 222 electoral votes. I believe Kerry will win Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as the smaller battleground states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and New Mexico. I must admit, I am going out on a limb in calling Nevada and New Mexico for Kerry. But even if he drops those states, he still wins a handy electoral college victory, 306 votes to 232. Are there potential surprises out there? Yes – almost without a doubt we will be surprised by events on election day. The Republicans, I believe, have a very real chance of capturing Michigan and its 17 electoral votes. But even if the Republicans capture Michigan and Nevada and New Mexico, Kerry still hangs on to win the electoral college, 289 votes to 249 votes. For the Democrats, the very best chance to pull off a surprise is in the state of Missouri. Bush consistently has been held under 50 percent in the polls there and voter registration drives in St. Louis and Kansas City have been remarkably successful. Missouri, is going to be very, very tight indeed. And if my theory of tsunami is correct, Kerry could mount a charge in Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, West Virginia and even the state of Virginia. But I’m not calling these states for Kerry mind you. I want to close by talking about what to expect on election night. When the polls start to close at 6 p.m. Central time, the very first state likely to be called for either candidate is Indiana, which will quickly be placed in the Bush column. Look closely at the Indiana vote totals. If Bush is leading by 10 to 15 points, it is an indication that we could be facing a long and close election night. If Bush is leading by more than 15 points, which is about the margin he won in Indiana in the year 2000, he could be in for a very good night. But if the president is leading by less than 10 points, then it is an early indication that something is amiss with his campaign. From there, we will quickly begin getting results from Florida and New Hampshire. These are two swing states whose polls begin to close at 6 p.m. Central time. Watch them carefully. Half an hour later, at 6:30 Central time, polls close in Ohio, followed by Pennsylvania at 7 p.m. By 7:30 p.m. Central time, we might have an excellent idea of who is winning this thing. If one candidate appears headed for victory in what we call the “big three” states – Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- then for all practical purposes, this election campaign is over. If one candidate has solid leads in two of the three states, then the candidate trailing will find himself on the brink of electoral college elimination. He would have to win virtually every battleground state I mentioned earlier in order to prevail. What if the three big states are really to close to call? What if, for example, Kerry leads in Pennsylvania but the two candidates are virtually tied in Florida and Ohio? If this turns out to be the case, then – and only then – are we looking at a repeat of the 2000 election. And in that case, it will be a very long night indeed. But that is not my prediction. My prediction is simply this: Between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. Central time, John Kerry will be declared the 45th president of the United States. ----------------------------------- Please-oh-please, let him be right.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 5:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predictions From a Guy Who Doesn't Know Much
As ill-informed, meaningless and self-indulgent as it may be, here is my prediction for tomorrow and the next four years:
John Kerry wins - then loses.
I think Kerry will win the election tomorrow and become the next President of the United States. But I also think that he will inherit such a tremendous domestic and international mess that, in 2008, he will be voted out of office.
Internationally, I predict that the United States' low standing, Kerry's inability to get other countries to send troops to Iraq, the on-going deterioration of security in Iraq, failure to deal with either Iran's or North Korea's nuclear weapons programs, the decision to either pull troops out of Iraq too soon (or not soon enough) and complications arising from the myriad of humanitarian/international crises yet unknown will open his foreign policy up to criticism from all sides.
Domestically, the out-of-control debt, the problems with Social Security and Medicare, increasing federal spending and the tax hikes they all entail, as well as run-of-the-mill policy problems that plague every president, will only serve to doom him.
In all honesty, Kerry will inherit a terrible global and domestic situation from which only the greatest of presidents could emerge victorious. And I don't think Kerry will be a great president.
He will get elected mainly because so many Americans hate his opponent - and that is not necessarily a recipe for success. He is, for the most part, the "Anybody But Bush" candidate and once Bush is out of office, all of the problems that sent Bush packing will now fall at Kerry's feet and he probably won't have the strong electoral or political support he needs to survive.
I look at it this way: Right now, the issue I care about more than anything is Darfur, yet I have given Bush something of a pass on the topic because, frankly, I don't expect him to do much. He's actually surprised me with the amount of effort and money the US has pumped into the issue (but it is still not enough) and so I give Bush credit simply for the fact that he has done more than I expected.
Kerry will probably approach the issue much the same as Bush, yet I certainly will not give him the benefit of the doubt and the undeserved credit I have given Bush simply because I actually expect him to take this issue seriously. But he won't and I will relentlessly berate him for it.
It is totally unfair, but I suspect that nearly every constituency that helped Kerry get elected will do the same.
Kerry might benefit from spinning his electoral victory as a pyrrhic one, noting that he is inheriting a ridiculously splintered country and international community and will now be forced to clean up Bush's mess. That, at least, ought to buy him a few months of uncritical political support - but eventually that excuse will no longer work and, if he hasn't put those few months of uncritical support to good use, he's going to find himself responsible for, and weighed down by, every Bush failure that got him elected. Johnson started Vietnam, but in many ways it came to be known as Nixon's war.
But who knows, maybe Kerry will manage to extricate this country from the calamity Bush has wrought and, in doing so, earn the admiration and gratitude of the nation.
I don't really know.
But if Kerry does win tomorrow, I will celebrate the end of four years of Bush-induced agony and rejoice in the new days ahead - at least until January 20th or so, at which point I will probably resume complaining about the fact that our president is an incompetent boob.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 4:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bush Versus Kerry, Priest Versus Parishioners
Catholic voters are perhaps the most heavily targeted religious voters in this election year. As someone who was raised Catholic, I've been somewhat intrigued (and disgusted) at the messages being used by the Bush-Cheney camp to court Catholic voters. The campaign debate is getting intense -- very intense.
On Friday, the Wall Street Journal (subscription req'd) printed an article with this fascinating account of what happened recently inside St. Clements Catholic Church in Toledo, Ohio:According to the accounts of several people, at a recent noon Sunday mass, Father Stephen Schroeder described the Catholic Church's positions on such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage in a way that some in the pews perceived as overtly pro-Bush.
Rose and Tom Osowik, pro-Kerry Democrats, merely steamed as the priest referred to the Iraq war as "just" -- a claim at odds with both Pope John Paul II's stand and a pastoral letter Mrs. Osowik had read on the U.S. bishops Web site. But when she felt Father Schroeder was dismissive of the value of embryonic stem-cell research, "I don't know what overcame me," she said, "I just stood up." Her husband, four sons and one boy's friend followed her out of the pew.
The Dmytrykas were next. Dave Dmytryka, an active pro-Bush Republican, later said his family walked out because they were moved by emotions related to the recent death of Mr. Dmytryka's father-in-law.
"You go to church for some peace, and it's not there," he said.
Next, a young man stood up and charged that the priest misrepresented the bishops' statement. Others cheered. Father Schroeder gave "a passionate response," Mr. Dmytryka said. But then, when the priest was interrupted, he snapped, "That's it, this is over." About 30 members stalked out, parishioners say.
The priest declined an interview request. There's a story -- perhaps a myth -- that is told about Earl Warren from the 1950s, when he was governor of California. Warren was introduced at a re-election campaign rally, stepped to the podium, looked out at the huge crowd, and announced, "It's great to see such a dense crowd out here." Someone in the crowd shouted back at the governor: "We ain't all dense."
In a nutshell, that's what happened at St. Clements in Toledo. Someone had the balls to tell the church: we ain't all dense."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 2:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ashcroft Must Go
In the Ohio litigation over the GOP's plan to invade African-American precincts with "challengers" who have no meaningful basis for deciding whom to challenge, no consistent instructions or training, and no function other than creating chaos, delay, and intimidation, the Deparment of Justice's Civil Rights Division took the highly unusual step of sending the judge a letter supporting the GOP.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 1:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With a Heavy Heart
I subscribe to the excellent British weekly The Economist. Apart from being the international standard for publications of its category (the American competition, such as Time and Newsweek, is laughably jejune by comparison), The Economist is known for its conservative politics. This is the pro-business, somewhat libertarian, free-market brand of conservatism ; the paper has little patience for social conservatives' desire to involve the government in people's sex lives, for instance.
Four years ago, The Economist supported Bush, and it also supported (and continues to support) the Iraq war. But in the current issue, its leading article (subscription only) entitled "The Incompetent or the Incoherent?" says: With a heavy heart, we think American readers should vote for John Kerry on November 2nd. I find the leader's reasoning interesting, as it focuses essentially on process and so-called second-order characteristics. In other words, The Economist still believes in George Bush's vision and the substance of what he wants to do. But it finds his hypocrisy, his operational incompetence, and his refusal to take responsibility for anything disturbing. So disturbing, in fact, that it plumps for Kerry--a man that, the leader makes clear, The Economist doesn't like and doesn't trust (he is the "Incoherent" in the headline, to Bush's "Incompetent"). Perhaps I find this interesting because it reflects something I've been wondering lately: considering how incompetently this adminstration has handled everything, how can you vote to keep them in office even if you believe in their ideology? Mr Bush was inspiring in the way he reacted to the new world in which he, and America, found itself [after 9/11]. He grasped the magnitude of the challenge well. His military response in Afghanistan was not the sort of poorly directed lashing out that Bill Clinton had used in 1998 after al-Qaeda destroyed two American embassies in east Africa: it was a resolute, measured effort....The biggest mistake, though, was one that will haunt America for years to come. It lay in dealing with prisoners-of-war by sending hundreds of them to the American base at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, putting them in a legal limbo, outside the Geneva conventions and outside America's own legal system....Guantánamo Bay offers constant evidence of America's hypocrisy, evidence that is disturbing for those who sympathise with it, cause-affirming for those who hate it. This administration, which claims to be fighting for justice, the rule of law and liberty, is incarcerating hundreds of people, whether innocent or guilty, without trial or access to legal representation. [snip] To paraphrase a formula invented by his ally, Tony Blair, Mr Bush was promising to be “tough on terrorism, tough on the causes of terrorism”, and the latter he attributed to the lack of democracy, human rights and opportunity in much of the world, especially the Arab countries. To call for an effort to change that lamentable state of affairs was inspiring and surely correct....Mr Bush's credibility has been considerably undermined not just by Guantánamo but also by two big things: by the sheer incompetence and hubristic thinking evident in the way in which his team set about the rebuilding of Iraq, once Saddam Hussein's regime had been toppled; and by the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which strengthened the suspicion that the mistreatment or even torture of prisoners was being condoned. Invading Iraq was not a mistake....But changing the regime so incompetently was a huge mistake. By having far too few soldiers to provide security and by failing to pay Saddam's remnant army, a task that was always going to be long and hard has been made much, much harder. Such incompetence is no mere detail: thousands of Iraqis have died as a result and hundreds of American soldiers. The eventual success of the mission, while still possible, has been put in unnecessary jeopardy. So has America's reputation in the Islamic world, both for effectiveness and for moral probity. [snip] This only makes the longer-term project more important, not less. To succeed, however, America needs a president capable of admitting to mistakes and of learning from them. Mr Bush has steadfastly refused to admit to anything: even after Abu Ghraib, when he had a perfect opportunity to dismiss Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, and declare a new start, he chose not to. Instead, he treated the abuses as if they were a low-level, disciplinary issue. [snip] Many readers, feeling that Mr Bush has the right vision in foreign policy even if he has made many mistakes, will conclude that the safest option is to leave him in office to finish the job he has started. If Mr Bush is re-elected, and uses a new team and a new approach to achieve that goal, and shakes off his fealty to an extreme minority, the religious right, then The Economist will wish him well. But our confidence in him has been shattered. We agree that his broad vision is the right one but we doubt whether Mr Bush is able to change or has sufficient credibility to succeed, especially in the Islamic world. [snip] Furthermore, as Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view, impose it on him, given a viable alternative. John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with America's great tasks. What's an intelligent conservative to do? My sense is that most in America are holding their noses and voting for Bush. If they are, I can sympathize; it's not as if we intelligent (to flatter myself) liberals have never had to ignore the stench arising from some of the lesser-of-evils candidates we've supported. But I suspect that if my politics were further to the right, I might agree with The Economist: the magnitude of this administration's hubris and incompetence--a deadly combination--is just too great to entrust them with another four years of power.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 1:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political Masochism
If Kerry wins tomorrow who would be in your ideal Kerry Cabinet?
For starters, I'd replace Ashcroft with Eliot Spitzer.
How would you fill the following jobs?
Rumsfeld with ? Elaine Chao with ? Rod Paige with ? Colin Powell with ? Spencer Abraham with ? Tommy Thompson with ? Tom Ridge with ? Michael Leavitt with ?
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 11:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another Bonus if Kerry Wins...
It might signal the death knell of the Christian Right.
If Bush loses it means they can't deliver the GOP a victory anymore. If the Republican party realizes that they're been kowtowing to a not-so-powerful "base" then perhaps, for the good of the country, the Republican Party could be free to be more moderate and diverse.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 11:17 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pardon Me for Being So Pedestrian...
This is hardly a unique thought or frustration, but this morning on my way to work I just kept thinking to myself-- why the hell isn't election day a national holiday?
Most schools are already closed tomorrow because schools are common polling places. (I'm voting at an elementary school tomorrow.) But beyond the convenience of it, think how cool it would be if everyone (except for poll workers and government offices that deal with elections) were off tomorrow. Election day would be a federal holiday and the party would be at the polls!
I just don't get it.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 11:00 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Irony So Thick, You'll Choke
Via the Carpetbagger, we see that Bush was interviewed by Tom Brokaw yesterday and, as we've come to expect, he didn't have anything intelligent to say.
First of all, make sure you read the Carpetbagger's analysis of Bush's newest way of challenging any criticism of his administration.
Then just read this Brokaw: "The other issue that has developed quite dramatically in the last week or so is the disappearance of hundreds of tons of explosives from an ammunition depot in Iraq."
Bush: "Well, first of all, there's a lot of data, a lot of conflicting information about the ammunitions sites. What is a fact is that we have secured or destroyed 400,000 tons of ammunition. The accusation made that this was a sealed sight is being contradicted by a marine major who said he was sent into the site to destroy the ammunition there. But, what is important about this issue, and I think it's illustrative in this campaign is that my opponent jumped on the issue before all the facts were in. The Commander in Chief has got to wait to collect the facts before making accusations for political reasons." Sometimes it's just too easy.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:37 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Darfur
Medecins Sans Frontieres has released a report entitled "Persecution, Intimidation and Failure of Assistance in Darfur" For over a year, the people of Darfur have endured a vicious campaign of violence and terror which has led to huge numbers of deaths and forced more than a million people to flee from their destroyed villages in search of safety. Over a year after their escape from their villages and after countless promises from the Government of Sudan and world leaders, safety has still not been found. The victims of violence were forced out of their homes; their homes were destroyed; they were pursued during their flight; harassed and violated during flight and they have continued to be persecuted and intimidated as they seek shelter in crowded and miserable displaced settlements.
The pervasiveness of the violence against civilians in Darfur, as well as its duration over time represents a crime of enormous magnitude. The failure to stop the violence against civilians in Darfur was matched with an equally staggering failure to provide the necessary assistance for these devastated communities in the first year of the conflict. A UN human rights expert says it is likely that war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as murders, rapes, acts of torture and forcible displacement have been committed in Darfur. Demagogue says "No shit! These things are surprisingly common during a genocide."
65 Rwandan soldiers arrived in Darfur over the weekend.
Time profiles the JEM and the SLA.
Reuters reports that "Charles Snyder, the U.S. special envoy for Sudan, said Sudan was making some efforts to respect the cease-fire and to curb the Janjaweed and that he was more worried that the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) rebel groups were continuing to launch attacks."
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:16 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Protecting the Integrity of the Franchise
The blogosphere has been alight debunking GOP claims that their "ballot security" programs are needed to prevent voter fraud. As I've suggested, the GOP's failure to disclose the success rates of challenges in their prior 40 years of "ballot security" programs suggests the programs don't have a lot to do with stopping fraud. Others have pointed out the weakness of the GOP's evidence (if one can call it evidence) that fraudulent voting has occurred or is likely to occur on a significant level.
Here's another point: if you were interested in stopping ineligible voters from voting, you wouldn't go about it the way the GOP has. If the idea is to protect legitimate voters by cracking down on fraud, you'd think that having accurate methods of determining whom to challenge would be essential. The GOP doesn't have any, but that doesn't deter it from derailing voting in largely urban and minority precincts.
Consider the Ohio GOP's registered-letter scam, which forced county boards of elections to hear challenges to hundreds of voters (of a total of 35,000 challenged) before the failure to find even a single ineligible voter led to the shutdown of the challenges. The challengers had no real basis for suspecting any of their victims to be ineligible, a fact that was underscored when the challengers all invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination after being reminded that it was a crime to make a false statement in the context of a voter challenge. That hasn't stopped the Wisconsin GOP from doing exactly the same thing--a practice that the national GOP agreed to abandon in the 1980s after using it to target minority voters. A less dramatic example is the Florida GOP's use of the same "felon" list that the state had to abandon as a means of identifying potentially ineligible voters because it was so riddled with errors and discriminated so systematically against African-Americans.
Now a federal judge explains (pdf) that the big GOP offensive in Ohio consists of sending hundreds of people into precincts without any clear idea of who might be elibigle or ineligible, which will contribute virtually nothing to stopping fraud but will predictably cause delay and frustrate eligible voters.
This year, however, the Ohio Republican Party declared that it planned “to have representatives acting as challengers in as many precincts as possible . . . to ensure that voters are not disenfranchised by fraud.” [snip] [T]he evidence shows a significant amount of confusion regarding the training of designated challengers....Drew Hicks, an attorney designated as a Republican challenger...testified that the October 31 Republican challenger training session was attended by approximately 200 people, less than one-third of the number of people designated as Republican challengers....Hicks also testified that the challengers were instructed to challenge only people listed as having requested an absentee ballot who then arrived to vote. Under section 3505.20, however, request of an absentee ballot is not an acceptable ground for challenge. [snip] Hicks had no idea who had compiled the lists of voters that he was supposed to challenge nor did he know if it was reliable. He did know that should he see the presiding judge give a regular ballot to a voter that Hicks believed should receive provisional ballot, Hicks should call one of the phone numbers given to him. He did not know what would happen if he called the number. [snip] In the race between parties over challengers, both sides have massed hundreds and hundreds of challengers without, so far as the evidence shows, any prior experience in the electoral process or any experience in determining the eligibility of potential voters. Further, the testimony reflects that...challengers have never before appeared at the polling place. In this election, however, the Board of Elections clearly expects challengers to appear at polling places, and, consequently, precinct judges will be put in the situation of attempting to limit, restrain, or even exclude hundreds of challengers without any prior experience of how to do so and without any significant guidance regarding what limits are appropriate. [snip] The sheer number of people present in and around the polling place, the unprecedented number of newly registered voters, and the presence of inexperienced challengers, lacking any significant training and limited by precinct workers who have never before had to deal with such a situation, creates an extraordinary and potentially disastrous risk of intimidation and delay. Such intimidation and delay are virtually certain given the complete confusion among designated challengers and even between the two top elections officials of Ohio as to how this process will actually work. Are the initimidation and delay justified, though, by the fraud reduction that will be achieved? Given the challengers' lack of a useful basis for deciding whom to challenge, the answer has to be no; if the process does catch any ineligible voter, it will be through dumb luck. As the judge noted, "the evidence does not indicate that the presence of additional challengers would serve Ohio’s interest in preventing voter fraud better than would the system of election judges without the additional challengers." In other words, the challengers aren't actually helping to stop fraud at all, which is the GOP's entire justification for sending them.
And which precincts did the GOP select for this wonderful treatment? You won't be surprised.
Burke [Chairman of the Hamilton County Board of Elections] also testified that of the 251 challengers listed in Plaintiffs’ exhibit 3, two-thirds of them filed to be challengers in predominantly African-American precincts. The evidence presented at the hearing reflects that 14% of new voters in a majority white location will face a challenger listed in Plaintiffs’ exhibit 3, but 97% of new voters in a majority African-American voting location will see such a challenger. For shame.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 8:25 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Big Surprise
From my corner of the Coalition of the Willing. AMSTERDAM — A large majority of Dutch people want US presidential hopeful Senator John Kerry to defeat George W. Bush when Americans head to the polls on Tuesday, a survey has revealed. Research bureau Trendbox said on its website that 77 percent of 500 respondents aged 16 and older would vote for Kerry, compared with 23 percent who are hoping President Bush will regain the White House on 2 November. Hardly earth-shattering news, although the 3-to-1 ratio is pretty impressive. Despite its image, the Netherlands isn't a terribly leftish place by European standards--the Christian Democrats, who now run things, have been in every governing coalition since WWII except for a recent period of "purple" government by a Socialist-Green coalition. The demographics are also interesting. 84 percent of singles, 83 percent of people living in the west of the Netherlands, 80 percent of high income earners and 80 percent of high educated Dutch nationals prefer Kerry. Among the Bush supporters, 28 percent of people aged 35-49 would vote for the Republican, as would 28 percent of people living in the Randstad [the densely populated heart of the country from Rotterdam to Amsterdam], 29 percent of low income earners and 40 percent of low educated people. The Dutch don't seem too impressed by arguments that the Osama video should lead one to support Bush (I don't blame them--I find such arguments baffling). I saw the Dutch newspaper Algemene Dagblad this weekend featuring a huge above-the-fold photo of a Kerry rally with the headline: "Holland Hopes for Kerry." Just to the side was the story about the broadcasting of the new Osama tape.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 5:53 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|