Bush's electability problem

What's the true face of the Republican Party? It's not the gaggle of moderates that you'll see at the convention...

"The strength of the Republican majority in America is not in the California governor's office or in the moderate politics of George Pataki," said [Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican], "It's in the millions of pro-family voters who will campaign for our candidates and turn out on Election Day."

Karl Rove angered conservative Republicans in the House with his decision to put a moderate face on the party during the convention. This type of debate is remarkably similar to the Democrats' primary season debate over electability. In both cases, the more extreme elements of the party must make sacrifices in order to achieve the ultimate goal: the election of their respective candidate.
 
Karl Rove worries about George Bush's electability so he tries to reframe the GOP as a moderate party. Conservatives go raving mad.
 
Meanwhile, John Kerry moves to the center by supporting the war in Iraq and opposing licenses for illegal immigrants, for example. Liberals, accustomed to being ignored (and savvy of what happens when they vote for Nader), fall in line.
 
Why is it easier for Democrats to ignore their base? Let's look at issues where each party has ignored their base and compare the saliency of each issue:
 
Liberals' gripes with centrist Democrats:
1. Expanding Welfare or repealing Welfare Reform (more money for the poor, etc.)
Liberals often complain that the Democratic Party isn't addressing poverty.
2. The environment
Liberals want to radicalize environmental laws.
3. Fair trade/Protectionism
The left often complains about globalization and its effect on the environment. Also, unions hate free trade because it saps away manufacturing jobs.
Notice that these are all economic issues (and there are many more). Why no social issues? Mainly because moderates and liberals generally agree on issues like abortion and gay rights.
 
Conservatives' gripes with moderate Republicans:
1. Abortion
Many moderate Republicans are pro-choice.
2. Gay rights
Many moderates support gay rights and oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment.
3. Environment
Moderate Republicans tend to support environmental regulation.
4. Supply side tax cuts
Moderates usually support tax cuts, but often hold out because they dislike deficits or tax cuts for the rich.
 
What's the difference between conservatives' complaints and liberals' complaints? Abortion and gay rights. These issues hold an almost apocalyptic meaning to conservatives.
 
Imagine yourself as a conservative. Imagine that you found abortion repulsive, immoral, and equal to murder. Then imagine looking out at a world where millions of abortions are being performed every year.
 
Now imagine that you're a Christian fundamentalist. You see the world as a battle between good and evil, God and Satan. You literally believe that Satan is pulling the strings of Democrats who support legalized murder (abortion). Furthermore, Satan's influence has caused homosexuality to spread throughout society. These homosexuals are about to trample on the one institution that you hold dear: marriage. Imagine what that means: Satan is about to win a huge victory! The apocalypse is near, etc, etc, etc.
 
I'm not exaggerating here (I often use hyperbole in my posts...have you noticed?). This is literally how fundamentalists look at the world. That being said, how angry will they get if their party disregards these issues? Very angry.
 
Liberals can whine about poverty, the environment, or fair trade, but they don't see these problems as apocalyptic; they're just problems. Bush's Christian conservative base sees these issues as a titanic struggle between the forces of good and evil. They are therefore less likely to forgive moderation.

Key events and their effect on the race

1. Ronald Reagan's death
The effects:
Positive: Gave Bush a small boost. Patriotism in the news helps Bush. The Olympics might just help Bush as well. Hopefully, for Kerry's sake, all of our athletes lose to the French.
Negative: Reminded conservatives of real leadership (and reminded me of jelly beans).
Overall: Bush's poll numbers stabilized a bit. All partisan noise from the left (Abu Ghraib, WMD, etc.) dissipated for a while.
 
2. The transfer of sovereignty
The effects:
Positive: Signifies a measurable step in the right direction in Iraq. Jordan and Yemen have offered to supply Alawi with peacekeeping troops. Allawi's approval ratings in Iraq are supposedly around 51%.
Negative: Allawi has imposed martial law (necessary but certainly undemocratic). Allawi is an ex-Baathist and many Iraqis view him as an American puppet. Most of the American public expects him dead within a month. Should he survive, that would be a major PR coup for the Bush Administration. I can see the headlines now: "Allawi survives one month in major PR coup for the Bush Administration." Additionally, the Kurds are threatening to secede.
Overall: Surprisingly this event didn't change the public perception of the war in Iraq. Their support for it continues to decline. In fact, some Americans are undoubtedly under the impression that Allawi is commanding our troops in Iraq. This probably displeases some of our more enlightened citizens a bit. "Ain't no Arab gonna order our boys around!" (something highly intellectual like that).
 
3. The Edwards pick
The effects:
Positive: Edwards moderates Kerry and brings excitement to the Democratic message. He also has a southern accent. I think he's helped quite a bit with moderates in swing states (the polling certainly shows it) as well as shoring up the Democratic base.
Negative: Prepare to get tired of the trial lawyer schpeel.
Overall: Doesn't move national numbers much, but certainly helps in some battleground states. Will the battleground bounce be permanent? Who knows.

Saddam's a bad guy

Here's a funny one (from the NYTimes): 
 

But in an hourlong interview on Wednesday morning in his office, Mr. Roberts said he was "not too sure" that the administration would have invaded if it had known how flimsy the intelligence was on Iraq and illicit weapons. Instead, the senator said, Mr. Bush might well have advocated efforts to maintain sanctions against Iraq and to continue to try to unearth the truth through the work of United Nations inspectors. "I don't think the president would have said that military action is justified right now," Mr. Roberts said. If the administration had been given "accurate intelligence," he said, Mr. Bush "might have said, 'Saddam's a bad guy, and we've got to continue with the no-fly zones and with inspections.' "

So...if Bush had known Saddam did not have weapons we wouldn't have attacked? Right...

Keep in mind, these are the same jokers who tried to tell us that a bunch of empty tractor trailers were "mobile weapons labs". They tried to tell us that aluminum tubes were the key ingredient to making nuclear weapons. You think these guys needed evidence to invade Iraq? Ha.

Approval gap voters

Occasionally (maybe once every 2 weeks) I stumble upon some really interesting political insight. Yesterday's Campaign Journal (TNR) is just that. Ryan Lizza identifies "approval gap voters" as voters who approve of the job Bush is doing but are voting for Kerry anyway. These voters like Bush but simply like Kerry better (a bizarre sentiment, I'll admit).
 
Lizza thinks it would be easier for Bush to try to attact these voters instead of undecideds. Undecideds usually break for the challenger, so why bother (the logic goes)? The very fact that they are undecided at this late date (having seen 3 1/2 years of Bush) means that they have qualms about his performance and will probably be won over by Kerry.
 
Approval gap voters are different. Clearly they aren't basing their support for Kerry on Bush hatred. Lizza speculates that they like Bush, but just like Kerry better, and that's where I disagree.
 
I think most of these approval gap voters are actually old-time conservative Democrats who like the "war on terror", like the war in Iraq, like tax cuts, hate big government, and possibly hate black people - but they still vote for Democrats. Why? Because they're idiots. They're so accustomed to using party identification to choose at the voting booth (heuristics again!) that they can't break the habit. They're Democrats, so they're voting for the Democrat, dammit!. And that's the end of it. Think I'm a cynical bastard? Fine. But try calling voters in the great state of Tennessee for 6 months of your life and see how you turn out! See if your faith in humanity increases or decreases.
Here's a handy bar graph that demonstrates this causal relationship:

Approving of the job Bush is doing and then voting for his ideological opposite makes no sense what so ever! Should consultants in the Bush campaign even bother trying to reason with these people? I think not.

"War on terror"

Excuse me, but what exactly is the "war on terror"??!?!?!
 
Besides putting our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, what are we doing different now that we weren't doing before 9/11? Surely we're spending more money on intelligence, but what else? Are we pressuring foreign governments to comply? Are we sharing intelligence with our Arab allies (Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia) in an effort to break up terrorist cells? Are we providing the carrot to countries like Iran and Pakistan in order to convince then to crack down on terrorist cells within their borders?
 
Well?
 
I have no idea. 

And that's the problem with "the war on terror". It's a vague concept. It's an abstraction cooked up by Karl Rove so he could frame George Bush as a "War President". Who can forget Bush's ridiculous statement on Meet the Press last February: 

"I'm a war president.  I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind.  Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true.  And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is.  And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them."

The political logic goes like this: War presidents have higher approval ratings than peace presidents! Unless the war is going badly...Oops!
 
Maybe I'm overreacting. We obviously need a slogan for our effort to stamp out terrorist cells. People need slogans or else they'll change the channel. I guess it's not the slogan that bothers me, but rather, the lack of explanation of the progress being made. Have we discovered any terrorist cells? Have we thwarted any plots? At least give me a progress report. Right now all I know is that terrorism has increased under Bush's watch...

Why the ugly template?

My other templates have been giving me problems, as you might have noticed. So...I'm sticking with this until I can fix the problem...

Bush's definition of democracy

From a new piece by Jonathan Chait (subscription required):

There are many definitions of democracy, but let us begin with one supplied by Bush himself. A democracy, he told Al Arabiya television in May during an interview on the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, is "where leaders are willing to discuss it with the media. And we act in a way where, you know, our Congress asks pointed questions to the leadership. In other words, people want to know the truth. That stands in contrast to dictatorships. A dictator wouldn't be answering questions about this." 

And then there was this ad...

Apparently this one is part of a 2 million dollar ad buy aimed at African Americans.
 
Honestly, we can do better than this can't we folks?

Party realignment

Jordan thinks yesterday's gay marriage vote might be the sign of a crumbling Republican Party.

I think he might be right. But these things take a long time to actually occur. With today's heightened partisanship, I'm hard pressed to believe that the Democrats could ever peel enough Republicans away to become a majority party again. Three things need to happen for party realignment to occur:

1. Voters must feel estranged from their current party. In the late 60s and 70s, conservatives began to wonder whether the Democratic party was really right for them. They eventually moved to the Republican Party.

2. The other party must be sufficiently attractive to bring them over.

3. It takes a charismatic leader to bring them in.

If you apply these three points to today's situation, you get a mixed picture:
Many moderates are certainly turned off by today's Republican Party. I think #1 meets the necessary standard for party realignment. However, when realignment occurred in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, it was conservatives moving from a liberal party to a conservative party. This would be moderates moving from a conservative party to a liberal party. Are moderates really THAT perturbed by the Republican party right now? No. Maybe a bit annoyed, but not completely disenchanted.

I'm not so sure #2 can apply here. Where is the Democratic Party right now? Are we the DLC? Or are we a party of angry activists hell-bent on throwing the worst President in history out of office? I'd guess the latter. Is that going to bring Republicans into the party?

We certainly don't have #3. Is John Kerry going to bring Republicans into the party? Nope. No chance. I think John Edwards could have done it. Who knows, maybe he still will at the bottom of the ticket. I doubt it though. I think one of the reasons why the Republicans took so long to capture the conservative vote (a couple decades!) is because it takes a charismatic leader to move voters. Nixon and Ford didn't have the political talent to do it, but Reagan did.

That being said...
If the Republican Party continues to move to the Right and purify itself of all of the moderates, eventually moderate Republicans will trickle over to the Democratic Party. We have plenty of moderates in our party. In fact, moderation is a growing trend within the party.

Then again...
What happens if Kerry wins in 2004? Does the ultra-liberal wing of the party demand that their legislative agenda is enacted? Does that scare away potential party switchers? Probably. Should we really care? Nope. I think this country's ready for a turn to the left after years of conservative control (especially on the issues of national health care and college tuition assistance).

The prognosis: Emerging Democratic majority? Nope. Slim Democratic majority? I hope so.

More ads in Virginia

Kerry bought a new batch of ads in Virginia. His internal polling probably showed that he moved some numbers after the initial ad buy (or that John Edwards might have strengthened his position here). Right now most polls have Bush up in Virginia by 3-4 points. I'd be willing to be that's where he'll remain. But it's still important that Kerry spends time here. This state will be blue soon enough.

Speaking of ads, "Three Minutes" is the best bio ad I've ever seen.

Oh mama!

John Edwards is great:

"You know, there's news from London today. The British just came out with their intelligence report on the failures and the mistakes of the intelligence with respect to Iraq. And there was an interesting response from their Prime Minster. Tony Blair didn't run from the reform, he didn't try to not acknowledge it. Instead, what Tony Blair said was, I take full responsibility for the mistakes. It's because he understands what leadership is. John Kennedy did exactly the same thing after the Bay of Pigs. He said I take full responsibility - I am the public servant responsible for this."

48-52!

Sorry Mr. Sanitorum. Today the Senate tabled the FMA.

Let's take a look at the roll call:

Republicans voting against it:
Campbell
Chaffee
Collins
McCain
Snowe
Sununu

Democrats voting for it:

Byrd
Nelson
Zell Miller

Good old quiet Lincoln Chaffee. We can always count on him to vote with the Democrats. I'm a bit surprised we didn't get a few more crossovers, namely Norm Coleman, John Warner, or maybe Chuck Hagel.

In forty years...

...we'll look back at these clowns and laugh.

Gay marriage a wedge issue for the Democrats?

I still think of the FMA debate as a net plus for Democrats. A majority of Americans oppose it. A majority in the Senate opposes it. It makes the President look like a bigot, and pits people like this against people who carry the banner of the civil rights movement.

Sure, it might fire up Bush's base a bit (although maybe not the hard-core libertarians), but you can bet that it scares the hell out of soccer moms.

When the vote comes down, will the Republicans even get 50 votes (they need 67)? I doubt it. If Senate Republicans (and Zell Miller) fail to get 50 votes on the FMA and they still hold the vote as some sort of hate rally then they are truly pathetic. I hope they show their true colors and hold the vote.

I know I'll get yelled at after this post by my Republican friends. They'll accuse me of equating support for the FMA with bigotry. The truth is that the FMA outlaws not only marriage, but also any kind of contract between gay partners. The debate you'll hear in the Senate over the next days is not a "gay marriage debate", but a far more radical debate about whether gays are less human than other citizens. I challenge all of you to read the proposed amendment to our constitution. It's very short:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

The bolded text would clearly outlaw civil unions. Furthermore, it arguably outlaws any benefits for gay partners. They would not only be barred from the "institution of marriage"; they would be barred from anything resembling a legal partnership.

Maybe I'm out of touch with the tastes of most regular Americans, but I think the only people who actually want to write this type of discrimination into our constitution are a small percentage of bigots on the far right.

The overall effect of this issue:
I think it will fire up Bush's Christian base but turn off moderate Republicans (an equally crucial part of the base).

Trial Lawyer of the Year Awards! (a recap)

This year's Trial Lawyer of the Year is Mel Martinez, Republican Senate candidate from Florida! Congratulations Mel, let's see what you win:

1. An endorsement from the usually bipartisan Chamber of Commerce!

2. A chance to be the unintended victim of the "John Edwards is an evil trial lawyer" campaign that your party is currently waging nationally!

Trial Lawyer of the Year

I decided to start offering a Trial Lawyer of the Year award. The glamorous award ceremony will be held at 2:35PM in my bedroom today. Be sure to attend if you can.

Electoral college roundup part 2

Wow.

According to Zogby's battleground state polls, if the election were held today, this would be the result (courtesy MyDD):

Kerry-Edwards: 337
Bush-Cheney: 201

Take out the leaners and you end up with:

Kerry-Edwards: 238
Bush-Cheney: 143

Wow.

Here's how the battleground states breakdown right now according to Zogby:

Arizona - Bush +7.0
Arkansas - Bush +1.9
Colorado - Bush +4.3
Florida - Kerry +4.7
Georgia - Bush +7.6
Iowa - Kerry +3.0
Louisiana - Bush +3.6
Michigan - Kerry +7.7
Minnesota - Kerry +6.0
Missouri - Kerry +0.7
Nevada - Bush +0.8
New Hampshire - Kerry +6.4
New Mexico - Kerry +5.9
North Carolina - Kerry +2.6
Ohio - Kerry +0.6
Oregon - Kerry +7.1
Pennsylvania - Kerry +7.9
Tennessee - Bush +2.0
Virginia - Bush +4.5
West Virginia - Bush +5.5
Wisconsin - Kerry +7.0

I left Georgia on there because I'm so freaking surprised that it's only 7 points...
I also thought Arizona would be closer...but hey, overall, I'll take it!

Other comments:
-Bush up by only 2 in Tennessee?
-Bush's 5.5 point in West Virginia is disappointing...
-Kerry wallops in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Oregon, Michigan, and Minnesota. These are blue states that Kerry MUST win.
-Kerry up by 2 in North Carolina? Probably only temporary, but hoorah nevertheless!
-Kerry up by 6.4 in New Hampshire!

Here's what I think:
The Edwards pick might not have helped Kerry much in the national polls, but it might have helped him considerably in the battleground states.

The best parts of Fahrenheit 9-11

Three things:

1. He showed Bush at his worst: immediately after the 9-11 attacks, sitting and not knowing what to do. Bush just sat there and continued to read to the school children, even after Andrew Card told him, "We're under attack." He was probably waiting for someone to tell him what to do. Oh, what strong and decisive leadership Bush showed after 9-11!

2. The parts with the woman from Flint Michigan who lost her son in Iraq were very touching.

3. The scenes where Al Gore urged members of the Congressional Black Caucus to shut up were quite bizarre.

Just thought I'd say something positive about the movie since I don't think it's total trash.

The American Voter

In my recent posts I've been very negative towards the average American voter (especially swing voters).

First of all, there are plenty of highly informed moderates out there who just happen ideologically fall between the parties. Those aren't the people I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the other 90% of swing voters who can't pick between the parties because they are unable to accurately name more than 3 issue stances of each party.

I'm serious, these people exist. And nearly all poli-sci research backs me up.

Poll these so-called swing voters. Ask them about details of the Laci Peterson trial and platforms of George Bush and John Kerry. I'm willing to bet that they know more about Laci Peterson than the ISSUE POSITIONS of Bush and Kerry.

People aren't dumb. I'm not accusing them of that. I'm accusing them of not caring.

They care too much about personality and appearance and too little about issues. So candidates run on personality. I'm a firm believer that it's not the politicians fault. What would happen if someone ran a campaign where they presented details of their positions in television advertisements (not just the controversial issues or the wedge issues)? They'd be wasting their money. These types of ads don't move voters. Personality ads move voters. Controversial issues move voters. Voters don't even bother to read campaign literature unless it distracts them with pretty colors. That's not the politicians' fault. It's the public's fault.

I'm not going to bitch here without offering up at least one solution to this problem.

What can we do?

Let's return to the time when our public education system instilled civic duty in every citizen. Call it indoctrination or call it something else, I don't care. Our schools used to turn out civically engaged citizens. Now they don't. We need a civics overhaul within our public school curriculum. That would at least be a start. If people aren't becoming engaged after they graduate from high school, then we need to beat their apathy into submission while we (the US Government) is still responsible for their intellectual growth.

1st and 4th most liberal?

According to National Journal's "non-partisan" ranking system, Kerry and Edwards are the 1st and 4th most liberal senators. What?

Here's an email that Andrew Sullivan posted on his site that soundly refutes those claims:

"I'm growing a bit frustrated with the media, including you, running with this Kerry and Edwards being the first and fourth most liberal Senators. Everyone is citing the National Journal's ratings but they are doing it sloppily. I have seen no recent article that cites anything but the 2003 ratings where Kerry missed 37 and Edwards missed 22 of 62 votes and both were setting themselves up for primary battles where their base was essential. Think what you may about missing votes and pandering a bit (seems suicide to not do both when going for the nomination), but my larger point is the media should be looking at this much more historically and in years when Edwards and Kerry actually showed up to do their jobs. I'll do it for them. Following are rankings and liberal scores since 1999.

2003: Kerry - 1st (96.5) Edwards - 4th (94.5)
2002: Kerry - 9th (87.3) Edwards - 31st (63.0) Edwards made the centrist list.
2001: Kerry - 11th (87.7) Edwards - 35th (68.2) Edwards almost tied with Lieberman.
2000: Kerry - 20th (77) Edwards - 19th (80.8) Rankings past 20 are not available nor are composite scores for all Senators, so Kerry is 21st or higher.
1999: Kerry - 16th (80.8) Edwards - 31st (72.2)

Average: Kerry - 12th (85.9) Edwards - 24th (75.7)

Now this paints a different picture. Certainly Kerry is a stalwart liberal (although probably not or barely a top 10 liberal), but he does hail from and represent one of the most liberal states. But Edwards is definitely a moderate Democrat (if you define that as somewhere in the ideological middle of the Democratic platform).

Delay scandal

Check out today's DailyKos for a full explanation (and update) on the Tom Delay scandal.

The allegations summarized:
In 2001, Delay lobbied Enron to donate $100,000 to the Texas Redistricting fight. Since corporate contributions are illegal in Texas, he urged them to break the money up between Enron executives to donate separately. This is of course still illegal, but harder to track.

Paul vs Joe part 1!!!

My friend Joe Morse has a few points on Edwards that I'd like to perhaps counter, particularly this one:

Edwards does bring a lot more charisma to the ticket, but that's about his only virtue. His low approval ratings in North Carolina only underscore the fact that he will not help win any states in the south that Kerry wouldn't have won anyway, and my guess is that despite his "humble beginnings", his southern drawl and suave trial lawyer personality won't play well in the blue-collar midwest.

Edwards' approval ratings in North Carolina were low when he first ran for President, but after months of positive media coverage, they stabilized. He's definitely not North Carolina's darling, but he's sufficiently popular in the state to win reelection if he ran (especially against the hapless Richard Burr).

I also think Joe underestimates what a southern drawl can do, especially when it's in direct contrast to Kerry's serious New Englander-speak. Uninformed swing voters hear a southern accent - the type that John Edwards has - and they immediately think, "he's moderate". Voters use this heuristic all across the country - including the Midwest and North. Actually, it's usually a pretty accurate shortcut to determine the ideological leanings of a Democrat or Republican. Here's my easy to use formula for figuring out the ideology by just listening to a voice (I'd say it's about 80% effective - and it only works for white politicians):

A. Is the politician a Republican or a Democrat?
If Republican, proceed to Part B.
If Democrat, proceed to Part C.

B. Do they have a southern accent?
If Yes, then they're probably conservative.
If No, then they're probably moderate.

C. Do they have a southern accent?
If Yes, then they're probably moderate.
If No, then they're probably liberal.

Obviously there are some exceptions to this rule (Rick Sanitorum for example). But I'm confident that apathetic/uninformed swing voters (is there another kind?) will employ it this year and throw a point or two to Kerry in Ohio, Missouri, and West Virginia.

Other shortcuts this year include:

"He fought in Vietnam! He's a vet! He must be somewhat moderate."
"His personality is too aloof! I don't like that!"

Let's face it: the electorate simply doesn't have the time and patience to follow politics 24/7. The less sophisticated they are, the most they utilize shortcuts like these. A moderately sophisticated voter might use increasingly sophisticated shortcuts (many of which are actually issue related!), like, "He's pro-choice. I'm voting for him", or "He mentions God a lot in his speeches. That comforts me."

Of course, the most popular heuristic that about 70% of the electorate uses is party identification. Hell, I use it. If the name has a D next to it, then I'm voting for him or her - plain and simple...Sure, I analyze other information when considering whom to vote for, but in the end, party identification is the most important consideration for me.

Anyway, there's plenty of interesting scholarly research out there on heuristics that I encourage everyone to read.

Here's another paragraph in Joe's analysis:

One thing this ensures is that if Kerry and Edwards are elected, you can kiss any efforts at tax reform or tort reform out the window. Edwards, who chased ambulances for the law firm of Fazio and Green (note: no one will get that reference) before he became a Senator, is deeper into the pocket of the trial lawyers lobby than any other politician in the country, which is saying a lot. Many lawyers, obviously, make a living deciphiring complex statutes in the tax code and other laws, and will pay a lot of money to make sure the general public cannot understand these things on their own. They would also sell their kidneys to avoid limiting insanely high jury awards in malpractice cases.

Most of the "insanely high jury awards" that you hear about in the media are eventually drastically reduced by a judge in the appeals process. Then again, there are some silly lawsuits out there. I'm just hesitant to take the power away from judges and juries and let the legislature arbitrarily limit payments simply because they're in the pocket of big business...
In other words, the whole tort reform issue is two pockets competing against each other, and I prefer injured citizens and lawyers interests over business interests. But that's just me.

Torture?

Dear John Kerry,

Please, send your surrogates out to accuse Bush of personally condoning torture.

It's time someone made an intellectually honest attack on the Bush administration, and this one is completely honest (unlike the one about Bush attacking the Taliban for Unical). We have the memos to prove it. I want every swing voter and conservative in the nation to seriously wonder, "What has Bush done to my country?"

Perhaps Kerry's simply waiting until Abu Ghraib Part II blows up on it's own...

Like most scandals, I'm afraid this one is going to need some fuel from a Democratic partisan. In other words: Calling all Democrats! Stop being willy nilly about the government sanctioned torture of innocent Iraqis!

On second thought...
Maybe our political leaders (in both parties) have decided that the damage that part II of this scandal would cause to America's reputation outweighs the public right to know. A continuation of this scandal also might further the risk to American's lives.

Then again...
If Kerry took on the Abu Ghraib scandal and sent a clear signal to the world that his administration wouldn't tolerate these types of monstrosities, the world might view Kerry's election as a direct repudiation of Bush's policies toward detainees.

In fact, in the eyes of the world, Kerry's election will hopefully be interpreted as the American people's repudiation of nearly all of George W. Bush's policies (whether it is or not). If the world witnesses the American public grabbing Bush and stamping "REJECTED!!" in big letters on his forehead, maybe that will help renew some of our alliances and make the so-called "war on terror" easier to fight...

The Edwards bounce

The AP thinks there wasn't one. But it's out there. It's just more subtle than everyone thinks.

If you take a look at the intensity of Kerry's support before and after the Edwards pick, I'm sure you'll notice a positive change in Democrats' feelings about their nominee. In other words, the Edwards pick padded Kerry's base. Sure, Edwards will probably add a few points in a couple of key states, but his main effect will be to engage the Democratic base.

In this polarized political climate, it's simply impossible for any event to shift any candidates' numbers too far up or down. A 4 point shift in the polls should be considered monumental.

Fahrenheit Review

My overall reaction to this movie: boredom.

Moore's recipe for a documentary:

Analyze all of the news between 2000 and 2004 (you know, stuff we've all already seen a thousand times. Nothing fresh. Don't do any research and certainly don't uncover more than one or two new documents.) Cut some clips of negative Bush stories. Add in a bizarre conspiracy theory about Bush's National Guard buddy and the Bin Laden family. Throw in a dozen other corporate conspiracy theories without offering any evidence of quid pro quo. Then just make up some stuff. The result: A boring movie that didn't teach me anything new.

The most hilarious part of this movie was the implication that Bush was responsible for 9-11. And why did Bush allow this heinous crime to occur? Because the Saudis and the Taliban told him to! Or was it Halliburton and Unical? I can never keep my wacky conspiracy theories straight!

The Pulse of the Apathetic Swing Voter

Swing voters are few and far between this time, but they're certainly still out there, and they'll probably decide the fate of this close race (although turnout will play a bigger role this election than any other).

Therefore, I've decided to write a recurring feature on the pulse of the apathetic swing voter. In this feature I'll update you on the current low-level heuristics that swing voters are using as short cuts to figure out which candidate is better prepared to be President. Here's an example of kind of things that moved these voters in 2000:

Bush: Dumb, "moderate", moral, likeable (on second thought, maybe I should have put ALL of the above words in quotes except for dumb)
Gore: Pedantic, condescending, pandering, boring, fighting "the powerful interests that stand in your way!"

Swing voters utilized these highly important campaign themes to choose their favorite candidate, sometimes only hours before they went to the polls.

This year, swing voters' superficial impressions of the candidates will be as important as ever! Let's see where we are now:

Bush: Still dumb, possibly incompetent, possibly dishonest, folksy, a decisive (although possibly misguided) leader
Kerry: Not likeable, serious, war hero, liberal, possibly a flip flopper
(I used the word possibly because I think the jury is still out amongst many voters.)

There you have it. It will be the campaigns' ability to shape these ridiculously shallow themes that determines the winner this year.

Unless of course we have another domestic terrorist attack and voters instinctively run to the comforting arms of whoever happens to be the current commander in chief (wait...I think it's...hold on...it's...who is it? Oh damn. It's Bush) Bush wins by default if we are attacked again*. How arbitrary!

Another caveat:
I'm actually quite impressed by the electorate's knowledge this time around. Perhaps they'll surprise me. More people are now paying attention to politics than any time I can remember. Perhaps its because there is so much at stake...

Or maybe there are other structural changes that are causing this newfound interest in non-celebrity-related current events. I'll visit this in a future post.

*I suppose if Saudis attacked us again Democrats could blame Bush - after all, he's in bed with the Saudis, right? Of course, these treasonous traitors would probably be drowned out by seventy million Americans simultaneously singing God Bless America...

Farenheit 9-11

I'm on my way to finally see it today. Should be interesting. Taking a pen and paper. Expect a post on Halliburton later tonight as well as a review.

Public financing is a huge drag!

John Kerry needs to spend his huge campaign war chest before July 29th or it becomes completely useless. It's illegal to spend money raised and declared during the (federally defined) primary season (before July 29th) during the (federally defined) general election season (after the 29th) if you accept federal funds. After he's nominated he will be forced to use a mere 75 million in public funds for the next 3 months. That's chump change compared to what he's been raising lately.

Could John Kerry do the unthinkable and opt out of the public financing system?

It looks like he's not going to. He's been spending money on 5 star hotels, high salaries for staff, etc. for the past month now. And he's still raising 2 million a day...If he were considering opting out of the system, he'd probably be continuing to save the money.

So - how should he spend these millions over the next couple weeks? Here are a couple of suggestions:

1. Spend it on things that will continue to pay off in the long run. TV advertising tends to have a limited effect. He should invest in grassroots infrastructure - things like computers, signs and bumper stickers, and office space. If he purchases these things now, they'll still be useful during the general election campaign. He's already giving away tons of free bumper stickers to the public.

2. Spend it on salaries for campaign workers. If you pay them double salary now, perhaps they'd be willing to work for 2/3 salary later (if you get my drift). Would this be illegal? Technically no!

Ramifications of public financing:

Guess who's going to be controlling the Democratic message after July 29th? Not John Kerry and not John Edwards, but rather:

MOVEON.ORG!

...And surely their clear eyed analysis of the Bush administration won't scare any potential swing voters away!

Of course, on October 5th (a month before the election), Moveon (and other PACs) will no longer be permitted to run issue ads (due to a brilliant passage in McCain-Feingold that arguably restricts free speech). The Kerry campaign can spend the entire month of October moving back to the center after Moveon pulls them into the far the stratosphere of the Left. In the meantime, Moveon.org can use their vast campaign chest to (a) send me more enlightening emails about Haliburton and (b) hopefully do something useful like a GOTV drive.

On a less sarcastic note, John Kerry is really started to grow on me. All of this buddy-buddy stuff with John Edwards has created the impression in my mind that perhaps a human being lives inside his gruff/tree-like exterior! I'm not yet convinced - but for now, I'm seriously considering joining the John Kerry Personality Fan Club.