Are You Blue?

Got to give the Blue team some props. Great picture of Repub-Wanna-B-Guv Ballentine.

The look on his face, the taxi ad for a strip club, anonymous woman in the back seat...This looks like Dan Quayle on a golf-n-babes weekend. Remember wife Marilyn's spirited defense of Danny? He couldn't have had an affair, because "anybody who knows Dan Quayle knows he would rather play golf than have sex."

What this goes to show you is that, when you think staff people and handlers are paranoid, in fact they are just worried about stuff like this. I hate myself for laughing at the picture, and Ballentine didn't do anything wrong...but it's great.

John Lott and NYT's Pillar of Snide

Damn, Betsy! You go.

She goes after the NYT treatment of the Lott-Hassett study. In particular, she points to the con-FISK-ication by Donald Luskin.

Full disclosure of my own: John Lott is a friend, for two decades.

God is a Republican, Santa Claus is a Democrat

Or is it the Yankees and the Red Sox, respectively?

Ben McGrath takes his shot at this idea.

But see an earlier version, by Frederic Frommer.

Or my own take.

(The title, btw, comes from PJ O'Rourke. You will laugh. Unless you are some liberal or something. Then you will say, in this as in all things in your life, "THAT's not funny!" As in, "How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?" Answer: "That's not funny.")

Outsourcing Resources

Since the reaction to my earlier post on outsourcing was so nice (no, my head won't fit there, though God knows I've tried), I thought I would share some resources.
For you haters....
For you lovers....
Both amazing sites. Both funny, because they aren't kidding.

Being against outsourcing is like being against gravity: fine, you get to be against it, but what in the world do you think you can do about immutable market forces? People who say they are against using price signals to direct resources to their highest valued use remind me of H.L. Mencken's line:

This notion . . . originated in the poetic fancy of gentlemen on the upper levels—sentimentalists who, observing to their distress that the ass was overladen, proposed to reform transportation by putting him in the cart.

Mencken was talking about democracy, but...

A question: If you are against outsourcing, does that mean you make your own shoes in your garage?

Be on your Guard

Ed Cone notes that he was going to write about the CBS "GuardPapersGate" thing, but Dave Winer had pretty much nailed it. Guess that goes double for me, having to cite someone who recognized that someone else had already done the job.

But I do have some questions:

1. Does anyone seriously doubt that Bush did in fact bail on his commitments, both when he was supposed to be in Alabama and later when he was supposed to connect with the Guard in Boston? Anyone? Why the heck do we care that these particular documents appear to have been forged? (Frankly, Peter Duncan pounded the snot of those guys at CBS. There is really nothing left to say, except sing the HEYHEYHEY: GOODBYE! song to Dan R).

2. Does anyone else wonder if a Republican sympathizer / free-lancer came up with this to discredit both CBS (for being goofs) and Kerry (for not doing anything other than being alive, but appearing to benefit from CBS's using the documents to attack Bush)? I mean, the things are so clearly fake. The IBM ball change, the perfect spacing on the superscript. If the Democrats had actually done this, they would have used a typewriter. They may be dumb enough to nominate Kerry, but they aren't stupid.

(UPDATE: Michael Totten had pretty much the same reaction, but earlier than mine. Nod to CL, just for being CL. And his use of the razor does have much to recommend it.)

(UPDATE AGAIN: Angryouser and angryouser...Nod to Dale)

High Colorado

Colorado is considering changing over to a proportional system for its Electoral College votes. (Did you know that the CO state song is "Where the Columbines Grow"? Now you do.)

There are lots of ways to reform. Proportional is a nice compromise, because it retains the essential character of the EC system, but eliminates a huge flaw.

My own thoughts, more generally:

Should we get rid of the anachronistic Electoral College? Absolutely not. But we should change it from winner-take-all to a proportional system. Colorado's contemplation of a proportional system is an important first step.

The Electoral College served three functions, in the minds of the framers of the U.S. Constitution:

· First, the Electoral College keeps the electorate from acting on wild impulses, and voting for demagogues. At first, many states used the state legislatures to choose electors, so there was no pretense, or even argument for, the popular selection of the president.

· Second, the Electoral College ensures that the small states get a voice in the presidential election. Votes from citizens in small states such as Montana or Maine count twice as much, or more, than votes from citizens in states like California or New York. Consequently, candidates have good reasons to pay attention to small states, instead of just campaigning in a few large states.

· Third, the Electoral College prevents large majorities in just a few states from determining the outcome of the election. Consequently, candidates must seek broad support from many states, rather than deep support from just a few heavily populated areas.

The three examples of past 'anomalies' in the Electoral College, in 1824 (Jackson-Adams), 1876 (Tilden-Hayes), and 1888 (Cleveland-Harrison), are each actually strong evidence for how well it works.

The 2000 election was a different matter. The system is not well suited for handling ties. The real problem is the 'winner take all' nature of the Electoral College votes, for most states (Nebraska switched in 1996, and Maine in 1972, to a more proportional system based on Congressional districts). Colorado would be the first state to go to a purely proportional system, but other states should follow their lead as soon as possible, for the health of our electoral system.

Right now, there are four states that are virtual ties, according to the polls: Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and Maine. Except for Florida, these are relatively small states, and the Electoral College system serves them well by giving them disproportionate power, compared to their population. The problem is that the winner-take-all system distorts this closeness.

Disadvantages of the winner-take-all system:
1. Too much rides on a few votes. Alternative systems, including the congressional district system of Nebraska and Maine, or a truly proportional system such as that contemplated by Colorado, would eliminate the incentives for recounting close votes. In 2000, each candidate would have gotten half the Electoral College votes in Florida (13 or 14), instead of one candidate getting all 27.

2. In practical terms, makes the small states less relevant, even with the weighting scheme that makes them count more than they otherwise would. If candidates only got half the Electoral College votes in the close, large states, they would have to campaign in other states also.

3. Raises questions of fraud, and the integrity of the electoral system. If just a few thousand votes can swing an entire state's Electoral College votes, then this sensitivity makes people suspicious about every county and even every precinct.


In short, the vote weighting procedures and the majority provisions of the Electoral College are working well. The problem is the winner-take-all aspect. Reform the EC, rather than getting rid of it.

(Best academic article on this: Rabinowitz and MacDonald. You'll need a JSTOR connection....also in hardcopy at library, of course: "The Power of the States in U.S. Presidential Elections" George Rabinowitz; Stuart Elaine MacDonald, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 80, No. 1. (Mar., 1986), pp. 65-87.)

Best example of non-political scientist reinventing the wheel, though with some flat spots and imperfections: Alan Natapoff (no web site!), of MIT. Article. For the obvious problem with Natapoff's view, see here, for example.

Al-a-Gore-ee

Mr. Gore appears to perceive himself as taking a role in a morality play.

Gore said that Bush's expression of faith "the American version of the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia, in Kashmir, in religions around the world: Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim", in the New Yorker. (Check the picture).

This week? Polls and stuff, and of course Kitty Kelley...

Thing 1, Thing 2, and Thing 3

Yogi Berra said, "In baseball, nobody knows nothin'."

He might as well have been talking about the Electoral College.

Three things, and a very nice article.

Thing 1: Why is Bush leading in Ohio? It doesn't make sense. Are the polls wrong? Or is Kerry?

Thing 2: Key states, as I've said before, that few others are talking about: Colorado and Nevada.

Thing 3: I don't see how Kerry can win in North Carolina. (FOLLOWUP: For a contrary view, see this. I still don't buy it, though. Repubs do 4-6 points better on election day than they did in the polls in NC. When K. Grease predicted Elizabeth Dole would win by 8-10 points in 2002, people scoffed, SCOFFED I tell you, because the polls showed it much closer as election day approached. But she won by 9%. For an explanation of why, you might check this "Republicans cheat" thread. Believing the other side cheats is much more comfortable than thinking that people might disagree with you.)

Current EC map. Kerry leading, but tenuous. Florida not awarded in this map, and Pennsylvania in the Kerry column.

Nice article: Today's WaPo. An excerpt....

The Massachusetts senator spent much of the summer trying to expand the number of battleground states with television advertising and campaign trips to places such as Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana and Virginia. But in the past week, Kerry dramatically scaled back the number of states in which he is running ads. Democratic strategists privately acknowledge that only a significant change in the overall race will put some of the states Kerry sought to make competitive back into play. Democratic hopes for victory in Missouri have diminished sharply, as well.

Tad Devine, a senior Kerry-Edwards strategist, said the shift in advertising dollars marked a decision to ensure that Kerry can campaign fully in all of the truly competitive states in the final weeks. "We did not want to be in the situation that the Democratic nominee was in four years ago of having to choose between Ohio and Florida," he said. "That choice will not have to be made this time. We have the resources to compete in those states and many, many more."

Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney campaign, called the shift by Kerry an acknowledgement that the Democratic ticket's earlier goal of expanding the electoral map had failed. "They've basically decided they're competing in 14 states and sort of ceded, for all intents and purposes, states they were in at the beginning of the year and spent a lot of money in," he said.

For much of the year, the campaigns have described the presidential race as largely confined to 20 or 21 states, which is where Bush and Kerry were running television ads and campaigning personally. But since Labor Day, the Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee have scaled back to 16 states total, with several considered long shots within Democratic circles.

"There's nothing particularly surprising in the provisional choices they've made," said Jim Jordan, a former Kerry campaign manager now working for America Coming Together, an independent Democratic group. "Some of these states, whatever all of our hopes were several months ago, are just hard for the Democrats at the presidential level."

An examination of state polls and interviews with strategists in the two campaigns and the parties suggests that, with less than two months before the election, the 10 most competitive states are, in order of electoral vote strength, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia and New Hampshire.

Eleven states are the remaining battlegrounds from earlier in the year. Of those, seven lean toward Bush: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina and Virginia. Four tilt toward Kerry: Maine, Michigan, Oregon and Washington.

Outsourcing Paul Samuelson

The grand old man of liberal economics speaks out, in the NYTimes. An excerpt:

[mainstream economists] are perpetrators of what Mr. Samuelson terms "the popular polemical untruth."

Popular among economists, that is. That untruth, Mr. Samuelson asserts in an article for the Journal of Economic Perspectives, is the assumption that the laws of economics dictate that the American economy will benefit in the long run from all forms of international trade, including the outsourcing abroad of call-center and software programming jobs.

Sure, Mr. Samuelson writes, the mainstream economists acknowledge that some people will gain and others will suffer in the short term, but they quickly add that "the gains of the American winners are big enough to more than compensate for the losers."

That assumption, so widely shared by economists, is "only an innuendo," Mr. Samuelson writes. "For it is dead wrong about necessary surplus of winnings over losings." Trade, in other words, may not always work to the advantage of the American economy, according to Mr. Samuelson.

Now, Mr. Samuelson has also recently endorsed John Kerry, so it appears he (Samuelson, not Kerry) is on a roll.

Another article, by Josh Bivens. A pretty reasonable treatment, considering it comes for the Center for American Progress.

Perhaps not surprisingly, K. Grease finds the response of Bhagwati, et al rather more convincing. Can we outsource Paul Samuelson to Bangalore, in exchange for some better code for MICROSOFT Service Pack II?

Biography as Politics

So....Kitty Kelly, well-known scholar, "reveals" that GWB did some toot at Camp David while Dad was Prez.

And....Bush may have failed to sign up for Reserves, breaking a promise.

Why aren't the Democrats running against that Bush did in the last three years? This other stuff just isn't getting any traction. Why are the obscure parts of the candidates' biographies so important? In Kerry's case, of course, the guy conducted an entire convention on a 7-month period 30 years ago.

At least looney-tune Senator Graham is jabbering about a conspiracy theory on something that happened in the last decade, instead of thirty years ago. There may be some evidence that this F9/11 style stuff has an effect.

Bloody Shirt? or Hair Shirt?

Why do the Republicans use Cheney so much in the campaign? His negatives are much higher, and his positives a little lower, than ever before.

If most people have decided, why parade this guy around? He will not convert anyone.

I think Cheney is a living, breathing bloody shirt. (As in "wave the bloody shirt"*see note below*, from the election of 1872). Waving the bloody shirt is an ancient Republican Tradition. Cheney has been beaten on so much by Michael Moore and the Dems that just seeing him walk around and smile makes the Republican partisans feel strong. "Look at this guy; he has a bad heart, he's bald as a m**********r, and he gets whacked on every talk show and news program by smug lefties! And he is unwavering in his support of the President! How can we falter, when we see such courage!" So why NOT parade him around? Since everyone has decided, he is not going to alienate anybody. Wave the bloody shirt, get "our" people out on election day! That's the only way I can understand what they are doing.

*NOTE on "wave the bloody shirt"*:
There was discussion through several years after 1876 on the origin of the red shirt as the uniform of the Democrats that year. The first red shirt shown, I believe, was that night in Charleston and on a Fifth Ward transparency. United States Senator Oliver P. Morton had delivered in the Senate a frantic and virulent denunciation of the treatment of the colored people by the Southern whites and dramatically produced and held up a crimsoned shirt which he said was from the body of a negro killed or cruelly whipped in Louisana. Democrats contended that the shirt was a fake and made much fun of it. "Waving the bloody shirt" was political slang for attempts to arouse sectional prejudice. Just before the Charleston parade Democrats somehow had intercepted a confidential letter from Judson Kilpatrick (Kill Cavalry) to Hayes, nominee for president, saying that nothing but "money and the bloody shirt" could carry Indiana Republican. It was in derision of this that the red shirt was flaunted in Charleston and later adopted as uniform. (Source)

I have seen other sources that say the election was 1872. But in all cases it was supposed to be the shirt of a black man, freed by the Civil War, but whipped to death in the reconstruction South.

Party Time

Whoa.

The Kerry video is actually pretty effective, for the Bush side.

But Bush himself...maybe not so effective for the Bush side.

The alternatives:
Ralph Nader, the "I love me, ME, ME!" Party
Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party
David Cobb, the Green Party
Walt Brown, the Socialist Party
Lord Sutch (posthumously), the Monster Raving Loonies party

Gouging....HOOAH....GOOD God, y'all....What is it GOOD for?

When I walk into a Circle K, to buy ice, is it because I love the owner and want to make sure he stays in business. Probably not; I walk in there to take advantage of him, because the value of the ice to me far exceeds the price he is charging.

And does Circle K man open his store out of love for me, out of concern for my welfare? He does not. He opens because the price he can charge for ice exceeds the cost of production, and he can make money.

In other words, we are taking advantage of each other, and both of us are better off. (Here is an ad, where Circle K advertises the fact that they have ice. Watch out for the bowling ball, tho!)

And....now? Millions in Florida are without power. And, therefore, without ice. That means lots of people want to buy ice. But, Florida has a robust anti-gouging law.

The result is that, if you wanted to drive to Florida with truckloads of ice, and try to sell it at the market price, you would be arrested. Does that make sense? Sure, the people who might drive down there with the much-needed ice are doing it out of greed. Who cares? The people buying it are doing THAT out of greed, too. They certainly aren't worried about truck man's welfare.

Outlawing price-gouging makes sense, if you think that statutes, and vague feelings that scarcity is somehow wrong, create reality. Me, I think that physical facts, like people's need for ice to save freezers full of soon-to-be-rotting food, matters more.

An excellent article on price-gouging after Charlie. And another article, for background. And, another, yet again. In the latter two articles, the claim is that citizens were "hit with price-gouging." No, no, no. Citizens were hit with scarcity, since there isn't enough stuff to go around. People who like price-gouging laws simply refuse to accept the physical reality of "not enough." Higher prices reflect scarcity, rather than cause it. And higher prices, if allowed to do their magic, might ameliorate "not enough."

(Yes, this rant continues K. Grease's previous rant. And I may rant about this again).

Why is it that knowledge of basic economics seems to be a bar to employment at the New York Times?

Bob Herbert, in his column today:

"American workers are in an increasingly defensive position. In a tight labor market, when jobs are plentiful, workers have leverage and can demand increased wages and benefits. But today's workers have lost power in many different ways - through the slack labor market, government policies that favor corporate interests, the weakening of unions, the growth of lower-paying service industries, global trade, capital mobility, the declining real value of the minimum wage, immigration and so on.

"The end result of all this is a portrait of American families struggling just to hang on, rather than to get ahead. The benefits of productivity gains and economic growth are flowing to profits, not worker compensation. The fat cats are getting fatter, while workers, at least for the time being, are watching the curtain come down on the heralded American dream."

Three points immediately occur:
1. If U.S. unions weren't so powerful, and the minimum wage weren't so high, then both immigration (to get jobs at artificially high wages) and out-sourcing (finding workers who will work at wages that are not so artificially high) would not be such a problem. Herbert's list confuses causes and effects. When I reread the list, I find it truly remarkable that someone with even a high school education could be so fundamentally confused.

2. There is a third group, besides workers and corporations, to consider. That is consumers. If you adjust for quality, and price, the chief beneficiary of productivity gains in the last decade have been consumers. So, as workers many people are little better off. But as consumers, their welfare is steadily improving. At least Marx was smart enough to study economics. Bob Herbert isn't even smart enough to study Marx.

3. This idea, constantly repeated by the hand-wringers and bed-wetters who don't understand capitalism, that the poor are not getting better off, is nonsense. Consider a form of analysis that focuses on individuals: a family comes to the U.S., puts down roots, learns the language, and moves up the economic ladder. Or, a family is born into poverty, works hard and saves, and sends kids to college. Over time, THAT FAMILY and its members get better off. (My family: mom and dad born into abject poverty, no one in family went to college. They scrimped, put three kids into private schools, and now all of us have graduate degrees and six-figure family incomes). That is the American dream; why doesn't it count for "the poor"? Because that family isn't poor any more! If you only focus on the "average" of "the poor", then of course that average is falling, because so many abjectly poor people are coming to the U.S. as immigrants, and people who were poor last generation are graduating to the middle class, where their higher incomes don't count in the average anymore.

If Herbert is right and "the poor" are getting poorer, why is it that so many poor people are becoming middle class? Why is it that so many truly poor people, in other nations, are risking their lives to come here? It is because the U.S. is the greatest wealth creation machine the world has ever known. The American dream is alive and well, unless you are a university professor or an ideology-blinded liberal columnist for the New York Times.

Dump Dumping, Redivivus: Amend the Byrd Amendment

The WTO is rightly yanking our chain over the infamous "Byrd Amendment." Now, you have to give him credit: Robert Byrd of WV moved to the "Vote for me, and I will give you other people's money!" platform years before the rest of the Democrats realized that, lacking actual ideas, they should do the same thing.

But this thing needs to go (the Amendment, I mean. Byrd....well, his continued success is explained by his "Porkman" superhero identity). (You might like CAGW's Byrd Droppings page). (And they say W smirks! Check this guy out....)



Interesting analysis (scroll to Aug 31, 2004 entry) by CATO's own Daniel Ikenson. An excerpt:

"By compensating petitioners and supporters of petitions, the Byrd amendment provides an additional financial incentive to file antidumping and countervailing duty cases,” remarked Ikenson. “Furthermore, by excluding from compensation those companies or unions not supporting the petitions, the law encourages companies that might otherwise decline to support petitions to do so simply to maintain eligibility for compensation.”

(Press release continues) While petitioning industries and their representatives tend to deny any linkage between the Byrd amendment and support for trade remedy petitions, the WTO case included as evidence a letter from a U.S. law firm urging a company to register
support for the countervailing duty case against lumber from Canada in order to qualify for Byrd amendment payouts.

“Despite opposition to the law at its inception from President Clinton and advocacy for repeal from President Bush, the U.S. Congress seems to have drawn a line in the sand over this issue,” Ikenson explained. “It is proving difficult to pry Congressional hands from a tool that allows them to quietly subsidize their business constituents. Unfortunately, the relatively low levels of retaliation authorized—about $150 million this year—will do little to inspire a change in that mindset.”

The dispute over the Byrd amendment is not an isolated event. There are a number of outstanding WTO rulings against U.S. laws and policies—including the Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income Tax provision and the Antidumping Act of 1916—that the United States has yet to implement. This mounting record of noncompliance must call into question the commitment of the United States to a rules-based trading system.

Those darned rules...they apply to everyone else, but not U.S., right?

U.S. Cellular Field, and the White Sox: Where America Lives

I bailed out from APSA and went to White Sox games. Italian sausage, beer, loud folks in the stands. A drunk guy ran onto the field, HOLDING A BEER ("I'd better take along something to drink, in case I get thirsty!"), and was still fast enough to elude the "security" guys. When they did run him down, they beat hell out of him, discreetly, with knees and elbows, right in center field. Actual holes in the turf where the carnage took place; guy was bloody. Great American entertainment.

Later, a Mariners batter got the high-n-tite treatment on a pitch, and fell on his back, hard. A fan a couple of seats to my right immediately yells (to the White Sox catcher): "Kick him! Kick him in the head!"

On the other hand, the Mariners' nonpareil, Ichiro, went five for five, and got a nice standing ovation from the White Sox fans. He tipped his hat. The four of us attending the game together agreed: with his off-balance stance and weak little swing, Ichiro will never succeed as a hitter.

Best moment of the two games I saw: White Sox bullpen is so bad, they fritter away a 8-3 lead. Bajenaru gives up hits and walks, until it's 8-5. Then the Sox management bring out their frisbee-throwing pet hamster, "Shingo" Takatsu. Big production: gongs, "Shingo Time!" on the big screen, loud music, Japanese characters on the really big screen. He has 15 saves for the year; some closers get that in a month. Of course, your team has to win to get a save, so maybe it isn't all Shingo's fault.

Shingo strikes out Edgar Martinez (Edgar: retire, please; this is embarrassing) on pitches that look like wads of tissue paper (Shingo's fastball is 89, if the radar is feeling friendly). Now there are two outs and the bases are loaded; Sox still up 8-5.

The Mariners' Ibanez creams a low liner to right, his third hit of the night. (This means that Shingo gives up two more runs, neither of them earned for him, because Bajenaru put them on base. Shingo is no bargain for other pitchers' ERAs). Two runs score easily, so it's 8-7. But, for some reason, Boone (who had been on first) decides he needs to be on third base. Why did he go for third, with two outs? He's already on second, in scoring position, with Bucky Jacobson, mountain-size phenom, coming to the plate. But Boone scoots for third, is thrown out by a step. The game is over, on Boone's boner. Shingo gets another save (now he has 16). The White Sox shoot off fireworks, and then there is a real fireworks display, made to seem less loud by the truly deafening "best of the 70s, 80s, and today!" pseudo-rock blaring from the speakers. An exquisite evening in the heartland.

From the (APSA) Convention

I am up at the Am Pol Sci Assoc meetings, home of the combover and the sack-assed K-mart suit, in Chicago. Pity me!

Post-RNConvention thoughts:

Bush's speech was about what an incumbent should do. He was ill-served by his speech writers, because the thing was long and had random micro-initiatives (what happened to Mars?). And if a guy is a bad speaker (Bush is not gifted, to say the least) then why not make the thing short and thematic? It's like the old Groucho Marx joke: we were relieved, on finding that the food was bad, because at least the portions were small.

The reason that this was all okay is that the Republicans are pursuing a fundamentally different strategy from the Democrats, and at this point the race is once again Bush's to lose. A month ago, Kerry had the upper hand, and he has let the advantage slip away.

Kerry strategy: appeal to the center, to the swing voters, and win a majority of the usual voters. Make the appeal broad. Run like an incumbent, take no risks, and make the other guy beat you with policy proposals or negative ads. (This would require quick and decisive reactions to negative ads, which is where Kerry has failed).

Bush strategy: recognize that turnout is 55-60% in Prez elections. Go deep, not broad. Make sure all the disaffected people on the right (pro-life, religious, very patriotic, veterans who feel the left disrespects them, libertarians who like Arnold Sch'ger) actually are contacted and turn out.

Bush / Rove are winning because:
1. Their convention was diffuse, giggly, manic, scriptedly unscripted (okay, Bush twins, go up there and make mild sex jokes!) and with plenty of overtly patriotic tartare de beouf.
2. Kerry failed to respond to the Swifties. In fact, he teed them up by emphasizing this Viet Nam record, and ignoring the 30 years since. His "midnight madness" gig was too little, too late.
3. Kerry is conducting an old-fashioned race, appealing to swing voters. But there aren't enough of those.
4. Bush is going after a much bigger group, the people who don't vote but who have latent (poorly informed, manipulable) beliefs that favor a particular view of the Republicans. If the Bush can sustain that view of the Republicans (handsome, confident entrepreneur Arnold, patriotic Zell, maternal and sweet Laura), then he can win by a lot.

What He Said

I was going to write about GWB's convention speech.

But then I found an article by Tom Shales at the WaPo that said what I would have said, and also said more, and said all of it a lot better.

Two excerpts:

It's doubtful that four more years in office would turn George W. Bush into a great speechmaker, but that he's improving was evident last night when he stood on a circular stage meant to suggest a pitcher's mound and made his case for a second term to near-deafening cheers at the Republican National Convention in New York.

Bush still has problems maintaining poise. Twice, when cheers from the crowd were interrupted by jeers from protesters -- who were quickly hustled out of the hall by security guards and police -- Bush looked flustered, even frightened, though he did keep reading from the prompting devices encircling him. Ronald Reagan in the same situation would have responded with a quip and dismissed the protesters with a tolerant smile. Bush clung carefully to his text, his eyes darting anxiously around the hall.

and:

Where the Republican convention seemed to fall disgracefully short was in paying proper tribute to Ronald Reagan, whose name is invoked at every opportunity but who seemed to get very little in the way of passionate posthumous tribute. Maybe the Republicans feared that too much homage would only serve to remind viewers that Reagan is gone, and that if it isn't mentioned, people will be lulled into thinking he's still around.

Reagan could have beaten John Kerry with one hand tied behind him. George W. Bush will need both hands and lots of additional help besides. Then again, the Democrats' post-convention antics, poor use of TV and Kerry's ill-advised photo ops give the impression that the Democrats are so determined to lose that nobody can stop them -- no matter what and no matter who.

11 Things I Didn't Know, Plus One More

A list of interesting things, from Gallup.

And, a funny bit. Thanks to Elkrider. This other Elkrider post is just a paranoid fantasy, of course....or is it?

Midnight Madness

Why is Kerry campaigning in the middle of the night, in Ohio?

The real question is why Bush isn't behind in Ohio by 10 percentage points. Some polls actually have Bush ahead, which is remarkable, given the jobs situation there. At this point, you'd have to say that if Bush wins Ohio, he wins the election.

The "midnight madness" bit is exactly like college basketball, of course. Lots of schools do a "midnight madness" practice, on the first day they can hold practice. You'll probably want to be at "The Ralph" on October 15. I hear it's crazy there.

But, for politics: The norm is that you don't do major campaign events during the other side's convention. But the convention ends on Thursday! So, at 12:01 on Friday morning, it is okay to hold an event.

Bush may get a good convention bounce, which Kerry can't afford (Kerry is sinking already!). So, Kerry wants to make the bounce look like a guitar string: plucked, makes noise for a little while, but then settles down to pretty much where it started out.

Three Trials

(On the title: with apologies to John Edwards, whose book Four Trials is now #5,523 on Amazon (and # 7 overall here in Raleigh, NC)). (To be fair, though, I bought the book, and I would say that the good Johnnie Reed owes me an apology, or perhaps a refund).

Trial #1: Todd Parrish, of Cary, NC, thought he was done. He had served the four years active duty, and the four years reserve duty, required by his ROTC contract.

But it turns out he forgot to say "Simon says I quit", and so the Army still owns him. An excerpt from the Army Times story:

The Defense Department has been using numerous devices to keep enlistment up during the Iraq conflict, included a “stop loss” order that prevents soldiers from leaving the military when their obligations end and multiple deployments of guard and reserve units.

Don't the authorities realize that this is a "stop recruiting" order? Who is going to sign up for the reserves now, when Dean Wormer-Rumsfeld can simply declare you subject to "double secret probation" and send your big butt back to a war that may never end.

Trial #2: David Passaro, CIA "contractor", has been charged with abusing prisoners in Afghanistan. In particular, he is charged with beating (using hands, feet, and a large flashlight) one Abdul Wali on June 19 and 20 of 2003. Wali died in his prison cell at the Asadabad Base, quite possibly of injuries inflicted by Passaro, on June 21.

Interesting twist, as John Ashcroft pointed out in his statement on the indictment:

I also note that this case would have been more difficult to investigate and prosecute were it not for the USA PATRIOT Act. The Act expanded U.S. law enforcement jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against U.S. nationals on land or facilities designated for use by the United States government.

Trial # 3: Kobe Bryant. Now a non-trial. Not clear that Mr. Bryant really won, but the criminal part is over. Here is part of his statement, elicited as a term of the agreement to drop charges:

I want to apologize to her for my behavior that night and for the consequences she has suffered in the past year.

Rape is so ungentlemanly. Sorry, sweetie, my bad. Don't know what I was thinking. You want to get some dinner, later?

At least we all got to hear the claim, by Bryant mouthpiece Pamela Mackey, that this was really all about race. She said:

There is lots of history about black men being falsely accused of this crime by white women.

Sure, that's true. There is also lots of history of rich men using power and influence to escape prosecution after abusing and raping women. The relevant comparison here is not to OJ Simpson; Kobe Bryant is simply another William Kennedy Smith. I don't often go for overblown accusations about "the patriarchy," but...

Another great day for American justice.

What Do They Think This Is, The Olympics?

If you were to try to watch the conventions (either the D or the R version), you might wonder if there really is a convention, or just an excuse for the network talking heads to preen.

There really does seem to be a sense among the chattercult that the events here are much to important to be left to the viewers to view or interpret. More important that they explain things to us, even if they don't know a darned thing and the chattering obscures the actual events. I have been watching C-SPAN, for heaven's sake.

Here's an exercise. It is interesting, and it may even be fun. Compare the following two web sites. Which one is doing the better, more accurate job of covering the Republican convention? (Hint: Trick question! It's a tie).

News Organization 1

News Organization 2

The Poets Down There Don't Write Nothin' at All

They just stand back and let it all be laughed at.

On Union Square, hard to tell parody from serious self-delusion. But this is parody.

An excerpt:

Soon our horde of professional rebels is joined by a local weekend rebel dressed in well-ironed Middle Eastern pajamas. His sign says, "The Destruction of the USA is a necessary condition for Peace." How brave of him, to engage in a battle of wits unarmed!

(Thanks to TG for the tip!)

Thomas Frampton Comes Alive

You can find Yale Student Thomas Frampton, complete with picture, and turgidly inanely quote selected from Proudhon, right here. Is he guilty of being anything other than a narcissistic Yalie with a bad haircut?*

Yes, he is! He rushed VP Cheney, and then assaulted Secret Service officers.

A selection from the self-selected motivational quote, which was even more accurate than the young Frampton could have known:

"...to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

Well, Tommy, if you get fraudulent credentials, steal a "volunteer" t-shirt, and then start squealing invective and run toward the Vice President in front of one of the greatest concentrations of security in history, then yes, those things will happen to you. You should have read your own fatuous little motto, dude!

You can find other examples of Frampton's sublimation of his guilt over academic inadequacy here and here. And (good lord) here. Don't they have to go to CLASS at Yale? Do you FEEEEEEL like I do?

*No, that is not redundant. Not all Yalies have bad haircuts.

Fiddling, Fiddling....While Carville Burns

What is John Kerry doing? Sure, this week he has to lay low, but he had a month between conventions. He spent it defending his record (all seven months of it) in Vietnam.

He is sinking in the polls.

The animals are out in NY, making the Repubs look rational.

And people who should be singing Kerry's praises are scratching their bald heads. And again. And again.

Excerpt from WaPo on Aug 30:

Carville's Complaint
By Howard KurtzWashington Post Staff WriterMonday,
August 30, 2004; 8:52 AM
NEW YORK--James Carville is off the reservation.
With the Republicans having taken over this city for a week, you'd think the Ragin' Cajun, one of the masterminds of Bill Clinton's nomination at Madison Square Garden 12 years ago, would be sticking to the Democratic script. A hardy band of Dems, like the Republicans in Boston, is here to stick some pins in the Bush balloon.

As the cohost of CNN's "Crossfire," Carville is no longer a party hack. But he raises money for the Democrats, gives high-level advice and is a certified insider.

So it was surprising to hear him declare at a Time Warner party last night that the Kerry-Edwards message is muddled. That there's no bark, no bite to what the candidates are saying. That the Democratic campaign is too timid when it comes to attacking the Bush-Cheney team. That too many people are in charge, so no one's in charge. "They're a perpetual committee listening to a perpetual focus group, and it's got to change," he says.

The campaign was particularly derelict, says Carville, when it comes to deploying John Edwards. "He's a racehorse, and you've got to get him on the track."

On the day the Census Bureau announced an increase in poverty and millions more Americans lacking health insurance, "the event they did was credit card debt," he says derisively. "Because someone in a focus group must have said something."

What the Kerry operation sorely lacks, Carville says, "is someone who can drive a communications message." This has created a "vacuum" at the heart of the campaign.

Carville has made this argument to the Kerry leadership and believes a change will take place by the time the senator hits the trail again on Thursday. "I know that what they're doing now ain't gonna stand."

The Louisianan has his own candidate for message meister--could it be Joe Lockhart, who gave up a CNBC gig to join the Kerry team?--but wouldn't tip his hand. He says he's talking about someone to win the news cycle, not a high-level shakeup. We'll see if he's right.

(Thanks to SdM for the tip)

Is Youth Wasted on the Young?

"In Presidential election years between 1972 and 2000, the national youth voter turnout rate declined by 13 percentage points (among 18-24 year old voters)."
"In 2000, 42% of 18-24 year old citizens voted; 70% of citizens 25 and older voted." (SOURCE)

The archetypal voter is old, rich, white, has kids (maybe adult kids, but has kids), has lived in the same city, and possibly same house (which they own, or have a mortgage on), for five years, and is well-educated.

Young people move around a lot, whether going to college or just looking for jobs. So, they tend to put off registration, particularly in states without "Motor Voter" registration. But even if they register, they are less likely to vote. Some of this can be explained by the fact that they make lower incomes, and are more likely to rent. So it is easy to confuse "young" with "moves a lot, has low income, and rents".
Controlling for those things, young people STILL vote less. (Can the kids be charted?)

The young are more likely to want to make their own choices, and reject the alternatives that the established parties offer ("I don't drive my father's Buick, and I don't vote for my father's party"). But this changes fairly quickly. Most voters end up pretty close to their parents, in terms of partisan affiliation.

So, does any of this matter, in this election?

Two schools of thought: (a) war and appearance of corruption of political system (the Michael Moore conspiracy theory of government) will turn young citizens off, or (b) war, possible draft, and experience of young people directly with government functioning badly will make them take an interest.

Predictions are tough, but I lean toward (b): I think turnout among the young will go up this election. But that would require that registration starts taking place NOW. Democrats don't seem to be working on this much, and since new youth voters are likely to vote Dem the Repubs have little reason to pursue youth turnout drives. (But see this chat with the Repub Youth Director).

And, there's always this. Oh, sweet mercy. It's a thing o'beauty: Huge men in tights, telling me to vote or they will sweat on me. I think K. Grease will need to be alone for a few minutes now.

I went down to the demonstration, to get my fair share of abuse

For the Naively Indignant and Chuckleheaded: A big week!
You should start this cheesy MIDI, for background, before reading further....
(Full lyrics at bottom, so you can do Kerry-OKee)


PROTEST EVENTS AT Rep Nat Convention (From WNYC list)
Friday, August 27th
* Christian Defense Coalition, 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., prayer vigil on 7th Avenue in front of Madison Square Garden. The Coalition has also scheduled a demonstration at Church Street between Liberty and Vesey Streets, on Sunday, August 29th.
Saturday, August 28th
* Planned Parenthood, march from Camden Plaza across Brooklyn Bridge to south end of City Hall Park for a demonstration, 11:00 a.m. to 2 p.m.
* Middle East Peace Coalition, Union Square Park, Southeast Triangle, demonstration, 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
* Green Party, Washington Square Park, Noon to 6:00 p.m.
* American Friends Service Committee, Central Park-Cherry Hill, 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.
* Falun Gong, Park Avenue from 44th Street to 59th Street, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Sunday, August 29th
* United for Peace & Justice, undetermined.
* Code Pink Women for Peace, Union Square Park * South Side, 9:00 a.m. to Noon.
* Not In Our Name, Union Square Park * North Side, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.
* Christian Defense Coalition, Church Street between Liberty and Vesey Streets, 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
* Falun Gong, West Side of Park Avenue between 49th and 50th Streets, 4 p.m. to 10 p.m.
* Falun Gong, 8th Avenue and 30th Street, 6 p.m. to 11 p.m.
Monday, August 30th
* Disabled American Veterans, rally at main demonstration area, 8th Avenue and 30th Street, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m
* NYC AIDS Housing Network and Hip Hop Summit Action Network, march and rally from 15th Street at Union Square to 8th Avenue, north to 31st Street, Noon to 6 p.m.
* NYC Atheists, 8th Avenue and 30th Street, 9 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Tuesday, August 31st
* NY Metro Area Postal Unions, main demonstration area at 8th Avenue and 30th Street, 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Wednesday, September 1st
* NYC Central Labor Council, 8th Avenue and 30th Street, rally, 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
* American Friends Service Committee, Union Square Park, 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.
* "The Line," individuals from a coalition of arts and labor organizations standing on sidewalks along Broadway from Wall Street area to West 30th Street holding "pink slips." They plan not to interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic, 5:00 p.m.
* National Organization of Women, rally, East Meadow, Central Park, 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
* Grassroots Coalition of Media Organizations, 52nd Street between 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue; south to 50th Street rally spot; march to 48th and 6th Avenue, 6 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
Thursday, September 2nd
* Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Union Square Park, 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
* Westboro Baptist Church, vicinity of 30th Street and 8th Avenue, 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
* One People's Project, Tompkins Square Park, 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.
* IAC/Answer Coalition, 30th Street and 8th Avenue, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.



LYRICS--Can't Always Get

I saw her today at a reception
A glass of wine in her hand
I knew she would meet her connection
At her feet was her footloose man

No, you can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
And if you try sometime you find
You get what you need

I saw her today at the reception
A glass of wine in her hand
I knew she was gonna meet her connection
At her feet was her footloose man

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you might find
You get what you need

Oh yeah, hey hey hey, oh...

And I went down to the demonstration
To get my fair share of abuse
Singing, "We're gonna vent our frustration
If we don't we're gonna blow a 50-amp fuse"
Sing it to me now...

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need
Oh baby, yeah, yeah!

I went down to the Chelsea drugstore
To get your prescription filled
I was standing in line with Mr. Jimmy
And man, did he look pretty ill
We decided that we would have a soda
My favorite flavor, cherry red
I sung my song to Mr. Jimmy
Yeah, and he said one word to me, and that was "dead"
I said to him

You can't always get what you want, no!
You can't always get what you want (tell ya baby)
You can't always get what you want (no)
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You get what you need
Oh yes! Woo!

You get what you need--yeah, oh baby!
Oh yeah!

I saw her today at the reception
In her glass was a bleeding man
She was practiced at the art of deception
Well I could tell by her blood-stained hands

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need

You can't always get what you want (no, no baby)
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need, ah yes...

Convention Metablog

Was it Will Rogers who said, "I never metablog I didn't like"?*

This is a metablog, a listing of blogs that are covering the Republican Convention. Quite a week. George Bush is going to have to run a bit more like a challenger, at least for a while.

At least his opponent, the already self-inaugurated King John I, is making it easy by refusing to take any campaign positions or talk about anything except his war record, which encompassed only a few months and ended more than 30 years ago. Has Kerry done anything since?

(Comparatively) Neutral

• WNYC--Convention City's Hometown NPR Station
• MASS Live
• CyberJournalist Blog List (Lots of info, and different perspectives)
• Catherine Shu's Blog List (Different "mainstream" blogs, and an interesting article on their impact)
• CLOGs: Convention Weblog
• Convention overview: Green Papers

Of course, you could also go straight to the major media web pages. But why would you do that?

Pro-Bush

• Main Convention Web Site
• Bush's own blog (maybe he'll get a salad dressing next?) . Well, they used his name, anyway. I doubt he posts stuff to it, himself. He's not that big a reader.
• List of Pro-Bush blogs

Anti-Bush

• Kicking Ass: Democratic Blog
• Talk Left: Fuzzy, angry people wearing pink glasses
• The New Republic Convention Blog
• Gadflyer: General "Progressive" Blog, but with Rep Nat Conv posts. Some of my favorite people, though of course their political views are quite wrong.
  

I'll add to these when I can. Have fun! This may well be the silliest week of politics you'll see for a long time. Anytime you have Republicans and a microphone, there is a chance for excellent comedy.

_________________________________
*No, he said "I never met a man I didn't like."

Parties

I was on the NEXT BIG THING today, Dean Olsher's radio show out of WNYC FM in New York.
Check the archived page here. I was in the segment on Political Parties: Who Needs Them?

Great fun. I got to say, "Democracy is overrated." How often do you get to say that? Actually, I get to say it all the time. But today there were some people listening...

The Key Battleground State is: Nevada?

Holy Kapowski, Batman! Who would have thought that the Prez election of 2004 would come down to a question of who could pander more to the citizens of Nevada over a policy that should have been settled years ago?

But, that is what is happening. The current situation (interactive map, with polls, just click on states) shows Kerry with a 270 - 259 lead over Bush in the Electoral College. Ohio has swerved toward the Bush column, though of course that race is hardly over. And Florida looks as if it could easily be Bush country again.

Nevada, however, is listed in the Kerry column. How come? Easy: Yucca Mountain. I wrote before about Kerry's grotesque pander on the high-level radioactive waste site, but I didn't expect the state to be so central to the outcome.

Here's the deal: Right now, Colorado is too close to call, and that is 9 Electoral College votes. Nevada is another 5. If Bush takes Colorado, and steals Nevada from Kerry's column, where it is now, that would change the standings to Bush 273, Kerry 265.

So, a prediction (dangerous; political scientists are better at predicting the past): during the Republican Convention next week, in New York, the Bushies will make some very specifically unspecific promises about Yucca Mountain. When it comes down to a simple policy shift that would endanger the saftety of tens of thousands of Americans, but will win the election, I expect Bush to pander, too.

What does that mean? Instead of a safe, centralized storage facility, we will have hundreds of separate "disposal sites," all with highly dangerous material stored at or near the surface, with little or no protection from terrorist attack. All this because seven people and a cow in Nevada want to keep their state clean for gambling, prostitution, and Sans-a-Belt stretch pants.

Politics of Self-Destruction

Here is an analysis of Presidential voting based on suicide rates, by Michael Craig Miller in the Boston Globe.

WHEN DEMOCRATS and Republicans decided where to hold their national conventions, they probably didn't know that Massachusetts and New York have the lowest suicide rates in the nation, about 6.5 per 100,000 people per year. The national average is 10.7, and states with the biggest problem are in the 19 to 20 range.

Suicide rates in the United States generally rise as you go south and west. Earlier this year, I got interested in the exceptions to that rule, so I decided to create a map. States with lower than average suicide rates I colored blue; the rest I colored red.

And there it was: an approximation of the year 2000 presidential election map.

But...where's the actual map? Couldn't find it. If he's right, it would look like this map of the 2000 election, with Repub states red and Dem states blue. Of course, I expect Miller could be wrong: if Bush wins, I have a lot of liberal friends who have promised to kill themselves.

Here is a current map, a little optimistically tilted toward Bush (They give W both Florida and Ohio!). Have fun, Dems, but don't hurt yourselves!
(Thanks to JAR for the tip)

Who's Yer Daddy? Bill Clinton?

According to a Forbes study, yes. (As you can tell from the picture below, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, just like Freud said).


The Presidents who presided over the periods that also saw the most robust economies (I'm choosing my words carefully) are, according to the study:

1. Clinton
2. Johnson
3. Kennedy
4. Reagan
5. Ford

The other rankings, and the study, can be found here.

There are three things to be said about this.

1. The categories are rankings, and only go back to Eisenhower. Adding rankings is pretty sketchy, since you are treating them as if the categories are equally weighted, and the ordinal rankings would have to be ratio scale cardinal numbers to make this realistic.

2. If we go back as far as Roosevelt, and according to my own quick back of the envelope calculations, Roosevelt would have been the worst Prez of the 11, by quite a bit. Since FDR is supposed to have been an economic genius by his admirers, this might raise some questions. The "greatness" of President should be measured by value-added, compared against the counter-factual--"How would the economy have performed if the OTHER GUY had won?"

3. The very idea that a President can reliably influence even at the margin, much less control, economic events in his term(s) is crazy. Fiscal policy affects performance with Friedman's "long and variable lags", if it has any measurable effect. (Yes, Milton Friedman was talking about monetary policy. But the point applies with equal force to fiscal and tax policy). Russell Roberts does a very nice job of laying out the key issues.

(Thanks to SdM for the tip. And thanks to Anon for fixing the brain damage).

Ted Sampley and the Politics of Hero Destruction

So, now John Kerry's war record, his portrayal as a hero, is the subject of a Republican attack. Fair enough, in a way, since Kerry did make his war record exhibit #1 as evidence he was qualified to lead the U.S. in wartime. And Ted Sampley has played a key role in this attack.

The actual content of the attack on Kerry is very questionable. Personal sniping, dicey facts, questioning Kerry's character...well, you can see the ad yourself. I don't often agree with Susan Estrich, but she is by and large correct in this analysis. (I have never used "Susan Estrich" and "analysis" in the same sentence before, and promise not to do it again.)

The thing that is ironic is that very nearly the same sort of attack was carried out against....President George Bush. No, not W; to have your war record criticized, you have to have a war record. I am talking about George H. W. Bush, #41, Bush pere, whatever you want to call him. The similarities, and the differences, between these two incidents, are interesting.

The comparison of war records was important, in 1992, because the roles were reversed: the candidate named Bush was a "war hero", and the opponent (Clinton) was the draft dodger. The Democratic press was in a full snit that anyone might question Clinton:

A few people may be concerned about Clinton's patriotism, just as some are undoubtedly concerned about his use of marijuana. It now appears that the governor was first evasive, then dishonest about his drug use, that he may have been less than straightforward in his responses concerning his extramarital liaisons, that he lied to and manipulated people to dodge the draft, and that he continues to dodge questions about that issue. It is less any single one of these questions that causes concern about Clinton than the pattern of dishonest and disingenuous conduct exhibited by this entire collection of questions. I f, however, the issue were Clinton's patriotism, as the editorial suggests, it would be ludicrous to compare the record of President Bush to Clinton. If Bush's father [Prescott] got special treatment for [G.H.W.] Bush, his father did a poor job of it; at 18, George Bush was shot down in the Pacific. Clinton, when three or four years older, was busy figuring out whom he could manipulate to pull strings for him to help him avoid service. Clinton asks us to join him in a new covenant. It is fair to ask, when entering a covenant, whether the record of the person with whom you are covenanting suggests that he keeps his promises. The record of Clinton, and particularly his record regarding the draft, strongly suggests the contrary, implying that he is not worthy of our trust. Paul Ground Ballwin The 1992 presidential campaign is taking on more of a negative tone, especially on the GOP side. It appears to me that about all President Bush can talk about is the military status of Gov. Bill Clinton. Many people who are talking and wondering about it did the same thing that Clinton did, which was legal. Many men went to Canada to avoid serving. Vietnam was a totally unnecessary, immoral war from the start; one in which our country was not in danger or threatened. I, too, served proudly in World War II, but I would have done anything I could to keep my sons out of Vietnam. So would many of Bush's so-called advisers. I'm sure many of them used their influence to keep their sons out of Vietnam but don't have the guts to admit it. Why doesn't Bush stop trying to dig up dirt and face up to present realities? Bush and the GOP said they were not going to conduct a sleazy campaign and immediately after the Houston convention, they started attacking Hillary Clinton and the military record of Bill Clinton. (Editorial, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Sept. 26, 1992; emphasis added).

So, the Democrats seemed to think (at one point, at least) that one should not exploit the legitimate choice of a father to keep a son out of Viet Nam.

The facts of G.H.W.B. in WWII are not in dispute.

"Bush's story has never been as widely known as John F. Kennedy's and, up to now at least, hasn't been so blatantly exploited for political purposes; indeed Bush's relative modesty about his wartime exploits is one of the more attractive aspects of a political persona that otherwise leaves much to be desired. But now, for whatever reason, Bush has cooperated with Joe Hyams in the making of "Flight of the Avenger," a piece of pulp nonfiction that, though not wholly without value, rarely rises above the level of cheap melodrama. This is too bad, because what Bush accomplished deserves a better telling. Barely 20 years of age, he was a lieutenant (j.g.) in the Navy who had survived all the rigors of pilot training -- described herein with considerable detail, much of it interesting -- and had been assigned to fly an Avenger, "the biggest single-engine carrier-based plane in the Navy." On Sept. 2, 1944, with a crew of two, he made a successful attack on a Japanese radio tower transmitter on Chichi Jima, not far from Iwo Jima, but his plane was shot down; the other crew members were lost, but Bush managed to stay afloat in his life raft and was rescued by an American submarine about three hours later.That's it: no heroics, just an airman doing his job precisely as he'd been trained and managing to come out of it alive. Like others who have undergone similar trials, Bush emerged from it with a "very deep and profound gratitude and a sense of wonder ... Why had I been spared, and what did God have in store for me?" but -- also like other veterans of war -- he tried not to make too much of what he had done." (Washington Post, Jonathan Yardley's Review of Flight of the Avenger, March 6, 1991; emphasis added).

What was the reaction of the Dems to H.W.'s war record as a "hero"? The Distinguished Flying Cross awarded to Bush is pretty similar to a Silver Star (John Kerry's most significant medal). Are the two cases comparable? Because if the Dems controlled themselves, and avoided attacking H.W., that would be an indictment of the lack of self-control the Republicans have showed in allowing the swift boat ad to show and fester.

The answer is "no", however. The Democrats, or at least some of them, went after G.H.W. Bush pretty hard. The best summary I could find of the alternate set of "facts" alleged by the attackers (including people who had served with H.W. as meat puppets to spout the line that Bush pere was in fact a coward) was written as a retrospective, a few years later, after H.W. had parachuted again. (He just did it another time, as you may remember). The following is from a 1997 piece by Ted Sampley. (Interestingly, Sampley is one of the co-founders of Viet Nam Vets Against John Kerry. What is this guy's problem?) For the 1988 interview that first injected the accusations into the public eye, click here.

After 44 years of silence, Mierzejewski, who also was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, told the New York Post that Bush had abandoned his crew to death when there was another choice.

He said he was approximately 100 feet in front of Bush's plane as the turret gunner for Squadron Commander Douglas Melvin's plane, "so close he could see in the cockpit" of Bush's bomber. Mierzejewski's close wartime buddy was one of the two crew members in Bush's plane.

According to Mierzejewski, the squadron was in a tight-formation bombing raid against a Japanese radio installation on an island reported to be heavily fortified. He saw "a puff of smoke" come from Bush's plane which quickly disappeared and was certain only one man parachuted from the plane and that it was Bush, the pilot.

Mierzejewski said the Avenger torpedo bomber was engineered so that it could successfully crash land on water and that Bush doomed his own crew by bailing out and leaving the bomber out of control.

Other World War II veterans also expressed concern about Bush parachuting out of the aircraft. "He had a moral obligation to put that plane in the water in an emergency landing," Robert Flood, a former B-17 bombardier told the press. "He violated the primary rule for a captain of a multi-crew aircraft: The pilot never leaves the airplane with anybody in it."

Pete Brandon, a Marine Corps Avenger pilot, who also served in the South Pacific, said an Avenger pilot had two choices: Set the plane down in the water or hold it steady until the two crewmen could prepare to jump.

"In an Avenger, only the pilot wore a parachute," Brandon said. "The two crewmen wore harnesses. If the order came to bail out, they had to take chest parachutes from a shelf and strap them on - and bail out. The Avenger was very unstable. The pilot had to be at the controls the whole time or it would go right over on its back."

Steve Hart, then Vice President Press Secretary, described Mierzejewski's account as absurd. Hart said, "The Vice President has told us time and time again what happened that day. To suggest that the account is inaccurate is absurd."

What is absurd is the conflicting or missing reports of exactly what happened to Bush's two crew members. According to the Post, the intelligence report on the loss of Bush's plane in September, 1944 notes that it had become "standard doctrine" for VT 51, Bush's bomber squadron, "to make bombing runs on targets near water so as to retire over the water. This puts pilot and crew in position for water rescue in event of forced landing . . . "

The same document reports, without attribution, that "smoke and flame" engulfed Bush's engine, and that "Bush and one other person were seen to bail out. The chute of the other person who bailed out did not open."

The report was signed by Melvin and an intelligence officer, Lt. Martin E. Kilpatrick. Contrary to normal military procedure, the report was not dated and Navy archives were unable to supply a subsequently completed report. Gunner Lawrence Mueller, who lives in Milwaukee, flew on the ChiChi Jima mission.

When asked who had the best view, he replied unhesitatingly: "The turret gunner in Melvin's plane." Mueller's recollections, jogged by a log book that he kept, support Mierzejewski's account. And it was noted that Bush's plane was the only one from the squadron that did not return. Mueller told the Post, "No parachute was sighted except Bush's when the plane went down."

He also said no one mentioned a fire engulfing Bush's plane or he would have noted it in the log book. The Finback, the sub which picked up Bush from his raft in the water, made no report of a fire on Bush's plane, but did comment on his crew: "Bush stated that he failed to see his crew's parachutes and believed they had jumped when the plane was still over ChiChi Jima, or they had gone down with the plane."

About six hours later, the Finback picked up another pilot, James W. Beckman, from the USS Enterprise, who stated that it was known that only one man had parachuted from Bush's plane. "This decided us to discontinue any further search of that area . . ." Although the heart of Bush's story about the incident remains the same, Mierzejewski is adamant Bush's account is not the truth and blames Bush for the abandonment and deaths of both men.

"I think he could have saved those lives, if they were alive. I don't know that they were, but at least they had a chance if he had attempted a water landing," Mierzejewski said....

...As for [Bush's fitness to lead], there were two men who knew Bush very well and could have spoken about his loyalty to the men and women in uniform.

Unfortunately, very few people have ever heard of them and neither Radioman 2nd Class John Delaney or Gunner Lt. Junior Grade William White are able to speak. They are on the bottom of the Pacific off the coast of a tiny island where their pilot, Navy Lt. George Bush, sent them when he made his first parachute jump.

I think the differences between the two cases are more interesting than the similarities. The attacks on H.W. were not centrally orchestrated, had no relation to the Democratic National Committee or the Clinton campaign, and did not become a prominent part of the campaign. The reason the character assassination attacks on Bush's war record did not become central to the campaign? Several prominent Democrats stepped up and denounced the Mierzejewski story, saying that to suggest that H.W.'s war record was cowardly. The implication that Bush did not deserve the DFC or his other medals, earned in other engagements with the enemy, were flat wrong. The controversy died qiuckly, except for the lunatic fringe on the left.

Where are the prominent Republicans, the ones who could denounce the swift boat ad and end this ad hominem assault on Kerry's honor? The only person who has spoken out is John McCain, and he might as well have been spitting into the wind.

As a recent (but now ex-) Republican myself, let me say this to the younger Bush: Tell your hired thugs to pull the swift boat ad. Stop questioning Kerry's war record. Run a campaign that won't sicken moderates. Even if the ad, and accompanying sleaze attack, manage to work by getting you reelected this time, the damage to republic will be irreparable. At best, these ads and Kerry's answers (including hiding the rest of his war records) will prevent the public from trusting either one of you.

What is now obvious, and I am not sure why no one in the media has pointed this out, is that Ted Sampley is a professional character assassin. There is no ideological reason I can think of that would lead to blatantly absurd attacks on G.H.W. Bush and John Kerry. Sampley just doesn't want people to be able to use their war records. Tune Sampley out, please.

UPDATE: Two excerpts of Republicans weighing in, for and against the Kerry character attack campaign, from the WaPo today, same article:

1. "Yesterday, former senator Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.), whose right arm was disabled during World War II, attacked Kerry, agreeing with critics. "One day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons," Dole said on CNN's "Late Edition." "The next day he's standing there, 'I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran.' Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam."
Dole, the GOP's 1996 nominee, also questioned Kerry's commendations. "Three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of," Dole said of the medal one gets for a combat injury. "I mean, they're all superficial wounds. And as far as I know, he's never spent one day in the hospital. I don't think he draws any disability pay. He doesn't have any disability. And boasting about three Purple Hearts when you think of some of the people who really got shot up in Vietnam."
Dole erroneously stated, "He got two in one day, I think." Kerry's Purple Hearts were received for different injuries over his four-month tour in Vietnam, during which he also received a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton said, "It's unfortunate that senator Dole is making statements that U.S. Navy records prove false."

2. "The [Kerry] campaign got some unexpected help from Wisconsin state Rep. Terry M. Musser, a Vietnam veteran and co-chairman of Wisconsin Veterans for Bush. Musser lambasted the Bush-Cheney campaign in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel over Republican attacks on Kerry's military record. "I think it's
un-American to be attacking someone's service record. Period," Musser said
in a Washington Post telephone interview. "The president has an
opportunity here to stand up and demand that the attacks be stopped." (Thanks to SdM for the tip)

Waldman Gets Called a Gad-Liar

I have a couple of friends on the staff of the Gadflyer, one of them a PhD student of mine from years past. Pretty good stuff, some of it funny on purpose, some by accident.

Quite a bit of funny stuff in the post (by Paul Waldman) on his appearance on O'Reilly, on Fox. Some of it funny by accident. He makes the usual argument about people on the right being "well-funded" (I have heard that so many times, when I make a radio or other appearance: "Who is paying you?" Liberals can't believe anyone with an IQ over 50 could actually disagree with them, so they assume that bribery must be involved. I'm not saying I wouldn't take the money. But no one has offered. I keep checking the phone: yep, dial tone. But still no calls).

Then, Paul tops his previous comic efforts with this howler:

"Much has been made of liberals' anger at President Bush, and that anger is certainly real. But if Bush loses in November, that anger will dissipate. You'll be able to find liberals angry about one issue or another at one time or another, but you won't find them simmering with a generalized fury. But many conservatives remain angry, even at the height of their power. They'll be angry if Bush loses, and they'll be angry if he wins."

Excuse me? Paulie, lad, if Bush wins, you know it can only be because he stole the election. The only possible bases for disagreement with the well-funded (hee-har!) liberal support network for John Kerry and Johnnie Edhairs are (1) confusion and stupidity of the electorate or (2) corruption and cupidity of the Republican party and its supporters.

Now, this (1) and (2) argument is absurd, but I have heard exactly these claims, in only slightly varying forms, from dozens of my colleagues on the left. They like to be mad; it reminds them of their youth when they were protesting and felt vital and alive and thin enough that they could still see their private parts (frankly, I doubt that Michael Moore can even reach his). If Bush wins, they will be furious.

Should I really conclude from the uniformity of the liberal response to Bush that there is a "well-funded" conspiracy where people on the left are having secret meetings, and getting paid by George Soros or any of the other monstrously wealthy supporters of the left (like, say, John Kerry?)?

No, I think there are some real disagreements here, and reasonable people should try to think about that. Paul gives the people on the left a pass, and he shouldn't.

But to be fair (and I hate doing that), the point of the article is about the anger on the right. And that is where Paul ends up winning the argument, as far as I'm concerned. His account of what happened after the O'Reilly show is disturbing, but insightful. I have had some pretty bad encounters on talk shows, but nothing like the one Paul describes. It appears that the very possibility of disagreement is infuriating to many people. Those of us on the right need to acknowledge we have a problem.

I just wish Paul Waldman would fess up that a lot of his people are religious zealots, too, attending the church of Burning Bush.

Low Stakes Poker

Will the congressional Republicans up for reelection start to distance themselves from the administration? I keep getting this question from reporters.

I have trouble with the premise, frankly. I think all the reporters’ friends dislike Bush so much that they think everyone else must, too. Recent polls (see pollingreport.com) have varying leads for Kerry or Bush, depending on how they treat “likely” voters. (The problem is that people lie: “Yes, I’m going to vote” or “Yes, I voted last time”). But the election isn’t over. The Repubs are going to get a lot of sympathy at their convention. It is going to look like the Bronx Zoo opened its doors and let the wild animals run loose. Interviews with liberal street protesters who want to return mankind to the time before we used gasoline, electricity and possibly even the wheel will make the Repubs look pretty calm and rational.

Besides, I would read the poll numbers differently. Bush has had the worst six months of any Prez since Nixon, and his negatives have not gone up that significantly in the past year, in most states. His problem is that independents have started to swing toward disapproval, though only by a narrow margin. (source)
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"
Percentages--ALL VOTERS--
--Approve: 46 --Disapprove: 45 --Have been living in cave: 9
Republicans
Approve: 85 DisApp: 11 Cave: 4
Democrats
Approve: 15 DisApp: 77 Cave: 8
Independents
Approve: 41 DisApp: 44 Undecided: 15

Why is Kerry treading water, if Bush is doing such a bad job? The answer is that Mr. “I’m JFK, and I served in a PT…er…Swift Boat” is missing his opportunity, by running like an incumbent. The only message Kerry has is (1) I was in Viet Nam, and (2) contentless optimism ("don't be a hater!"). Kerry is NOT an incumbent. He may screw this up. I have talked to several well-connected Democraticos lately, and they just shake their heads at Kerry’s “strategy.” Sure, it could work, but Kerry should have won this on the merits over the past month.

But, okay, suppose. Suppose Bush really does start to sink in the polls. (It is true that his negatives are very high. Negatives are a measure of the susceptibility of voters to negative advertising, and Bush is obviously susceptible, even for people who haven’t made up their minds. The rule of thumb is that a candidate becomes literally unelectable if their negatives go much above 45%. By many recent measures, Bush is at or near this “threshold of political death”).

The Republican members of Congress can’t bail out. In for a penny, in for a pound. The control of the Oval Office, and control of the Senate, are tightly connected. Bush showed that in 2002, when he pulled a rabbit out of hat and the Repubs gained seats in a race where everyone (yes, including K. Grease) predicted early on they would lose them.

I would say the change is this: The race was Bush's to lose. Now it is Kerry's to lose. But Kerry is not winning it. Inexplicable. Why don't they jump on it? Kerry seems to think that if he just avoids mistakes he will win. I think it is much closer than that, and Kerry is taking a huge risk.



So, for the GOP in House and Senate, it's like a poker hand where no one is betting. They might fold if the stakes went up, but since no one is raising the ante, why not stay in the hand and see what cards turn up? If the other side keeps checking, you might as well stay in the game.

Flapping the Taliban Wing

It is barely possible I went a little over the top. This is rare, usually happening only when I am awake.

On a radio show yesterday, I mentioned that the attack ads and moral certainty in some of the Republican primary run-offs in NC were a little distressing. I can’t quote exactly what I said, but it was something like: “This ascendancy of the religious right in politics is new, and disturbing. If the Republicans can’t control their ‘Taliban wing’, they may start to lose moderate voters.”

Some emails I have since received (and others sent to the show’s host) have been a bit miffed. One fellow suggested that the comparison of North Carolina campaign operatives (who are, after all, loyal American citizens) to the Taliban was less than felicitous. In fact, he suggested I do something that is not only anatomically unlikely, but would be profoundly undignified.

(If it matters, by the way, I was raised Presbyterian and now attend a Catholic church with my wife and family. My sons are both raised Catholic, and take Communion).

On thinking it over, my email interlocutors may have a point, but I do not recant. The idea of government in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, or in any Sharia state, or for that matter in any theocracy, is very different from a democracy. The general will is found, in a theocracy, by reading and interpreting sacred texts. The application of the (usually ancient) texts to current situations is analogical, with disputes decided by narrowly but deeply trained theologians. They act more like judges, interpreting and extending the law, than like a legislature (which, in a Sharia state, is a weak figurehead body). The citizens, public opinion…that all counts zippo, nada.

In a democracy, by contrast, one has to make arguments, to convince people. The general will is discovered by counting votes, either in direct votes such as referenda or in a representative body (i.e., a republican form of government). It is possible that general will (if it exists) is more clearly embodied in the constitution than in any law, but even then most would agree that the law should be responsive to changes in the views of the public. Given our system, it takes much more than a majority to change the law, since the House and Senate have such different bases of power and the President has to sign the legislation.

But more and more, the Republicans are consulting ancient texts, and insisting that the dictates of those ancient texts now be enacted into law. This seems odd, since Jesus said there should be but one law: love one another.

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (Galatians 5:14 King James Version)

But our new Christian theocrats consult instead the Old Testament, and find restrictions on homosexuality (so laws should ban gay marriage) and find theological definitions of life (which mean that even nonbelievers cannot get access to birth control or abortions) (This is why people want the Ten Commandments, not a cross, in the courthouses).

The line between religious beliefs and policy is a difficult one. The U.S. has long been an anomaly: A mostly secular nation with many citizens with very strong religious beliefs. We have been committed to separation of church and state because our sectarian diversity prevented any one group from achieving ascendancy. (Just as Madison predicted in Federalist #10). That meant that our religious leaders, for the most part, were dedicated to a transcendent principle: one must not use religious texts as shut-up arguments for policy. You have to make arguments that even non-believers find persuasive, and the basis for law is the will of the people.

So, I persist: If Republicans want to win converts, not just a Pyrrhic election or two, they are going to have to stop flapping their Taliban wing.