Category Archives: Politics: US: 2004 Election

Matthew Yglesias raps Kerry's speech because it doesn't describe an Iraq strategy. This has to be the most unfair critique I ever heard of.

1. Bush has not mapped an exit strategy.

2. Events are very fluid. Any statement now is likely to be overtaken by events, resulting in charges of shifting position if the postion needs to shift.

3. Kerry's strategy is known to be the 'pottery barn' view of once you are in you are sort of stuck, but he'd like to internationalize the foreign presence. At this point there is little he could reasonably add. If you need more, read Juan Cole.

Here is something I certainly never expected to see. A Miami Bishop, born in Cuba, has said President Bush reminds him of Castro. OK, he's an Episcopalian Bishop, not a Catholic, but still…

Here's what the Miami Herald reported (reg. req.),

As the Bush-Cheney campaign mounts an offensive to solidify a religious base for the November election, the Episcopal bishop of Southeast Florida has joined a chorus of religious leaders denouncing the campaign's plan to obtain church directories for electioneering purposes.

To Bishop Leo Frade, the Bush-Cheney strategy violates the separation of church and state.

“Handing over names for partisan politics to any party would be an infraction of our tax-exempt status as a religious institution,'' said Frade, who heads 82 Episcopal churches in Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Monroe and Martin counties.

Frade, who was born in Cuba and came to the United States in 1960 as a college student, went further in a July 2 diocesan letter.

“I'm alarmed by any suggestion of providing the names of church members to any particular political group,'' he wrote. “I saw this request made by Fidel Castro at the beginning of his regime, and his persecution of churches that refused.''

The Herald reprints the GOP instructions to churches, or church members, here. (It also reports the interesting GOP claim that what the GOP is doing to evangelical churches is just like what Democrats have done for years in black churches. Is that true? Have Democrats ever been that organized?)

Incidentally in other Florida-Cuban news, it turns out that Bush's allegations about Cuba being a sex-tourism haven may be several years out of date (at least, that's what the Cubans claim, and there's some evidence to support it) and that Bush's picked GOP Senate candidate, Mel Martinez, is getting some south Florida flack for suggesting that some Cuban refugees are economic refugees, not entitled to political asylum.

Here's the problem. I don't think Wayne Madsen is a nut. I’ve met Wayne a few times over the years at privacy-oriented events. He’s sometimes rumpled, often a little intense, has a spook-like love for conspiracy theory (forgivable since he is a sometime spook himself). He’s definitely out there on the fringe where left meets right, and we’re not always on the same page politically, but I have found him to be very well informed.

So what to make of his latest effort, Terrorism and the Election: California is the Target!? Wayne, like the best intelligence analysts, has an eye for a threat model. But to take this one seriously, well, the cynicism being alleged is immense…

Here’s the scenario we must be all be prepared for:

If the pre-election internal tracking polls and public opinion polls show the Kerry-Edwards ticket leading in key battleground states, the Bush team will begin to implement their plan to announce an imminent terrorist alert for the West Coast for November 2 sometime during the mid afternoon Pacific Standard Time. At 2:00 PST, the polls in Kentucky and Indiana will be one hour from closing (5:00 PM EST – the polls close in Indiana and Kentucky at 6:00 PM EST). Exit polls in both states will be known to the Bush people by that time and if Kentucky (not likely Indiana) looks too close to call or leaning to Kerry-Edwards, the California plan will be implemented. A Bush problem in Kentucky at 6:00 PM EST would mean that problems could be expected in neighboring states and that plans to declare a state of emergency in California would begin in earnest at 3:00 PM PST.

The U.S. Northern Command, which has military jurisdiction over the United States, will, along with the Department of Homeland Security and Schwarzenegger’s police and homeland security officials in Sacramento, declare an “imminent” terrorist threat – a RED ALERT — affecting California’s major urban areas.

Although the polls in California will not be closed as a result of the declaration, the panic that sets in and the early rush hour will clog major traffic arteries and change the plans of many voters to cast their ballot after work.

That terrorist emergency declaration could be made around 5:00 PM PST and with only three hours left for voting throughout the state, a number of working class voters in urban centers will either be caught up in California’s infamous freeway traffic and be too late to get to their polling places or be more concerned about their families and avoid voting altogether.

In most cases I'd dismiss this as 200 proof tinfoil hat stuff and forget it. But I know this guy. Yes, he's over-alarmist sometimes. But sometimes he's right. And he's talking about the guys with the very suspiciously timed press conferences announcing vague terrorist threats.

Even so, can't helping thinking that at least here in Florida we have more to worry about old-fashioned, low-tech means of stuffing the ballot box now that Jeb Bush has forced through a law that allows unlimited unwitnessed absentee ballots.

(Note: If Marsden is too much for you, try fiore, which is sorta the same idea, but funny.)

Compare and contrast: Will Lester, AP, Kerry's choice of Edwards received favorably by public, but doesn't change the race and Newseek's latest poll showing Kerry 51%, Bush 45% (Kerry 47%, Bush 43%, Nader 3% in a 3-way race).

Of course these are not necessarily inconsistent: Kerry's bounce could be independent of Edwards.

For a good laugh, compare today's effort by William Safire, Body Politic Will Reject 'Charisma Transplant', in which he attacks Kerry's choice of Edwards as safe, instead of making the courageous choice of picking that nice, boring Mr. Gephardt (whom of course the Republicans had been salivating about attacking). Apparently Cheney was a “pick of confidence” because he balanced Bush's incapacities on foreign policy. Kerry not having policy incapacities, he foolishly selects someone exciting, who helps him win an election. What a boring loser.

Now look at E.J. Dionne's column on why Edwards is The Right Choice and the Gep would have been a mistake:

Republicans were in a foul mood because Kerry's choice of Edwards as his running mate muddied up all the story lines they were itching to trot out. To understand why Edwards was the best choice for Kerry, consider what the Republicans (and, yes, the media) would have said if the nod had gone instead to Rep. Richard Gephardt, the clear runner-up in the vice presidential stakes.

Kerry would have been described as “insecure” at the prospect of standing next to the “charismatic” and “populist” Edwards. Fearing being “upstaged” by the equally ambitious Edwards, Kerry would have been accused of making the “obvious,” “uninspired” and “comfortable” choice. Gephardt's experience would have been trotted out to turn him into the “tired” face of the “old” Democratic Party. It would also have been said that Kerry, the “elitist Massachusetts liberal,” had “written off” the South and rural America.

Could it be that Safire had the Gep column all written, and then just reused as much as he could?

The Dionne column is full of good stuff, including this jem:

When you hear Republicans disparage Sen. John Edwards's lack of experience, remember the words of Sen. Orrin Hatch, spoken to George W. Bush at a debate on Dec. 6, 1999.

“You've been a great governor,” Hatch declared of his rival for the Republican presidential nomination. “My only problem with you, governor, is that you've only had four and going into your fifth year of governorship… . Frankly, I really believe that you need more experience before you become president of the United States. That's why I'm thinking of you as a vice presidential candidate.”

Which is exactly what Edwards was chosen for yesterday.

Among all the political qualities needed for a Vice-Presidential nominee (does he balance the ticket? carry a key state? have no skeletons?), one thing that gets mentioned insufficiently often is whether the candidate has the qualities that might make a good President. Veeps frequently end up either stepping in for the boss, or running on their own, so it matters to the country that they be of Presidential caliber.

History is littered with examples of candidates, and elected Veeps, who conspicuously lacked this quality: Sipro Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle Quail would surely be consensus choices. Many might argue Cheney belongs in this group, albeit for very different reasons.

Ex ante prediction about who will be a good President is a very imperfect science. On the day he was elected Vice-President there would have been something of a consensus that Truman lacked the necessary qualities (“to err is Truman” went the slogan), and yet Truman, flawed as he was, looks better and better in hindsight.

What I like best about John Edwards is that I think he has the making of a great President. He's a little green, especially about foreign policy, and a little too protectionist on trade, but a good eight years as veep could season him to perfection.

In picking Edwards, Kerry has put statesmanship over personal friendship (with Gephardt). He's also shown an ability to manage the media (whipping them into a frenzy for weeks), and to keep a secret. That looks Presidential right now.

Update: This New York Post 'Exclusive' is pretty funny.