Can We Ever Win?

Is it just me, or are the odds stacked against us? It seems like the electoral map is conspiring against Kerry. On the other hand, assuming Kerry takes Ohio and New Mexico (which I still think is rather likely), he only needs two of the Upper-Midwest three (Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin) to win. Or without New Mexico, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Or he could just win FLORIDA, dammit.

This is annoying. I hope that Kerry can put on some heat in the stretch.

Daniel Drezner Endorses Kerry!!!

In a move that virtually guarentees the outcome of the Presidential Election, Daniel Drezner has just announced he's voting for John Kerry!

Well, in a just world it would guarentee Kerry the election. In the real world, five Dupont Circle Libertarians decide to vote for Kerry and Andrew Sullivan gives him another look, causing a ripple effect that convinces literally DOZENS of people to vote for Kerry! But hey, I'm allowed to be excited. Congratulations on finally taking the plunge.

In other endorsement news, Josh Chafetz has also given the nod to Kerry. Oh, and former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura has done likewise, a move I'd be tempted to dismiss as irrelevant except that it might actually HAVE an impact on the suddenly swingy Minnesota.

Also, Bush made headway in the Newspaper Endorsement wars, picking up 8 papers today. Veteran political watchers were stunned to see that both the Washington Times AND the New York Post decided to endorse Bush. But sarcasm aside, the other 6 papers Bush picked up were all in swing states (3 in Colorado, 1 each in Oregon, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin). Kerry picked up only two papers, in the ever-competitive Alabama and Indiana. But in terms of overall circulation and total papers, Kerry still has a comfortable lead.

Beyond Tax Cuts: The Future of the GOP

Mark Schmitt posts a superb article on the undoing of the Republican Party (hat tip: Crooked Timber), a phenomona that I have blogged about ad naseum.

Money Quote

Tax cuts are not conservatism. They are not a coherent worldview. They were a part of the conservative philosophy, but not an end in themselves. Stripped out of the larger framework of smaller government, of modesty about the possibilities of change, of respect for tradition and history, and of the sense that central government can be oppressive as easily as it can be liberating, tax cuts amount to nothing more than a material benefit for a few, and a long-term liability for everyone else. Put another way, imagine that the animating ideas of liberalism were reduced to this promise: "We will create a new cabinet-level agency every single year." That's not a vision that can attract deep loyalty, and neither is the promise of a tax cut every year.

What, exactly, does the Republican Party have left? It doesn't have a commitment to Homeland Security, witness Bush's opposition to the DHS, 9/11 commission, and a myriad of other HS reforms. It doesn't have a commitment to small government, look at the Prescription Drug Coverage plan. It doesn't have a commitment to states rights, look at NCLB. It doesn't care about government non-intrusiveness, look at the FMA and the PATRIOT act. The closest thing to a coherent foreign policy it has is a commitment to democratization, which I support (and tragically, many Democrats have reflexively opposed despite it being a natural extension of liberal views), but even this appears to have stalled out beyond Afghanistan and Iraq (look at our anemic protests towards Putin's Russia, and our devil's bargain with Uzbekistan, for example). I would say Republican's like to blow things up, but then why is North Korea still on the map? It appears that LITERALLY the only thing that "unites" the Republican party is tax cuts, and that coalition simply can't hold together much longer.

What would be interesting is seeing what the "new" GOP will be. In discussing it with my friends, the most popular answer is that the Rockefellers will united with the "traditionalists" (IE, McCain and his ilk), with the libertarians still cautiously supporting them (but, like today, being relegated to the margins), and the social conservatives being the odd men out. They justify this on two grounds, first, that the social conservatives are the farthest from mainstream American thought and thus would be logically the first to be jettisoned, and second that since American youth are more tolerant than their parents, the religious right is a shrinking demographic anyway and thus won't be able to wield as much power. I lean more towards the social conservatives taking control, taking about 3/4 of the traditionalists with them. The Rockefellers, Libertarians, and remaining Traditionalists will become independents or possibly Democrats. The reason I think this is true is that, even if their numbers are naturally shrinking, the religious right still is by far their largest constituency and biggest voting bloc. Not only do they keep the deep south and plain states firmly in Republican hands (and let's remember, the south's Huey Long roots mean it doesn't have any emotional attachment to small, limited government per se, same thing for turn of the century prairie populism, neither has deep, longstanding mistrust of government), but they also represent the GOPs best argument towards otherwise democrat leaning constituencies in swing states. Look at Ohio, for example. There, the GOP isn't selling its economic message to prospective voters, it's seeking to lure voters to the polls by virtue of the anti-gay marriage initiative on the ballot. On economics, they lose, on social policies, they win, and that's why the social conservatives will have disproportionate leverage in the party. Simply put, the social conservatives can reasonably argue that they can create a winning electoral strategy without anyone else's help, which may or may not be true but gives them a lot of maneuvering room in the chaos that is to come. The Rockefellers and Libertarians simply aren't prevalent enough in the GOP base to really influence the party (the former concentrated in the solidly Democratic Northeast, the latter rarely seen outside of Dupont Circle in DC). This grip is only strengthened by virtue of the fact that the vast majority of the Republican leadership is in the social conservative wing (DeLay, Kyl, Santorum, Hastert, Bond, etc). If the moderates wish to take control of the GOP, they'd have to mount a coup, if the social conservatives wish to stay in control, they just have to let the moderates die of attrition. Ultimately, demographics work against this new party, and it will drift back towards the center. But in the short term, I expect the GOP to turn hard to the right, especially if it loses this election.

Another Defection

Joining the ranks of intelligent conservatives who are endorsing Kerry comes Former Michigan Governor William G. Milliken. After giving a slew of objections to how Bush has distorted and twisted the GOP from its old roots, he concludes with this statement:

The truth is that President George W. Bush does not speak for me or for many other moderate Republicans on a very broad cross section of issues.
Sen. John Kerry, on the other hand, has put forth a coherent, responsible platform of progressive initiatives that I believe would serve this country well. He wants to balance the budget, step up environmental protection efforts, rebuild our international relationships, support stem-cell research, protect choice and pursue a number of other progressive initiatives that moderates from both parties can support.
As a result, despite my long record of active involvement in the Republican Party, and my intention still to stay in the Republican Party, when I cast my ballot November 2, I will be voting for John Kerry for President.

Oddly enough, the Republican Party that Milliken outlines is one that I could support. But alas, I think it's days are gone forever.

Lightening Strikes Twice

UPDATE: 10/19/04 @ 1:09 PM
The National Review gives a compelling and eloquent statement about why it will not support GWB in this election:

It is one thing to swallow doubts and support the Republican candidate when he is a blur making amiable noises and there is the possibility of pleasant surprise. That is what many voters--and this journal--did in supporting George W. Bush in 2000. But when that candidate has confirmed all those doubts, to vote for him a second time is an act of political decadence. It is a ratification of failure that betrays both conservative principles and the principle of accountability. It is a message from us as conservatives to the rest of the political community that the damage done under our banner has our blessing. More urgently, it is a message from us as citizens to those who would rule over us that we can be taken in by words and gesture; that we won't measure a politician's record against objective standards or his own promises.
...
George W. Bush has met almost every challenge of his presidency by concentrating on the manipulation of imagery. In raising hokum to a new level of audacity and sophistication, he has relied shamelessly on the voters' short memories, on their failure to connect word and deed (let alone deed and result)...Now Bush and his advisers are using every illusion in their corpus of legerdemain to avoid running on the record they have compiled. His television commercials, and indeed his whole campaign self-presentation, are simply images of presidentiality. The Bush people know that their record of accomplishments is indefensible.
...
In 2000, Bush styled himself the artless outsider, uncorrupted by Washington and its evil habits. This year, in a typically brazen transformation, he is Mr. Experience, a worldly statesman in a job for which anything less than incumbency is inadequate qualification. But Bush is not the only one who's experienced his presidency for the past four years. So have his constituents. It's time to show that we've learned from experience.

Oh wait, that's not The National Review! That's The New Republic writing on why it refused to endorse Jimmy Carter back in 1980! (Just replace "conservative" with "liberal," "2000" with "1976," "Bush" with "Carter" etc etc). Silly me. What a careless mistake.

UPDATE: I'm not saying GWB is the next incarnation of Jimmy Carter. Obviously they are very different in temperament as well as policy. I'm just pointing out a) That The New Republic has an admirable non-partisan streak to it and b) That Liberals were more willing to apply the standards of accountability and holding a candidate to his record than conservatives are this year.

Politics a la Putin

Matthew Yglesias notes the similarities between Bush and Russian Democrat/Dictator Vladimir Putin (comparisons between Bush and oppressive rulers seem to be in the vogue right now!). Yglesias talks about

the creeping Putinization of American life (the Sinclair incident, the threatening letter to Rock The Vote, the specter of the top official in the House of Representatives making totally baseless charges of criminal conduct against a major financier of the political opposition [shades of Mikhail Khodorovsky], the increasing evidence that the 'terror alert' system is nothing more than a political prop, the 'torture memo' asserting that the president is above the law, the imposition of rigid discipline on the congress, the abuse of the conference committee procedure, the ability of the administration to lie to congress without penalty, the exclusion of non-supporters from Bush's public appearances, etc.)

I wouldn't necessarily make the comparison to Putin. Instead, I'd say that what we are seeing is the complete subordination of principle to political expediency. I've written about this before, and I write again because I think this is the single most disturbing trend in this administration. I could deal with unilateral pre-emption, I could accept necessary, even excessive bravado on the international stage, but at some point the basic responsibilty of the president has to be promoting the interests of the people EVEN AT THE EXPENSE of his own political prospect. Not only has Bush abdicated this responsibility, he's turned it on its head, making every policy decision an outgrowth of political considerations (one of the core allegations in both The Price of Loyalty and Against All Enemies). Above anything else, the American people must stand up against this action, which cheapens democracy and is ultimately disasterous to our national interest.

In fairness, I give you a post by Froggy Ruminations who notes a possible exception to this rule: The Status of Osama Bin Laden. I'm not sure if I buy it, but I feel its necessary to at least provide the opposing side when I see it. I may not be non-partisan, but I do try to conduct this blog in as honest and ethical a manner as possible.

Bush vs. Reality

Alot has been written on Ron Suskind's New York Times Magazine Article on George W. Bush. The common wisdom as that Suskind is saying that Bush is at war with reality, ignoring the actual facts of the situation in a blind adherence to a preconcieved world view, in which Bush is supremely confident. Kevin Drum thinks that is a misinterpretation of what Suskind is saying. Drum thinks that

Bush's actions over the past four years are those of a person with a startling lack of self confidence, someone who's afraid that even a fleeting contact with an opposing idea will deflate him completely. Deep down Bush knows perfectly well that the facts don't always back up his instincts, and that's why he avoids them. He's afraid he might change his mind

Regardless of whether or not Drum has the right interpretation or not, U. Michigan Professor Juan Cole makes an eerie comparison between Bush and Mao Zedong of the Chinese Communist Party. Cole is not a radical lefty, he's actually a relatively sober commentator. It's a long post, but worth reading.

Strange Bedfellows

Politics makes strange bedfellows. As it becomes more and more apparent that President Bush is not a Conservative at all, but some mutated hybrid of Religious Right and Prarie Populism, many small government conservatives have decided to cast their lot with Kerry. Stuart Benjamin gives his reasons, as a libertarian, why other small-government conservatives are better off with Kerry in office.

1) First, on the issue of this President's policies, many commentators have ably pointed out the myriad ways in which this President has been a disaster for those who believe in limited government...A few of these commentators have listed Bush's tax cuts as the one bright spot for libertarians/conservatives/limited-government types, but tax cuts without spending cuts (or, as it turns out, with massive spending increases) aren't small government - they're big government combined with borrowing. The government reduces your taxes but takes out a big loan in the name of you and your family. Brad DeLong says we should call this a tax shift rather than a tax cut. He's right, although I would also call it mandated mortgaging.

What about the "starve the beast" hypothesis (i.e., that reductions in taxes will force reductions in spending)? Two big problems: first, as long as we are running up deficits (i.e., until the beast really is starved), then the government is still taking out loans in our name. Second, "starve the beast" is a nice theory, but in reality it has never happened. In fact, William Niskanen of the Cato Institute has shown that decreases in taxes are associated with increases in spending, and vice-versa.

2) "Fine," some libertarian friends have said to me, "I admit that Bush has been bad for limited government, but won't electing Kerry be worse for our interests?" As for the short- and medium-term, the great likelihood is that the answer is no. Unless something truly disastrous happens to the Republican party (e.g., finding out that Osama Bin Laden received money from the RNC), it is going to retain control of the House of Representatives. Indeed, it is very likely that it will gain seats in the House, as it starts from a big presumptive gain resulting from the redistricting in Texas. As for the Senate, it is conceivable that the Democrats could regain control, but just about everything would have to break their way. The bottom line is that Republicans will almost certainly control one chamber, and likely will control both. This means that a President Kerry is going to be dealing with a hostile Congress - and Tom Delay is not going to roll over. In other words, we are likely to get the same sort of gridlock that we had from 1995 to 2000, with no significant new spending and no significant new tax cuts - greater fiscal sanity and a smaller government. Again, this is not just pie in the sky. Niskanen also showed that divided government is associated with lower government spending.

3) But what about the long-term interests of those who want a limited government? Here we come to the most important point that many have overlooked: if limited-government types vote for Bush and he is reelected, then the obvious conclusion for any savvy political strategist is that Republicans can take these voters for granted and thus ignore their interests. The reality of politics is that you are always working at the margins - trying to increase turnout of your base or add swing voters. If I am a political strategist who knows that a group of voters will stick with my candidate no matter what, I'd be foolish to recommend that he respond to their concerns in any way. What's the point of doing that, as a matter of political strategy? If I were Karl Rove (or whomever) and Bush won in 2004, I would tell any future Republican candidate that he can do anything he wants on the size of government, because Bush proved that limited-government types will still vote Republican.

The only way to send a message to future Republican candidates is for Bush to lose in part because of the defection of limited-government types. And, if we don't send that message, I fear that we will be in the political wilderness for a long time.

The bottom line, in my view, is that people who believe in the old Republican credo of limited government had better vote for John Kerry.

It goes beyond Benjamin. Reagan staffer Doug Bandow has also expressed discontent. And The New Republic's front page story next issue will feature Newt Gingrich aide Robert George explaining why he can't vote for GWB. Andrew Sullivan has already decided not to vote for Bush and is on the verge of endorsing Kerry. John Eisenhower (Ike's son) has endorsed Kerry. Most importantly, from my perspective (and I'm the ONLY person to think this), is that Daniel Drezner has now said it's 80% likely he'll vote for Kerry this election.

It's a shame these aren't getting more press. The point that Bush is not governing as a Conservative, but, as I said before, like a mutant should seriously bother his potential supporters (well, maybe not Jerry Falwell. I should say the intellectually HONEST supporters). This is especially important becausde many of these voters ARE uncomfortable with Bush, they're just equally or more uncomfortable with Kerry. Noting that many people with uncontestable Conservative credentials are supporting Kerry could make these people more comfortable giving Kerry a chance (or at least a second look). But most people will barely hear anything about it.

Oh, and The New York Times endorsed Kerry. Stunning. But Kerry in terms of overall circulation, Kerry has 5x the amount of newspaper endorsements as Bush does, and has picked up some key swing state endorsements in Pennsylvania, Oregon, Maine, and Missouri. The Associated Press gives a good list of current endorsements that clearly shows Kerry's advantage.

Finally, reading the NYT's endorsement made me remember something I've been wanting to say for a long time. They talk about how Bush has been pushing "ideological, activist judicial nominee[s]" on to the senate floor. Conservatives, of course, claim that liberal judges are the "activists" and these judges will "strictly interpret" the constitution. Can we just agree that, at this point, an "activist" judge is "one who makes a decision I disagree with"? Because that is all it appears to mean, judging from the rhetoric I hear on both sides. I have my own opinions on what "activist" really means (and to what degree it's acceptable), but I am SICK of hearing every single decision that vaguely annoys the Family Research Council (or on the other side, People for the American Way) being tarred as "Judicial Activism."

Stewart Smackdown

Jon Stewart lays the smackdown on the hosts of CNN's "crossfire." Watch Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson squirm uncomfortably as Stewart bashes their puny little show into tiny shreds.

Brilliance. And Andrew Sullivan and Wonkette agree.

Tort War

Uncivil Litigator takes out the heavy artillary on a fellow blogger who criticized his pro bono actions for an indigent client. The blogger, who is a major advocate for tort reform, argues that UCL's actions have helped contribute to the rising costs of insurance and is a major drain on social resources.

If I knew who UCL was, I'd card this line:

A society which primarily resolves disputes by resort to courts of law is a just and economically efficient society. Societies without a strong legal infrastructure, in which neither individuals nor corporations can count on the resolution of disputes through the consistent application of unchanging legal principles, are societies which foster economic waste, discourage foreign and domestic investment, and encourage an environment of chaos and even violence. The opposite of such a society is one which puts its corporations and individuals on notice that, when a dispute arises and the parties to the dispute fail to resolve their issues amicably, principles of long-standing, well-established law can and WILL be imposed upon them to bring the dispute to a civilized end.

UCL's defense of the current legal system is top notch. I highly recommend it.

I'm Wrong...Again

I was wrong the last time I thought Kerry would lose and I was wrong again. Kerry wins this debate bigtime. And not only that, but it wasn't because Bush screwed up either. Bush gave probably his best performance of the night. But Kerry was smooth, in focus, and in control. Here's round-by-round score card
Round-----Bush-----Kerry
1)-----------7----------10
2)-----------8----------9
3)-----------9----------10
4)-----------9----------9
5)-----------8----------10
6)-----------9----------8
7)-----------9.5--------10
8)-----------8----------10
9)-----------9----------10
10)---------9-----------10
11)---------9-----------9
12)---------10---------10
13)---------8-----------10
14)---------7-----------9
15)---------9-----------10
16)---------8-----------10
17)---------9-----------9
18)---------9-----------10
19)---------8-----------10
20)---------10----------9
Closing----9-----------10

Total------171.5/200—192/200

Comments---
Bush: Actually, this was one of your best performances. Few grimaces, didn't lose temper, seemed in control. Arguments weren't bad at all. One BIG mistake: You did say that you weren't worried about Bin Laden. That you denied it makes it all the worse, and I think it will really hurt you. When going for the "short and sweet" argument (like on Abortion), you have to be careful, the argument you make has to be SO intuitive that no other explaination is necessary. "Litmus Test" doesn't qualify. Religion part seemed heartfelt but a little shaky at times, which was surprising. Good humor at the end, but the self-deprecation early on probably hurt more than helped. Argumentatively you were outclassed, and I think you knew it. Grade: B

Kerry: Simply magnificant. Did everything I could have asked for and more. Managed to sneak in (with help of the moderater) some of the FP criticism which are working so well, good job FINALLY calling Bush on his "I don't worry about Bin Laden" statement. On arguments, you were rock solid. Clear, concise, and intuitive. Only weak spot was in paying for it, kind of slid out of answering that. But Bush can't get too much traction on the issue because he's far worse on at, as you pointed out (though the Soprano's reference might have been over the top). But these are nitpicks, this was a great job. Grade: A+

This was pre-spin. The only thing I checked was to make sure that Bush really did say he "didn't care about Bin Laden" and he did. Let's see what the pundits have to say, but I think this will be a huge boon to Kerry's candidacy.

Back in Jitter Mode

Well, the jitters are back. I can see tonight's debate turning out very, very badly for John Kerry. Why? Well, in the last debate I thought that Foreign Policy swung what was otherwise a close debate into Kerry's column. In Arizonia, Kerry doesn't have that crutch. But worse for Kerry is the fact that he's EXPECTED to win tonight. Part of why Kerry's huge win in the 1st debate moved polls so much was that it was supposed to be on his weaker issue. Now, I don't think this is necessarily true, I think the President is if anything more vulnerable on FP than he is domestically. But for the media, reality isn't what matters, perception is. And since the media has framed the economy as the President's achilles heel, if he performs with marginal competence (a benchmark he exceeded in debate 2) then he will be seen as the victor for the same reasons Kerry won the first debate: reassuring the American people.

This debate could go quite right, and John Kerry has proven me wrong before. But it could go very, very, wrong, and once again I'm left on the edge of my seat.

One Election Down...

I wrote earlier to congratulate Afghanistan on having a reasonably successful presidential election. Matthew Yglesias writes on why Afghanistan has proven itself to be so much more successful in this regard than Iraq. Daniel Drezner adds his own thoughts, including the observation that Iraq has oil wealth. On this point, John Judis wrote a brilliant article way back on March 31st, 2003 for The New Republic(subscription only). Excerpt:

After the colonial powers departed at the end of World War II, oil provided the newly independent governments of the Middle East a veritable windfall--either through concessions or later through outright ownership of their country's oil facilities. With their new income, the states' kings, emirs, and sheiks were no longer dependent on their countries' merchants or workers for tax income. They could finance their governments entirely out of oil revenues. They could also use these oil revenues to buy off the citizenry through social-welfare systems, state jobs, land grants, and lucrative contracts. Their citizens became passive recipients of government largesse--paying no taxes and receiving no representation.
...
In the Middle East, oil wealth provided a shortcut around the centuries-old transition from feudalism to capitalism and from absolutism to democracy that had taken place in Western Europe. The oil states did not have to endure the privations of what Karl Marx called the "primitive accumulation of capital." They didn't have to coerce peasants to leave their land to become impoverished wage-laborers in order to provide profit margins for fledgling entrepreneurs. They didn't have to extract taxes from a reluctant population. And they didn't have to grant democratic rights to a citizenry that grew increasingly restive under these demands. Because of its oil wealth, Libya could go from one of the poorest countries in the world, with a per capita income of $50 in 1960, to one of the well-to-do, with a per capita income of $2000 just a decade later, without exacting sacrifice from its people. Lost in this developmental shortcut, however, was the creation of an active citizenry, a thriving civil society, and a democratic political system.

One more thing of note: Yglesias credits at least part of Afghanistan's success to Zalmay Khalizad's talent as proconsul. I have no reason to doubt that Khalizad is a very talented diplomat. Indeed, the success we've had in Afghanistan seems to attest to his skill. However, there is at least some irony in having Khalizad as our ambassador to a nation we invaded and took over by force (along with having John Negroponte as our ambassador to Iraq). Most people have never heard of Khalizad, but he is virtually a household name amongst Policy debaters as the single best author in favor of a strong US Hegemony. Indeed, his article even made my list of good hegemony arguments back in the early days of the blog. Having a vociferious advocate for unrestrained US power (though to be fair, Khalizad wants us to be a "benevolent hegemony") in charge of one of the countries the US is currently occupying, while we are trying to convince the world we are NOT on an imperial mission, strikes me as somewhat unwise.

Victory Briefs Column

The Debate Link empire keeps on expanding. I've now gotten a column on the Victory Briefs website. Victory Briefs is one of the top sources of debate information and commentary in the country, and also runs a superb summer institute for high school debaters. I'm proud to be on their team.

For loyal readers who are worried, this a) will NOT reduce any posting on this blog and b) will not spell the end of my "Debate Arguments" feature on this site. The column on VB will focus on specific issues for my old event (Student Congress) as an event. It won't focus on contemporary issues (like this blog does). In other words, don't worry, be happy!

You Gotta Fight

I blogged earlier about the inexcusability of Bush delaying attacking the Fallujah insurgents in order to help him in our domestic elections. Now, the LA Times reports that this is becoming a trend (Kevin Drum with the tipoff).

The Bush administration will delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.

...."When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity.

....Any delay in pacifying Iraq's most troublesome cities, however, could alter the dynamics of a different election -- the one in January, when Iraqis are to elect members of a national assembly.

With only four months remaining, U.S. commanders are scrambling to enable voting in as many Iraqi cities as possible to shore up the poll's legitimacy.

U.S. officials point out that there have been no direct orders to commanders in the field to pause operations in the weeks before the Nov. 2 election. Top administration officials in Washington are simply reluctant to sign off on a major offensive in Iraq at the height of the political season.

And it goes beyond delaying assualts. President Bush has asserted time and again that he "listens to the generals on the ground." This has been his primary defense against Sen. Kerry's charge that we went into Iraq with insufficient troops to win the peace (a charge Paul Bremer has--inadvertantly--backed up). Unfortunately, he's going to have a tough time explaining why General Oscar B. Hilman of the 81st Brigade Combat Team has had his request for more troops denied twice. Hilman runs an important base Northwest of Baghdad that has come under frequent insurgent fire. The cited reason is that troops are all tied up in the Sunni Triangle region. Spencer Ackerman explains the possible meanings:

When a ground commander requests troops to carry out his mission, and is told that those troops are needed elsewhere, there are only two interpretations. One is that the commander's superiors determine that the request is unnecessary, and the commander in fact has what he needs. This is highly unlikely in this case, given Anaconda's tactical importance as the largest logistical base in Iraq. The attacks have gotten so bad that the cargo planes that fly in to resupply the base keep their engines running to avoid losing the aircraft to insurgent mortar fire. The idea that Hilman is blowing smoke when he says he needs additional forces just to protect his base is simply not likely to be true.

The other interpretation is that there aren't enough troops to enable the commander to fulfill his requirements. It's getting hard to deny that this is the case in Iraq. And it surely reflects frustration that Hilman is detailing his two rejections to a reporter. Which leads to further series of questions: Why is Hilman really being denied? How far up the chain are Hilman's requests flowing? Are commanders at Multinational Force-Iraq stymieing requests from ground commanders to preserve the Bush administration's fiction that there are enough troops in Iraq?

If it weren't for the fact that President Bush's stubborness is killing American soldiers, I'd be tempted to brag about finding yet another lie/distortion in Bush's debate performance. But at this point, I just pray for the welfare and safety of the men and women whose lives are merely an election year pawn for Karl Rove and his allies.

Prosecutorial Misconduct

A few days ago I noted my intense discomfort with the manner in which the Death Penalty is carried out in this country. Now I've come across at least one perverse reason for death sentences: They are procedurally easier to overturn in the case of innocence than life in prison.

How Appealing links to a New Orleanes Times-Picayune story about Travis Hayes. Hayes was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison along with his friend, Ryan Matthews, who recieved the death penalty (they were caught together). However, DNA evidence cleared Matthews of any involvement in the crime, and he was released and exonerated of all charges. Since it was Hayes testimony (which was taken after 6 hours of interrogation in which the mentally retarded Hayes was denied food, sleep, or bathroom breaks) that was the only firm evidence implicating either in the crime, it stood to reason that Hayes would be released as well.

However, the Jefferson County District Attorney's office has opposed Hayes' appeal, arguing that his claims are procedurally barred since he is not a death row inmate. As William Sothern put it, "It is a sad state of affairs that in order to get exonerated, a man first needs to be sentenced to die."

Read the whole article. It presents a very compelling portrait of an innocent man stuck in a legal system that simply doesn't care. Prosecutors need to remember that their job is to achieve justice, not just convictions. When getting "tough on crime" means ignoring clear facts to keep innocents in jail, then our legal system has spun out of control.

Afghan Congrats

I want to congratulate Afghanistan on having their first Democratic Election! Although there were some irregularities (which could cause some problems in terms of legitimacy), this was a giant milestone in the country's push towards democracy.

I'm not sure how much of this is President Bush, and how much of this Mr. Karzai, and how much of this is the sheer willpower and determination of the Afghan people to make freedom work. But regardless, I think we can all agree that this is huge step for democracy and liberal values around the world. And it's important that we cross party lines to say so.

I'm probably going to write a longer (and more critical) post when the post-election analysis and commentary starts hitting the blogosphere and newsstands. But for now, a hearty congratulations on a job well done!

Kerry Wins Again, But Closer Contest

I'm giving this debate to Kerry as well, though he was not nearly as strong as in the first debate and President Bush improved greatly. Like in the first debate, I'm going to give comments to each candidate (these are before I read the spin, by the way).

Kerry: Bad move not addressing "flipflop" on Iraq in the first question, but you got to it later so no harm down. Good job incorporating the Republicans indicting Bush's mishandling of Iraq, rhetorically quite strong. Great point on the President having to win the peace, not the military. Neat refutation to Bush's point that he "listened to the generals on the ground" on Iraq. Looked calm, dignified, and presidential, which is important. Hammered Bush on choosing Tax Cuts over Defense, which is his weak spot, excellent! Stellar performance overall on the FP portion of the debate. Might have been a little churlish on the balanced budget accusation (not that I mind). Sounded shaky when saying you supported Tort Reform, should have just focused on that it was 1/2 % of the problem (though Bush had a surprisngly good response to that). Drug reimportation was your best issue on economy. I'm not sure if saying that Bush counts as a small business under his tally is a political gamble that will pay off. Sounded very uncomfortable on abortion questions. Could have knocked Bush cold on the "mistakes" question. Closing was good, not a knockout. And I think the constant repetition of "I have a plan" is a brilliant move. It both a) makes you seem more solid and resolute and b) suggests that Bush doesn't, which is one of his weak points. OVERALL: A on Foreign Policy, B on Domestic, A- overall.

Bush: Sounded WAY out of control on the FP portion of the debate. At times you seemed almost desperate, and that's really going to hurt I think. One good FP line was how Kerry changed in response to Howard Dean, that's a damning attack. Unfortunately, it was the only good shot of that portion of the debate. Seemed like you were going to attack the moderator when arguing that we had a coalition, and Kerry's response was killer there. Overall, very poor performance on Foreign Policy, I don't think you were very reassuring. Weak answer to drug reimportation question (could come from a "third world"?). On the other hand, "defensive medicine" answer to Kerry's minimization of liability reform as an issue was stellar. I'm not sure if you want to focus on "credibilty" right now, as I think Americans are abit more worried about your credibilty than Kerry's. Reasonable defense on Environmental question. Sounded GREAT on abortion, really sticked it. Close was solid. D+ on Foreign Policy, B on Domestic, C+ overall.

Let the spinning commence.

Pre-Debate 2

Well, again, I'm not as panicky before this debate as I was before the last one. However, that doesn't mean all is well for Senator Kerry. There are two potential pitfalls of the debate tonight: 1) That the style will hamper Kerry and 2) That the post-debate media spin will go to Bush regardless of the content.

To the first, etc frets:

One concern I have about tonight's debate is that the townhall format doesn't really lend itself to hitting Bush on Iraq. If the postdebate focus groups I've been watching are any indication, "undecided" voters seem to want the candidates to talk about what they're going to do in Iraq going forward, not the mistakes made so far. This is, of course, preposterous, since our options going forward have been shaped entirely by the administration's long list of failures. You can't discuss one without the other. But the questions are likely to be along those lines nonetheless, which could complicate things for Kerry.

Ultimately, he doesn't think it will have too much of an impact, but it's still something to keep in mind.

To the second, The American Prospect wonders if the media won't just declare Bush the winner for the sake of balance. Already, GOP spinners are claiming that the media is declaring Kerry the winner only because they are closet liberals who want a Democratic victory. This may have a kernel of truth to it (see, for example, my analysis of the VP debate, which appears to be in the distinct minority opinion), but it shouldn't, in theory, stop the media from reporting accurately on the events tonight. Of course, in theory the media cares about accuracy in reporting. Old myths die hard.

In any event, Bush is slipping badly in the polls, so Kerry has some breathing room. I'll stand by what I said before, as long as Kerry presents himself as merely a viable alternative to Bush, he wins by Technical Knockout. Hopefully, "viability" isn't too hard of a hurdle to clear.

Death Penalty Doubts

I haven't really thought much about the death penalty much recently. I've thought for some time now that the judicial system in the US is badly broken, and that precludes any claims that we are "sure" of a defendants doubt. I'm undecided at this time about whether the Death Penalty is inherently immoral, but I am sure that it is as applied in the United States today.

However, this New York Times story jolted me out of my reverie. The basics of the story are simple: The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 8-7 against the appeal of a man who says he was wrongly convicted of murder. What makes this case unique is that 6 of the 7 dissenting judges don't just disagree with the majority on an arcane point of law, they think the defendant is flat out innocent. The 7th dissenter believes that the new information that has come to light casts at least enough doubt so as to require a new trial. Specifically:

Mr. House was convicted of murdering a neighbor, Carolyn Muncey, in Union County, Tenn., in 1985. The prosecution argued that he had first raped her, saying that semen found on her clothing matched his blood type. The jury cited the rape as a reason for imposing death.

But DNA testing, which was not available at the time, has proved that the semen was that of Mrs. Muncey's husband, Hubert.

At a recent Federal District Court hearing to determine whether Mr. House should be allowed to reopen his case, witnesses testified that Mr. Muncey was an alcoholic who beat his wife. Two witnesses said he had confessed to killing his wife while drunk. A third witness said he had asked her to supply him with an alibi for the murder. Three others also implicated Mr. Muncey, who denied the accusations.

I'm stunned that anyone could conclude at this point that Mr. House is guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt at this point. "This is unprecedented," said Eric M. Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University. "A case in which six judges find that the defendant didn't do the crime is more than just a legal curiosity. In any rational legal universe, there is now at least reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt."

Unfortunately, we don't live in a rational legal universe. We live in the United States, where innocence presents no barrier to ol' sparky.

The case is likely to be appealed to the US Supreme Court.