From IMCT - December 30, 2004

The Bush administration has offered $35 million so far for relief efforts for the tsunami -- Bush took time from his work clearing brush at the Western White House (how much friggin' brush does he have?) to address the issue, three days after the disaster.

According to Moveon.org, we're spending around $35 million every seven hours in Iraq -- to kill people.

What we might be missing here is a chance to offer humanitarian aid while fighting the war on terror. Call me a liberal, but one of the best ways to stop trouble is to nip it in the bud.

The most prevalent religion throughout the affected countries is Islam. Might it slow some American hatred if we stepped up big with an offer to help in this situation?

The reason for the growing tide of radical Muslims is their binding American hatred. We can be cavalier about it and say 'They shouldn't hate us,' or we could work proactively. Our long-term safety isn't going to be built on believing we're right.

From IMCT - December 30, 2004

We heard a lot about compassion and moral values this year, but as 2004 ended one of the largest natural disasters in recorded history struck, and those same organizations that preached against gay marriage and the decline of values weren't addressing the horrors of the tsunami in Southeast Asia.

As pointed out by Bill Berkowitz on Working for Change, a perusal of the websites of the some of the big Christian watchdog groups turned up empty of an mention of the tsunami relief efforts. On Dec. 30, Focus on the Family led its web page with a reminder to "remember Focus on the Family in year-end giving." The Christian Coalition wished everyone a happy New Year. The site of Jerry Falwell'sThomas Road Baptist Church appeared to be generally lacking in updates, and it certainly offered no mention of the disaster; ditto for Falwell's Moral Majority site. Other defenders of faith with no mention included the Family Research Council and Trinity Broadcasting. To its credit, the Southern Baptist Convention did have a message regarding the tragedy, but everything was tilted so as to give glory to Baptists.

From IMCT - December 28, 2004

You can file this one away in your conspiracy theory evidence locker: during a Christmas Eve visit with the troops, Defense Secretary Donald Rusmfield referred to the plane in Pennsylvania that was "shot down" on Sept. 11. It could be that Rummy misspoke, but it could be that by "misspoke" we mean let the cat out of the proverbial bag.

I believe that Flight 93 likely was shot down. The story of passengers rushing the cabin and the plane crashing as a result sounds good, and does little harm. But several witnesses saw an unmarked aircraft in the area before and after the crash. And Flight 93 was known to be hijacked for almost an hour before it crashed, leaving one to wonder why the government would allow it to follow the path of the planes that hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

With it heading back toward Washington, what are the odds that the government made a tough decision? It's hard to blame them if they did indeed make that call. Under the circumstances, it was a doomed flight regardless; it would be preferable that it crash into a field rather than into a populated area.

Oh, and we never landed on the moon, either.

From IMCT - December 28, 2004

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!! (You won't get this on CNN)

The Ohio recount has been completed, and Kerry has gained on Bush. Drumroll, please...... Kerry has cut Bush's lead from 118,775 to 118,457. That's a pickup of 318 votes.

The recount cost $1.5 million, according to Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth "The African-American-Republican" Blackwell. That was money well spent.

Of course, there are several lawsuits still in the works, and the issue wasn't so much the count as the fear of tampering. But these lawsuits will get nowhere. It's rigged, and it's frustrating.

From IMCT - December 28, 2004

How is it that a sitting President just re-elected with 51 percent of the vote manages a 49 percent approval rating? There are a few possibilities.

First off, the vote could have been fudged -- that would make many of us feel a lot better.

Or maybe the people being polled are different than the ones who actually voted in the election. Those 51 percent who voted for Bush may well have crawled (slithered) back under their rocks by now.

It's also a possibility that people just disliked the challenger (John Kerry in this case; remember him?) so much. While several people have expressed a lack of enthusiasm with Kerry, was it so bad that they would vote for someone they knew was doing a bad job?

As an outcropping of the above possibility, it could be that values voting really did matter that much. There's been a lot of talk from the left about how overrated the values vote is, but I can speak from experience in my red state and say that there is a large connect between values and voting, and it causes a disconnect with reality. Some people will vote based on fuzzy issues while ignoring the clear issues like problems in Iraq, problems with the economy, etc.

From IMCT - December 19, 2004

Here's the explanation for those screams you'll hear across the country as people open their mailboxes this week: 

And the best part is this line from Time managing editor Jim Kelly:

"But even those who may not have voted for him will acknowledge that this is one of the more influential presidents of the last 50 years."

Influential? That's one word for him -- but by no means the first one I would come up with.

From IMCT - December 15, 2004

Despite what the White House says, there is no real reason to believe the government sees any problem with a weak dollar. But other people are noticing. Our economy -- hence, the world economy -- could be headed for a big train wreck.

From IMCT - December 13, 2004

Just for giggles, go to the CNN home page and see if the story about the investigation into the Ohio vote is on the front page (OK, I'll save you the time, it's not. The breaking news featured Monday afternoon was the all-important death penalty handed down for Scott Peterson. At least they have their priorities straight.) If you want to find the story about the suit that was filed today pointing out several voting problems, you'll have to go to the CNN Politics page -- it's the fourth headline down, an AP story, of course, because CNN has better things to cover.

As much as I'd like to see this story explode and as many explosive things as I think there are to be discovered, it won't explode because the election is over and the media is too worried about rocking the patriotic boat. But which is more dangerous -- questioning the legitimacy of an incumbent President or possibly allowing a pattern of stealing elections to gain traction?

Maybe the Democrats just need to learn how to steal elections better.

From IMCT - December 11, 2004

As is the case with most of Bush's great ideas, the individual retirement accounts he proposes would be one more handout to big business -- but the upshot is, this one could do in big business, and the rest of us with it.

As Paul Krugman points out, in its most basic, what the program would do is have the government borrow money and invest it in the stock market. As younger workers start paying money into their individual accounts, the government has to borrow to make up for that lost income to pay the benefits to current retirees. That in and of itself is an indirect way for the government to invest in the stock market.

But as these individual accounts begin to produce (assuming they would), then the government could cut benefits, since the private accounts were making more money. That's another way the government could hand money to the private sector indirectly.

Now, will these accounts work? I believe the wild card here is just what effect all this money flowing into the system would have. Krugman also pointed out that individuals investing their accounts in Treasury bonds would do the government no good, as the earnings from T-bills comes from interest paid by the government, negating any savings.

So all that money would need to go into the stock market, but how would the market react to that inflow of cash? I'm no financial expert, but it would have to have an effect. And of course, the long-term effect of all this investing and borrowing is that if the bottom fell out --- well, the bottom wouldreally fall out.

From IMCT - December 11, 2004

Another of the Republican's efforts at Orwellian laws, a la the "Healthy Forests Initiative" (by which they would allow more logging in order to "save" the forests); now they're going to "save" wild horses by selling them as meat.

From IMCT - December 9, 2004

In a red state, it's not a divisive racist image -- it's a fashion statement!

From IMCT - December 8, 2004

Come on, now - tell me he doesn't look like Hitler.

From IMCT - December 8, 2004

Although the current CNN version of the story changed, an earlier version said Donald Rumsfield paused and asked a soldier o repeat the question when he asked why their Humvees weren't properly equipped with armor.

Rumsfield is not used to being questioned (kudos to a member of the 278th RCT, which is made up of those from my home state).

His answer to the question was, "As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want " That's a sorry-ass excuse for costing our soldiers' lives.

The fact is, the insurgents' primary attack is taking advantage of the under-armored Humvees, which have cost the life of many a soldier in situations where they weren't even immediately involved in combat. This deficiency in the armor is giving the enemy a weakness to attack without actually engaging our forces; I'm not much of a military strategist, but it seems like you should try to get rid of those weaknesses your enemy can exploit.

From IMCT - December 5, 2004

Some of the best news sources for the U.S. are increasingly based overseas. Such is the sad state of American news, which apparently has bowed to the ratings pressure of making the news fit its viewer, rather than making the viewers acclimate themselves to the news.

This story from the Independent tells us how Bush is going to spend some of that political capital he "earned." It will come as no surprise to most of us that there will be a review of many major environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.

That the Bush administration could honestly do some of these things seems beyond belief. But most of the country is going to sit back and let them do it.

From IMCT - December 5, 2004

This report by the non-partisan Defense Science Board is fascinating -- why haven't we heard more about it? (That's a rhetorical question.)

From IMCT - December 2, 2004

The situation with the vote in Ukraine is in many way amusing in its resemblance to our own voting issues, but it could be much less of a laughing matter.

Although the Cold War appears to be behind us, there is bit of a standoff by proxy between Russia and the U.S. What you have are two hardliners squaring off, with the Bush administration wanting the opposition to win in the Ukraine because it is pro-Western, while Russia's Vladimir Putin would rather the pro-Russian incumbent party retain power. Bush has pushed for a new election -- because his guy didn't win -- while Putin thinks new elections aren't needed.

Here's hoping Ukraine gets this figured out without the need of any more involvement by Russia and the U.S.

Would any of us be here had Bush been in charge during the tensions of the Cold War?

Also on the international front, Bush is still demanding that Iraq hold elections in late January, although several political parties have asked that the date be moved back so that polling places can be better secured.

Why does Bush want the elections ASAP, and why doesn't he care about security of the vote? Because the U.S. wants an "official," "democratically" elected government in place. The administration doesn't care about the legitimacy of the vote, because it will make sure who it wants elected gets elected; they are still naive enough to think people will accept a sham election.

If they don't care about the legitimacy of their own American elections, why would they care about Iraq's?

From IMCT - December 1, 2004

Backwardness in Alabama -- imagine that!

Pending a recount, an amendment to take racist language out of the Alabama constitution failed on Nov. 2. The amendment would have taken out wording requiring separate schools for "white and colored" children; of course, the meddlesome federal government stopped the actual enforcement of that law a few years ago.

Now, what happened to this is that along with taking out the wording regarding segregation -- as proposed by Republican governor Bob Riley -- it also would have removed a section saying there was no guarantee of a right to public education, which had been added as a "clever" maneuver to try to undercut Brown v. Board of Education. Opponents used that part of the amendment to draw its defeat, proclaiming that if the amendment passed, then "activist judges" and "trial lawyers" would sue to demand more financing of public education.

What moved this vote was your typical legion of right-wingers, including former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, he of the refusing to remove the 10 Commandments display. Moore came out against the amendment, as did the Christian Coalition, both of them supposedly because of the fear of raising taxes to fund education.

It's clear to see why such Godly people would be against funding public education; I'm sure their Bibles say something like "Thou shalt spend no more money for education than is absolutely necessary," although I can't find it in mine.

The truth is, those forces moved against it because the cause of the right -- in this case, gov'ment meddlin' in a state's idear of edjukashun -- is increasingly becoming the cause of some religions, and in part because of the latent racism still left in the South. This vote springs from the same well that saw gay marriage bans pass in several states.

Dr. Martin Luther King's dream still has a ways to go, especially in the South.

From IMCT - December 1, 2004

You remember all those political ads on TV this campaign season (those of you in battleground states, anyway)? Well, CBS and NBC evidently don't.

Both of those networks refused to air an ad by the United Church of Christ touting its acceptance of people regardless of sexual orientation.

The ad certainly isn't over the top; it merely depicts two bouncers standing outside a church turning away certain people, a la a selective nightclub. The first two people turned away are two males who appear to be holding hands.

NBC said its problem with the ad was that it dealt with "public controversy" and its implication that other churches aren't open to all people (if the shoe fits.....). Of course, NBC will happily gain laughs off a gay character on "Will and Grace," but serious issues involving homosexuals, now that's another story.

CBS said it couldn't run it because it doesn't do advocacy advertising, but of course, that doesn't stop it from running campaign ads. Even worse, the UCC quoted CBS as telling it

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast."

Is CBS scared of the executive branch? Shoot, a flash of Janet Jackson's boob has them walking the line big-time.

To their credit, ABC Family, BET Discovery, Fox, Hallmark, TBS and TNT all accepted the ad. Wait, did I just give credit to Fox for being open-minded?

From IMCT - November 30, 2004

An analysis of the Ohio vote turned up a very interesting statistical oddity: a Democratic candidate for Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court got much closer to her Republican opponent than did John Kerry to his Republican opponent.

The methodology of the study (summarized here) was somewhat circuitous. Simply put, the difference between Democratic Justice candidate C. Ellen Connally, an African-American, and Republican Thomas J. Moyer was often much narrower than the difference between Kerry and Bush. For example, in Butler County, Moyer outpolled Connally 66,625 to 59,532, while Bush beat Kerry 106,735 to 54,185. Hence, this study notes that there was a difference of over 45,000 votes between the margins of the candidates from the same party.

Generally speaking, Supreme Court races don't draw the same number of votes that the Presidential election does (that's the case here, with the total voting for Justice just under 80 percent of that for President). Since Supreme Court candidates -- with little name recognition -- are likely to gain a "coat-tails" effect as many people wvote a straight party ticket, etc., then the assumption is that the margins between candidates of the same party should be similar.

But there appears to be no coat-tails effect in Ohio; as a matter of fact, in many counties won by Bush, Kerry received fewer votes than did Connally (this happened in 12 counties; Bush had fewer than Moyer in four counties). It's hard to figure how a lesser-known Supreme Court candidate could out-poll the well-known Presidential candidate.

However, all that being said, here's the flipside. These numbers certainly give Dems something to sieze on and seem to reek of fraud, but this could also be some of that fuzzy math. Much like a similar oddity in Florida, this has to be taken in context. How do we get some context? Well, first off, despite the "margin difference" the overall race for President was much closer than that for Chief Justice; Bush (prior to those recounts) garnered 51 percent to Kerry's 48.5, while Moyer beat Connally 53.3 to 46.7.

Secondly, an important contextual angle can be found in history, namely, the 2000 election. In that contest, Bush carried Ohio over Al Gore, while Republican Deborah Cook bested Democrat Tim Black for a Supreme Court seat (there was no Chief Justice contest on the ballot) by about the same margin. And guess what? Black got more votes than Gore in well over 40 percent of the counties; Bush was out-polled by Cook in four counties -- the same number as this year. Gore made up for getting fewer votes than Black in 38 counties by getting far more votes than him in some of the larger counties. Statewide, the margin wasn't as wide as this year, but the trend was there.

So what's the explanation here? Well, if you want to continue with conspiracy theories, you'll probably say that the 2000 vote was rigged, because once you consider the 2000 results, what happened in 2004 isn't such a statistical oddity -- it's more of a political science oddity.

It's hard to explain away the difference; looking at the raw numbers, on the face it looks as if Kerry votes are just disappearing.

In the South, the remnants of past Democratic strength can be seen in the fact that state-level Democratic candidates can still get elected, even while Republicans are solidifying national offices; maybe it still works that way in Ohio. Maybe Bush voters are less likely to vote a straight ticket, and they either vote for the Dem for the court or don't vote in that race at all, although that argument is weakened by the fact that the Republican for the court actually won statewide by a larger percentage than did Bush in both elections.

Whatever the explanation, the fact that much the same thing happened in 2000 makes it much harder to hang your hat on this as proof of fraud. It's not that I think there was no foul-- once again, we don't need to go off tilting at windmills. We won't gain any credibility that way.

From IMCT - November 27, 2004

Our representation is becoming less representative each day.

According to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, now only those bills which are supported by a "majority of the majority" will come up for vote.

The intelligence reform bill would likely have passed by now had it come up for vote in the House, with most Democrats being joined many Republicans to create a majority. But since less than 50 percent of around 60 percent of the House is for it, it won't come up for a vote.

And don't think Democrats would do the same thing; in 2003, NAFTA was allowed to come up for a vote despite the opposition of the majority of Democrats, who then ruled the House (ahh, the good ol' days). The Republicans largely supported it, as did some Democrats, including President Clinton. It passed, despite being opposed by a "majority of the majority."

This is not new practice with Hastert; Democrats have been shut out of helping craft legislation like the 2003 Medicare revision, as well.

Talk about giving comfort to the enemy. This is just one more way the GOP is hijacking our government.

From IMCT - November 24, 2004

First, the U.S. seems to have an unfavorable comparison to Ukraine. Now, this line from a story:

Despite this brighter US economic picture, the dollar continues to slide in the currency markets against all its major rivals in the wake of last weekend's G20 meeting of finance ministers and central bankers. That meeting eliminated any expectation that there would be concerted action to help stabilise the dollar.

Stabilizing the dollar? Isn't that something that the U.S. is supposed to be doing for Third World countries?

It not may be just liberal doom-speak to say that a financial crisis could be lurking just around the corner.

From IMCT - November 24, 2004

By the way, Keith Olbermann is about the only pseudo-mainstream media member who realizes the Ohio story may not be over yet.

From IMCT - November 24, 2004

OK, go with me here. With just a word omitted here or there, this story could cause many a progressive to unpack their bags and postpone their flight to Ottawa.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell on Wednesday said the United States does not accept the results of [...] presidential elections as legitimate, citing "credible reports of fraud and abuse." 

The country's election commission has declared [...] the winner, beating opposition leader [...] by three percentage points. 

[...] said Wednesday evening that he did not recognize the official result and called for a countrywide "political strike." 

"We have been following developments very closely and are deeply disturbed by the extensive and credible reports of fraud in the election," Powell added. "We call for a full review of the conduct of the election and the tallying of election results." 

Powell said it is "still not too late" for the [...] government to remedy the situation. He warned that the world is watching and urged it to "seize the moment." 

The secretary said he spoke with [...] President [...] earlier Wednesday to urge him to take advantage of suggestions [...] that there may be a way to resolve the controversy.

Think the Bush administration sees any irony in this situation? To answer my own question: no.

As a side note, one of the factors calling the Ukraine election into question is by the disparity of the actual results compared to exit polls. Obviously, every country in the world conducts accurate exit polls, except the U.S., of course.

From IMCT - November 23, 2004

They seem to get it in other countries -- why can't we?

From IMCT - November 21, 2004

The Tennessean newspaper in Nashville ran a question-and-answer piece with Richard Land, who is president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, which, according to the article, works closely with the White House.

Land is full of the normal things you'd expect, but his take on one issue in particular caught my attention. First, he asserted

"What's been happening over the last 25 years in this country is that significant segments of the society have increasingly rejected the '60s counterculture."

When asked, "Is our nation experiencing a religious revolution or just a deep cultural divide?," Land referenced a woman who asked him a question at a conference, saying

"...it was clear from the woman's whole demeanor and dress and her jewelry that she was obviously someone who had peace symbols somewhere in her closet, and who had sung many, many stanzas of 'All we are saying is, give peace a chance.'"

Furthermore, Land spoke for evangelicals everywhere when he said

"There was a very stiff discussion in this election about which way to [protect the American people], whether the primary way to do that was through military power — whether this is a war — or whether this is a law enforcement problem. And evangelicals strongly believe in the president's view that it's a war, not a law enforcement problem."

While one might assume that his reference to the peace imagery is a stereotyping of someone from the so-called '60s counterculture, I can't help but wonder "WWJS?" (What Would Jesus Sing?). What part of the Bible has the Southern Baptist Convention uncovered that casts peace in a negative light? Hmm, war as a platform in a religion -- sounds eerily like what some are accusing Muslims of.

(By the way, I'm not sure when that "very stiff discussion" about law enforcement versus war occurred, but maybe there should have been a "very stiff discussion" about just where and upon whom the focus of our war/law enforcement should be in order to better protect us)

This is just more proof that they're out of control, and it has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with power. Orwellian, indeed.

From IMCT - November 21, 2004

At the dedication of the Clinton library, George W. had some nice words to say about his predecessor, the one who beat his daddy in the 1992 election. Now, we all know that as a card-carrying neo-conservative, Dubya hates Clinton. But as Bush was thanking him "for loving and serving America," he should have also offered his appreciation for laying the groundwork for Bush's own eight years in office.

First off, let me say that I think Bill Clinton was a good President. Although many conservatives would find it hard to believe, love for Clinton is not unanimous from the left. Many feel he governed too much from the center and missed the opportunity to do much more.

Policy-wise, Clinton did all right; he dealt with a Republican majority in the House for 75 percent of his presidency, and the press always seemed more interested in personal scandal that political victories. Sure, some of his ideas went against progressive/Democratic theology, i.e. NAFTA, which looks good on the surface, but has positives that are going to come after years of apparent negative for Americans. He governed from the center, but this country isn't afar-left leaning one --remember the last election?

Now, getting back to that personal scandal thing...

It was back in the days of Nixon that Republicans came up with the theory that they could win by painting Democrats as morally-deprived hippies, but it took a few years for it to really stick. For one thing, during the Reagan and Bush the First years, the national Republicans courted the Christian vote but didn't pander too much.

Then came 1992, and Bill Clinton, a particularly interesting individual. He wasn't a stuffed grandfather figure like every President since Kennedy, and his personal life was often figured more interesting than his political life by those feeding the 24/7 news cycle. And Clinton certainly did nothing to dampen that interest; most of the things he was accused of were not true, but one (remember Monica Lewinsky?) was true, and it gave credibility to every salacious untrue story.

Now, the Republicans had their immoral Democratic poster boy.

Further infuriating those in the moral majority was Clinton's re-election in 1996 (it should give us some solace knowing they felt some of the pain we feel in 2004). Come 2000, they managed to put it all together: they had moral indignation and a candidate who proclaimed his own Christianity.

For the GOP, the Clinton legacy was two-fold. First, it enforced the image of moral-less liberal (the last Democratic President, Jimmy Carter, didn't fit that bill), and secondly, it motivated the base against that image.

The Bush campaign managed somehow to use Clinton's fallibility against his vice-president, Al Gore. Now, the rise of "morals" as a pivotal issue in Presidential politics has been given more face time in this election, but it was a large reason why Gore (and the Democrats) lost their hold on the South, including Gore's home state of Tennessee, which went for Clinton both times and even Dukakis in 1988.

Clinton's legacy for the history books will no doubt be a positive one; he oversaw a booming economy, which wasn't entirely not his fault, and did manage to get many of his policy proposals into law. But his legacy as it pertains to party politics may be treated very differently in the political science textbooks.

From IMCT - November 18, 2004

You may not have realized it, but if you plan on vacationing in Switzerland, don't plan on your dollar buying you as many blocks of cheese as it once did.

The dollar has been hovering around all-time lows in value versus the euro, and is not real strong against other currency, either. It seems that other countries are a little worried about our budget deficits, despite the assertion by U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow that the U.S. is for a strong dollar.

This is proof that the spiraling deficits can have a negative effect, but don't be so sure that the Bush administration is just ignorant to this phenomenon. More likely, this is just another part of our perfect Republican economy. 

Lower value for the dollar allows products exported by American manufacturers to compete better. On the other hand, imported goods cost the consumer more. If you believe in trickle-down economics (aka the rich get richer), which do you like better -- helping the corporation, or the consumer?

From IMCT - November 18, 2004

Much is being made of the Republicans' vote to change their rules stating that a member charged with a felony had to step down from any leadership position.

That rule change is directed at majority leader Tom DeLay, the Texas congressman who is under investigation in his home state for all kinds of malfeasance, much of it dealing with his arm-twisting in getting a redistricting plan through the Texas House, a plan that allowed the Republicans to pick up several seats in the U.S. House this election. Of course, DeLay claims the charges are politically motivated, hence making the rule change more reasonable.

I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about. I mean, are we surprised that the Repubs would rally around their leader, even though he's been up to no good? This isn't the exception to the rule; it is the rule with DeLay, who is called the Hammer for a reason. Are we really shocked that they believe themselves to be above the law?

I wouldn't call my Republican Congressperson (if I was saddled with one) and ask how they voted, because I've come to expect stupidity from them. Do we care who they pick as their leader?

In many ways, this is typical liberal blather: hopping up and down and screeching about a detail that is too nuanced for the average person to understand/care about. We've got bigger fish to fry.

From IMCT - November 18, 2004

Here's a warm-and-fuzzy, inclusive bumper message I ran across:

From IMCT - November 17, 2004

Bush won, and Kerry lost, right? Probably. But, then again...

There are some intriguing things going on in Ohio. No, you've not heard about them on CNN, because the media isn't paying attention -- they're reporting on the latest Bush lapdog to get a political appointment. But depending on how a few things develop over the next few days, this could become at the very least a story worth following.

To piece this together, let's start on Nov. 3. Kerry conceded the day after the election, referencing the fact that there weren't enough provisional ballots to make up the 136,000-vote difference in Ohio. Unlike Florida2000, where the margin was in the thousands just after the election, this was a sizable number of votes, and it would take a seismic shift to change the landscape.

A few days later, that number dropped by almost 4,000 when a computer error was shown to have credited Bush with more votes than voters in Franklin County (we all feel confident that's the only such tomfoolery). That's not earth-shattering, of course, and not enough to change the dynamic of the race.

More recently, two third-party candidates -- the Green Party's David Cobb and the Libertarian Party's Michael Badnarik, strange bedfellows if there ever were ones -- asked for a recount. Now, under Ohio law, a recount is automatically triggered if the margin is less than one-quarter of one percent. If it isn't, a candidate can ask for a recount, but they must agree to pay for the cost of such, about $110,000 in this case.

Just like Ralph Nader was getting help from Republicans before the election, these two candidates no doubt could get some financial help from Democrats in this endeavor. Of course , such a recount would possibly benefit Kerry, but certainly not these candidates. More on that later.

The thing which triggered the blinking light in my head was a minor note in a story today about Kerry's day in the Senate. Kerry has kept a low profile since the election, and only gave interviews to hometown news outlets on Wednesday. When one reported asked about him running again in 2008, Kerry reminded the questioner that Ohio is still counting votes from 2004.

Hmm. I thought he gave up on Ohio.

The Ohio math is a longshot, but it might be a shot; this story lays out the optimistic case. There are 155,000 provisional ballots; in 2000, 90 percent of those ballots were allowed, and the further assumption is that since those are historically disproportionately from Democratic strongholds (the story says 90 percent went for Gore in 2000, but that would seem overly optimistic), those ballots could cut into the 132,000.

You ready to pull out your Florida2000 handbook? We have 93,000 undervotes, ballots where no vote was registered. Once again, those are expected to be disproportionately unrealized Democratic votes, because they're from poor or minority areas.

In Ohio, the law says if fewer than two corners are attached, the vote counts. Now, I would imagine lots of undervotes are such because they have two corners attached, but I'm no expert in chads. But the good news behind that law is that the varying standards for counting votes in 2000 was (technically) the reason the Supreme Court shut down the recount in Bush v. Gore. So, at the very least, the Supreme Court Five would have to come up with a new excuse for stopping a recount.

Anyway, in a best-case scenario, all this could certainly cut into that 132,000-vote margin, and possibly even erase it. It's a longshot, but when the stakes are this high....

Now, as for Kerry's silence since the election, for one thing, he probably slept for a week (the guy certainly worked his tail off, regardless of any tactical errors his campaign made). But maybe, just maybe, he's staying out of the fray, letting this recount thing work its way along, while he plays the role of disinterested observer. Die-hard Democrats didn't blame Gore in 2000 for fighting, and we wouldn't have minded Kerry coming out with fists a-swingin', but we're not everybody. Such things could quietly gain more momentum behind the scenes.

The fact that the recount is being asked for by two candidates with no direct stake in the outcome is interesting. On the Green Party's website, the press release (linked above) talks of making sure every vote is counted, and it's not a stretch to see how a Green Party loyalist would rather have Kerry than Bush. The Libertarian Party is another story. Could they be surrogates of Kerry/the DNC?

Anyway, if there is a recount, it will almost certainly get media attention, and at the very least, make the Bushies sweat. There is a possibility it wouldn't be completed until after the Ohio vote is certified, and that could cause a crisis should Kerry actually surpass Bush.

Hey, maybe we can put the "Oh!" back in Ohio.

From IMCT - November 15, 2004

When Iraq War II first started, many of of us pantywaist liberals intoned, "it's going to be another Vietnam." Now, there were two problems with that: 1.) Seeing as how we're "pantywaist liberals," we're not credible on matters of war, and 2.) Many of those same people said, "What's so bad about Vietnam?."

Well, we're now around a-year-and-a-half into this war, and so far there's nothing to convince me that this isn't another Vietnam. In all honesty, when I warned of the dire consequences of war in Iraq, comparing it to Vietnam, I was doing my haughty best to conjure up a negative reaction to a war that everyone seemed to deem totally necessary.

For the most part, I was probably like many in the Bush administration; I figured we'd breeze into Iraq and vanquish Saddam Hussein quite easily, regardless of whether I thought it was a justifiable military action or not. For me, a mere citizen of middle America, to make that mistake is forgivable; for those in charge of this country to make that mistake is reprehensible and possibly treasonous.

The thing is, we did vanquish Hussein quite easily, but no one prepared for "what next?". And that is exactly why this war is looking like more and more like Vietnam.

I'm no expert on Vietnam (it was a little before my time, to say the least), but my understanding is that one of our main problems was that we had no clear military objective. Unlike the World Wars before it, when it was a matter of capturing/recapturing lands, Vietnam was a cat-and-mouse game where we would take an area one day, then have to abandon it the next. With an enemy that didn't march at us in rows with muskets thrust before them, we never could win a decisive battle, and in the end, we just slowly pulled out.

That's why these so-called "no-go" zones in Iraq should send shivers up our spines. Didn't we liberate the whole country? Wasn't "Mission Accomplished"? Why did we have to have an all-out offensive to re-take Fallujah? And now that we're "re-taken" Fallujah, do we have the troops to occupy it constantly and make sure it stays a "go" zone? Can we trust Iraqis to police it? Or will we hear in two years of another major offensive to re-liberate Fallujah?

The population of Iraq is over 25 million. If one out of every 100 people in the country becomes part of the insurgency, then that's 250,000 fighters. And that's not a stagnant number; the young of Iraq are going to become ready combatants as they watch this war drag on. Fighters will come from other countries to battle what they see as an invading force against Islam. They'll outnumber our forces, but more importantly, they'll have the advantage of surprise, using terrorist techniques (what used to be called guerrilla warfare). We'll be engaging the enemy incessantly.

In Vietnam, the enemy was Communism. Of course, Vietnam was in some ways a war against the Soviet Union, an effort to try to stop the spread of its ideology. When the United States left Vietnam, it fell to Communism and came under the influence of the Soviet Union. But we knew who that enemy was, and we knew where to fire our ICBMs should they fire theirs at us.

Iraq is much different. To leave Iraq anytime before it is completely stable could destabilize our future for the next century (if it hasn't already). To leave Iraq in chaos would be to invite every terrorist in the hemisphere to set up boot camps and train for the jihad against America (if they're not there already). To leave Iraq before the job is finished -- whatever that is -- could destabilize the entire Middle East. Civil war could break out in Iraq and spread to other countries, or those countries could try to head that off (or decide to make a land grab) and invade Iraq.

There was no exit strategy because there can be no exit strategy; we broke it, and it's not a matter of gluing it back together. We may have to hold the pieces together for the next century.

And we'll be much less safe for the doing.

From IMCT - November 14, 2004

And the good news just keeps on a'comin'.

Today on the front page of Buzzflash, you can find a story about the CIA purging itself of of those who don't follow the Bush administration's doctrine on Iraq and matters of terrorism, the possibility of government detainees being taken to countries with less concern for the Geneva conventions so as to perform more convincing torture procedures, and an eyewitness account of American helicopters mowing down families trying to escape Fallujah.

For those in the days immediately following the election who tried to tell themselves, "Oh, it's really not that bad," actually, it is.

If we make it through these dark years without permanent scars, I will be extremely surprised.

From IMCT - November 14, 2004

A couple of my daughter's eight-year-old friends, spending the night with us, got into a debate about Bush vs. Kerry. One said, "You've got to like Bush, he's the President!" Another said, "Kerry's mean, he's got that long chin." Now, this is not surprising coming from eight-year-olds, but the thing is, that logic probably actually came from their parents; arguments like that are typical around here.

From IMCT - November 13, 2004

Where to now?

I'm seeing more and more talk about which direction the Democratic Party should go after this election. This could be dangerous, as a unified front will be needed to stem this apparent Republican tide.

Some -- chief among them those from Bill Clinton's inner circle -- believe a move to incorporate more "faith and values" issues is necessary. Progressives know that our beliefs are not exclusive of religion and morals, but it's hard sometimes to explain those finer points. Some believe that in order to recapture some of the ground lost in middle America, we need to tout those moral issues more, while even taking centrist positions on such things as gun control and abortion.

Those things don't sit well with some in the party. In order to be a clear alternative, they believe we must stay the course by touting tolerance on issues like gay marriage. Eventually, they figure, people will see the light.

I'm glad I'm not the one in charge of deciding which way the party should go. To not move more toward the center might risk losing more ground and further trivializing the whole progressive movement; you can only push your agenda when you have a seat at the table. However, too much of a move to the center could make the party indistinguishable from the Republicans, giving voters no clear alternative or running them back to fringe parties (Nader), which can be just as damaging.

The thing is, the Republican Party is not all about evangelicals; those in charge of the party are just using that constituency to grab power. They've formed a coalition of the cunning and unwitting, and they coexist, even when their goals run counter to each other. Even those on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum in the Democratic Party have goals that are closely linked.

The Democrats need to get it figured out, because I really believe in-fighting could develop in the GOP for the 2008 election, and the Dems will need to be in a united position to take advantage of it.

From IMCT - November 15, 2004

Finally! A solution to our poverty problems. It's good to see corporate America getting involved.

From IMCT - November 11, 2004

A close Bush advisor makes a point that has been simmering somewhere in the back of my mind for the past few days.

In order to win this election, Bush sold his soul to the religious right, and by proxy, he may have sold the soul (yeah, right) of the Republican Party as well. The religious right and the GOP are now concentric entities, and that could have an effect on the party for years to come.

Once Bush's run is up, where does the party go? The RR obviously feels the power of control it has over the GOP, and it won't hesitate to flex it. So when the next election rolls around, will the RR be satisfied with a moderate -- many of the favorites, like Guliani, Pataki and McCain, appear to be "moderates" by Repub standards -- or will it demand another overt evangelical like Bush?

If the RR prevails, then it would probably be at the cost of the mainstream favorites like Guliani, etc., and who knows, they might manage to nominate someone in the image of Alan Keyes. Although it's not clear that there's any limit to just how radical a candidate has to be before a majority of the nation rejects them, the RR might force the GOP to reluctantly explore those limits.

If the GOP nominates, say, a Northeastern Republican, would the coalition of the evangelicals stay on board, or would they lose interest if they feel the candidate is not so much "one of them?" Such fervor is hard to keep focused for an extended period of time.

Even a protracted primary battle between the moderate Repubs and the RR Repubs could do damage to the party. Pat Robertson, where are you?

It's sad that in many ways the Democratic Party's best hope is that the Republican Party will screw up or over-play its hand. However, we can at least hope this narrows the gap between the parties and gives the Dems a smaller gulf to bridge.

From IMCT - November 11, 2004

My daughter's third-grade class had a Veteran's Day program today, and at one point the class did a medley of fight songs (introduced by one very lovely and smart third-grader, I might add), with the members of the different branches of the armed forces standing during their fight song. All around the gymnasium, men (no women in this group) stood up at different intervals, and it made me realize how little we pay attention to the individual everyday heroes all around us.

Progressives are accused of being unpatriotic, and I have to admit I'm somewhat leery of unquestioning patriotic fervor. But I appreciate the enormous sacrifice our armed forces make; even the ones who come away completely unharmed physically make a great sacrifice in terms of time away from home and family.

I just believe that we should only ask them to make those tremendous sacrifices when absolutely necessary.

From IMCT - November 11, 2004

Moveon.org is getting together a petition to try to encourage Congress to investigate any voting irregularities from the election. Now, we know the Republican Congress isn't likely to open an investigation any time soon, but if we keep the story circulating long enough, maybe it will magically become a mainstream story and not just the nightmare of left-wing conspiracy hacks.

I'm not sure there's any tampering to be found, but we need to have no doubt. Truthfully, it's a no-win situation; if there was tampering and it could be proven, it could be a very divisive issue for this country. Of course, tampering would explain away the results of an election I still can't quite comprehend, while also striking a serious blow to the GOP -- although I'm not sure anything really sticks to them.

From IMCT - November 10, 2004

I'm a conspiracy theorist, and I don't subscribe to the belief of some that we should quickly "move on" after an apparent election loss. If something smells, we should hunt it down and rid ourselves of it; to allow such a serious transgression as election fraud to go unpunished is -- dare I say it? -- un-American.

With that in mind, taking a look at various analysis of the Florida voting totals, something sure looks fishy at first glance.

I'm no statistician or accountant, so I want to keep this as simple as possible. What other folks (thank them very much) have done is put those numbers in a spreadsheet, comparing the number of votes gathered by Bush and Kerry to the number of registered Republicans and Democrats. In short, the analysis basically shows what the vote would have been had everyone voted their registration vs. what the vote actually was.

Statistically speaking, one might expect both parties to capture a like percentage of the vote compared to their registration, while of course sharing any registered independents. So the key comparison is percentage of votes for each candidate compared to their total registration.

What makes this comparison noteworthy is that in the Florida counties using touchscreen voting machines, the numbers are pretty equal. In Broward County, for example, Bush got 236,794 votes in a county where 283,736 are registered Republicans, while Kerry got 441,733 in a county where 533,976 are registered Democrats. So Bush's vote total was 83.5 percent of the total registered Republicans, while Kerry's was 82.7 percent of registered Democrats. The key here is in the percentages, not the raw vote totals, and these percentages are reasonably equal in all the 15 touchscreen counties.

What's raising eyebrows are the totals in the counties which use ballots that are fed into optical scanners. In these counties, the trend has a heavy Republican tilt; in many counties, Bush's total is 200-300 percent or more of the total of registered Republicans, while Kerry's is often at 50 percent or below that of registered Democrats. Statistically speaking, it's hard to figure why the 15 touchscreen counties would be so different from the 50-some optical-scan counties.

Now, as I said, I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but if we are to be taken seriously, we need to take a long, hard look at this. I'm no expert in Florida politics (I've spent a total of around a week in the state), so it's hard to get a grip on these numbers, but one thing jumps out at me when comparing the touchscreen counties with the optical scan counties. In the TS counties, the numbers of registered Republicans vs. Democrats is generally quite equal, so statistically, there will be less deviation from the expected percentages. The fact is that the higher the number of people registered with a certain party, the more likely it is that the percentages will be off in the real vote totals.

That brings us to the OS counties. In a large number of those counties -- many of which went 60-40 percent or better for Bush-- we find that registered Democrats make up 60, 70 and even 80 percent of the total. That sounds mighty odd; why would a county with a large number of registered Democrats vote overwhelmingly Republican? Sure sounds like tampering.

Or maybe not. This is where my lack of knowledge of Florida politics sticks out like a sore thumb, so I'm going to assume a few things.

I notice that in some of these counties where the numbers are the most lopsided, 80 percent are registered Democrats, with less than 10 percent registered as independents; in many of the touchscreen counties, 20 percent or more are independents.

In my lovely Southern state, we have open primaries, where you pick which party you're going to vote for just before you walk into the booth. The local county races -- for sheriff, property assessor, etc. -- go through primaries and then a general election (why it matters whether the circuit court clerk is a Democrat or Republican, I'll never know). My state is certainly a red state, but it wasn't so long ago that it was a solid Democratic state, and so it goes that the real race for county offices comes in that Democratic primary; if there's anyone in the Republican primary, they're a lock to get beat in the general election. Therefore, many staunch Republicans will vote (and even run) each year in the Democratic primary, because that's what you have to do in order to have a say in who wins county offices. In February's primary with only a couple of minor county offices on the ballot, 6,517 people voted in the Democratic Presidential primary, 549 in the Republican. But the county went 15,619-10,549 (59-40 percent) for Bush in November. I imagine 75 percent of the voters would be registered Democrats if that was required, just so they could vote in those county races.

When I see all but eight percent of a Florida county's registered voters picking a party -- the majority of them the Democratic party -- I wonder if it works the same way there, despite Florida's recent (1960-on) history as a solid Republican-voting state.

The way to check this would be to see how these counties have voted historically. Have they normally voted closer to their registration? That's research for someone other than me, although I hope it gets done.

I'm not wanting to sound like a Republican apologist here -- those exit poll numbers make me believe something may well have gone awry in Florida and Ohio -- but I'd like for us to have good, solid facts before we go off tilting at windmills.

From IMCT - November 10, 2004

Yes, while I think Bill Clinton may be just the answer (as chairman of the Democratic National Committee) to get the national party back on track, I am not as fond of his wife running for national office... and I'm not the only one.

First off, let me make it perfectly clear -- I think Hillary Clinton would make a great President (and that's not just in comparison to the one we're currently saddled with). She's obviously a compassionate intellectual who has plenty of governmental experience, and it wouldn't be a stretch for someone with her credentials to make a run for the Democratic nomination.

However, being qualified for the job of President and actually getting it are two entirely different animals (need I give you any examples?).

As an unfortunate citizen of a red state, I can tell you that Clinton is a highly polarizing figure. I've heard Republicans wish aloud that she would run, because they know they'd trounce her in the South.

Why is she such a polarizing figure? Well, for those of you who don't understand the dynamic here in the South, strong women are viewed nervously, and not just by men. I once remember my own mother telling me when I was quite young that she didn't think a woman could handle the job of President.

It's easy to see why men would be uneasy with Clinton; she's an independent, strong woman, and that's often feared by those full of testosterone. You'd have to assume she could do no better than the 44 percent of the male vote Kerry got. But you can't assume she would automatically get 75 percent of the female vote. Frankly, among Southern women, I believe the lines would break about like they did for the last election; as many who would be lured to vote for her because she's a female would be turned off by something else.

It's hard for those of us who admire Hillary Clinton to see what problem a female could have with her, but there are a few (counter-intuitive) reasons. Let's face the facts: in evangilical Christian teachings, women clearly have a place, and it's not as President. Females aren't pastors at the evangelical churches whose members drove this past election; do you really think they're going to anoint one President? On some level -- not always a conscious one -- women believe women have a place, and it's not as an outspoken politician.

When it comes right down to it, if the next election is another "values"-based referendum and the Democrats don't manage to level the values playing field, then women are likely to go vote in the same numbers as 2004 for that person they've been told is more moral. Just like blood is thicker than water, morals are thicker than allegiance to your gender.

Although Clinton is thought of as being from Arkansas, she actually grew up in the blue state of Illinois and now is a senator in another blue state. She would certainly be branded a "Northeastern liberal." Whether we like it or not, that label stirs hatred in some.

Not that I'm starting the primary campaign of John Edwards this early, but he's my early favorite for the 2008 nominee. I heard several conservative types comment that they wished he had been the nominee, and not the second man on the ticket. Some will point out that the ticket didn't even carry his home state this year, but with him as the nominee in 2008, there's a chance the Democrats could again make inroads into the South. If just a state or two in the South became competitive, it could change the dynamic of the race.

However, if Clinton decides she wants to run for the nomination, she's likely to get it, what with the connections she has inside the party. I just fear that a ticket headed by Hillary Clinton would be just one more Democratic sacrificial lamb on the national stage. At some point, we need more than a moral victory.