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.