Tomorrowism Blog

Election Preparations

Last night was the final meeting for Ann Arbor Election Inspectors. The last time I worked as an election inspector was in November of 1996; there are changes.

Paranoia
First, Lansing is very concerned about Florida style sanfu's. The City Clerk normally has 4 phone lines; they will have 8 lines for this election. Two former city clerks came out of retirement to assist with this election. The city is hiring high school students to assist with the election. They have trained special closers to show up at 7:30 -- half an hour before the polls close -- and observe that everything is done right. They have even hired lawyers to work as election inspectors. Not only do lawyers have better knowledge of election law, lawyers are less likely to be intimidated by strident partisans.

Police
The police department also met with the city clerk's office, information services, and the city attorney. Although there are no specific threats, they are concerned about terrorism. The police insist on visiting each of the precincts on election day. The clerk's office has asked that the visits be brief.

(For the record, one election inspector asked, "Will they have guns on?". Sigh; some people.)

Challengers
In all the elections I've worked before now, I have seen many so-called challengers. Normally, they do not challenge; they merely observe. In the past, they've written down names of those yet to vote during the day and go home to make get-out-the-vote calls. More recently, they'd show up at closing time to get election results. Never have I seen a challenger actually challenge; that is, point to a potential voter and say, "you don't belong here." The city expects challengers this time.

As of last night, only the two major parties had registered as challenging political organizations. They will be allowed two challengers per precint at a time. Only one challenger will be designated as challenger at a time; the non designated challenger may only observe. A challenger may only challenge one voter at a time.

My concern, which I did not share with the clerk's office, is overwhelmed challengers. Suppose there are two improperly registered voters that arrive to vote at the same time. The challenger, restricted to one challenge at a time, will have to permit one improper vote.

Provisional Ballots
I do not yet fully grok the process for provisional ballots. The city received four in the August primary; while they do expect more on Tuesday, they don't know how many more to expect. The most recent court case indicated that provisional ballots must be cast in the voter's home precinct. We are to call city hall if we get more then 50 provisional ballots by 5 PM.
Alan on 10.28.04 @ 02:36 PM CT [link]

An Election Complexity; poised for chaos

Last night was the final training session for Ann Arbor Election Inspectors. Again, I am one of the people sworn to uphold the constitution etc, I'll stow my rabid partisanship while on duty. Normally, this training session is meant for precinct chairs only; the meeting covers final instructions, final reminders of how the process works, and distribution of some official election materials.

This election is more difficult for two reasons. First, Michigan is a battle ground state. The Ann Arbor co-interim clerks both came out of retirement to assist; this is good, they are great. They reported that Michigan's Secretary of State is petrified of Florida style snafu's. I have notes from the meeting; more later. Second, there are new election laws to handle. Frankly, I think it was a mistake to invite all election inspectors; the stupid questions slowed things down. At least, questions should have been restricted to precinct chairs.

Anyway, I went in today to drop off my absentee ballot. I asked about overriding straight party votes. Rabid partisans can easily vote straight party by selecting that party at the top of the ballot. By voting "Republican", one votes for President George Bush and would be Mayor Jane Lumm simultaneously.

Truth

Now it may be that someone wants to vote for all the Republicans but one; perhaps John Kerry. The easiest way to do that is to vote straight Republican at the top of the ticket, and then vote for Kerry Edwards in the President/VP section.

Now, suppose someone wants to vote for all the Republicans but is disgusted with the choice for President. As above, they may choose to vote straight Republican at the top and to write in "Nun Othea Buv" as their presidential candidate. The computer will cast a vote for all the Republicans but one and drop that ballot into a seperate bin with all the other ballots which contain write in votes. In the past, we would have taken that ballot out and dutifully reported one vote for Sister Buv.

Things are different now. We will have a list of people who have registered as write in candidates. We will seek Ssiter Buv on the write in candidate list and note that her name is missing; we will dutifully not report one vote for Nun Othea Buv.

Here's where it gets bad. When we see an invalid write in name, we are supposed to check to see if the voter chose to vote straight party. In this case, the voter's selection of an invalid write in candidate would cancel their intended override of their vote for President Bush. That is, while the voter has expressed a clear intent to not cast a vote for president, election law orders us to interpret that ballot as a vote for Bush/Cheney.

Consequences

This is serious fodder for post election lawyering. It is bad enough that a confused election inspector would misinform a voter. Worse, a whole precinct full of inspectors may not realize that the vote is supposed to revert to President Bush. They may underreport votes for President Bush. IMO, this is grounds for a recount. Further, during the course of the recount, lawyers and pundits may get shrill in questioning whether or not this ballot should be counted as a vote for President Bush.

I really hope that the election is not close. Still, I'd rather have a close Bush election than a clear Kerry victory.
Alan on 10.28.04 @ 01:58 PM CT [link]

Bush's Other Election Day Worry

There is a large reason to worry about Bush's reelection chances. Traditionally, there have always been more leaning Democrats than leaning Republicans; but, there are more firmly Republicans than firmly Democrats. When turnout is high, that means leaning voters are voting, Democrats win. When turnout is low, only firmly preferenced voters are voting; Republicans win.

This time, with all the early voting, I expect turnout to be high. Then again, early voting is new; new trends may emerge.

Interesting times, these are.
Alan on 10.27.04 @ 10:42 PM CT [link]

Analyzing Zogby's 10 State Numbers

I have posted a quicky table which lists the 10 state Zogby polling numbers in a table. I used this format to spot trends; that is also why I restricted myself to a single pollster. I heard someone on Sean Hannity's radio show paraphrase George Will noting that polls tend to break in the 10 days prior to the election.

In addition to the 10 states Zogby is polling daily, I summarized the other 40 states and DC. Based on information from Election Projection, I claim that Bush has 213 safe electoral votes and that Kerry has 190 safe electoral votes. I call New Hampshire, with 4 electoral votes, a tossup.

Of Zogby's 10 states, I give Colorado, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania to Kerry (40 EV). The numbers keep hovering in his favor. I give Florida, New Mexico, and Nevada to Bush (37 EV); those numbers hover in Bush's favor. I give Ohio and Wisconsin to Kerry (30 EV); those numbers are trending in Kerry's favor. Michigan goes to Bush (17 EV), its trend favors Bush. If anything, I'd give Iowa (7 EV) to Kerry for the trend, but it's not that strong a trend, so I'll call it a tossup.

For the record, I picked the states before I did the math. And I'm not issuing an election prediction so much as I'm crunching numbers. Further, there are relatively large margins of error here. That said, this analysis suggests a final EV tally of Bush 267, Kerry 260, tossup 11.

With the tossup states (Iowa and New Hampshire) favoring Kerry, this is scary.

FYI, from the current Election Projection:

EV update for Oct. 27:  Bush 269 - Kerry 269 ... A TIE!! ... Kerry gains Florida

Alan on 10.27.04 @ 10:20 PM CT [link]

Twins redux

A picture on Drudge reminded me of an observation I made back in March.

Are these two people twins?

John Kerry Image thanks to UK Telegraph	Ray Bolger Image thanks to The Library of Congress

Alan on 10.27.04 @ 12:26 AM CT [link]

Hit number 1,000

After 5/8 of a year of blogging, i finally got hit number 1,000. I set up the counter to ignore hits from me; neverthelss, the referer log tells me that I was number 1,000. The person before me got here from google, most likely looking for info about scumwad scammers of job seekers.
Alan on 10.26.04 @ 11:13 PM CT [link]

October Surprise

I already posted about those missing Iraqi high explosives; I just added a link from a reserve officer that writes better than I do.

Here, I include a link to Drudge about the most disturbing part of this story:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE OCT 26 2004 11:02:38 ET XXXXX

In 1992 it was the Iran Contra charges brought days before the election... In 2000 it was the DUI charges a few days before the vote... And Now...

60 MINS PLANNED BUSH MISSING EXPLOSIVES STORY FOR ELECTION EVE

Once again, The New York Times sits on a story in hopes of swinging an election with partially digested half truths. As I said before, shame on them.

Anyway, I kinda want to claim credit for crying "BS" about this story Sunday night; I was one of the first. Perhaps that means little more than I have no life. I'd prefer to think that my BS detector had a good day.

More importantly, I want to note that Senator Kerry was very fast to jump on the story. His press release came out before 10:30 Monday morning; about 12 hours (?) after the New York Times released their article. Twelve hours is not enough time to digest news of this magnitude. The timing implies collusion to me. Either that or a rush to judgement on the Senator's part.

Again, shame on them. They sicken me. They are trying to alter the outcome of an election of the leader of the free world with underhanded smear tactics. They are not waging an honorable battle of ideas.

There is little more important to me than free and fair elections. There is little more important than winning the war on terror. And the Kerry / NYT axis of evil is on the wrong side of both issues.
Alan on 10.26.04 @ 10:51 PM CT [link]

Election Forecasts

For the political junkies: my three regular election prediction sites:

• Election Projection: Updated once a week using the most complex formula, based on such things as recent preference polls and approval ratings. Updated daily for those not as cheap as myself. While he is good enough to separate Maine into districts, he does not contemplate Colorado dividing electoral votes. He has Bush up 296-242, no toss ups.
  
• Electoral Vote Predictor: Updated daily, based solely on polls, he makes no distinction between polls of registered voters and polls of likely voters. Has lots of sub pages, including Senate predictions. He has Bush up 254-253 with 31 electoral votes too close to call.
  
• Geekmedia presentation of Tradesports: Tradesports is a market of election predictions. One can buy or sell a share of "stock" of Bush-Wins-Ohio. If Bush wins Ohio, the person that sold the stock has to pay the person that bought the stock $100 (?); If Kerry wins, no more money changes hands. As of the end of Sunday 10/24 EST, the bid price for Ohio was $53.60; the market slightly favors Bush to win Ohio. There is talk that this marketplace has been manipulated to make Kerry look good.
  
  Geekmedia takes the Tradesports prices and uses them to predict a winner. I would quibble that since the default setup uses the bid price instead of the average of the bid and ask price, the results are skewed in Kerry's favor. In the author's defense, the page is configurable. I would also quibble about the effect of commissions, if I were energetic enough to research it. Still, very cool. This page has Bush up 271-243, with 24 unprojected electoral votes.
  

For the record, these three sources disagree on six states:

• Florida (one tossup, two Bush) 27 electoral votes.
  
• Hawaii (one tossup, two Kerry) 4 electoral votes.
  
• Minnesota (two Kerry, one Bush) 10 electoral votes.
  
• New Hampshire (two Kerry, one toss up) 4 electoral votes.
  
• New Mexico (two Kerry, one toss up) 5 electoral votes.
  
• Ohio (one tossup, one Bush, one Kerry) 20 electoral votes.
  

Where the sources agree, Bush is up 241-228, with 269 needed to tie and 270 needed to win.
Alan on 10.24.04 @ 11:32 PM CT [link]

One life saved: a firsthand account from Iraq

Via Command Post, a compelling first hand account about the heroic efforts of (what I would call) a lightly trained backup medic to save the life of another soldier.
Alan on 10.24.04 @ 10:33 PM CT [link]

Back to basics: low flow toilets

This year, I'm all about the war on terror. Still, I'm disturbed by the state of our federal government.

Paul Jacob's Town Hall editorial about toilets discusses one problem. Two excerpts:

Instead, I prefer to see what's left in the toilet bowl as a symbol of Congress. A clogged mass of disgusting waste.

and:

There have been several attempts, in recent years, to repeal this idiotic regulation of the toilet, allowing for larger reservoirs. Each attempt failed. And now the cause has been abandoned. Experts tell me that toilets have improved in recent years, and the pressure is off for reform.

I mentioned this to a builder recently. He was surprised. The toilets he installs are still as, er, crappy, as ever. "Oh, sure," he says, "the inner mechanics have improved. And the more expensive toilets do flush almost as well as they used to twenty years ago. But what family can afford to spend a thousand bucks on a toilet?"

Government is too large. It spends too much time micromanaging. Worse, neither viable party is willing to do anything about it.

Sometime in the next decade, Republicans are in for a huge civil war, with the quasi libertarians on one side and the "compassionate conservatives" on the other. For now, I'm glad we're united on the need to win the war on terror.
Alan on 10.24.04 @ 10:28 PM CT [link]

Iraqi Nuke Triggers missing

Via Drudge, a New York Times article about missing explosives from the Al Qaqaa (For Democrats, "Qaqaa" scrabble score: 23) bunker complex. Missing are HMX and RDX explosives, suitable for blowing up airplanes, buildings, and initiating nuclear reactions. The New York Times article implies that we lost these deadly weapons because of our rush to war and careless treatment thereafter.

First, much of this was lost during the Clinton era. Second, we don't know how much of it was destroyed. Third, there was a lot to do, it was impossible to lock don the entire country overnight. Fourth, what was Saddam doing with this stuff anyway?

And finally, why now? The Times notes that "on Sunday an Iraqi employee of The New York Times who made a furtive visit to the site saw looters tearing out metal fixtures." Note the dog that did not bark; there seem to be no more explosives there. This is not a breaking story. It seems that the biased old grey lady is resurrecting a news story to try to discredit our policy in Iraq just before an election.
Addendum----------------------------------------------------------
As usual on matters Iraq, Jason Van Steenwyk has a great post.
Alan on 10.24.04 @ 10:11 PM CT [link]

Michigan's disenfranchised voters

While being trained as an election inspector, I was informed of a pending difficulty. Many Michigan residents will be unable to vote.

There is a law in Michigan that states that it is illegal to be registered to vote at one address while holding a drivers license at another address. Many UM college students would move to Ann Arbor and change their voter's address and their driver's license address. No problem there.

Then, they'd hear from the auto insurance company. Their rates would rise. To save money, they would change their driver's license address back to their parents homes. The State of Michigan Secretary of State would notice this and inform the Ann Arbor City Clerk that the student moved back home with mom and dad. Thus, the the City of Ann Arbor would remove the student from the voter rolls. And unless the student explicitly filled out another voter registration card back home, that student would not be re registered there. Final result? That student can not legally vote anywhere.

My reaction? As an election inspector, I am going to enforce the law. If they are not on the rolls, the best they will be able to do is cast a provisional ballot. And I don't have that much sympathy for them. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If they think that it's all too complicated, perhaps they should get involved and work to rightsize government.

For the record, Michigan's Secretary of State, Terri Lynn Land, is a Republican. Michigan's Governor, Jennifer Granholm, is a Democrat. Just about every elected official in Ann Arbor government is a Democrat.
Alan on 10.24.04 @ 09:43 PM CT [link]

Me, official election inspector.

This election day, I will be working for the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, as an election inspector. Whatever I may write here, while there, I will act in a non partisan manner. To me, nothing is more holy than the sanctity of the electoral process.

It's been a while (November, 1996) since I chaired a precinct for them. This time I will be co chair of a quiet, Northwest Ann Arbor precinct. To the extent that Ann Arbor has Republican precincts, this is a Republican precinct.

As a precinct chair, I always had four goals.

1. Most important was to run a clean election.
   
2. Second, to be able to prove that we ran a clean election.
   
3. Third, get voters in and out quickly.
   
4. Fourth, get election workers in and out quickly.
   

Back in the days of mechanical machines, we got voters in and out quickly by making sure they knew what to do before they hit the machines. We got election workers out quickly after the polls closed by assigning responsibilities and previewing tasks to be completed with an hour to go. We dotted every "i", crossed every "t", and still were one of the first precincts to complete all tasks.

Things changed with optical scan ballots. With mechanical machines, only so many voters could vote at once; it was expensive to add room for another voter to fill out a ballot, that would require another expensive machine.

With optical scan Optech machines, it is easy to add more sites for voters to fill out ballots. And once they are filled out, it is fast for voters to place their ballots in the machines.

The long lines are gone. As one who kinda dislikes casual voters, that makes me a bit sad. I'd rather restrict voting to those that are motivated to research the issues and vote based on that research. Also, the new machines remove much of the challenge of streamiling a precinct's operation.
Alan on 10.24.04 @ 09:25 PM CT [link]

Bush Blunders; Good for him!

An email to Andrew Sullivan:

I was stationed at a base (Al Taqqadum) South-West of Fallujah that we took over from the 82nd Airborne. Your writing about the Abu Graib prompted me write this. It is an explanation of why so many in the military favor Bush, even though we are the ones suffering the most because of his mistakes:

It is an old military maxim that blunders can be forgiven, but a lack of boldness cannot. There will always be blunders. The simple becomes difficult in war. Take for example the following question: what is 2+2 equal too? An easy question right? Now imagine I gave you 15 such questions and you had 2 seconds to answer them. Most likely you would answer some and leave the rest. Looking at those questions you missed in isolation I might say, "What kind of blathering idiot are you? You can't even answer simple questions like 2+2=4". That is why Armchair Generals are so annoying. They look at one thing in isolation with all the time in the world to think about it and say confidently "the answers obvious". But when you are out in the fight everything looks different. Nothing is ever seen in isolation. You never have enough time. You never know more than 1/10 what you need to know. There will always be blunders.

But the job has to get done anyway. And to get this kind of job done boldness is essential. A leader who never blunders, but who doesn't take the fight to the enemy is worthless. A leader who sets about to win - win ugly if needs be - is priceless.

One thing the Marine Corps taught me is that a 70% solution acted on immediately and violently is better than a perfect solution acted on later. My experience has proven this true time and again. The sad fact is however, that a 70% solution is a 30% mistake. And those mistakes can be hard to take. In WWII for example, 700 soldiers drowned in a training accident in preparation for D-Day (that is about how many combat deaths we've experienced so far in Iraq).

There is a scene in the movie "We were Soldiers" that says it better than I can. In the scene a young soldier on the ground is giving directions on enemy positions to aircraft flying overhead. The aircraft then dropped Napalm on the enemy. At one point the soldier gets the directions wrong and stares horrified as the Napalm is dropped on his own unit. The soldier is shaken beyond belief. He sat there doing nothing - paralyzed by his mistake. Then his Commanding Officer gave him the confidence to carry on. The CO told him to "forget about that last one" and "you're keeping us alive here". And so the soldier swallowed his guilt and kept doing his job and thereby saved the unit. That is what a 70% solution looks like in real life. And those are the 70% solutions that win wars.

Most people and events are beyond your control. Most questions you don't have time to answer. Most facts you will never know. But you have to press the attack anyway. No matter how ugly it gets, you keep going until you win.

Kerry doesn't understand that. Everything he did during the Cold War and everything he says about this one states as much. He represents those who would never blunder, but who would not take the fight to the enemy. He would just sit there - like the soldier in the movie - paralyzed by America's mistakes.

Alan on 10.19.04 @ 02:38 PM CT [link]

Lefty Journalist accuses military of heinous massacre

Via Sgt Stryker, Seymour Hersh accuses the military of massacring innocent Iraqis. As Sgt mom notes, this would be impossible to keep secret. The nerve of these jerks is appalling.
Addendum--------------------------------------
Hmmmm.... If Jason thinks it's worth considering, it's worth considering. I like his closing paragraphs:

I'm off duty at the moment. But I'm still a commissioned officer, and sworn to uphold this little thing called the law. I'll get it to the chain of command, to the chaplain, to someone who can move the investigation forward, and no one needs to know who started it.

Oh, and to prevent my falling victim to a Mooronic hoax, don't bother writing except via a 'dot.mil' address with enough verifiable detail about the locale and incident to be fully corroborated. I.e., I'll pull your electronic service records or call your rear detachment to verify your identity and unit of assignment before I go with anything fishy.

I'll keep an eye out.
Alan on 10.14.04 @ 10:31 PM CT [link]

Aussie's throw red meat at political junkies

Get it while it lasts! 5 out of 150 of Australia's House of Representative seats are officially declared to be close. Now I know, not only do their toilets flush wrong, they don't even know the difference between night and day. Still,...

There is actually a sixth seat that was close earlier in the week. It is now safely Liberal (which is Mr. Howard's party). One seat recently added to the close list represents Richmond, New South Wales. What was was a safe pickup for Labor (Australia's appeasement party) is now sliding back to the Nationals (an ally of the Liberals).

And in the past week, all the seats have slid towards Labor losses. It may be that the Liberals will not need to form a coalition; there may yet exist a 76 seat majority of Liberal seats. As of this writing, Labor holds a 7 (or so) vote lead in Swan.
Alan on 10.14.04 @ 09:49 PM CT [link]

Speaking of Electoral Fraud

I agree with Jane Galt that voter fraud is bad. I think that the Kerry Edwards memo is worse, though, it is fraud organized at the highest level. The Colorado, Nevada, and (I assume) Oregon cases are more localized in nature (though I am concerned about the ACORN mindset may include a pervasive tendancy to win at any cost).

And I don't hold the GOP harmless; Nevada shows that. I have heard low level GOP operatives brag about the destruction of Democratic yard signs. Again, it is one thing to have low or even mid level individuals act poorly; it is another to have high level operatives act poorly.

Now, it is up to Kerry and Edwards to publicly renounce the dispicable despicable actions done in his name.
Alan on 10.14.04 @ 01:46 PM CT [link]

Top Dems: "Cry Wolf!"

(Based on response at Command Post.) Those scuz buckets. This is simply infuriating.

From Drudge, based on transcription at Command Post:

2. If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a “pre-emptive strike” (particularly well-suited to states in which there [sic] techniques have been tried in the past).

Issue a press release
i. Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state
ii. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting

Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points.

Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics.

Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls.

This, and any, election is bigger than any individual. I used to like to say that we replaced a constitutional monarchy with a monarchial constitution. My point was that, if nothing else, we could be proud that we had this document that rose above the fray.

But those days are plainly gone. These jerks (I'm really having to work at not being vulgar) have no respect for the process. They have no respect for the will of the people as a whole as expressed at the ballot box. They care only for themselves. They care only about gaining political power. And their willing to whore out anybody and everybody. (In my mind, minority leaders that issue quotes which indirectly support baseless charges of intimidation tactics at the behest of political hacks are political whores.)

In a way, I'm glad. In a sense, Democrats are ordering their minions to cry wolf. Well, cry away. I'm not going to come running; further, I'm going to encourage others to not come running either. And if there really is voter intimidation? Sigh. That's the cost of not having a loyal opposition.

=====================

After rereading the Dem's memo, I caught this phrase: "Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising [...] that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls.

What are "false warnings"? The law says that one must register to vote. It also says that if there is dispute, the voter must be allowed to cast a provisional ballot. So would stating that unregistered voters are unable to cast any ballot be deemed a "false warning"? What else was in that multipage memo? Would failure to count provisional ballots be considered "voter suppresion"?

And what are local Democrats supposed to do in their efforts to "warn local newspapers..."? Threaten to pull statemnts of record and place them in competing newspapers? Are there other, unseen, documents which would support charges of censorship?

It is horrible that these charges are even plausible. Such is the cost of having a disloyal opposition.
Addendum----------------------------------------------------
The pdf file itself looks a tad suspicious. Much talk on the web. The two day rule is in effect.
Addendum----------------------------------------------------
Strike that last comment. The DNC has confirmed the quote and put in in context:

FULL EXCERPT OF DNC FIELD MANUAL ON HOW TO PREVENT AND COMBAT VOTER INTIMIDATION

The DNC also released the section of their field manual titled "How to Organize to Prevent and Combat Voter Intimidation" referred to on the Drudge Report, which focuses on how to detect, prevent, and combat voter intimidation practices.

I. WHAT TO LOOK FOR

In general, the goal of minority voter intimidation programs is either to provide a basis for challenging the right of people to vote just before election day or when they show up at the polls, and/or to create doubt, confusion and fear among voters about their right to vote or the location at which they can vote.

Prior to Election Day

Activities that may take place in the weeks or days leading up to election day can include:
[...]
Activities that take place on election day itself may include:
[...]
II. HOW TO ORGANIZE TO PREVENT AND COMBAT VOTER INTIMIDATION
The best way to combat minority voter intimidation tactics is to prevent them from occurring in the first place and prepare in advance to deal with them should they take place on election day.

1. If there are any signs of present or expected intimidation activity, in advance of election day, launch a press program that might include the following elements:
[...]
2. If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).

(This is the section Drudge excerpted)

3. Train field staff, precinct workers, and your own poll watchers thoroughly in the rules they need to know for election day.

4. Plan and completely prepare for possible legal action well in advance of election day

5. Have Secretary of State record public service announcements about election day – when polls are open, who is eligible, etc.

As I read this, Dems are saying "whether or not the Republicans have been caught cheating yet, pretend that it is just a matter of time, just to be safe." Democrats are not applying a standard of guilty until proven innocent.

The whole election process itself is supposed to have sufficient safeguards to prevent fraud. If those safeguards are lacking, fix them. If they are not lacking, shut up, so that the country may reunite after the election.

I stand by my oh-so-harsh criticism.
Alan on 10.14.04 @ 12:36 PM CT [link]

WOT Future

Talking about the war on terror, and what it will become.
Kerry (registration required): "We have to get back to the place we were."
Lileks (last sentence): " No. We have to go the place where they are."
Alan on 10.11.04 @ 04:24 PM CT [link]

Defensive Priorities

From a letter to today's Opinion Journal's Best of the Web (the second half of the second item):

It's the placement of the conditional but that is most revealing of Kerry's true inclinations regarding pre-emptive use of force against countries harboring terrorists.

Consider these two statements:

(a) I will let you go to the concert, but I want you to clean your room.

(b) I want you to clean your room, but I will let you go to the concert.

In statement (a), permission to go to the concert is conditional upon cleaning your room. In statement (b), permission to go to the concert is not conditional upon cleaning your room.

Consider Kerry's "global test" statement with the phrases before and after the conditional "but" flipped:

You've got to do it in a way that passes the global test, but no president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

The first statement suggests that the historical right of pre-emptive action by a U.S. president is conditional upon first convincing the rest of the world that our actions are justified. The second statement suggests that while global considerations are important, the right of pre-emptive action by a U.S. president will never be conditioned upon whether the rest of the world thinks our reasons are legitimate.

The man who would utter the second statement will not hesitate to pull the trigger. The man who uttered the first statement will.

And Mr. Taranto adds:

Think about other statements one might make before a "but" clause: "I love you, but . . ." "You're doing good work, but . . ." "I have nothing against black people, but . . ." In all these cases, you know that what comes next is going to be a statement that belies the introductory clause and that represents what the speaker really means to say. Kerry said a lot of things that made him sound strong, but they were only a way of diverting attention from his advocacy of American weakness.

Alan on 10.05.04 @ 04:50 PM CT [link]

Anemic Troop Levels

Via Drudge, one time Iraqi administrator Ambassador L. Paul Bremer said that (Washington Post paraphrase) "a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on." The ambassador himself said that "We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness."

More troubling to me was initial reactions to claims that troop levels were too low. From the above linked Washington Post article:

Prior to the war, the Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, said publicly that he thought the invasion plan lacked sufficient manpower, and he was slapped down by the Pentagon's civilian leadership for saying so. During the war, concerns about troop strength expressed by retired generals also provoked angry denunciations by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In April 2003, for example, Rumsfeld commented, "People were saying that the plan was terrible and there weren't enough people and . . . there were going to be, you know, tens of thousands of casualties, and it was going to take forever." After Baghdad fell, Rumsfeld dismissed reports of widespread looting and chaos as "untidy" signs of newfound freedom that were exaggerated by the media. Rumsfeld and Bush resisted calls for more troops, saying that what was going on in Iraq was not a war but simply the desperate actions of Baathist loyalists.

The good news is the Ambassador emailed statement that "I believe that we currently have sufficient troop levels in Iraq." While things may have been bad back then, and while the Bush team may have shot a couple of messengers, at least they eventually learned from their mistakes.

And even there, the messengers 'shot' by the Bush team were those that shared their criticisms in public; Ambassador shared his concerns in private and was not chastised in public.
Alan on 10.05.04 @ 03:11 PM CT [link]

Foreign Terrorists in Iraq

Via Drudge, the World Tribune reports that half the terrorists captured in sammara were African, recruited by friends of Al Qaida.

To the extent that the war in Iraq was defended as an extension of the war on terror, it is justified.
Alan on 10.05.04 @ 03:01 PM CT [link]

Iraqi WMD Evidence found?

I got an email from a friend (not blogger, but he should be) which pointed me to this special report. I take it with a grian of salt; who are these guys? And why isn't the blogosphere picking up on it?

Still, it's blockbuster enough in content to mention. Here are some excerpts:

Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties

By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2004

...

The source of the documents

A senior government official who is not a political appointee provided CNSNews.com with copies of the 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service documents.
The originals, some of which were hand-written and others typed, are in Arabic. CNSNews.com had the papers translated into English by two individuals separately and independent of each other.

...

They detail the Iraqi regime's purchase of five kilograms of mustard gas on Aug. 21, 2000 and three vials of malignant pustule, another term for anthrax, on Sept. 6, 2000. The purchase order for the mustard gas includes gas masks, filters and rubber gloves. The order for the anthrax includes sterilization and decontamination equipment. (See Saddam's Possession of Mustard Gas)

...

Iraq not only built and maintained relationships with terrorist groups, the documents show it appears to have trained terrorists as well. Ninety-two individuals from various Middle Eastern countries are listed on the papers.

...

Bush administration likely unaware of documents' existence

The senior government official and source of the Iraqi intelligence memos, explained that the reason the documents have not been made public before now is that the government has "thousands and thousands of documents waiting to be translated.

"It is unlikely they even know this exists," the source added.

The government official also explained that the motivation for leaking the documents, "is strictly national security and helping with the war on terrorism by focusing this country's attention on facts and away from political posturing.

"This is too important to let it get caught up in the political process," the source told CNSNews.com.

To protect against the Iraqi intelligence documents being altered or misrepresented elsewhere on the Internet, CNSNews.com has decided to publish only the first of the 42 pages in Arabic, along with the English translation. Portions of some of the other memos in translated form are also being published to accompany this report. Credentialed journalists and counter-terrorism experts seeking to view the 42 pages of Arabic documents or to challenge their authenticity may make arrangements to do so at CNSNews.com headquarters in Alexandria, Va.

E-mail a news tip to Scott Wheeler.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

The question remains: what happened to Saddam's WMD? My pet theory is that they went through Syria and Libya to the coalition. But I could be wrong.
Alan on 10.04.04 @ 10:48 PM CT [link]

The great debate pen kerfuffle

(As is my wont, I wrote a reply at command post and impressed myself so much, I decided to post it here. I did it all for you, oh beloved gentle reader.)

Drudge picked up on a video that caught Senator Kerry going to his pocket at the beginning of Thursday's first Presidential debate. The New York Post determined that the Senator retrieved a pen from his pocket.

I don't care if it was a pen. I still don't like it.

I wonder, was that Sen. Kerry's favorite pen, that he got as a XMas present in Cambodia? Is it the pen he always uses and never parts with? (OK, the Cambodia XMas reference was unfair.)

If so, I can imagine a campaign aide saying, "if you want to use that pen, you're going to have to give it to the moderator to leave on the podium for you." To which an imperious Sen. Kerry would reply, "no way, this is my pen, I'll take it with me, I'm not really breaking the rules."

Granted, that's a hypothetical case; but IMO it's entirely plausible. If not, what other explanation is there? That Senator Kerry's adies forgot to provide a pen for the moderator to place on the podium?

Whatever; Sen. Kerry demonstrated that he is not willing to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Ultimately, it is the rule of law that matters. The idea that Sen. Kerry is not somehow special. The idea that if he makes a promise to act in a certain way, he will actually keep his promise. It seems we have yet another flip-flop.

And yes, the President's interuption of the moderator is also against the rules and thus wrong. But President Bush clearly was not as smooth and polished as Senator Kerry; the President's interuptions are most likely spur of the moment mistakes. Such mistakes are far less worrisome than (what I believe to be) Senator Kerry's willful flaunting of the rules.
Alan on 10.04.04 @ 04:45 PM CT [link]

First Command and the Air Force Brass

This makes me not want to support George Bush. It talks about a private investment company, First Command, that sells low quality investment vehicles to Air Force personnel. That's ok, buyer beware. It refers to an Air Force investigation into "possible unethical or overly aggressive" sales practices. That's ok, the government is trying to assure that buyers have the chance to beware. And it refers to interlocking directorates and influence peddling at the highest echelons.

And that is not ok. IMO, corruption that reaches that high with that much exposure can be blamed on the commander in chief. I hope the president does something about it. Because we don't have a reasonable alternative to him.
Alan on 10.03.04 @ 05:01 PM CT [link]

Success in Samarra

From Belmont Club:

The view that Iraq is descending into a quagmire represents a valid concern, but it ignores three crucial achievements by US policymakers.

1. The piecemeal defeat of the threatened Sunni-Shi'ite uprising in April by holding the Sunnis fixed while militarily and politically defeating Moqtada Al-Sadr;
2. Rebuilding the Iraqi Army from a near-zero condition in April; and
3. Establishing an interim Iraqi government.

Both Saddam and Sadr believed they could outmaneuver the Americans, who were, if the press is to be believed, singularly lacking in nuance and intelligence. Doubtless Zarqawi believes he can do the same. Long may he cherish that hope.

Alan on 10.02.04 @ 12:57 PM CT [link]

Global Test

From a Command Post post: So, Kerry is saying that if we preemptively strike, we need to first make sure that we can justify our strike to the world.

I can accept that if the U.S. does something, we should do it for the right reasons. We should not attack banana republics just because we want cheap bananas. It would be problematic to attack a banana dictatorship to free enslaved banana pickers. It would be less problematic to attack a banana republic to shut down the production of long rang bananas of mass destruction.

But determining whether or not an attack is justified or not does not strike me as a world test. It strikes me as a morality test or, perhaps, a God test. To call it a world test makes me think less of the test itself and more of the graders. And consider the Senator's actual words:

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

It is one thing to do the right thing; it is quite another to prove that you are doing the right thing. One must share knowledge to provide proof. Knowledge is power, and in the war on terror, loose lips blow up buildings.

There should be a middle ground where President Bush could have explained the situation in general terms and asked congress for permission to use force before he invaded Iraq. Oh wait, there is such a situation, and he did get congressional permission to use force. Perhaps the problem is with congressmen that say it's ok to use force when they mean to say that we should negotiate more.
Addendum-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Thanks to Alex for prompting this line of thought).
I believe strongly in the seperation of powers; that congress should declare war and that the president should wage war. So when Alex said that the declaration to go to war was actually an invitation to negotiate, I just had to go to the source to prove him wrong.

So I found out when the bill was passed and went to the official U.S. House of Representatives site to get the text of the bill (they have pdf too). Lo and behold, here is the relevent section (reformatted for readability; also, emphases added):

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

• (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
  
  • (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

I support the war on Iraq in part because it was a growing threat, not an imminent threat or a continuing threat.

• (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

A little bit safer ground for the President here; U.N. resolutions called for Saddam to demonstrate that he was destroying his WMDs. This clause justifies our invasion; it was only by invading thet we could demonstrate that he had disarmed.

• (b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
  
  • (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

Kerry seems to win there; he can claim that he expected better efforts to negotiate. Then again, how do you test for that? Remember the oil for palaces scandal, after all.

• (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Hmmm, so while this clause mentions 9/11 specifically, it does not limit our responses to nations that supported the 9/11 attacks.

• (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
  
  • (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
    
  • (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

I suppose I'm disappointed we had to water it down so much to get agreement. I'm more disappointed that no one else goes back to the source material like this (yes, including myself; what took me so long?).

And I don't harbor any illusions that I will have changed anyone's mind here. My only goal is to try to maintain a high minded level of debate.
Alan on 10.02.04 @ 12:22 PM CT [link]