Taking a gander at the electoral map at electoral-vote.com, you notice that, here at the very end of the natural Bush flow in the ebb and flow cycle of the campaign season, Bush shot up and Kerry shot down one day, to a ridiculous situation where Bush was ahead 331 to 207; and then shot down while Kerry rose again to the more sensible and unsettled 256 to 239 advantage. (and even there, you have to believe that the Maryland result is an anomolie (things do not change that quickly) and toss that one back to Kerry).

This is the result of little other than the latest Zogby polls replacing the latest Gallup polls. Zogby points something completely funky out about the Gallup polls, and since it looks like Gallup is using this same methodology straight to the election — you can toss out the Gallups in your understanding of the horse race.

Nuts and bolts look like this:
Gallup’s sample:
Total Sample: 767 GOP: 305 (40%) Dem: 253 (33%) Ind: 208 (28%)

Last three elections… take it away Gallup:

The spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000.

That’s a rather high percentage of Republicans. So, in that formation, the weird effect we just had where the latest Gallup result moved Bush ahead from a 10 or 11% lead to a 14% lead, while Zogby moved Bush from a 4 point lead to a tie, can be explained by Bush consolidating Republicans, losing some Independents. Tricky, ain’t it? (Actually, I need to take a peek back to see if that is indeed what just happened… I may be wrong.)

We’re in polarized land, where something like 90% of Republicans are voting for Bush and 90% of Democrats (probably a little less than the Republicans) are voting for Kerry. You can excuse these guys and Lincoln Chafee as being in the ten percent minority. (Chafee says that he is thinking of writing in Bush’s father, which begs a question: in the event that his vote is counted, would the vote-counters count it as “a vote for Bush”, or would they teek heed of the “H” in between “George” and “W Bush”?)

Take a closer look at the “Democrats for Bush” page: take a look at their bookmarks. These links, you can pretty much expect to find on any right-wing or conservative website’s page of link… right wing radio pundit Sean Hannity, the Scaife founded Free Republic, and on and on. Now, take a look at the Replicans for Kerry link-page. If the Republicans for Kerry page had the same jibe as the “Democrats for Bush” page, you would find — say Democratic Underground, Moveon.org and partisan sites like that. What you see are a couple articles (granted, Oliphant is a liberal), the non-partisan factcheck.org , … a better comparison might be here, which are, if they’re democratic frong organizations, are at least vying for a breed of Republicans … other than the special type of Democrat who inherited their Democratic label from their grandparents, who hated Lincoln, and haven’t bothered to change their registration yet.

Other than that: it looks like the Republican expected to win the senate seat from South Carolina has wounded himself a bit, which has helped drag the Bush numbers down in that very conservative state. Two things are hurting the Republicans, and allowing the Democrats to move up in the polls: (1) advocacy of a national sales tax, which opens up “class warfare rhetoric”. AND (2) (hee hee hee hee)… backdoor draft. I had noticed, a month or two ago, a story coming out of South Carolina of ensuring controversy when the South Carolina Democratic Party made explicit in their voter-drive the issue of the draft. I more or less dismissed it — a desparate party with few prospects jumps to what they could find. But– they might be onto something there, electorally speaking. (Edwards came out swinging, and the Bush — Cheney team issued “that’s absurd” statements that, read in between the lines, suggest mum’s the word) … But, for Bush, if I accept that Kerry has a chance in South Carolina, I have to accept that Bush has a chance in New Jersey. To partisans on both sides, I ask: Do you believe in miracles?

(A giant caveat for the preceeding post: the Cell phones are destroying everybody’s polling ability thesis is gaining momentum.)

I wish I knew of a “Sunday Morning talkshow Watch” out there in cyberspace, so that I can keep apace with the stupidity that flows from there… without actually having to watch too much of it… (if I’m watching television on a Sunday — I may as well watch footabll). It’s here that the political figures of our time have their discussions and parlay their talking points, and it is here that the chattering classes pontificate and set up the boxed-in-perimeters of political debate for for the week.

The closest I have are the comment section in the major blogs (dailykos and eschathon), and a google search reveals this snarky commentary — where we learn what a pathetic figure Tom Daschle is, and where we can witness the John Thune strategy of Bush synchropantry in full force… (the debate he wishes to win the South Dakota election: Is Tom Daschle emboldening the enemy?)

Russert then cited, of all “reliable” editorial pages, The Wall Street Journal — against Daschle ,of course. Thune just kept wailing South Dakota, South Dakota, South Dakota while the millions of out-of-SD residents turned the channel.

The full transcript is found here. I’m unsure if I want the major Sunday morning political talk shows covering debates for the competitive Senate races… not that I don’t want to see some of those, but there’s a place for those type of political junkie items — CSPAN. I’d prefer that all of the Sunday talk programs for this week cover the more pressing issues — international relations, national security, and Iraq.

So we turn to ABC’s “This Week”, where we find Iraq’s interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi partaking in Bush’s “improved” “Baghdad Bob” routine, to the nth degree.

“It’s not getting stronger; it’s getting more desperate. We are squeezing out the insurgency,” he said in an interview to be aired today on ABC’s “This Week.” Allawi called the attacks, which now number in the dozens each day, the insurgents’ “last stand, so they are putting a very severe fight on Iraq. We are winning.” The prime minister cited recent progress in reducing the violence in several cities. […]

Then he hit us with the Flypaper Strategy Approach of why… we… must… prevail (and why we must fight to preserve his power-structure):

“Iraq is fighting this war on behalf of the civilized nations. It’s not something unique to Iraq,” he told ABC. “If this is not happening in Iraq, New York will be hit, Washington will be hit, London will be hit, Paris will be hit. We need the help of the international community. It’s a fight for everyone.”

From the comments section of dailykos comes this nugget:

He really understands the power of the menacing glare.

And, George Will sayseth this:

George Will finally spoke some truth today, after pointing out what’s happening in Russia and how it contradicts Bush’s blatherings: “to these eyes, it does not seem that democracy is on the march around the world.”

Otherwise, I guess the Lugar – Biden team serve as the opposing viewpoint to Allawya… (not in a left versus right or dove versus hawk sense, but in the realists versus fantasists sense.)

Looking at the Fox News guests, I’m a bit confused. John McCain makes sense as a guest. Bill Richardson makes sense as a guest. (experience with North Korea, nukes, energy, and on and on). But… who the heck cares about Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty? (By the way: that’s a two to one Republican to Democratic guest ratio.)

Now, we turn to one of my favourite Republicans, on Face the Nation. On the same program is John Kyl, co-chairman for the third incarnation of “Committee on Present Danger” along with Joseph Lieberman. (Two other unnotable figures round out the panel discussion.)

Looking at the transcript, it goes like this. John Kyl: This is just like World War II, and everybody loves World War II. We’re more or less fine.. Chuck Hagel: You’re on crack, but I’m diplomatic about these things so I won’t use these words. We need to do different things than what we’re doing now.

Another example of the new political paradigm pitting realists against fantasists!

The only other discussion of note is probably the Seymour Hersh — David Frum discussion… but Seymour Hersh is on enough of a media tour that I can see (and hear) him elsewhere. I don’t really think that David Frum has anything to offer to the discussion at hand… even if he did coin the phrase “Axis of Evil”.

Brad Carson has moved ahead of Tom Coburn in the race for Senator of Oklahoma. If elected, Brad Carson would definitely be one of the five most conservative Democrats in the Senate. On the flipside, Tom Coburn is the worst kind of Republican, and the worst kind of Conservative (or, if you must, worst kind of Right-winger), and would find good company with Rick Santorum. If Coburn were running in Illinois, he would be Alan Keyes — but this is Oklahoma we’re talking about, so he has a realistic and good shot at it. As it is, Tom Coburn has opened himself up with comments that the RNC would like to distance themselves from, such as, “Too many OB-GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.”

No, wait. That was said by Bush. Nevermind.

In Colorado, Democrat Ken Salazar is now ahead of Republican Pete Coors by double digits. More importantly is the trend-line: Ken Salazar definitely has the momentum. This, perhaps, is due in part to the public’s aversion to the cat-pee taste of Coors Beer. We can only hope that the cat pee-taste of Coors Beer has a negative coat-tail effect, taking down Bush in Colorado at the same time. (I suspect Colorado might be moving bluer than — say — Minnesota, which would alter the current “2000 red-blue map” that’s supposedly the lynchpin to understanding presidential elections for the next twenty years.)

The current Republican candidate for the Senate in Alaska, if you google her name, is considered by the “Right” as being of the “RINOs” — and, apparently by the arbiters of this statistical breakdown, is the sixth most liberal Republican in the Senate. Which goes to figure… the Democrat that would replace her might well turn out to be the sixth most conservative Democrat in the Senate.

I wonder how reliable, even by the standards of polling for prognastication purposes, current Florida race polls are… what, with the constant barrage of Hurricanes and all that.

An interesting wrinkle comes in if John Kerry should win the election: the front-runner for the special Senate election will be… Barney Frank. Should Barney Frank win election, Massachusetts will then earn their “Liberal” label. (For the curious, averaging National Journal ratings out: Kerry is about the eleventh most liberal member of the current Senate. Edwards is in the 30-percentile. And, I’ve seen charts made by partisans on both sides of Americans for Democratic Action ratings charts (looking at the ratings, though, I find the numbers meaningless — even in the one-dimensional understanding of the “lib” “conserv” paradigm), American Conservative Union ratings, and National Journal ratings to prove the point — for Democrats, the point being to throw cold water on Liberal McCain fans –: the most conservative Democrat — probably out-going Louisiana Senator John Breaux, is more liberal than the most liberal Republican — the final Senate holdout to the Northeastern Liberal Republican tradition, Lincoln Chaffee. I’m counting that Georgian hillbilly dualing fan as a Republican.)

South Dakota, home of the nation’s most endangered incumbent, finds Tom Daschle peddling pork for the masses, working out the kinks of the voter-drive for the Indian Reservations, and the revving up the GOTV drive for what Democrats there are in South Dakota, while John Thune ties himself to Bush… the polls suggest what we know all along: close race…

Obama? Why is Bush acting like he’s trying to get Osama?/ Why don’t we impeach him and elect Obama?, hip hop star Common. Oh, and I love the Alan Keyes strategy: say something dumb once or twice a week from now until the election.

I used to play this joke with my parents. I would fill a glass a quarter of the way full (or 3/4 empty, if you will), and ask the question “Is this glass half full or half empty?”

The answer? “Quarter full.”

“Wow. That’s even worse. You must be a pessimist.”

“No. I think that’d be called ‘Realist’.”

The debate over “Optimist” versus “Pessimist” dissolves with a quarter-full glass as the basis for the question “Half Full or Half Empty”, and it becomes “Realist” versus “Fantasist”.

“It’s a make-believe world, a world of good guys and bad guys, where some politicians shoot first and ask questions later. No hard choices, no sacrifice, no tough decisions–it sounds too good to be true, and it is.

The path of fantasy leads to irresponsibility. The path of reality leads to hope and peace. The two paths could not be more different, nor could the futures to which they lead. Let’s take a hard look at the consequences of our choice.”

Jimmy Carter said that in his 1980 Convention Acceptance speech. He knew he had to attack Reagan, but couldn’t quite figure out how while squaring it with the “nice guy” persona, one of the few strengths the population saw in him, that helped him get to the White House in 1976 in the shadows of Nixon.

Did Reagan live in a fantasy world? The “Revenue Feedback loop” of the Laffler Curve, serving to dissolve the deficit. Fun. (Our nation’s largest tax cut, followed in the next term by the nation’s largest tax increase. When Mondale promised at the convention to raise taxes, he did so as a ploy of “saying the truth”: the difference between Reagan and I is that Reagan will raise your taxes, but won’t say he will; and I just did. That was the end of his presidential run.)

But… why is Carter’s crystal ball so cloudy? (actually, that was said in 1984 to Walter Mondale, but never mind.) As Dick Cheney discovered sometime between his 80s deficit-hawk phase (which included a plea to cut in the Pentagon budget) and his vice presidential stint in Bush II Administration, deficits don’t matter.

“You deserve a president who will not play politics with national security, who will not ignore his own intelligence while living in a fantasy world of spin, and who will give the American people the truth about the challenge our brave men and women face on the front lines.”

John Kerry said that. Bush’s response is two-fold: (1) John Kerry voted for the war resolution, against the $83 billion, and said “I actually voted for it before I voted against it.” Which will be the response to any comment Kerry makes about the war in Iraq. (2) “Freedom is on the march.”

I don’t know where, exactly, “freedom is marching”. The US is losing control of more areas of Iraq.

But, you know… this is the candidate who, during the 2002 Midterm elections, explained why voters needed to elect various Republicans by saying “I need clear eyed realists in Congress to work with me.”

Because clear-eyed realists wouldn’t announce “Major Combat Operations are over” in front of a giant banner saying “Mission Accomplished”?

“President Bush gets his briefings from commanders on the ground. He has reason for his optimism because of the enormous amount of progress we have made.”

Bush spokesperson Dan Bartlet said that. In response to the release of this assessment. It would appear that the best case scenario, at the current rate, is “Tenuous Stability.” That’s the Best Case Scenario. I don’t know what the “progress” is that he is referring to… we know it’s not in vanquishing the Insurgency (Sun Tzu is rolling in his grave.) And we know it’s not in the old stand-by of “painting schools”, because…

“It’s beyond pitiful, it’s beyond embarrassing, it’s now in the zone of dangerous,” said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., referring to figures showing only about 6% of the reconstruction money approved by Congress last year has been spent.

That money is being diverted to pay for… ahem… security.

Maybe the sham elections are proceeding apace… without the Sunni Triangle or any region of Iraq inflicted with Insurgents voting, because, as one general put it “Anyone who thinks the Sunni Triangle will be ready to vote in January is smoking something.” (I can’t find the exact quote there… but, that is a paraphrase of an actual quote from an actual general. News is weird.)

“The worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we’re winning. Right now we’re not winning. Things are getting worse.”

Chuck Hagel said that. He’s running for the Republican nomination of 2008. And, barring some shifts, has as much chance of winning it as Lieberman had of winning the Democratic nomination. I’d vote for him, though, and if a President Kerry fails to impress me on foreign policy, I’d vote for him over Kerry.

“Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration — what I call the ‘dancing in the street crowd’ — that we just simply will be greeted with open arms. The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent.”

Richard Lugar said that. His stabs at the presidency have been miserable failures.

Speaking of Fantasy worlds… anyone who says, and this is said quite a bit on talk radio, “Everybody knows that the weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria” should be permently banned from the table of serious discussion.

Anyone who opposes “War X” or “Military expedition Y” is accused of “Being stuck in Vietnam.” But they live in the afterglow of World War II. All wars are like World War II. There’s nothing that makes them madder than someone telling them, nay — better to say — informing them — that American troops are occupiers.

The reality on the ground is thus:

“We have a growing, maturing insurgency group,” he told me. “We see larger and more coordinated military attacks. They are getting better and they can self-regenerate. The idea there are x number of insurgents, and that when they’re all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed. The political culture is more hostile to the US presence. The longer we stay, the more they are confirmed in that view.”

Never mind, though. Because…

They also seem to believe that Ahmad Chalabi was torn down by the yahoos in the CIA to hide the Oil for Food Scandal.

Fox News is getting ready to report a possible “Al Qaeda” connection with that old standby, wich should perpetuate some myths in the mind of the average Fox News viewer.

I eye aiie.

I’m getting nostalgic for Lyndon B Johnson’s Credibility Gap.

There are four precedents that this presidential election appears to be on the course toward… miniature versions of these previous elections.

It’s possible that we’re stuck in a miniature version of 1988. George W. Bush and Karl Rove hope we’re stuck in 1988. A good awareness of what that election looked like is this: “Dumbest. Election. Ever.” It is in this context that the election would swing over “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” — a lackluster Kerry failing the meta – test of “fighting back”, and amongst another group of the population for suggestions of “treason” / “patriotism”, and generally being too bland to hop onto.

It’s possible that we’re stuck in a miniature version of 1980. Here, the population really wanted to dump Jimmy Carter, but they had serious reservations about Ronald Reagan — a man who just recently had been regarded as way too far to the right. Thus, the election was nip-and-tug close right up to the end. Reagan showed sanity during the debates, which was enough to assure the undecideds that they may as well throw out all the bums and vote in Reagan.

It’s possible that we’re in a miniature version of 2000. What happened there, was Bush swung ahead with his convention, Gore swung ahead with his convention, and then everything balanced out to a ridiculous equilibrium, where the two candidates’ weaknesses and strengths cancel each other out (the classic polling question for 2000 was “in Man versus Scarecrow?”) that was determined by the fate of a batch of chads in Florida.

And then there’s this… Nothing as dramatic as 1936, of course, or 1948, but its possible that after this election the pollsters are going to have to completely scrap the time-worn means of doing these things, and start from scratch. Sooner or later, the shift in technology is going to bite the pollsters in the ass, and perhaps this is that election. The suggestion that this is happening now comes from the current jumpiness in the poll: if you notice we keep getting three or four polls on the news. Invariably one or two have Bush ahead by what seems like a ridiculous amount — these polls tend to be trumped up by right-wing talk radio and Drudge, and two or three show (and are confirmed by the Bush and Kerry house polls) that the race is deadlocked or close. What does this mean? The pollsters can’t figure out who’s voting…

Which, actually brings us to the 1998 Minnesota Gubernatorial Model, where Jessee Ventura was always in third place amongst likely voters, but on election day, a batch of unlikely voters voted him in.

By the way, take a good look at the current “electoral vote projection”. Kerry 211 Bush 307. Okay, now take out every state where Bush or Kerry lead by less than two percent (I’ll consider a three or four point lead to be enough on the edge of the supposed “Margin of Error” to mean that they’re likely ahead, supposedly.) Kerry 211 Bush 255. While we’re at it, change “New Jersey” to Kerry, as that poll result looks out of whack and appears to be an anomolie “outlier”. Kerry 226. Bush: 240.

Make of that what you will.

Well, we’re due for a sequal to the old Saddam’s ass kicking Tom Clancy – approved video game that was released back in … oh, January of 2003.

Here you go. TOM CLANCY’S GHOST RECON: TENUOUS STABILITY

YOU ARE Private James Cohan, an National Guardsman stationed in Iraq. Your duty? To encourage the growth of democracy in a dangerous foreign nation. Will you succeed with such Tenuous Stability?

Gamplay Includes:
REALISTIC SITUATIONS
– Go on patrol in the Green Zone
– Protect empty Haliburton convoys
– Go house to house checking for insurgents between the ages of 18-35
– Check for scorpions in your boots
– Keep a safe distance from hot areas regardless of gunfire from inside
– Try and convince yourself that you are going home soon
– Get spit on by children who, 6 months ago, thought you were a liberator
– Get shot at from… who knows where?
– Write letters to home
– See RPG attacks explode right before your eyes, blinding you and shredding your hands to useless ground chuck

UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
– Invade a foreign country with a history of violence and hatred of occupation and hope they’ll suck your democratic dick
– People won’t be annoyed by the lack of power and water
– Bombs will magically only kill the bad guys when you drop them on an occupied city block
– Iraqis will learn that American Multinationals are nice and kind, the type of people who would never exploit your national resources
– Abu Grahib will be forgotten as an anomaly
– The rest of the world will be pleased with unilateral action by the only remaining superpower
– Roses will soon fall from the sky, and candy will replace cobblestones

Game Informer gives TOM CLANCY’S GHOST RECON: TENUOUS STABILITY “1 out of 4 stars. This game made my cry with impotent rage!”

IGN says “After playing for only 5 minutes, I wanted to eat a bullet… or frag a sargent.”

GameSpot says “I just want to see my mom again. Is that so wrong?”

TOM CLANCY’S GHOST RECON: TENUOUS STABILITY
Only $119 Billion Dollars! Get it before it’s gone*!

*probably wont be gone for 5-15 years. Ubisoft takes no responsibility for depression, malaise or suicide that may come from playing Tenuous Stability. If symptoms persist, wave a flag and shout “4 More Years” until zombification takes place. Thank you and God Bless America.

1998/08/23 If Republicans already felt good about this fall’s congressional and gubernatorial campaigns before this week, they can barely contain their glee over their prospects now that President Clinton has confessed to an “inappropriate” relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

1998/09/03 Robert talks with Charles Cook, political analyst for the National Journal. They discuss the optimism that is growing among Republicans that the party could gain more seats in the fall elections as a ressult of economic worries and political fallout over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Late predictions: In the final days before the election, many political observers have commented on the expected outcome of the congressional races, generally agreeing that the Republican Party will add to its current total of 228 seats in the House of Representatives and 55 in the Senate. Among those making predictions:

— The McLauglin Group (John McLaughlin, Pat Buchanan, Eleanor Clift, Michael Barone and Tony Blankley): a consensus 5-seat pick up in the Senate.
— The Beltway Boys (Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes): 10 seats in the House and 2 in the Senate.
— Charlie Cook of National Journal: 5 seats in the House and 2 in the Senate.
— Democratic pollster Celinda Lake: 7 seats in the House and 1 in the Senate.
— Republican pollster Ed Goeas: 17 seats in the House and 5 in the Senate.
— Republican pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick: 16 seats in the House and 4 in the Senate.
— Bill Schneider of CNN: fewer than 10 seats in the House and fewer than 5 in the Senate.

1998/10/27 The Congressional Democrats also assert that top party officials are inadvertently discouraging party loyalists from voting, and are dampening fund-raising efforts, by making dire predictions that the party could lose as many as 25 House seats.

Nov 5 round-up

“Panic City: Facing 30-seat loss in House, filibuster proof Senate, and no more sex. Conventional Wisdom Watch (Newsweek column)30 seats
Dick Morris, political consultant 20-30seats
George F. Will, conservative columnist 6-20 seats
William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor 15 seats
Morton Kondracke, Roll Call editor 15 seats
Tony Blankley, George magazine writer 8-15 seats
Laura Ingraham, “Watch It,” host 13 seats
Ed Goeas, GOP pollster 13 seats
Ed Rollins, GOP consultant 10-12 seats
Bill McInturff, GOP pollster 10-12 seats
Cokie Roberts, “This Week” co-host 2-12 seats
Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation president 11 seats
Christopher Matthews, “Hardball” host 11 seats
Norah O’Donnell, Roll Call political reporter 11 seats
Gerard Baker, Financial Times’s Washington bureau chief 11 seats
Mary Matalin, GOP consultant 8-10 seats
Sam Donaldson, ABC White House corespondent 9 seats
Merle Black, Emory University political scientist 9 seats
George Stephanopoulos, former Clinton advisor 9 seats
Charlie Cook, newsletter editor 1-9 seats
Bill Schneider, CNN analyst 1-9 seats
Robert Novak, columnist 8 seats
Linda DiVall, Republican pollster 7 seats
Ron Lester, Democratic pollster 7 seats
Jodie Allen, “Slate” Washington editor 6 seats
Whit Ayers, GOP pollster 6 seats
Stuart Rothenberg, newsletter editor 0-6 seats
Bill Maher, “Politically Incorrect” host 5 seats
Gwen Ifill, NBC News reporter 5 seats
Mark Shields, Capitol Gang host 0-5 seats
Ken Rudin, washingtonpost.com 2-3 seats
Congressional Quarterly (Democrats) 2 seats

From the goddamned American Spectator: Beltway know-it-alls have sharply scaled back estimates of GOP gains in the House and Senate. But when I read the polls in the boondocks, I see the pro-Republican leaning of the most likely voters staying constant or even widening. Couple that with the standard unreliability of polls in Congressional races (smaller samples, less frequent polling) and the “dirty secret” — remarked on separately by Dick Morris, William Safire, and Ariana Huffington — that respondent rates are dropping sharply (meaning that voters don’t want to tell pollsters what they’re doing), and you still have the possibility of a 1994 shock wave.

FINAL OUTOME: No pick-up either way in the Senate; Democrats picked up 5 House seats. Newt Gingrich resigned in disgrace. His replacement, Bob Livingstone, resigned in disgrace.

I saw this at www.rickemerson.com …

Today, for no readily apparent reason, we received a package at the Max 910 studios, the content of which was all about Measure 36. Mixed in with all of the info packets and lists of reasons to *ahem* support the measure, there was, FOR NO REASON, a big photo of a smiling black woman. No text, no explanation, just a cheerfully grinning Nubian princess. I’m unclear about what, exactly, this woman has to do with Measure 36. More puzzling is the fact that she’s not identified or acknowledged in any way, apart from her picture’s inclusion.

We at the Rick Emerson Show welcome theories about her inclusion in the packet. I’m honestly curious—if you can figure it out, lemme know. Until then, remember: only you can stop the Pink Menace!

Your photograph:

The one thing I can say about this is that at the moment, Right-wing circles believe that they have a wedge issue with gay-rights and gay marriage. Polls show Black people are cold on the idea, and indeed my personal experience tells me that in general young African Americans are a bit more … um… gay hating than urban White Americans (I won’t venture into Rural America here, because at that point it all goes flat.) Feel free to consider the sociology behind the reasonings, if you feel you must.

Here’s The Village Voice. Here’s the Washington Times.

Beyond that, I haven’t a clue as to the precise nature of that particular black woman. A “Family Values” / “Inclusion” document of some type?

I’m wondering if Gordon Allen Pross made a concession speech yesterday, after receiving a bit more than one percent and a bit less than two percent in the Republican Primary for US Senate seat.

A scan of the Internet yields nothing. But, it occurs to me that if it were online, I’d probably have seen the 1998, 2000, and 2002 concession speeches… somewhere alongside his argument in the minutes of his Church Council. (Gordon Pross presented his formal objection to installing a viewing screen that would hang in front of the Sanctuary cross when it was pulled down.)

My best guess is that if any media at all covers such an event, it would be the local paper in his hometown Ellensburgh, Washington… probably a weekly newspaper. But… that’s not available to me.

Sooo… heck, I don’t care if Gordon Allen Pross himself emails me his parting shots on the 2004 campaign… but I kind of want something.

…

In other area political news, I just heard a blurb for Oregon Considered today on Oregon Public Radio.

“She’s one of the most popular politicians in Oregon, and has a seat in the Oregon Senate. And she faces just token opposition. But her opposition will be heard. One’s an editor of Erotic Fiction. The other’s an anti-abortion activist who’s advocated violent means. Today, on Oregon Considered.”

A sudden chill runs through my spine, and I find myself groaning. I think I know who both of them are. Needing confirmation on their names, I google to find, yes indeedy:

State Senator, 21st District
Kate Brown (D) Paul deParrie (C) Theresa Reed (L)

Right here and right now, I am endorsing Theresa Reed.

But, for the Hell of it, here’s an online exchange with some guy named Barry and Paul deParrie:

deParrie declares that he was against the first Gulf War and protested it, and was a hippy from way back…

Barry: I realize you went to an anti-war rally to rail against the so-called “hippie freaks” and “educate” them on the evils of abortion, however, that’s not exactly being a part of the demo. Counter-demonstrating on a pet issue isn’t including yourself in a protest.

Me: I hear that Paul not only protested the Gulf War in 1991, but he formed an anti-war organization called “Fetuses for Peace”, combining his two activist impulses I suppose.

Paul deParrie: And you founded Fetuses in Pieces.

I eye Aye. Never mind.

………

If you’re despairing due to the polls, I’m directing you to July 25, 2004: Things Move Fast In Politics Part Two.

I have this desire to write some hi-faluting, pretentious or psuedo-pretentious bit about current foreign policy, culling half-heartedly and half-bakedly from Virgil and Thucydides.

But I don’t want to go through with it now. I’m tempted to take a riff from Pinkwater’s “Young Adults” — where they, dejected and rejecte, the Young Dada Ducks must go to their “Doctor Wizardo” comics for spiritual guidance.

But I know next to nothing of the bastardizations from Greek history and mythology that mainstream comics has to offer. Thor? Wonder Woman? Nay. (I did pick up a few of Jack Kirby’s “Devil Dinosaur” comics from the bargain bin… I like that comic.)

Things I wonder about.

The rationale for Iraq, the current rationale and a reason B that Bush gave politically and a fig-leaf item in the PNAC Document: “Build a democratic nation in the heart of the middle East that will serve as a model for the Muslim World… Freedom draining the Terrorists out… and…”

Wasn’t there this war in Afghanistan? A war that was far less controversial than the one in Iraq? In a nation that has, in its past, a bonafide Democratic tradition (right before the Soviets invaded — the quaint, rugged democracy we like to pretend that we’ve built for them… when you hear the occasional story about Afghan pop culture icons– say, well-known Afghan singer — they come from that period of Afghanistan’s history…)?

Why the heck could Afghanistan not have been this “Democratic Nation” in the Muslim World? I thought that was part of the point.

Nay. Everyone knows pretty much that this administration’s hearts were never in Afghanistan. (Notice the Rumsfeld press conference two entries down … And they say we shouldn’t worry about Bin Laden indeed… It’s all about Iraq right from the start!)

I can’t find the chart showing the amount per capita for various nations “post-conflict” (nebulous in the case of Afghanista) but… that nation is at the bottom of the heap.

And… I’ve never been sure quite what to make of this:

SY HERSH: Okay, the cream of the crop of Al Qaeda caught in a town called Konduz which is near … it’s one little village and it’s a couple hundred kilometers, 150 miles from the border of Pakistan. And I learned this story frankly– through very, very clandestine operatives we have in the Delta Force and other very…

We were operating very heavily with a small number of men, three, 400 really in the first days of the war. And suddenly one night when they had everybody cornered in Konduz– the special forces people were told there was a corridor that they could not fly in. There was a corridor sealed off to– the United States military sealed off a corridor. And it was nobody could shoot anybody in this little lane that went from Konduz into Pakistan. And that’s how I learned about it. I learned about it from a military guy who wanted to fly helicopters and kill people and couldn’t do it that day.

JANE WALLACE: So, we had the enemy surrounded, the special forces guys are helping surround this enemy.

SY HERSH: They’re whacking everybody they can whack that looks like a bad guy.

JANE WALLACE: And suddenly they’re told to back off–

SY HERSH: From a certain area–

JANE WALLACE: — and let planes fly out to Pakistan.

SY HERSH: There was about a three or four nights in which I can tell you maybe six, eight, 10, maybe 12 more– or more heavily weighted– Pakistani military planes flew out with an estimated– no less than 2,500 maybe 3,000, maybe more. I’ve heard as many as four or 5,000. They were not only– Al Qaeda but they were also– you see the Pakistani ISI was– the military advised us to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. There were dozens of senior Pakistani military officers including two generals who flew out.

And I also learned after I wrote this story that maybe even some of Bin Laden’s immediate family were flown out on the those evacuations. We allowed them to evacuate. We had an evacuation.

JANE WALLACE: How high up was that evacuation authorized?

SY HERSH: I am here to tell you it was authorized — Donald Rumsfeld who — we’ll talk about what he said later — it had to be authorized at the White House. But certainly at the Secretary of Defense level.

AND then… According to MSNBC.com (2/18/02) “officers of the 82nd airborne division and elements of the 101st— pleaded with the generals running the war to have their men dropped along the Afghan-Pakistan border region to cut off the retreat of al-Qaida and its leader, Osama bin Laden. To the fury of these officers, their pleas went unanswered, turned aside by the high probability of casualties.”

….

It appears that the great success of the Iraq War was in convincing Colonel Qaddafi, the Dictator of Libya, to dismantle his programs for devloping weapons of mass destruction.

For a brief, shining moment, I heard this message: “Qaddafi has learned the lessons of Iraq. And you notice that North Korea and Iran are pretty quiet these days…”

Yes. North Korea has learned the lessons of the Iraq War.

Which, as far as I can tell: we can topple dictators, particularly if their military is about the size of the Idaho National Guard. At that point, we really don’t… know… what… to do.

At which point, we can alienate that nation’s population… and… lose a war through perpetual bombing?

What lesson did Iran learn? “Better build up the arsenal… FAST” and “We like that ‘Pre-emptive War’ Rhetoric! Let’s goof around with it a bit.”

…..
Actually, about Iran. In January of 2002, they had a moderate Reform-minded government (naturally restrained by the Islamic hierarchy), the hardliners on the outs a bit, a population that had the greatest of sympathies toward the US population for 9/11, and a burgeoning student population enthralled with the promises of the West. Sure, their government had disgusting elements in it… but…

Question: What was the point in calling Iran an “Axe of Evil”? Doesn’t that mostly just feeds into the goddamned hardliners, and reinforces their power.

Did you catch this statement by some Pentagon official (perhaps even Rumsfeld) at the time of the somewhat overhyped Student Demonstrations? “Even if Iran develops a Westernized Democracy, we’d still have to be weary of them, because Iran has a history such that they’ve developed a sense of destiny to them… the Persian Mystique…”

My thought then was “Wow. Those bastards are hedging their bets!”