Hail Mary

31 August 08
“Wait a minute, you’re a woman!” - Jay Sherman
“What gave me away?” - Alice Tompkins
“If I told you, you’d slap me.” - Jay Sherman

Picking a running mate is always a dangerous decision for a presidential candidate.  The bottom half of the ticket cannot win an election but it can lose an election; the best case scenario is that nothing bad happens.  The top of the ticket is where the fireworks are, that’s where people vote for or against someone.  The bottom of the ticket is a basic necessity, like home electricity or bladder control it’s simply expected.  If you don’t have it it’s catastrophically embarrassing but if you do it doesn’t say much about you other than that you’re not a complete basket case.  When selecting a running mate all you really need to do is not fuck it up completely (Stockdale, Quayle, Eagleton) and you should be fine.

I didn’t write a post about Joe Biden because there really is nothing meaningful to say about Joe Biden.  The intimate squiggles of his life story and what the pick says about how the race is going are all just background noise.  He’s a good vice presidential pick because he’s been in public life long enough that there likely aren’t any serious skeletons in his closet and we know he can handle himself on television.  Unfortunately for the Reds, neither of those two things applies to Sarah Palin.

She is an unknown who has never been under the full microscopic analysis of the national media.  She hadn’t even taken the stage with John McCain yet before word spread south of the nice little scandal she’s got going on at home, including an ethics investigation of both her and her husband’s actions in relation to whether or not they used the power of her office for personal reasons.  The details are utterly irrelevant, the mere existence of the scandal tells us a lot about how McCain and his campaign staff view their chances in November.  There are two possibilities, either the McCain brain trust knew about it in advance and didn’t care or they didn’t know and didn’t properly screen her.

If they knew about it and picked her anyway it means that they’re willing to take the risk of the scandal harming them because they think she could potentially draw enough votes to change the outcome of the election.  If they didn’t know it means that they were very dissatisfied with their other options and picked her at the last second out of panic and or desperation.  In either case it indicates high anxiety about how the presidential race has been going.  A running mate can shore up a wobbling home state, but if you’re looking for her to draw nationwide support it indicates a real lack of confidence in the lead man’s ability to do so, and as Alaska isn’t large enough electorally to be of real significance it has to be the latter.

My personal suspicion, and it is only a suspicion, is that they were waiting to see how the Blue convention went before making their choice.  In the run up to Denver the campaign chatter was all about whether or not the Clintons would steal the spotlight, deliberately sabotage things, or generally be less than helpful to Barack Obama.  There was also genuine uncertainty about how the football stadium setting would play with the public and the pundits.

By Thursday evening they had their answer.  The Blue convention went off without a hitch, the Clintons were solidly behind Obama and the stadium speech was one for the ages.  If things had gone poorly in Denver, coupled with the recent tightening of the polls, they could’ve taken Romney or one of the other generic Republican clones and been happy.  Instead they saw their chances take a huge blow on the field at Mile High (38 million people at a minimum) and concluded that the usual type of pick wasn’t going to do it for them.

If I were rooting for John McCain I think I’d be happy with this pick.  It’s a swing for the fences and why not?  After four nights of nearly flawless Blue convention they had nothing to lose.  When you’re behind you’ve got to play fast and loose to catch up; playing conservative and selecting yet another dull Republican white guy wasn’t going to get it done this time around.  Palin was selected because her gender makes her newsworthy and puts the Reds on slightly better footing against the Blues in terms of history-making.  The problem is that in order to make their spectacular pick they had to run the risk of it blowing up in their faces.

The Republicans are still the party of corruption in the public eye (give the Democrats a few years in power and I assure you they will regain the title) and Alaska is amongst the most corrupt places around.  Two-thirds of the Alaska Congressional delegation is under indictment and while Palin may be the white knight of the last frontier when there’s that much dirt flying around you can get dirty just by being there.

Palin is a good pick in that, assuming nothing really untoward is linked to her, she might be able to help McCain win the election.  But the fact that the Reds are willing to take a potentially fatal risk by selecting her shows just how scared of the Blues they really are.


Something That Matters

27 August 08
“I had to give a speech once.  I was pretty nervous so I used a little trick.  I pictured everyone in their underwear, the judge, the jury, my lawyer, everybody.” - Barney Gumble
“Did it work?” - Homer Simpson
“I’m a free man ain’t I?” - Barney Gumble

Tomorrow night is the biggest speech of Barack Obama’s life.  He’s had some big ones before, but tomorrow night is the brass ring.  Most political events are of immeasurably little value.  Does standing at a deli and pretending to be a casual customer really work?  How about touring a manufacturing plant?  Giving a stump speech at some anonymous little auditorium or gymnasium?  Who knows?  Front porch campaigns have been out of style for a long time and presidential campaigns feel as though they must always be seen to be doing something; looking busy is considered better than looking idle.

Tomorrow night is different though.  It’s primetime national television and it’s going to shatter the ratings from any recent election.  Tens of millions of people are going to watch it, many of them no doubt seeing an Obama speech live for the first time.  It will be intensely scrutinized and if Obama and his writers have done their job a few little phrases will enter the meme-stream and set the tone for the rest of the campaign.

The commentary remoras, in every medium, will make a hash of it trying to divine meanings and results.  Clips will be replayed endlessly and tenpenny analysis of everything from the outdoor setting to Obama’s body language to the roar of the crowd will echo for days.  For all the changes technology has wrought on campaigns in the last two decades the acceptance speech remains an unparalleled focus of attention.

The debates are always popular and heavily scrutinized, but there the two contestants share the stage.  It is only the acceptance speech where one man, a man who wants to be your president, a man who wants to be in your living room and in your thoughts and in your jokes and in your conversations for four years, gets to speak to you directly.  And for just that little stretch of time the great roar of media quiets itself and all but the oppo-researchers gather in to listen.

It is an opportunity of unequaled influence, one afforded only to presidents and those who would be so, to speak directly to the entire country, to choose and to deliver words that best represent him and words that best malign his opponent.  The prior three days of convention choreography, Red or Blue, pale in comparison to that one speech.

The weather forecast is clear.  The polls have tightened.  The election is barely two months away.  He only gets one.


Map Reading

24 August 08
“North, south, ah nuts to this, I’m gonna take a shortcut.” - Homer Simpson

On Wednesday of this week FiveThirtyEight had Obama losing a majority of their simulations for the first time ever; panic swept the land.  Normally this is where I’d insert the standard caveat that polls don’t mean anything this far from the election.  Though I suppose if you’re being honest with yourself you cannot take cheer from the polls when Obama’s up without taking some gloom from them when he’s down.  Nevertheless, I remain confident that the skinny kid with the funny name is going to prevail.

It’s possible I’m being unduly optimistic.  I may find the idea of John McCain winning the election, with the catastrophic and unpopular Bush Administration as his guiding light, so incongruous that it’s destroyed my ability to reason.  I don’t think that’s the case, but it is possible.  While it’s easy to reassure myself by reciting the usual liturgy of reasons why McCain is doomed instead I’m going to ask two simple questions, the answers to which give me my confidence.

Question the first: “Is there any chance that John McCain can win a state George Bush lost to John Kerry?”

Answer the first: Qualified No.

Question the second: “John Kerry fell 18 electoral votes short, is Barack Obama in good shape to pick up that many or more?”

Answer the second: Qualified Yes.

To justify those answers, let’s look at three separate maps.  The first two, in the image below, are pulled from Wikipedia.  The top is the electoral map from 2000, the bottom is 2004.

Red versus Blue

Red versus Blue

The maps are roughly similar (the slightly different numbers are the result of reapportionment after the 2000 census); only three states changed color from 2000 to 2004: New Hampshire went Red-to-Blue, Iowa and New Mexico went Blue-to-Red.  (There is a very strong circumstantial case that Al Gore won Florida in 2000 and as Bush indisputably won it in 2004 that would bring the number of Blue-to-Red states to three.)  The 2004 map, the one on which we’re basing our two simple questions, is easy to describe: a contiguous sea of Red with three Blue islands, the Left Coast (Washington, Oregon, and California), the upper Midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan), and the Northeast, from DC to Maine.

John Kerry won 252 electoral votes with those islands, he needed 270.  Of the Blue states, Wisconsin was the narrowest win, Kerry squeaked by with a margin of 0.38% and a difference of 11,000 votes.  McCain is currently behind by 10 points there and doesn’t seem to be seriously contesting it.  So . . . how many Kerry states are currently competitive?

New Hampshire.  That’s it.  Every other state voted against Bush the Younger twice and not surprisingly they aren’t very hospitable to McCain.  The Granite State (and its whopping 4 electoral votes) is the only Kerry state that is really in play, and it’s leaning toward Obama.  Pollster, ElectionProjection, FiveThirtyEight, pick your polling aggregation website and you’re going to see all of Kerry’s states lining up behind Obama.

That’s the answer to question the first: McCain probably isn’t going to turn any Blue-to-Red with the possible exception of tiny New Hampshire (and even there he’s behind.)  Which brings us to the second question, how does Obama get over the top to 270?

To answer that we’re going to need a second image and a third map.  There are two maps in the image below, the upper map is the same 2004 map from above; the lower map is the current Pollster.com projections for this year.  (I’m using the Pollster.com map because it’s more amenable to my limited image cropping and scaling skills than the one at FiveThirtyEight.com.  The content of the two maps are very similar.)

Red goes Yellow, Blue stays Blue

Red goes Yellow, Blue stays Blue

The first thing you’ll notice is that Iowa and New Mexico - the 2004 defectors - have moved back to Blue.  They have twelve electoral votes combined, two thirds of what Obama needs to add to Kerry’s total.  If Obama picks up both Iowa and New Mexico, and according to Pollster’s numbers he’s ahead by 6.5% and 7.8% respectively, he’s within six electors of the White House with New Hampshire and ten without New Hampshire.

To get to 1600 Pennsylvania he’ll need to win one or more of the yellow states; they are listed as “Toss Up” on Pollster and there are ten of them at the moment.  Nine of those ten went Red in 2004 (again, New Hampshire is the exception.)  Of those nine, Obama is leading in six.  Here are the details (in order of Obama’s current lead or lack thereof):

Montana +3.1
Alaska +2.7
Ohio +2.2
Virginia +1.2
Colorado +1.1
Nevada +0.6
Florida -1.3
North Dakota -2.4
North Carolina -3.0

The other poll aggregation sites disagree on which ones lean which way, but all are roughly in play.  Of that list, Ohio and Virginia are large enough to deliver Obama with or without New Hampshire.  Colorado, where Obama’s packing the House that Elway Built this week, is big enough to deliver him with New Hampshire but not without.  Obama is ahead in all four.

Awarding Obama the Kerry states is an assumption, awarding him Iowa and New Mexico is an assumption, awarding him New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia or Colorado are assumptions.  But they’re reasonable assumptions based on relatively good data and the bottom line numbers are grim for McCain.  They aren’t as grim as Hillary Clinton’s post March 5th numbers, those at least were based on real votes not ephemeral polling data, but they cannot in any honest way be called good.

Blue America, the eighteen states (plus D.C.) that voted against the generic Republican campaign of 2000 (compassionate conservatism, tax cuts for the surplus, blah blah blah) and against the modern Republican campaign of 2004 (vote for Bush or terrorists will eat your baby!), are not going Red in 2008.  Combined they account for 248 electoral votes.  That is Obama’s base and it is quite secure.  He needs twenty-two more votes from there.

Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, New Hampshire, those are the battleground states this year.  McCain needs to hold an awful lot of them and he’s got to do it with less money (once the public financing constraints kick in) and less organization in a bad economy with a hugely unpopular incumbent looming over his shoulder.  It’s not that he can’t do it; it’s just that the road he has to travel has an awful lot of obstacles.

National poll numbers are easy to fit into a headline or a sound bite and popular vote victories are nice, but both of them are worth squat in the real world.  Electoral math is the path to power and John McCain has been woefully behind on that scoreboard all summer.  Obama’s recent dip in the polls has been good for political commentary and speculation, but that’s about the extent of its effects.  Unless McCain comes out of the Red convention with significantly better numbers than he’s got right now he’ll need an October Miracle - not a mere Surprise - to get to 270 electors and 1600 Pennsylvania.


More than We Can Chew

20 August 08
“Oh, we always have one good kid and one lousy kid, why can’t both our kids be good?” - Homer Simpson
“We have three kids, Homer.” - Marge Simpson

There is no divine law that says that if one of our wars is going poorly the other must be going well.  But there is a capacity beyond which the public cannot absorb any more bad news just as the press has a capacity beyond which it cannot carry any more repetitively horrifying stories; the narrative of both wars going badly might be too much for the system to handle.  In the absence of news whatever public discourse there is on the subject gets filled by conjecture and politically motivated yammering, which has absolutely nothing to do with whatever the hell is actually happening on the other side of the world.

In that spirit, let’s take a quick look at some actual news, depressing though it is.  In the last month there have been two highly publicized attacks on NATO forces in Afghanistan.  Whether these attacks are the responsibility of the Taliban or of other largely unrelated forces is unclear.  The tenor of the attacks was much different than previous encounters though.  Back in July, a force of two hundred men attacked a freshly set up government outpost near the Pakistani border.  Nine Americans were killed and though the initial attack was repulsed the outpost was later abandoned.

Then yesterday word came of another large scale attack, this time right outside Kabul.  Ten French paratroopers were killed and the article describes a “sense of siege around the capital”.  This was not a fleeting attack by small band of armed men out in the boonies; this was a coordinated military assault, employing regular military tactics in conjunction with suicide bombers.  Kabul, the center of the international presence and the Green Zone of Afghanistan now apparently feels itself under siege.

Meanwhile, on the other side of Iran, things aren’t going particularly well either.  American casualties have dropped considerably, but that seems to have more to do with a lowering of American troop levels and the ceding of various areas to local strongmen who are only as loyal to the central government as their last paycheck.  Juan Cole had a link this morning to a story in Abu Dhabi’s new English language daily The Nation about the hilariously named Sons of Iraq (SOI).  Essentially these are armed militias being paid by us not to do anything:

Col White and other commanders said they believed if the Iraqi government disbanded the SOIs, the men would refuse to give up their weapons and would continue to take orders from the sheikhs who employed them.

Cole’s headline this morning was about local police in Diyala shooting it out with men who may or may not have been from the central government and may or may not have had the support of American forces.  Iraq is, demonstrably, riven daily with conflicting authorities.

There is the Green Zone government which nominally works with the United States, but the two are unable to coordinate sufficiently to keep cousins of the Prime Minister from getting killed by American bullets.  There is the (for the moment) non-governmental Shiite movement led by Muqtada al-Sadr, which promised to turn its militia into a social works organization (so long as the US adheres to the withdrawal timetable) in order to compete in elections.  However, as Professor Cole pointed out a couple weeks ago:

Whenever they are held the next provincial and parliamentary elections could give the Sadrists a lot of power. In a society where so many men have a gun, the difference between a militia and such an organization anyway isn’t clear, except they’re saying they won’t usually carry around the guns in public. They could get them out at any time, though.

Then there is the (increasingly separate) issue of the Kurdish north.  Yesterday The New York Times actually used the term “Powder Keg” to describe the situation in Kirkuk.  The Kurds are in the enviable position of having military control over the north of the country and increasingly seem less and less interested in what goes on in the rest of Iraq.  The oil sharing law and the scheduling of new parliamentary elections appear to have been held up by the Kurdish bloc in parliament; the Kurdish MPs apparently see little reason to compromise with their countrymen to the south.  Getting those two laws passed, by the way, was an explicit goal of the American troop escalation last year.

The above words are little more than newspaper clippings and quotes, but the grim picture they paint is generally accurate and the conclusion is inescapable.  Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is progressing towards anything that could reasonably be called stability.  Things are getting worse in both places, anyone who tells you differently is selling something.


The Ruskies are Coming! The Ruskies are Coming!

17 August 08
“The Soviet Union?  I thought you guys broke up.” - American UN Ambassador
“Yes, that’s what we wanted you to think.” - Russian/Soviet UN Ambassador

There once was a strain of conservative thought on foreign policy which boiled down to “America is not a global police force.”  Sadly, it’s gone out of favor and been replaced by macho bullshit about regime change and never appeasing anyone ever because Munich Munich Munich.  It’s an unfortunate development because while there are all kinds of theoretical problems with using the US military as a global enforcement team there is an overwhelming practical concern as well.  We just can’t do it; as a farce it works great but that’s about it.

You can see the pervasiveness of this lunatic mindset in the reactions to the war in Georgia.  The United States of America, a country located primarily on the North American continent, doesn’t have much in the way of influence over what happens along Russia’s southern border in Asia.  Yet this seemingly simple fact has come as a great shock to a lot of people over the last week and because it’s silly season we’ve even attempted to weave the brief war between Russia and Georgia into our presidential election.  If you went solely by American press coverage, nicely epitomized by this ridiculous cover image from today’s The New York Times‘ Week in Review section, you could be forgiven for thinking that we’re back where we were, toe to toe with the Russian bear.  The mundane reality is that the Red Army is not on its way to Warsaw and its little dalliance in Georgia has nothing to do with our election.

Liberals bashing Bush the Younger and company for their oblivious double standard when it comes to invading other countries and conservatives trumpeting this as the herald of a new Cold War are equal parts self serving and self delusional.  It’s certainly entertaining to see Bush the Younger, Dick Cheney, and John McCain ranting against illegal invasions, but it’s not as though American circa 2000 could’ve stopped Russia from undertaking this exact same course of action.  The current Administration has destroyed America’s reputation and credibility while stretching our military to the breaking point, no doubt about that, but even if they hadn’t stopping the Russians from screwing around in Georgia would still be impossible.  Russia already had troops inside Georgia, in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia; plus Georgia borders Chechnya, one assumes there is a capable Russian military presence nearby.

You could make the case, complete with middle school history terms like “sphere of influence”, that the Russians are bullying their smaller neighbor.  Of course you could also make the case that the Russians are just cleaning up a long festering mess along their border.  The obvious and explicit parallel is Kosovo.  NATO spent almost thee months bombing the shit out of Serbia in 1999 and while the Russians seem to prefer tanks over airplanes the underling motivation is the same.  Big, powerful entities (EU/NATO, Russia) don’t like having nasty ethnic disputes turn violent along their borders and are willing to use force to put a stop to them.  Right after the Serbs caved in ‘99 Russian troops moved into Kosovo (at Serbia’s request) and NATO’s reaction was something like, “What the hell are you guys doing here?  This doesn’t concern you.”  That’s how the Russians see this and it’s hard to fault them.

(On top of that the Russians were extremely pissed off at the Georgians in the nineties because the Georgians didn’t secure their border with Chechnya.  Whether they were unwilling to do so or unable to do so is beside the point.  The Russians see the Georgians as already having blood on their hands and not without reason.)

During negotiations before the Kosovo war in 1999 independence for Kosovo was explicitly off the table.  Yet here we are almost a decade later and Kosovo’s independence creeps ever closer to widespread acceptance.  The situation isn’t ideal but no one is getting killed anymore and if the people who actually live in Kosovo want to be their own country that’s all the justification required.  Parts of Yugoslavia broke up cleanly, others didn’t; the same is true of the Soviet Union.  Just off the top of my head the list of geographic oddities and unsettled borders includes the Kaliningrad Oblast, the Crimean Peninsula, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Transnistria and it feels like I’m forgetting a couple.  Georgia versus Russia is not part of some grand global balancing act where the United States has a role to play; it’s leftovers from the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Whether the Georgians or the Russians provoked the fighting is irrelevant, the only thing that the war did was remove military action as an option for settling the final status of Abkhazia and Georgia.  The situation on the ground hasn’t changed much at all, Russian troops are withdrawing from the rest of Georgia but will remain in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.  Georgia remains nominally sovereign over them but will continue to have little to no real authority.  Mikheil Saakashvili’s government in Tbilisi is safe and will not be removed by force.  The Georgian military appears to have gotten badly beaten by the Russian one, but that hardly comes as a surprise.  Georgia is small and poor; Russia is big and increasingly wealthy, plus their army has extensive experience fighting in nearby Chechnya.  All the war did was prove that Georgia cannot retake South Ossetia and Abkhazia by force.  Fustigations and fulminations from Washington and Brussels, to say nothing of visits from partisan American Senators, don’t change those facts.

The events of the last week will strengthen Georgia’s desire to join NATO, that’s a given.  Heads have gone to pillows in Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius a lot less troubled than otherwise thanks to Article V and some Georgian jealousy is natural.  In the long term getting Georgia to the Atlantic table probably does makes sense, both for them and for the alliance.  But rushing things is criminally stupid and antithetical to the way NATO operates.

Georgia and Ukraine were not about to be inducted into NATO a few months ago.  They were in discussions to begin the process of gaining admission, that’s a far cry and years away from actual membership.  Before they can be embraced by NATO all of their territorial disputes have to be settled.  NATO doesn’t shrink from defending small nations from Russian aggression - that’s what NATO does, that’s why NATO exists - but it is primarily a defensive alliance.  The current members have neither motivation nor desire to take on new members with outstanding territorial disputes, especially if those territorial disputes involve Russia.

Should Abkhazia and South Ossetia be their own countries?  It seems like a bad place in the world to be a tiny little nation, but who knows?  Should they become part of Russia?  If the news reports are to be believed most of the people there already hold Russian passports so maybe they’d prefer that.  The only difference between today and two weeks ago is that force is no longer an option for Tbilisi.  Georgia cannot conquer Abkhazia and South Ossetia anymore than Serbia could conquer Kosovo, and it’s distinctly possible that the Georgians are going to have to bite the bullet and just like the Serbs did.  For all kinds of cultural and historical reasons, to say nothing of simple pride, that’s a lot to ask, but the Georgians might not have a choice.

The brief war last week was not the herald of some new Cold War it’s just one more festering mess left over from the original Cold War.  Cleaning it up is going to take a long time and disappoint a lot of people, but there’s nothing substantive that America, NATO, the EU or anyone else can do about it.


Justice Delayed

13 August 08
“Plus it was mostly Kiff’s fault.” - Zapp Brannigan

It was a busy news weekend and between the Olympics and the war in the Caucasus something nearly as profound got overlooked.  Last week a military jury down at Guantanamo returned a split verdict in the case of Salim Hamdan, acquitting him of the most serious charge.  The same jury, comprised entirely of active duty officers, then sentenced Osama bin Laden’s former driver to sixty-six months of detention, knowing full well that he had already been imprisoned for sixty-one.  That means that there are five months remaining on his sentence, or roughly the same amount of time the Bush Administration has left in office.

That is probably not a coincidence.  Both the verdict and the sentence in the Hamdan trial were slaps to the face of the Administration, what’s worse they were delivered by none other than American military officers, the very people the government depends on to fight its war on terror.  It’s a perfect nightmare in the very first trial: Hamdan’s guilty, but his sentence is going to expire soon, and he’s not some wayward Australian white boy like David Hicks.  He’s an Arab Muslim from Yemen.

As part of its ongoing “have your cake and eat it too” approach to legal affairs the Administration insists that even after Hamdan has finished his sentence he can still be held as an enemy combatant until the “war on terror” concludes hostilities.  Take a minute and let that sink in.

Here we have the first trial of a man held in the legal quicksand of Guantanamo.  This trial is supposed to be the first of many, not only of men currently in American custody but of other al-Qaeda operatives yet to be captured.  The Administration went to considerable time and trouble to set this up (it’s been almost seven years in the making).  Yet upon the conclusion of the first trial of its new special system the government insists that the verdict and the sentence are basically meaningless; it plans to hold this man indefinitely regardless of the outcome.  The mind reels.

The obvious question then becomes, what the hell was the trial for?  (And, by extension, why did we bother to spend all the time and money to set up this military trial system in the first place?)  Is it all just some demented public relations scheme to make indefinite arbitrary detention, a concept specifically forbidden by the United States Constitution, seem like something other than what it really is?

There’s also the issue of what is now to be done with this Salim Hamdan.  He is a man, a living breathing guy with hopes and dreams and fingernails and facial hair, and he has been tried in the manner explicitly endorsed by the United States Government.  His sentence will be complete sometime in January.  Back in June the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees at Guantanamo have the right to file habeas corpus petitions in federal court.  Would that be his only means of redress should he complete his sentence and still be denied his release?  Who knows?  Given the amount of legal voodoo the Administration has so far sanctioned to keep its law-free prison operating one presumes they aren’t going to let this little setback deter them.  If they want him, and it seems clear that they do if for no other reason than releasing him would set a bad precedent for keeping others indefinitely, they’re going to keep him, and if they need to make up new laws or ignore some others to do it does anyone really think that’s going to stop them?

Hamdan’s fate now more or less explicitly rides on the outcome of the election in November.  That was the gauntlet thrown down by the jury.  The jurors aren’t stupid; they knew when they made their decision that Bush the Younger’s term and Hamdan’s sentence will conclude concurrently.  What happens after that is up to the voters.  Presumably a McCain Administration would continue the current policy of indefinite detention, arbitrary power and logical contradiction.  We don’t know what an Obama Administration would do, but we know it won’t be a continuance.  NPR interviewed one of the Hamdan jurors, a Marine Lieutenant Colonel (via ACLU Blog):

Hamdan is still classified as an unlawful combatant by the Bush administration, and as such could be detained indefinitely in spite of his short sentence. Lt. Col. Patrick said that the jury would be extremely annoyed if that happened. After all, he said, what did we come down here for?

The magnitude of that rebuke - to the Administration from a serving officer - should not be obscured by Olympic flames and artillery shells.

Side Note:  Hamdan’s trial went first for two reasons: sex appeal and confidence.  The sex appeal came from the fact that he was directly connected to Osama bin Laden, even if only for the mundane task of driving.  The confidence came from the fact that the events of his case were for the most part not in dispute.  The military felt sure that they could secure a conviction on all counts and look what happened.  What does this say about the other cases they’re preparing to try?  I’d be willing to wager that most of the other cases are both weaker and less central to the 11 September attacks.  They put their best foot forward and fell flat on their face, in a forum where the rules are bent to their advantage no less.  It might be time to rethink the whole thing.

For an eight minute rundown of just how stupid, contradictory and downright absurd this whole thing is I highly recommend this ACLU mp3.


At That Hour in This Office

10 August 08
“Hey Lois look, the two symbols of the Republican Party, an elephant and a big fat white guy who’s threatened by change.” - Peter Griffin

On Thursday, 8 August 1974 Richard Nixon announced his ultimate humiliation to the nation. The next day he turned in his signed resignation letter, boarded the green helicopter one last time and flew off the national political stage for the rest of his life. Gerald Ford was sworn in at noon and five minutes later went on nation television where he memorably proclaimed, “My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.” Yesterday was the thirty-fourth anniversary of that speech. Gerry was wrong, the nightmare wasn’t over then and it isn’t over now, but we’re getting close.

The median age of the United States today is roughly thirty seven, which means that approximately half of the country is now too young to have any memory of President Nixon. But it is Nixon and all that he begat, Watergate, wiretapping, the Southern Strategy, the culture wars, appeals to “law & order”, executive privilege, and the end of the Vietnam War, which still dominates our politics and our thinking. He is the father of our political discourse, the man who brought the long American tradition of apocalyptic politics into the modern era.

Nixon died in 1994, just a few months shy of the twentieth anniversary of his final defeat. In commemoration, Hunter S. Thompson penned a goodbye for Rolling Stone a copy of which sits on The Atlantic Monthly’s website. An excerpt:

He was a giant in his way. As long as Nixon was politically alive — and he was, all the way to the end — we could always be sure of finding the enemy on the Low Road. There was no need to look anywhere else for the evil bastard. He had the fighting instincts of a badger trapped by hounds. The badger will roll over on its back and emit a smell of death, which confuses the dogs and lures them in for the traditional ripping and tearing action. But it is usually the badger who does the ripping and tearing. It is a beast that fights best on its back: rolling under the throat of the enemy and seizing it by the head with all four claws.

That was Nixon’s style — and if you forgot, he would kill you as a lesson to the others. Badgers don’t fight fair, bubba. That’s why God made dachshunds.

The Low Road. That’s a pretty concise way of putting it. A less concise, albeit better documented, account is Rick Perlstein’s Nixonland. Reading the book with the benefit of decades of hindsight is like watching a dazed crash survivor stagger away from his car and right into oncoming freeway traffic. The poor fuck was so happy to have survived the initial impact it never occurred to him that there might be a second. He never had a chance and neither did we.

Perlstein opens his book with the 1966 Watts riots in Los Angeles, and with good reason. Watts was the first public crack in the post war dream. That famous photo of triumphant joy - the sailor kissing the nurse in Times Square - happened in an America that openly repressed its minorities and saw women as little more than decorative brood mares. It took twenty years for that dream to be revealed for the selective illusion that it was, and when it died it died hard.

The traumas that began in the sixties, and have never really ended, are a kind of national adolescence. The world is not as neatly ordered as children assume and coming to grips with that is often accompanied by violence, irrationality and cold, stark terror. Children have to learn to do things they don’t want to do, not because some ultimately loving parent told them to but because that’s just the way the world is. It was childish for men to assume that all women would be unpaid domestic sperm receptacles the same way it was childish for white people to assume that everyone else would forever accept second class status, legally (the South) or merely de facto (everyplace else).

The violence, the irrationality and that cold, stark terror made themselves real in events as famous as Roe v. Wade, Kent State, Loving v. Virginia, Stonewall and Woodstock and in unknowable little incidents between regular people. It made itself real to ordinary Americans every time an ex-Little League champ came back from college with long hair and bloodshot eyes, every time a non-white family moved to a white neighborhood, every time strange music played in a previously peaceful household, every time a business or a school became integrated; in short, every time the future looked less like Leave it to Beaver.

The culture wars, the civil rights movement, women’s liberation, these were radical changes to the status quo and many Americans felt as if they were being forced to embrace changes they were never asked about in the first place. Nixon harnessed the fear and resentment aroused by those movements; his disciples are still doing it today. But those fights, and the politically potent feelings that go with them, are fading right along with the generations that fought them.

Here’s a little back of the envelope math to go along with the fact that only half of all Americans are old enough to remember President Nixon:

1973 (End of Vietnam War) - 18 (Draft Age) = 1955 (Latest a Drafted Combat Vet Could Be Born)

2008 (Today) - 1955 (Last year a Vietnam Vet could be born) = 53

Fifty three years old, that’s the absolute youngest an actual Vietnam vet can be, and those numbers are conservative, the bulk of Vietnam veterans are approaching or past sixty. That’s old, that’s senior discount at the movies old. The people whom Nixon used to turn the White House into a Republican stronghold are dying out.

The Republicans won four of the five presidential elections from 1972 to 1988 by an average of 14.7% of the popular vote and a staggering 442.5 electoral votes. That’s not just victory, that’s dominance. The one election they lost in that time saw Jimmy Carter squeak by the Man Who Pardoned Nixon by only 2 percentage points and a scant 57 electoral votes. Obviously this is selective data, the Democrats won in 1992 and 1996 after all. But would even a politician as preternaturally talented as Bill Clinton have been able to get elected without Ross Perot drawing almost 19% of the vote? We’ll never know the answer to that, but at the very least it puts a big, fat asterisk next to the 1992 election. As for 1996, well it’s damn near impossible to dislodge a popular incumbent.

That’s brings us up to 2000, an election which Bush the Younger famously lost but won. In a year when the incumbent party had presided over years of peace and prosperity, the budget was in actual surplus and the opposition already held Congress he shouldn’t have even had a chance. But through an almost impossibly unlikely combination of his opponent’s incompetence (both before the election and afterward in Florida), sheer luck and legal chicanery he took office just in time to have the political Excalibur of 11 September 2001 fall into his lap. Despite the huge advantages of incumbency (which we now know were illegally inflated), a superior get out the vote organization, and superior financial resources he only managed to eek by John Kerry in 2004. This is like a champion sprinter collapsing across the finish line - victorious, to be sure - but only hundredths of a second ahead of an overweight, untrained opponent who ran the race with a donut in one hand and a lit cigarette in the other.

The balance has clearly shifted and we are now at the moment of great decision. It is foolish to proclaim this election “The most important in American history” or even “The most important since X”. Those are debatable even with fifty years of hindsight. But this is the election that can finally kill Richard Nixon and his wicked legacy. The destruction that man’s politics have wrought on this country are incalculable and we are now at the proverbial fork in the road.

John McCain and Barack Obama, setting aside their campaign themes, their chattering surrogates, and their individual styles we are left with two symbols. There is McCain, the Vietnam hero who was being tortured while most of the rest of the country’s current elite were doing bong rips and getting laid. Then there is Obama, the first major presidential candidate we’ve had who was unquestionably too young for Vietnam, a man who is an almost direct product of the culture wars that his elders fought.

Obama is, on paper, tremendously vulnerable to the types of attacks that kept the White House Red for so very long and by such huge margins. Because of his name, his skin and his education one could not design a candidate less appealing or more threatening to Nixon’s great Silent Majority. But there he is, ahead in every measurement we have.

We’re not talking about the end of bad things. An Obama victory won’t instantly solve all the problems of Bush the Younger; it won’t stop neoconservatives from plotting to bomb Iran or scheming to start a new Cold War with China; it won’t make the world safe for homosexuals, abortions or minorities.

What we are talking about is the final end of the story lines and cultural wars of the 1960s and 70s, the end of the forty year arc of the baby boomers and their wars over everything from feminism and civil rights to swearing on television. Even Vietnam, the real war that exploded the Democratic Party and gave us President Richard Nixon, is now fading from memory. In that sense there is no better opponent than McCain; he is a villain worthy of Shakespeare, the perfect symbol of the old entrenched order and all of its hypocrisies.

It is difficult to conceive of such a sea change, not only in the results of our elections but in the issues, rationales, and emotional appeals that stand behind them. Nixon’s politics have been incredibly effective and long lived, but no one gets to beat biology. We don’t yet know if what comes next will be better or worse, but it will be different.


Cable Access Politics

6 August 08

“Awww, but those shows all look so crummy.” - Homer Simpson
“Well we can dress it up a bit, we can bring a fern, and a folding chair from the garage and the most decorative thing of all, the truth.” - Marge Simpson

I voted yesterday, it was non-presidential primary day.  The ballot was headed by the United States Senate and at the very bottom was Drain Commissioner.  Most of the races were heavily entrenched incumbents running unopposed.  I never vote in uncontested races, there’s something creepy about it, so the better half of my ballot was turned in blank.  Of course no one but me knew that I’d barely voted and, sure enough, on my way out the door one of the nice geezers running polling station handed me one of those ridiculously stupid “I Voted” stickers, referring to it as my “reward”.  Fuck those stickers.

There is something phenomenally dreary about local politics.  The big elections, the federal and gubernatorial ones, have sleek blondes and chisel jawed anchormen talking about them on television, plus you can go on-line and find witty pundits arguing over the daily mud slinging.  To some extent that’s what politics means to a lot of people: video clips and commentary.  On that lofty level the nitty gritty stuff, shaking hands and kissing babies (which I suppose is better than kissing hands and shaking babies), is done out of kabuki dedication to the commentary and video crowd.  It’s an exercise politicians have to go through, but the real benefit comes from the presence of cameras.

Things are different at the local level.  Shoe-leather politics, spending weeknights knocking on doors and Saturday mornings handing out fliers at farmer’s markets, are the meat of the campaign.  The amount of money raised and spent is tiny and only a small fraction of voters are even aware that there’s a campaign occurring.  The ground floor of electoral government has an unmistakable cable access quality to it.

That cable access feeling is the great barrier which local politics can only rarely transcend.  After all, if it looks and feels like AA baseball, it probably is AA baseball.  These guys are a long way from the majors and there’s a reason: the lawn signs are crudely designed, the speeches are stilted, and the campaign websites (if they exist at all) are technically reminiscent of 1999 and grammatically reminiscent of the ninth grade.

Rallies aren’t events in the way we’re used to thinking of events.  If you go to a big time sporting event or a concert there’s people telling you where to park and concession stands and all kinds of other infrastructure that lets you - the ordinary person - know that someone serious is in charge of this thing and that it’s important to a lot of people.  But the few smaller time political events I’ve attended don’t rate the amount of excitement you get at a county fair.  It’s usually just some schmuck in front of a microphone talking to a small group of semi-interested people and two or three really enthusiastic nutjobs who clap like they’re in a crowd of thousands.  Nothing about the campaign looks or feels important.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with that.  You could take comfort in the fact that local politics, while vital in terms of trash pickup, road maintenance and the like, doesn’t have a major effect on most people’s lives.  Think of it as a hallmark of a mature and stable community.  Or you could find it a cause for despair, tormenting yourself with thoughts of how much better your community would be if only more people cared about offices like school board and drain commissioner.

There is hope, I suppose.  The internet cannot make things equal, but it is a medium in which the gap between those with money and fame and those without is considerably diminished.  As more and more politics takes place on-line the presentation gap between your nearly anonymous state representative and the professional politician will narrow.  It will never close, but local politics may stop looking quite so bush league to the ordinary citizen.


Innocent Until Proven Suicidal

3 August 08
“Now, here are some results from our phone-in poll.  95% of the people believe Homer Simpson is guilty.  Of course this is just a television poll, which is not legally binding unless proposition 304 passes, and we all pray it will.” - Kent Brockman

Friday saw what may be the first real (public) progress in the anthrax case.  The Los Angeles Times, despite its recently buyout diminished newsroom, scooped everyone and reported that a scientist working for the Army had apparently committed suicide after finding out that he was facing five federal murder counts for the 2001 anthrax attacks.  Bruce Ivins, who had not been publicly named in the investigation prior to his death, downed a bunch of prescription strength Tylenol with codeine and died on Tuesday.  In their profile of him yesterday, The New York Times found the obligatory it’s-the-quiet-ones-you’ve-gotta-watch money quote from a former coworker, “He was the last person you would have suspected to be involved in something like this.”

Of course we cannot rush out and declare the man guilty, most of the evidence is still under a grand jury seal and we have the fresh (and expensive) example of Steven Hatfill to remind us that rushing to judgment about the anthrax attacks is the path of fools.  The key difference here, setting aside the man’s death, is that his name only became public when charges were about to be filed.  The mere fact of having charges filed against him certainly doesn’t make him guilty, but it indicates a lot more governmental confidence of his guilt than was ever express toward Hatfill.  You would be hard pressed to call this a model federal investigation but it’s orders of magnitude better than the alternative method of fighting terrorism on display down at Guantanamo.

The most important thing is that the attacks stopped happening.  Five people died and the whole country went slightly nuts first, but they did stop.  (Whether they stopped because of scrutiny from law enforcement is unknown.)  Then what happened?  The feds investigated for less than a year before shining the media spotlight on Steven Hatfill, a guy we now know to be innocent.  Six years after his first public denials, Hatfill was exonerated and paid almost six million dollars for his trouble.  In exchange he gets to add his name to the sad list of people, other recent examples include Richard Jewell and Wen Ho Lee, who were publicly - and wrongly - condemned by the feds and the press.

We don’t yet know if this Bruce Ivins is the right guy, but the way the investigation was handled is markedly better.  If charges had been filed and he’d been taken into custody that would’ve been the first publicity he received; instead the first publicity he received came because of his suicidal reaction to his discovery that charges were going to brought against him.  The principal is the same.  There was an investigation, charges were going to be filed, the accused would have had the right to an attorney and a competent defense, and the truth of the matter would’ve been settled by a jury.

It’s a process which, while it certainly isn’t flawless, basically works.  We’re not scooping up people willy nilly and casting them into some legal dead zone where they cannot challenge their detention or mount a defense.  We’re not dropping hints to New York Times columnists and forcing ordinary people to defend themselves in the anything goes arena of public perception.  The result, while not completely satisfying, is correspondingly more final and less controversial.

It is perhaps good to be reminded of the anthrax attacks.  The airplane attacks on Washington D.C. and New York City were traumatic, but the immediate practical fear was restricted to air travelers and people working in high profile buildings.  The anthrax attacks brought at least a taste of fear to everyone in the country.  They caused widespread stupidity and paranoia.  Yet we’re all still here and the mail still moves.  What’s better, the justice system seems to have, in its own creaky and fucked up way, worked.  Ivins suicide denies us the public catharsis of a trial and, potentially, a guilty verdict or plea; but the evidence will eventually be made public and if it’s damning enough the general reaction will be about the same.  It’s certainly a hell of a lot better than throwing an innocent man to the media wolves or locking up brown people on flimsy evidence without legal rationale.