www.crisispapers.org
Ernest Partridge's Blog
October 30, 2004
ELECTION 2004: A PRE-MORTEM(The second half of this blog is "absorbed" in this week's essay. EP)
If the election were fair, John Kerry would win convincingly. But due to GOP voter intimidation and other dirty tricks, it will not be a fair election. Even so, if those dirty tricks were of the ordinary sort – lost ballots, tossed registrations, precinct delays by “observers,” Kerry would still likely squeak through, albeit without Florida. (Kerry can win without Florida if he takes every Gore state plus one more – any one, however small).
My greatest worry is that the touch screen voting machines (tallying 30% of the votes) will, through their secret codes and unverifiable returns, throw the election to Bush, and will also keep the GOP in control of the Senate and the House. If so, this atrocious crime against our democracy can never be proven, unless the perpetrators confess and produce documentary proof from the files of Diebold and ES&S. On the other hand if the paperless machines are completely honest and accurate, that too can never be proven. Nonetheless, compelling statistical evidence of fraud is still possible. Read on – I will explain this later in this blog.
Late polls indicate a statistical tie, with slight improvements in Kerry’s numbers. However, experts that know much more than I do about such things, tell us that two factors bode ill for Bush. First of all, undecideds generally “break” more than two to one for the challenger, especially when, as now, there is widespread dissatisfaction with the incumbent. Second, most polls report that Bush’s approval ratings are in the 45%-47% range, and no presidential candidate with ratings below 50% has been re-elected.
Because of the following under-reported factors, I suspect that the Kerry’s reported poll numbers under-rate him from three to five points.
First, Karl Rove’s strategy of appealing to “the base” may turn out to be a blunder. That mine has played out, and there is little more ore to be found. Moreover, the “fund of fundies” may be shrkinking, as a few good Christians are at last coming to appreciate that while Jesus had nothing whatever to say about abortion or homosexuality (not to mention the capital gains tax), he was quite explicit about the virtue of pacifism and humility, and about the ungodliness of wealth and hypocrisy. [See my "How Would Jesus Vote?"].
Second, while I was at first skeptical about “the Jimmy Breslin Cell Phone Theory,” it has gained some plausibility in my mind. Breslin, you may recall, said that the poll numbers were wildly off because pollsters never called cell-phone users. It happens that cell phone users are disproportionately young, and the young are strong for Kerry.
Third, an unusually large number of new registrations and, presumably, new voters (neither tallied in the pollster’s “registered voters” and “likely voters” totals) are solidly for Kerry.
Fourth, the intensity factor: it is probable that the pro-Kerry (largely anti-Bush) voters are, in general, much more motivated than the Bush voters, and thus more likely to turn up at the polls. Many republicans have come out for Kerry and others, unable to bring themselves to vote for a Democrat, will sit this one out.
Finally, “the suspicion factor,” detailed in my previous blog, below. Thanks to John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Ari Fleischer (“be careful what you say”) and Bush himself (“with us or against us”), the paranoia level is elevated amongst the population. As a consequence, perhaps a small but significant number of pro-Kerry citizens might be a tad reluctant to reveal their preferences over the phone to a total stranger, claiming to be a pollster.
These are five un-polled plus-factors for Kerry, and if just two or three of them are valid, Kerry’s poll numbers may be significantly under-rated. Apart from the aforementioned “dirty tricks” and e-voting fraud, I can’t think of any unpolled factors favoring Bush.
This adds up to about a ten-point blowout for Kerry in an honest election. But the GOP dirty tricks might reduce that to 51-48-1 (Others) – still a win.
Now to the Joker in the deck:
THE-VOTE MENACE
As the election draws ever closer, we seem to be hearing less and less about the issue of “black box voting” – paperless touch screen computerized voting machines. That neglect is most unfortunate, for these machines could well be the sole factor in transforming a fair Kerry victory into another stolen election for Bush.
Elsewhere I have examined this problem at some length, so I will simply summarize here the problem with e-voting.
- Because the machines produce no independent paper record of the voting, it is impossible to validate the tally with a recount.
- The software that collects, totals and records the votes is “proprietary” – i.e., secret and the exclusive property of the manufacturers of the machine. There is no independent assurance that the vote totals are not systematically distorted.
- The machines can be easily “hacked” – vote totals changed, leaving no evidence of the tampering. This is not speculative: several demonstration “hackings” have been performed.
- Digital files from the individual precincts are then collected in tabulating centers, where there are still further opportunities for undetectable partisan tampering with the returns.
- The owners and manager of the three leading e-voting companies – Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia – are all partisan Republicans.
If you are still not convinced, watch the movie “Votergate.” This link will take you directly to it. Warning: this movie could cause some sleepless nights between now and Tuesday.
Over that past few years, and especially since the 2000 election, there has been a determined effort by dedicated citizens and computer professionals, to develop a reliable and auditable system of computer voting. (See The Crisis Papers' “Electoral Integrity" page). Congressman Rush Holt of New Jersey proposed a bill requiring paper validation of all computer voting. It failed in committee. There remain several methods whereby the validity of e-voting machines might be determined – parallel voting, simulated voting with machines from precincts randomly selected, etc. (For my suggestions, follow this link and see the PostScript below).
With few exceptions, these safeguards have not been adopted, due to the opposition of Republican lawmakers and officials. (Causes one to wonder, doesn’t it?)
When asked why the citizens should accept the reported vote tallies of these machines, the answer from the manufacturers and politicians has been simple and blunt: “Trust us!” That’s all they have to say, because that’s all they can say, given the secrecy of the software codes and the lack of any independent mode of verification.
There is one remaining avenue of confirmation of e-voting returns: statistical analysis. It’s a bit complicated, so bear with me.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF E-VOTING
The remaining mode of assessing e-voting – after the election – is patterned after classical statistical studies of the deterrent effect of capital punishment. They are basically of two types: parallel and longitudinal.
In a parallel study, two states are selected, alike as possible in terms of socio-economic and cultural factors, differing most notably in that State A has the death penalty and State B does not. If capital punishment is a deterrent, this would show up in lower murder rates in the state with the death penalty.
In a longitudinal study, a single state that has adopted, or alternatively has abolished, capital punishment is examined. If the death penalty deters, then murder rates will drop when capital punishment is adopted, and will rise when it is abolished.
(Most studies, parallel and longitudinal, have indicated little or no deterrent effect. But let’s steer clear of that controversy. We have other fish to fry here).
Now let’s apply these techniques to the e-voting question.
Parallel: We select two clusters of precincts or counties which have very similar socio-economic and cultural profiles and which, before e-voting (preferably the 2000 election), had very similar election results. One cluster, “the control,” still employs auditable voting equipment (punch cards, optical scanners, paper ballots, etc.). The other cluster uses paperless e-voting. Compare the results.
Longitudinal: Select precinct or county clusters that used auditable methods in 2000 and have adopted e-voting for this election. Still better if they were polled before both elections. There should also be a minimal amount of shift in the population profiles in the ensuing four years. Then compare the results.
Very soon after the election, a “quick and dirty” comparison could be produced of the Bush-Kerry vote split in the 30% e-voting states, counties and precincts, on the one hand, and the split in the 70% of “other” returns. However, if the e-voting returns yielded sharply higher percentages for Bush, it could be claimed that these machines were in more Republican areas.
More refined analyses would follow the “parallel” and “longitudinal” methods described above.
The September 16th edition of Economist.com published a very helpful color map of the United States, indicating the distribution of the various voting methods. Some states are completely committed to e-voting (Georgia, Nevada, New Jersey, Kentucky). But many are “patchwork” with e-voting among several other methods. Of these, the “battleground states” should be given close attention. The most likely candidates, then, are Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and those most important states, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.
Now consider the following scenario: Counting only the 70% non e-voting returns, Kerry scores a 55-43 landslide (2% for “others”). The e-voting machines alone give Bush a 20% advantage. Combined, each candidate takes his respective “safe states,” and Bush wins, by the slimmest of margins, just enough battleground states to top 270 electoral votes, and to take the election. Kerry, like Gore in 2000, wins the popular vote.
Add to this, continuing job losses, declining median income, soaring health and gas costs, continuing deficits with offsetting rises in interests rates, a revival of the draft and mounting casualties in foreign wars, international ostracism – all this the likely result of a second Bush administration and a President stubbornly “staying the course.” How long would the public put up with this, knowing that it had been cheated in two consecutive national elections – that, in effect, their democracy had been stolen from them?After all, ours is a society that once knew freedom and prosperity for the middle class.
SO WHY VOTE?
If the electronic e-vote fix is in, then why bother to vote next Tuesday?
First of all, we don’t know this for certain. So it would be wise to vote on the chance that the unverifiable, paperless voting machines are, for all that, on the up-and-up.
Second, whenever possible, opt for the paper ballot rather than the e-vote machine. (We can do this in California. Presumably elsewhere as well).
Third, if your ballot is auditable (not an e-vote), then by all means vote so that we can rack up a large auditable Kerry majority. The larger that majority, the more conspicuous the fraud built into the e-voting software. The more conspicuous the fraud, the less legitimate the stolen election.
Finally, if the Diebold-ES&S-Sequoia cheaters underestimate the strength of the Kerry tide, their “fixes” might not withstand the flood of votes.
Then, post election, let’s all do our damndest to outlaw non-auditable voting machines.
POSTSCRIPT: E-VOTING –– MORE COUNTERATTACKS.
(From the August 12 blog).
Face it, Rush Holt’s bill will not make it. We’re not going to get federally mandated paper verification of “paperless” voting. The Congressional Republicans will see to that.
If the GOP manufactured and secretly coded machines “convert” every fourth Kerry ballot to Bush, and if the software, after doing its dirty deed, reverts to “normal,” we’ll not be able to prove the fraud. There will be no record. To be sure, the final returns will show a “remarkable” discrepancy between the pre-elections polls and the final results, but that won’t matter. They did so in Georgia in 2002 indicating a probable “fix,” but we were told to “get over it” and alas, we did.
But all is not lost. Here are two proposals that would serve to validate the accuracy of the e-votes, and they would both be quite affordable and available in time for the election.
(1) As the polls are about to open, one out of ten e-vote machines are chosen at random, “pulled” from the polling stations, and subjected to a simple input-output test. If the software is “fixed,” this will show up in a discrepancy between the input and the output. The stations and the machines would be selected by lot and on the spot, so that no advance “unfixing” could be done.
(2) A few polling stations would be selected by lot, immediately before polls open. These stations would NOT be identified beforehand to the public or press. At these stations, voters would vote BOTH by paper ballot and e-vote machines. The results would then be compared.
The “validation teams” would include individuals of both parties, and they would be selected from a pool of volunteers, so that they could not be “got at” beforehand.
If such a simple and inexpensive method of validation were proposed and the Republicans objected, the citizens would be entitled to an explanation.
And we’d all have still more reason to be very suspicious.
October 26, 2004
A Note About Scheduling:
Please don’t be surprised if the Partridge blogs appear at unscheduled days of the week. Uploading nights (Sunday and Wednesday) are very time-intensive, which makes the Monday and Thursday deadlines hard to meet. So expect a new blog from me at any time.
The Suspicion Factor:
For those discouraged by the latest polling numbers, here’s a thought that might offer some hope.
It is just possible that the polls are underrating Kerry by at least five points, due to an untracked and unprecedented factor – “the climate of suspicion," wherein an opponent of the President might be reluctant to be so identified to an anonymous caller.
Michael Moore hinted at this a couple of years ago, when Bush's approval ratings were in the seventies, and when Bush's "with us or against us" and Ari Fleischer's "be careful what you say" warning were fresh on our minds.
Moore imagined that he, or a typical Bush critic, received a phone call from someone claiming to be a pollster, and asking if he approved of Bush's performance. "Do I approve? Yes, yes, I approve. Please understand me, I approve."
No harm to the individual in telling that lie, and some risk in telling a stranger, claiming to be a "pollster," that you don't approve of our valiant President's courageous leadership protecting us all from the evildoers and terrists.
Now it is obvious that such qualms amongst the general public have greatly subsided since 9/11, hence Bush's below-50% job approvals. However, we are still living in a time when there are frequent stories of vocal complaints against Bush precipitating visits from the Secret Service, of three school teachers, wearing T-shirts printed with "Protect our Civil Liberties," being arrested at a Bush campaign rally, and of "first amendment zones" still in use. (Note in particular, the treatment of many of the NYC protesters during the GOP convention).
Now, with this in mind, imagine that you are a pro-Kerry small business owner in rural Kansas, hard-shell Bush country, and your receive a phone call from someone claiming to be pollster (and how would you know for sure?) who asks if you approve of Bush's job performance, and who you plan to vote for. Would you at least pause before expressing your genuine opinions? Or might you decide to play it safe and keep your opinions to yourself?
Of course, the counter tendency -- a Bush supporter claiming to be a Kerry supporter -- is virtually non-existent.
If one in ten Kerry supporters contacted by the pollsters elect to "play it safe," that's about five points "lost" to Kerry in the reported polls.
Do the pollsters have a method for detecting "the suspicion factor"? I don't think so.
In all the many reports, pundit columns and blogs that I have read recently, none have seen fit to discuss "the suspicion factor." And I have no idea if there is anything to it. But it strikes me as plausible.
If the final polls show a virtual tie (say at 47-47), and the undecideds, as usual, break for the challenger, and if the influx of newly registered and unpolled voters go overwhelmingly for Kerry, and if "the suspicion factor" is genuine, then it will be Kerry in a landslide and, thankfully, the election will be beyond the reach of Karl Rove's lawyers.
But then again, there are those damned paperless e-voting machines, the trashed Democratic registration forms, and the GOP “rent-a-thugs” preparing to harass the voters in the minority precincts in Ohio, none of which seems to be provoking much outrage in the media. (Why am I not surprised?)
I heard someone say that the difference between Democrats and Republicans this year, is that the Democrats are working to get people to vote, and Republicans are desperately trying to keep people from voting. Says a lot about who the real “defenders of democracy” are!
The Cheney's "Outing-Rage":
“Mary-gate” has thankfully subsided, but before it is completely forgotten, some comments are in order, for this non-issue tells us a great deal about GOP campaign tactics and the current state of American (so-called) “journalism.”
Does anyone really believe that Dick and Lynn Cheney were “outraged” by John Kerry’s reference to their lesbian daughter in the third debat? Not many believe this, I would suspect. But no matter. The Cheney’s bluster, amplified by the usual choir of right-wing pundits, succeeded in its intended purpose. It distracted public attention and media reporting and commentary, from Bush’s dismal performance in the third debate.
Are the Cheneys all that sensitive about the feelings of our gay compatriots? Hardly. When Pat Robertson interpreted the 9/11 attacks as the result of God’s anger over abortion, homosexuality and the ACLU, there was not a word of rebuttal from Dick and Lynn. And when Alan Keyes called Mary a “selfish hedonist,” there was not so much as a protective peep from Mary’s parents.
But let Kerry mention that Mary is a lesbian (as Mary and her parents have openly acknowledged), and Hell hath no fury like a Cheney with an opportunity to score political points.
Quoth Lynne: “Speaking as a mom and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick.”
And Dick told us that the remark showed Kerry to be “a man who will say anything in order to get elected.” (And who would know this better than Dick Cheney?)
And just what was this “cheap and tawdry remark”? Here it is in full, with context.
Bob Schieffer asked Bush if he believed homosexuality is a choice. Bush said he didn’t know.
Cue the Senator: “We’re all God’s children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you she’s being who she was; she’s being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it’s not a choice.”
HORRORS!
Now send in the clowns:
William Safire: “The lowest blow... Kerry will, I hope, assert his essential decency by apologizing with sincerity.”
David Brooks: “You use somebody’s daughter to attack the father and his running mate. The parents are upset. The only decent thing to do is apologize.”
William Kristol: “Shameless, ruthless, calculating cruelty.”
Now does anyone remember that in this debate, Bush denied Kerry’s charge that he ever said that he was unconcerned about the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden. Immediately after the debate, a video clip was produced proving that Bush’s comment was exactly as Kerry recalled it. Nor was that the worst of it, as Bush displayed the same incompetence and incoherence that was evident in the first two debates. (Remember Bush’s advice to laid-off breadwinner? Take some courses at the Community College).
We’ve heard of regrets from Kerry and his campaign staff that he made that remark about Mary Cheney. But really, that’s irrelevant. Something else – anything – was bound to be picked out of Kerry’s remarks, or even invented out of whole cloth, in order to draw public attention away from Bush’s dismal performance. The Mary Cheney comment was the first target of opportunity. There were many more waiting in the wings.
Consider, for example, Kerry’s perfectly sensible comment in the first debate about the desirability of a “global test” for foreign policy initiatives. By this he meant that after the fact, it would be helpful to be able to defend the policies before the world. He also said, explicitly, that he would not ask the permission of any foreign power to act in the defense of the United States. Following this, the Bush campaign turned Kerry’s clear meaning completely around, and charged that Kerry would do nothing without France’s permission.
The Kerry team should not have been surprised. This is exactly what happened four years before in the Gore-Bush debates. The media avoided the important public issues discussed in the debates, and instead focused their attention on Gore’s “sighs”, his “invasion” of Bush’s “personal space,” and condemnation Gore’s “lies” which, on closer inspection, were found to be not lies at all.“Misdirection” is as essential to a politician strategist as it is to a stage magician, and Karl Rove is the Houdini of political misdirection.
However, and this is the essential point, not even Karl Rove could get away with it without the willing cooperation of the media. A responsible media, upon hearing the false indignation and contrived outrage over the “dastardly” treatment of poor Mary, would have reviewed Kerry’s comment, seen it for what it was, and said to Rove, Inc., “get over it.” It then would have allowed scant, if any, time and space to the faux indignation that followed. Then a responsible news media would have returned to its proper role of reporting, assessing and “fact-checking” the important content of the debate.
As long as the public tolerates this journalistic enabling of such political chicanery by scoundrels such as Karl Rove, for so long, the public will get the politics it deserves.
And speaking of the debates, here’s some historical perspective on past debates.1960 Turned the campaign around. Without that first debate, JFK would surely have lost.
1980 Reagan was not taken seriously, until he faced Carter. Then the public decided that Ronnie would do after all, as President.
1992 Daddy Bush looked at his watch. Clinton engaged personally with the audience. Game over.
2004 A clean sweep for the challenger. Three for three. The most decisive victory in the history of Presidential debates. Impact on the campaign and the polling numbers? Nada, zilch, nichivo.Go Figure!
October 14, 2004
KERRY V. BUSH -- ROUND THREE:This time I indulged myself with some early blog commentaries, so there may be some "contamination" with this review.
My call: Kerry, without a doubt. And so, a clean sweep of the debate series.
The third debate was the best performance for both Kerry and Bush. But Kerry at his best, leaves the optimal Bush performance far behind.
Bush's grade: a C-.
Now here's a new twist to "the expectations game." Bush set the low bar all by himself in the catastrophic first debate. So his leap from dismal to mediocre comes across as a triumph. However, this is not the ideal way to win points.
On appearance: Bush was once again diminished by the cut-away camera. He smirked throughout, and his constant smile was a bit freaky. Presumably, he was shown videos of his awful facial expressions in the first debate, and advised to avoid them at all costs. He succeeded by wearing a face that was only a marginal improvement.
When Bush spoke, his mouth took on a strange angled slope, as if he wasn't entirely sure of the words that were tumbling out. And always that creepy smile, even as he spoke of human suffering -- Iraq, terrorism, job loss, etc. His intonation conveyed a connotation, to quote Al Capp's L'il Abner: "Any fool can see that -- I can see that." Anyone who senses the condescension in that tone is bound to be put-off by it.
On content: Once again, he came to a ninety minute debate with fifteen minutes of material. So time and again, we heard about Kerry's (spurious) 98 votes for tax increases and, when he didn't want to answer a direct question, he had another go at education and No Child Left Behind. (Prescription for the laid-off PhD computer scientist: enroll in a Community College).
Kerry: earned a solid A. Damn but he was impressive!
Unlike first debate, Kerry looked at the camera -- and at the voters "behind" the camera.
Strong, poised, self-possessed, in command, from start to finish. In short, indisputably "Presidential."
Read the transcript of Kerry's performance and then notice how, though extemporaneous, the sentences are complete and lucid, the paragraphs well structure, the arguments on point, the conclusions sound. Here was first-rate prosecutorial mind at work.
When moderator Bob Schieffer asked Kerry a question, he addressed it directly. His responses to Bush were devastating. It was a virtuoso performance. Quite honestly, I was spell-bound.
First flash poll return from ABC: Kerry 47, Bush 46. What the Hell? No way! Who ARE these people? Then I found out that the sample was 38% Republican and 30% Democrats. So it figures.
Then CNN weighed in: Kerry 52, Bush 39. Now THAT'S more like it!
And CBS: Kerry 39, Bush 25. BOFFO!
Once again, I think the public assessment of Kerry's performance will improve with time, as it did with the second debate. Remember, that lead grew from three to fifteen points over just three days (see the previous blog, below). This one starts with a double-digit lead.
Add to this, the fact that Kerry swept the series, 3-0.
The GOP/whore-media spinners might, as in 2000, diminish Kerry's triumph. But somehow, I am beginning to sense that their hearts are not in it. FAUX News excepted, of course.
Is it possible that just a few media execs and pundits are, at long last, beginning to appreciate the dire implications of four more Bush years? Are they beginning to feel just a bit embarrassed at the thought of this buffoon remaining the leader of their country?
If Bush loses a sizeable portion of the media -- not because of a desertion to Kerry's side, but simply due to a belated renewal of journalistic integrity -- then Bush is a goner. (Unless, of course, Karl Rove comes up with some spectacular October Surprise).
The Bushistas "can't handle the truth."
But can the media, and can the public?
On that question, hangs the election.
October 12, 2004
KERRY V. BUSH: ROUND TWO.
Political “debates” such as the second Kerry/Bush encounter must be evaluated on two levels at least: who was the tactical winner?, and who was the forensic winner?
A third consideration, “tactical staying power,” may be the most significant outcome of the debate. I’ll have more to say about it at the close of this analysis.
The “tactical winner,” is the candidate who gained an advantage for his campaign – as indicated by the poll results. The “forensic winner” is the candidate who gave the better argument – the contestant who would have earned more points with a panel of unbiased debate judges. Forensic points are earned by presenting relevant and confirmed factual evidence, avoiding false premises, and providing logically valid inferences to conclusions.
In the 2000 election, Gore was the clear forensic winner of all three debates. But thanks to the media’s cacophony of irrelevancies (e.g., Gore’s sighs and Bush’s “likeability”), and it’s uncritical accommodation of GOP spin, Gore became the tactical loser. Unfortunately, with the American electorate, tactics (i.e., “appearances”) generally trump evidence and logic.
In the second Kerry/Bush (so-called) “debate,” Kerry edged out Bush on tactical points, and obliterated Bush forensically. The tactical win was indicated by the polling results that immediately followed – single-digit advantages to Kerry.
In the tactical contest, Kerry was slightly off his game – he earned an “A” grade in the first debate, and a “B+” in the second, due mostly to a few missed opportunities. He appeared a bit tired at the beginning, but very soon was fully up to speed.
Bush’s appearance was vastly improved over the first debate. This time, he was energetic and alert, and uncharacteristically articulate. In addition, he apparently took deliberate control of his facial expressions during Kerry’s “turns.” On an absolute scale, it was not an impressive performance. But given the low bar of expectations set by the first debate, Bush gained tactical points from his remarkable improvement.
Like his running-mate in the Veep debate, Bush stood up credibly to Kerry to the hypothetical “man from Mars.” To someone who knew absolutely nothing about the credibility of the “evidence” presented, both contestants brought forth impressive arrays of alleged “facts” about each others’ records and about the state of the nation and the world.
But an Earthling, well apprized of the facts, would know at once that Bush’s case was a package of lies, distortions and half-truths, while Kerry presentation was grounded in confirmable facts. Hence Kerry’s “forensic” trouncing of Bush.
Such was my assessment, jotted down immediately after the debate and deliberately isolated from the commentary that followed.
Yesterday, I saw much of the debate again, and of course had by that time read a great deal of press and internet commentary. This time I judged Kerry the clear winner. He was sharp and on point, and Bush seemed at times, simply pathetic. But then, this time I was also allowing forensics (facts and logic) enter into my evaluation.
And therein lies what is perhaps the most important feature of the debate: Kerry’s performance stands up over time, while Bush’s does not. "Fact checking" enters into the equation. The “energy” and “forcefulness” of Bush’s performance that was perceived at the time, morphs into a recollection of a “hyper” and frantic, perhaps even a desperate, contestant.
The polls seem to bear out this impression.
Today, in a USA Today article, Susan Page published a Gallup poll result which, while easily overlooked, is extraordinary in its significance – a significance that was apparently not noticed by Page. She writes:“Voters’ judgment by 45% to 30% that Kerry did better than Bush in their second debate Friday didn’t significantly change the contest between them.”
Now focus on the numbers, and disregard for the moment the comment about no “significant change.”
Immediately after the debate, the “flash polls” gave the contest to Kerry, but by slim margins. The ABC poll showed a three-point lead for Kerry.
Now, just three days later, that lead has expanded to fifteen points.
Contrast this with the Gore/Bush contest of 2000. Then, Gore’s debate victories were turned to defeat by the mighty GOP-media spin machine. It was truly an awesome accomplishment.
Not this time. The spin has spun out. Now the GOP Mighty Wurlitzer is discordant and has lost its impact upon the public. Rather than reverse Kerry’s victories, his advantage appears to be increasing as the public reflects upon his performance and, this time, much of the media is at last recovering some of the journalistic integrity that was so conspicuously absent four years ago.
I would venture that the “significant change” that Susan Page found missing, is “cooking” amongst the voters, though not yet apparent in the polls.. Debate Two gave the voters something to mull over – that Kerry just may not be the caricature that tens of millions of GOP campaign dollars have attempted to foist upon the public. Moreover, that Bush’s “steadfastness” and “determination” may now be seen be nothing more than empty-headed, dogmatic bull-headedness. Perhaps his fabled “gut” is no longer trusted. (See my current editorial essay: “George Bush’s Gut”).
If John Kerry can, in Wednesday’s final debate, display his presidential timber and present directly to the public the elements of his campaign that the media has heretofore obscured, and if in response George Bush is provoked once again to exhibit his limitations and his disqualification for his office, that “significant change” in public opinion may at last emerge.
October 7, 2004
A KINDER, GENTLER, TITLE.
Several thoughtful individuals have written to advise me that, while they enjoyed my essay “Suckers for Jesus,” they were put-off by the title. One individual in particular told me that while he would like to distribute the essay to friends and members of his local church, he felt that he could not do so with such a title.
So I’ve decided on a simple solution: same essay, new title: “How Would Jesus Vote?” You can find it at www.crisispapers.org/essays/jesus-vote.htm .
PRAVDA ON THE POTOMAC REVISITED:
It’s been almost a year and a half since I’ve watched MSNBC – until last night.
The last straw, back in April, 2002, was a “report” of a speech by John Kerry, wherein he called for a “regime change” in Washington. Not an original turn of phrase, to be sure. But it sufficed to set off the partisan alarm bells at MSNBC.
Thus we were treated to the spectacle of two (so-called) “reporters,” Keith Olberman and Norah O’Donnell, proclaiming that Kerry’s “regime change” remark was “extreme rhetoric” that was certain to cause Kerry more damage than Nixon’s “I am not a crook” and Clinton’s “I did not have sex with that woman.” (An accurate recollection: I took notes at the time).
“That does it,” I told my wife, “no more MSNBC.” She agreed fully. I then fired off the following e-mail to MSNBC:EXTREME RHETORIC! EXTREME RHETORIC! EXTREME RHETORIC!
Flashed across the screen, while Keith Olberman and Norah O'Donnell spewed out the most disgraceful display of partisanship that I have ever seen on a TV screen, outside of a political attack ad.
Come to think of it, this WAS a political attack ad.
That settles it. MSNBC is nothing more than a conduit of political propaganda straight from the RNC -- the Chairman of which was featured on this outburst.
NEVER AGAIN will I watch MSNBC, except to check in now and then to identify the sponsors that I will boycott.
Announce and broadcast an in-depth and candid investigation of George Bush's AWOL from the Air National Guard, or his substance abuse, or his violation of securities laws, or the rigging of computer voting machines by Sen. Hagel and in Georgia, and all is forgiven.
I am confident that it will be a cold day in Hell before I see such a thing on MSNBC.I kept to my resolve until Tuesday night, following the Edwards-Cheney debate. Word had come back to me that Keith Olberman was now the voice of reason on MSNBC, and I had heard that Chris Matthews had recently even given some Bushistas a tough grilling.
So I tuned into MSNBC and apparently a parallel universe. There I encountered Matthews, and a panel comprising Andrea Mitchell Greenspan, Joe Scarborough, and Newsweek’s Jon Meachem.
This time, I did not record the spectacle and did not take notes. But Salon’s Eric Boehlert captured the gist of it, and his account fully accords with my recollection:The Cheney group hug began before Edwards had even exited the debate stage in Cleveland, with NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell declaring, "Dick Cheney did awfully well in putting John Edwards in his place." MSNBC host and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough, who didn't flinch in naming Sen. John Kerry the debate winner last week, declared, "There's no doubt about it, Edwards got obliterated by Dick Cheney." (Perhaps he was trying to appease his right-wing fans who, he later remarked, flayed him alive for giving the debate to Kerry last week.) Newsweek's managing editor Jon Meachem chimed in that Edwards seemed like "Kerry-lite," while host Matthews skewered Edwards in a strangely personal way, reminiscent of the way Matthews hounded President Bill Clinton throughout the impeachment process.
"I don't think this well-rehearsed and well-briefed senator from North Carolina was ready for the assault," said Matthews, who insisted, "Dick Cheney was loaded for bear tonight. He went looking for squirrel and he found squirrel" in the form of Edwards. He later suggested Edwards often looked stunned, as if he'd been "slapped" by Cheney's devastating debating technique. Matthews also demanded to know if the "liberal press" would admit "Cheney won."Then Boehlert correctly reported that “nowhere else on the television landscape -- not even on Fox News -- was Cheney crowned the winner. Most pundits saw the debate as an obvious draw.”
So once again, MSNBC rejoins FAUX-NEWS on my sh*t-list.
Maybe I’ll watch MSNBC again some day.
Maybe Hell will freeze over.
DICK CHENEY vs. JOHN EDWARDS AND REALITY.
My immediate, pre-spun response: If I had watched the debate with absolutely no independent knowledge or opinion as to the facts presented by the contestants, I would have called it essentially a draw.
But I am much more a word-person than a drama critic. Had I paid closer attention to appearances – had I cut out the sound and focused on the images – I would have recognized that Edwards clearly had the advantage. He spoke directly to Gwen Ifill, and to the camera (i.e., the viewing audience). Cheney spoke as if the microphone were in his lap. Edwards was energetic and his face showed both attention and enthusiasm. Cheney’s expression ranged from passive to pissed-off, to bored.
Cheney’s body-language bespoke: “Why should I have to waste my time with this uppity pretty-boy? Who the hell does he think he is, demanding that I explain myself?” That’s not a good message to convey to a public which the Vice President presumably serves. But then, the concept of “public service” is alien to Cheney’s thought processes.
Unfortunately for Cheney, there is a real world outside of the debate, and reality will prove to be his undoing. It is already happening.
For Cheney, with no apparent scruple, strung together a breathtakingly bold sequence of evasions, half-truths, and damned lies. This was morally wrong, of course. But he did all this as if no one would bother to fact-check his whoppers. This was worse than wrong, it was monumentally stupid.
So now, Cheney’s debate performance is beginning to fall apart, and with it the credibility of Cheney and of the Bush campaign. Specifically:
- Immediately after the debate, Cheney’s claim that he was then meeting Edwards for the first time, was directly refuted by Edwards’ wife. Now there are photos and video clips of previous meetings of Cheney and Edwards circulating in the internet. While this is a trivial matter by itself, the boldness of the lie and the certainty of its refutation serve as damning evidence of Cheney’s mendacity.
- Cheney claimed that he frequently presided over the Senate. In fact, the records show that he did so only twice during his term.
- Cheney said that he had never claimed that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Citations of his numerous suggestions to the contrary are conspicuous in the press.
The discovery and elaboration of Cheney’s lies is a gift to Kerry/Edwards that keeps on giving. The democrats will put all this to good use – you can count on it! Just visit the website of the DNC, www.democrats.org , and see for yourself.
In 2000, Al Gore was seriously damaged by the false charge that he was a “serial exaggerator,” or worse, a liar. (Remember “inventing the internet” and “discovering Love Canal,” etc.?) This time the charge falls upon the Republicans, and this time it is well-deserved.
But more significant to the Kerry campaign than Cheney’s lies, was Edwards’ (and Kerry’s) opportunity, at last, to face the public directly and to present some fundamental facts that have heretofore been effectively obscured by a GOP-accommodating media..
A year ago, two thirds of the public believed that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, and that number is now only slightly below half. The Republicans are still relentlessly promoting this myth, and for good reason. Who would not want to invade Iraq, if one were convinced that Saddam was behind the attacks? (I am reminded of a TV spot I saw, featuring the actor and ex-Senator Fred Dalton Thompson. “Why are we in Iraq? Two words: nine-eleven.” Shameless!)
At last, Kerry and Edwards are telling the voters directly what the Republicans and the media will not: “Saddam didn’t attack us, Osama bin Laden attacked us.” (Kerry, First Debate).
Similarly, millions of American voters are hearing for the first time from the Democratic candidates that there are no WMDs in Iraq, that the “coalition” is largely a myth, that the median family income is down by $1500 and that more than a million jobs have been lost, and so on.
As we’ve said before in this blog: Kerry-Edwards have two opponents – Bush/Cheney, and the media. Bush/Cheney likewise have two opponents – Kerry/Edwards and the real world.
At long last, with the debates, reality is joining the battle.
Summing up: It was Cheney’s task to halt the erosion of support set in motion by the first Kerry-Bush debate. In this, he failed totally. In addition, the GOP-media spin-machine that was so awesomely effective in 2000 has failed to reverse, or even significantly stall, the Democratic victories in the first two debates. Kerry is in a commanding position for his Friday debate.
Bush, on the other hand, is damaged goods. He must stand alone (perhaps even without the advantage of his listening device). The resources he needs to recover and regain the initiative he does not have, and his life history indicates that he never did. It is difficult to imagine many more voters switching from Kerry to Bush, and abundant reason to presume voter shifts in the opposite direction.
The beast is wounded and cornered, and therefore very dangerous!
Look for more smears and an October surprise.
October 5, 2004
PUTTING THE FINGER ON THE KERRY-MANICURE STORY.
Fox News’ Carl Cameron posted and then withdrew an article in which he quotes John Kerry as saying: “women should like me! I do manicures." There were other unflattering alleged quotes, but I won’t repeat them, since it is apparent now that Cameron made them up.
But here’s a surprise for you: I know with near certainty that John Kerry does his own manicure, almost daily.
Reflection upon his masculinity? Absolute zero.
You see, Kerry is reputed to be an accomplished classic guitarist. If this is so, then while he is actively practicing and playing his guitar, he simply must give constant attention to the fingernails of his right hand.
This is as “effeminate” as a champion skier’s meticulous attention to the waxing and edging of his skis, a hockey player’s concern for the edges of his skates, or a sax player’s personal shaping of his reed.
I know. For over thirty years, I was a performing classic guitarist, and I can testify that the length and shape of the right-hand fingernails, within a tolerance of a fraction of a millimeter, is essential to top performance on that most challenging of instruments. (The optimum length, by the way, appears quite normal: approximately 1mm beyond the tip of the finger).
And no one – absolutely no one – is better qualified to file and to shape those nails than the guitarist himself. I assure you that no serious classic guitarist will ever tell you otherwise.
So there may be a germ of truth to that ridiculous Fox News story about Kerry’s manicures.
The great guitarist, Andres Segovia, once said that more people around the world play the guitar than any other instrument, and that fewer people around the world play it well than any other instrument.
If John Kerry is among the latter group, he has my profound respect. I know, I’ve been there.
THE “MAJORITY REPORT” FLAMING OF ADAM NAGOURNEY. BAD IDEA!
A couple of weeks ago, Sam Seder of Air America Radio’s "Majority Report," had an on-air hissy-fit over a report in the New York Times. It seems that the reporter, Adam Nagourney, wrote an article about the NY Times/CBS poll that tallied an eight to nine point Bush lead over Kerry. (See my September 28 blog below).
Seder’s complaint was that the sample included 36% who voted for Bush in 2000, and 28% who voted for Gore and thus was skewed in favor of Bush.. Seems like a reasonable criticism on the face of it. Since I’ve already discussed that aspect of the story below, there is no need to repeat it here.
That said, let’s explore further, not the poll, but Seder’s response to it. Throughout the three hours of that “Majority Report,” Seder harangued Nagourney, who, after all, reported the poll – he didn’t invent those figures or choose the sample. Not content with verbal abuse, Seder went on to announce Nagourney’s e-mail address on the air and to urge listeners to “flame” Nagourney’s e-mail In-Box.
This was not only morally wrong, it was plain stupid. Sam Seder strikes me as an intelligent, informed and dedicated individual, and I am glad that he is a political ally of mine. But he’s really got to do something about his on-air temper. For when he pops off, and judgment departs, he is capable of some thoughtless and tactically stupid behavior.
“Flaming” an essentially innocent New York Times reporter is a case in point. A reporter’s e-mail address is an essential tool of his trade. What Seder instigated was damaging to Nagourney’s work, and, had the reporter been in a litigious mood, he likely could have filed a suit against Seder and Air America Radio for malicious mischief.
It was also stupid in that it was counter-productive to the political cause that Seder is promoting. In the future, it is bloody unlikely that Adam Nagourney and his co-author, Janet Elder, will be at all inclined to give Seder and Air America Radio a fair and objective hearing. Moreover, the reporters’ resentment at their treatment by Seder and his “flaming” fans is likely to extend to their co-workers at the New York Times.
Foremost amongst the objectives of the political left, is to gain access and a fair treatment by the corporate media. This requires tact, patience, gentleness and persistence. Insulting and damaging those who might, with gentle persuasion, assist our cause, is just not a wise way to behave.
If it will help, I will donate some tranquilizers to Sam Seder, who might also be well-advised that he need not shout at his listeners. There’s something called a “microphone” in front of him, that quite nicely does the job of conveying his voice beyond the studio.
Bottom line: By all means let’s fight hard for the cause, but let’s fight smart. In this case, Sam Seder did not.
THE ELECTRIC PRESIDENT:
Like my partner, Bernie Weiner, I am intrigued by a theory that has emerged from the fringes of left-wing fantasyland, and is slowly acquiring some plausibility and exposure.
Was George Bush, in the first debate, “wired for sound?” Did he have a listening device which fed him directions and cues during the debate?
While there is no solid evidence, there are several intriguing clues. A mysterious bulge in the back of Bush’s suit jacket. Those awkward pauses during his delivery. And a strange interjection of “let me finish,” sixty seconds into a ninety second response, when neither Lehrer nor Kerry gave any indication of an interruption.
But I’ll let others supply the grounds for this theory. (Begin with Bernard Weiner's blog, then follow the links).
This intriguing notion of “the wired President” reminds me of another incident.
Several years ago, James Randi, a former magician and a MacArthur "Genius grant" awardee, engineered a masterful debunking. A televangelist named Peter Popov displayed an amazing ability to walk up to total strangers in his audience, address them by name and describe their life histories and their ailments in detail. Then one of Randi's assistants intercepted a wireless message from Popov's wife to a listening device in Popov's ear. The wife read out information that the audience members had previously written on a personnel form. Randi's crew then combined the audio track of Mrs. Popov's sweet nothings into Popov's ear, with the video of the revival meeting.
That clip was played on The Tonight Show (during the Carson era, I believe). I have seen it, and it is devastating.
Back to time-present. Just imagine someone capturing the signal from Karl Rove or Karen Hughes (or whomever) to Bush during the debate. Suppose he did so for the first hour of the debate, and then, during the final half-hour, broadcasted a loud jamming signal into Bush's ear.
With all the internet “chatter” about “the wired Shrub,” we can be confident that if in fact Bush used a listening device, the Bush crew is aware of the danger of an intercepted signal.
This puts Bush in an agonizing dilemma. On the one hand, continue to use the device in which case, there is a danger of exposure. On the other hand, give it up – cut the “lifeline” and leave Dubya on his own behind that lectern.
Maybe we will, at long last, encounter the unscripted Bush, facing ninety minutes of time to fill.
Could be very interesting!
Which leads us to .....
THE WIZARD OF OZ MOMENT.
There were times last Thursday when George Bush seemed to be edging toward a “Wizard of Oz Moment” – when Toto would pull away the curtain, and Dubya would be revealed to all as the pathetic, over-achieving, empty-headed phony that he truly is. It may still happen. He has two more turns at the plate.
Both literature and history provide many examples of the high and mighty being exposed, whereupon their careers, power and celebrity go into free-fall.
- In the play and movie, Inherit the Wind, “Matthew Harrison Brady” (patterned after William Jennings Bryan), adored by the good Christian citizens of Hillsboro (“the buckle of the Bible Belt”), overplays his role and reveals himself as a pathetic old windbag.
- In Herman Wouk’s “Caine Mutiny,” Captain Queeg, a dangerously incompetent and neurotic naval officer, is provoked into a psychotic meltdown when put on the witness stand in a Court Martial. Case closed. (See Bruce Ticker's latest: "Like Captain Queeq: Is Bush going bonkers?).
- Senator Joe McCarthy’s, whose wild accusations of disloyalty and treason, spread a pall of terror throughout the federal government, was stopped cold by an exasperated old Boston Lawyer, Joseph Welch. (“Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”). A courageous broadcast journalist, Edward R. Murrow, delivered the coup de grace.
- An exposure of hypocrisy is often the silver bullet that brings down the sanctimonious. Witness the cases of Jimmy Swaggart and of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.
Progressives who have read Molly Ivins, James Moore and other biographers of George Bush, and who have followed Bush’s career, know full well that the man has been placed far above his level of incompetence. He doesn’t read, he is incurious, he is dogmatic, he is sociopathic, and he is guided by impulse and instinct – his “gut.” He has been shielded from contrary opinions and surrounded by sycophants and pre-selected adoring fans – a “bubble-boy” as some have called him.
Now he must stand alone, alongside a rival with a first-rate intellect, extensive experience in government, and the courtroom savvy of a seasoned prosecutor. And he must stand alone, unprotected and unmediated, before the public. He was cruelly cut up at the first debate, and now there is blood in the water as he returns for two more.
The pressure on George Bush today must be unbearable for he is well aware, as are his handlers, that he is in desperate need of personal resources that he does not have, and never had. Unlike John Kerry, he does not stand up well under pressure – he has not turned a swift boat into enemy fire. Throughout his life he has been bailed out by his daddy and his daddy’s friends. Now he is trapped. There is no escape. He is Captain Queeg, alone on the witness stand, as the brilliant lawyer, like Barney Greenwald in the Caine Mutiny, approaches to finish him off.
Could this be George Bush’s Wizard of Oz moment? When, at last, this tragedy turns to farce?
Maybe, just maybe.
I just know that I wouldn’t want to be in Karl Rove’s shoes right now.
October 1, 2004
THE DEBATE: WHO’D A-THUNK IT?
“Atmospherics” and “drama criticism,” which turned Al Gore’s 2000 victory into defeat, secured John Kerry’s decisive victory in the first presidential debate.
At this website I have complained repeatedly about the media’s sabotage of Gore’s candidacy through its redirection of public attention from the issues and the candidates’ qualifications for office, to such trivia as sighs, “invaded personal space,” and “likeability.”
Even so, it would be useful to examine the “atmospherics” of last night’s debate, not because it should be important, but because, unfortunately, it is important to the voting public.
For this time, unlike four years ago, the Democrat won the debate, not only on issues and qualification, but on appearances as well. Thus it is unlikely this time that Kerry’s triumph last night win will be reversed by the media spin that follows.
The early polls, as you probably know by now, awarded a decisive victory to Kerry. By nine points according to ABC, and a whopping eighteen points according to CBS.
But here’s the delicious irony: the same “theatrics” that defeated Gore, crippled Bush this time around.
Remember the inflated commentary about Gore’s “sighs,” his facial expressions, his posture? Because I did, I was relieved to read that “cutaway shots” would be disallowed this time. However, it turns out that in fact both contestants were shown on a split screen – to Bush’s great disadvantage.
As many early commentators have noted, while Kerry spoke, Bush looked impatient, intimidated, and at times displayed his vacant “pet goat” face. As Salon’s Scott Rosenberg observed:I just finished watching George Bush sigh at least a half dozen time – as well as grimace, pout and otherwise express his exasperation at John Kerry’s inexplicable failure to pontificate or gasbag beyond the 2-minute limit Bush’s handlers had insisted upon.
While Kerry stood ramrod-straight behind his podium, Bush leaned and held on to his podium as if for dear life. There’s a message there. Confident self-possession and control contrasted with grasping dependence.
I watched the CBS and ABC post-debate analyses with some foreboding, as I recalled the shameless spinning of 2000. (I couldn’t bear to watch the cable channels, though I saw a few minutes of CNN’s Aaron Brown -- not too bad, as it turned out). Best of all, these network appendixes were brief – a half hour. Peter Jennings, to his great credit, banned the partisan spinners from his half-hour, and his analysis was refreshingly unbiased and journalistic. CBS began with balanced “spins” by John McCain and Joe Biden. Bob Schieffer’s verdict of a “draw” was refuted by the poll, and by the reactions of the pre-selected six “undecided voters.”
As I noted just yesterday in this blog, with this debate,at last ... Kerry gets his chance to talk directly to the American people. He’d better do a damned good job of it, for immediately after the debates, the media whore “spinners” will come in with their instant (and suspicious) polls and their phony “focus groups” to tell us what we really saw and how we really should think. In 2000, they applied their alchemy and succeeded in turning Gore’s debate victories into defeats.
Well, he nailed it. Moreover, the GOP spinners (at least the few I saw) were remarkably subdued. They spewed out their expected pronouncements of victory, but you could see immediately that their hearts were not in it and that they were, in fact, more than a little bit embarrassed about the roles they were called upon to play. On the Daily Show, Rudi Giuliani’s happy talk was ruthlessly skewered by Jon Stewart. The fearful GOP spin machine of 2000 sputtered and groaned without apparent damage to Kerry.
In the remaining debates, Bush is bound to be under extraordinary pressure, as Kerry's attack is directed toward to Bush's weakest flank: domestic issues. And as we found out on 9/11, Bush does not respond well to pressure
Bush has been wounded and he knows it, and he has discovered that he has a formidable opponent. Worst of all, he simply does not have the resources to effect a recovery – he does not, because he never has. No one knows this better than George W. Bush.
Bush will now pay the opportunity costs tallied by those wasted hours and years in the Houston and New Haven bars, away from his contractual obligations with the National Guard, and in the vacuous offices of the corporations he ran into bankruptcy.
For when he stands behind the podium in the presidential debates, he stands alone – Poppy, Jim Baker, and Prince “Bandar-Bush” cannot help him. And this time, at last, not even the whore media will be able to bail him out.
And he will stand opposite a man of proven courage, intellect, knowledge, and experience in public service.
When the alpha male of the wolf pack grows old, or is wounded in the hunt, the younger wolves, previously cowed into submission, combine to bring down the leader. The same phenomenon is seen in the fall of despotic regimes – witness the overthrow of the Romanov dynasty in Russia, of apartheid in South Africa, of Soviet Communism. The "establishment" leadership projects strength and resolution even as the foundation rots from within. Then follows a public perception of vulnerability, followed by collapse. What at first is assumed to be impossible is then suspected of being possible, whereupon it becomes irresistible.
George Bush was diminished in the first debate, and will not recover in the second and third debates. The defense of Bush by the media appears to be less resolute than it was four years ago (though it is too early to be sure). The polls, which now show a slight lead for Bush, also show that a majority of American voters do not approve of the direction that the country is taking, and want new leadership. Much of Bush’s “support” is by default – due to an absence of an alternative.
Now that alternative is emerging, and as Kerry gains strength his candidacy will generate still more strength – a “positive feedback.”
In a newly published article, written before the debate, John Zogby writes that, despite the poll numbers, it is Kerry’s election to lose. All the more reason for Kerry’s supporters to redouble their efforts and contributions, lest the advantage of this breakthrough be lost.
More Ernest Partridge Blogs