Cabal

Breaking News: Pigeon Refuses to Enter Hole!

by pyrrho

Ok, here is the task I want to give us all.  You know your political affiliation, however independent you are, you know, and probably we know, at least if you have ever posted before.  You can state what your general affiliation is, or you can assume we know. 

But I value us in that we are independents in spirit, that our affiliations are coincidental and/or rational, not dogmatic, and also, I think most of us pride ourselves (maybe falsely in some cases) on -not- being dogmatists.

I don't believe we can prove we are not dogmatic, but lets demonstrate it by example.  My challenge:

Name The Issues Where You Differ From The Mainstream of Your Party (or Parties) of Affiliation!

I'm going to do it in the comments myself because that way this post is not about the specific issues in which I differ with progressives/Democrats/liberals/pyrrhonists and is instead about the challenge as stated.  Also, that will allow me to keep thinking such issues as the thread goes on.

Spinsanity Overflow

Change in GOP ethical rules?  Bush's Cabinet appointments?  The high cost of beef?  It's an adult swim, have at it.

Swift Boat Vets for Truth: Impact Post-Mortem

by pyrrho

The title says it all but let me only clarify what topic I raise. Firstly, it's not a discussion about the direct veracity of their claims, such disputes were more fit to the time before the election. I fully expect you to digress, but I'd rather we didn't, because the question is "What Impact Did the SBVT Allegation and Advertisements Have On the Election's Outcome?"

The fact that some say they lied in every case, some say in no case, some say in certain cases, some say less than Kerry... is itself data regarding their impact.  If EVERYONE thought they told no lies, then this implies something about their impact, regardless of the fact that everyone, in that case, might be mistaken.

Most of us probably knew the allegations were coming before we ever heard of John O'Neill because it was evident that Kerry's role in the Vietnam Vets Against the War and his appearance before the US Senate were likely to be brought up because they are, in fact, key points not just of Kerry's past but sore points in American History itself.  That John O'Neill played his role might have not been surprising, and added a poetic circle in which John (O) and John (K) relived a debate they had back in the 60s.  In fact, they literally debated on the Dick Cavett show (I wanted to give a link to the C-SPAN archives, where I watched it, but it seems to have been removed).

At the time I felt the impact would not be too severe for Kerry, thinking this all was well known enough to not shift voters, and naively hoping that Vietnam was in the past.  I think history showed me wrong, but the evidence is not conclusive.  However, I do think it hurt Kerry and is one of many things that can be said to have lost the election (that is, there are numerous things that can be said to have swayed a few million votes and any of them were therefore enough to "lose the election").   I say this because when the SBVT started advertising Unfit for Command and running other ads in earnest in August 2004, Kerry had come to enjoy a 5-10 point lead in the polls.  During the onslaught from SBVT he fell into the dead heat stasis that persisted, poll-wise, until election day. 

I don't think this hinged on the disputed facts so much as maybe the basic fact that people didn't know, didn't remember that Kerry was leader of the VVAW, people didn't remember the anti-war movement and by being shown snippets of his testimony and reacquainted with Kerry's significant role against the war, it seemed almost as if Kerry was solely responsible for the negative accounting of the Vietnam War which still persists in the American psyche.  While I suspect most people did not hold Kerry's protesting years against him, quite the contrary, I think the current Wartime Condition of the US did not cross well with their intentions to pursue the War on Terror according to a Bush Doctrine. 

Again, I offer my own answer simply to not be overly coy, to be honest about my ideas (and to display rather than hide any bias I may suffer), but the real point is the question and your analysis, Did the SBVT Campaign Effect the Final Outcome of the US Election?

If the Election Were a Statement To the World

by pyrrho

If the 2004 election was a statement to the world, what would it be?  While I have no problem accepting Bush as president, and while I'm somewhat dismayed I totally accept the rules of democracy as valid so I also understand that the government has been placed in Republican hands, intentionally. But it is this question which is hardest to answer by appealing to the Democratic System as I see it.  By that system I, an American voter, owe Bush a blank piece of paper and the hope that he has learned from his mistakes or will be proven right in enough things for his policies to succeed for America.  But these other countries of the world are not filled with American Voters and still are bound and affected greatly by our election.  It is also a message to them about what America is thinking.

I fear we've said:

• "We have few to no messy qualms about war or about the moral dillemas posed by war."
• "We don't feel we have to explain ourselves when the justifications used prior to war turn out wrong."
• "We think the NATO alliance with Europe is old fashioned and obsolete, that alliance with equals is obsolete...  as allies it is merely your choice to join us... or not."
• "World, we not only don't care what you think, we enjoy not caring, we prefer someone that appears proud to not care what you think!"

We don't outnumber them.  I see dangerous hubris in this message to the world.  I see a clicking clock ticking away as we spend America's Moral Capital as the foundation of Modern Democracy, and when the time runs out, American Power will have waned as the world's tacit cooperation with America fades away.  I see lasting damage down the road.  But:

What message from America do you think this election has sent the world?

Can We All Just Agree On A Plan?

By Kav

First of all I am very happy to see that traffic on Cabal has gone up and that good debate is with us again. I think this is an important resource and that we criminally underused it for a few months.

Well, tomorrow is election day in the US of A and you guys have a choice between Bush or Kerry. I'm not going to comment on the merits or faults of either candidate. The last thing I want to be accused of, as a foreign citizen, is trying to influence your election. Instead I would like to propose a challenge. In an effort to break away from partisan politics I want to see if us great thinkers on this 'ere board can achieve consensus on an important issue. More than that I want to see whether we can come up with ideas for dealing with problems in the world without resorting to jumping into party lines.

So, to that end, I have a simple question, one that has a potentially very complicated answer:

What should we do next in Iraq?

That's it. Now here are my rules:

1) no bitching about previous mistakes - real or imagined. We are there and we to need think forward. Ideas should progress from how things stand as of today the 1 November 2004.

2) no mentioning of Bush or Kerry - these ideas are simply how we should proceed and what are aims should be. Feel free to use their ideas but in this case there is no need to reference the originators.

3) no hyping of parties or ideologies beyond the need to describe an idea in context, e.g. 'perhaps we should adopt the communist solution of ...'

4) no slagging off of parties or ideologies.

I declare myself the dictator responsible for deciding whether the rules have been broken and a virtual arse-kicking shall be delivered to the perpetrator! Of course this might betray my personal biases as much as breaking the rules might betray your own but so be it.

I am intrigued to see whether we can get anywhere and achieve any kind of consensus. I understand the problems of not having full information on the problem but we can all try. If there is anyone game enough to have a go I suggest they write a comment; this is our chance to step into the roles of politicians and talk with a diverse set of capable minds that hold differing view points. Surely a fantastic opportunity.

Spinsanity Overflow

Because someone on the thread over here made you very, very angry and you didn't get a chance to respond.

Election Musings

by Averroes

With the election cycle winding down to the last month or two, I would like to make some observations for the record.

I have always been sort of a maverick, always seen things differently, always liked to tweak the smug views of others. Richard Clarke would recognize me as a compadre. Some of this I have published before.

First, I love the unusual, the chance to be a part of a time that stands out in history. I would like to have an election result which calls future generations back with a "do you believe that, way back in 2004, ....?"

So, someone has calculated that there are over a hundred different ways for the electoral race to end in a tie, 269 for each candidate. But wait. Once we vote for a slate of electors pledged to a party's candidates, there is nothing but party loyalty to hold those electors to their pledge. Electors can, and have, voted for someone other than those for whom they have pledged. In 1988, for example, Margaret Leach of Huntington, West Virginia refused to cast her ballot for Michael Dukakis, although he had carried the state and she was on the Democratic slate.

Which brings us to an absolute dream result. If the electoral college is tied, and West Virginia goes to Bush, one elector on the Republican slate has already announced that he is undecided. Mayor Richie Robb, mayor of South Charleston, has said that he is mad at President Bush. While he says that it is "unlikely" that he will cast his ballot for Kerry, he said he might cast his ballot for some other Republican, such as Dick Cheney. But he COULD give the victory to Kerry. One man.

If Bush was at 270, a change by Robb would keep Bush from claiming victory. If it is a tie, and Robb DID cast a ballot for Kerry, Kerry would win. In these cases, the results of a presidential election would come down to the vote of one man. A truly remarkable 15 minutes of fame.

A second dream result would be for Bush to win the popular vote, while Kerry wins the electoral vote. This one seems possible. There have been several elections in which the winner of the popular vote did not become president. The last time this happened, the rancor and hatred it aroused lasted until the next election, that is, this one. I would hope that Bushies can say, like Dennis Miller, "I'm for Bush, and I don't want Kerry to be president, but if he is elected, on November 3rd, I get in line behind him. If he is elected, the day after the election, I am a Kerry man." Maybe the Bush supporters can show that they are Americans first, unlike those bilious, vitriolic Democrats.

On political boards, including Spinsanity when I first came to it, over a year ago, antiBushites could not write his name without attaching "unelected," "selected," "illegitimate," or some other adjectival phrase indicating that Bush somehow had not won the office according to the law, and should not be in it. On Spinsanity, at least, there has been less of this since the election season has started. But some of the offenders are still there.

In the best of cases, and this seems likely, Bush wins the popular vote, Kerry the College, the lawyers celebrate full-employment day by filing a hundred lawsuits. Eventually, it comes down to the supervisor of elections in one state enforcing the law as written, being overturned by the State Supreme Court, and it goes to the Supreme Court. There, the Court upholds the state law, and Kerry becomes president. All i ask in this case, or, actually, even if Kerry merely wins the presidency without the popular majority, is that those who so spoke about Bush spend the next three years attaching the same adjectival phrases to Kerry's name. Something like, "you filthy Republicans must admit that Kerry's new health policies will help solve a nasty situation, and the results of the new studies show that it will be cheaper than thought, so you must admit that Kerry was the right choice even if he is an illegitimate president." On the other hand, those who leapt to bush's defense by noting the legality of his election would repond to this in like manner: "Kerry's health policy is merely another liberal boondoggle, but I must insist that you refrain from calling him an illegitimate president, since he was elected according to the laws of the land." Wouldn't that be refreshing?