LOOKING AHEAD

I am hearing a lot of voices crying foul on the left and I think it is unhealthy for the left in general and for the party in particular, not to mention for our democracy. Were there irregularities? You bet. Always are, probably always will be. Do we need to investigate them and try to prevent them in future? Of course. We should focus particularly on the ability to verify electronic votes. But did irregularities cost us the election? No. We cost ourselves the election.

So where does our own party go from here? The party needs new leadership at all levels. We need a fresh message and a fresh outlook  if we are to regain what we have lost over the past 10 years.

Looking at the Senate in 2006, we could see more trouble. Nelson (FL), Stabenow (MI), Corzine* (NJ) and Cantwell (WA) could be vulnerable and I wonder if Byrd (WV) will retire instead of seeking re-election. (Given his checkered past, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing!) My main concern for Florida's Nelson is that the popular governor, Jeb Bush, might decide to challenge him. On the other side of the aisle, we don't have a lot of opportunities: Talent (MO), Santorum (PA) and Allen (VA) might be good targets and we might have a chance to pick up Frist's seat in TN as he will likely retire to run for the White House. Perhaps Gov. Bredesen**? Bottom line: best-case scenario sees us reversing this year's losses.

Looking to the House in 2006, there are 16 vulnerable Republican seats in 12 states. If we just hold our own net count and knock out most of these, we could take back the House. Our prospects here are therefore much better than in the Senate.

Looking beyond to 2008, we have to find a presidential candidate from a large, moderate swing state like Ohio or Florida, running with a veep candidate from a relatively moderate Southern or Western state like Arkansas, Tennessee, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico or Colorado. Bill Nelson 2008 anyone? An astronaut, a senator and a Floridian. Of course, to be viable, Nelson would need to beat back his challenger in 2006, and as I said above, that might be tough. Or he could pull a Frist and retire to run for the White House. And for VP, why not do a mixed pro-choice/pro-life ticket by throwing in pro-life Democratic Senator Reid? I wouldn't mind...as long as Nelson stayed healthy!! I am not terribly serious about the Reid idea. I am ardently pro-choice.  This is just a way of illustrating that as a party we are (or should be) about more than just one or two contentious social issues. Anyway, who knows?! Just brainstorming!

*   Update: Corzine ran for and won the governorship of NJ

**  Update: It appears the main contenders for the Dem nomination for the TN senate race will be Rep. Harold Ford of my native Memphis and State Sen. Rosalind Kurita. I wouldn't wager much money on a Democrat being elected to replace Frist.

..................................................................................................

ELECTION POST-MORTEM

So how did my little experiment in poll analysis go? Surprisingly well. On average, I got John Kerry within .01% in the states; George Bush .81%. In the overall popular vote, I got Kerry within .14% and Bush within 1.32% and was correct in thinking Bush would win the popular vote regardless of the College results, due to his high popularity in many Western and Southern states. Of the winners in each state, I got 48 states and DC right. Of course, getting Iowa and Florida wrong made the overall prediction of a Kerry win wrong. Iowa was no shocker as it had flipped back and forth several times in the closing days. The only real surprise was Florida: my last analysis showed it being within a fifth of a point, so I knew it could break either way, but I did not expect Bush to win so handily there. (It was the only supposedly close state where my actual v. expected was off by more than 3%.) Once he had, I had a feeling we were sunk as Ohio had trended back to Bush in the final days of the campaign. Indeed, Kerry actually did a quarter point better in Ohio than I had predicted.

So what does this say for our strategy? Well, for one thing it vindicates my constant pleas that we ignore CO as hopeless; ignore OR and WA as safe; and finally that we focus a lot more on MO and AR. (We spent tons of money in CO, but performed no better there than in MO and AR, where we spent exactly zero.) I was wrong about NV, though: we came pretty close there, though I wonder if that was more about the matter of Yucca Mountain and hence not so relevant to future campaigns. Other than that, no surprises. The twelve battlegrounds in 2008 may well look something like this: MN, MI, PA, NH, WI, IA, NM, OH, NV, FL, AR and MO.

And so it's over. I congratulate the Republicans on their victory. As I pointed out here many times, we made several mistakes, while they ran a flawless strategy. I am at least glad that we have a fairly elected president with a majority in the vote and the College. That is better for the country, even if in my opinion the better man didn't win.

Having analyzed the performance of Republican administrations from '69 through this year, I can tell you that if history is a guide, we can look forward to increased poverty, higher interest rates due to high national debt, fewer people affording healthcare, more bankruptcies and homelessness and a worsening environment over the next four years. But hey, at least oil companies will continue to prosper.

.......................................................................................................................

1%

The last one percent. That's what it's down to, folks. And you know what bothers Mr. Onepercent? Our guy's too liberal for his taste. So here's the speech Mr. O needs to hear to move forward:

"I've recently been called a 'Massachusetts liberal'. Yes, I believe in a woman's right to choose. Yes, I believe AK47s are for drive-by shootings, not for deer-hunting. Yes, I believe we all deserve affordable healthcare. If that makes me a liberal, then so be it.

"But it seems to me that since 9/11, labels like liberal and conservative don't really mean a whole lot anymore. Seems to me what matters is one thing and one thing only: a united America standing against a common foe. Let me say that again: a united America standing against a common foe. For if ever those words were true, let them be spoken today with the greatest conviction: united we stand and divided we fall. Let us therefore unite, America, and stand as one, not fighting one another, but fighting our enemy. I ask for your vote because I can lead a united America, not an America divided against herself by the designs of those who lust only for power and political gain. Give me your vote and your confidence and I will lead us beyond liberal and conservative and to a place where we can continue to be free and to prosper together, regardless of labels. United we stand, divided we fall. Do not allow us to be divided one day longer, America."

......................................................................................................................

An open letter to John Kerry

Dear Senator Kerry:

            Over the past three years, America’s reputation has been ruined by the recklessness of the Bush administration. You are America’s greatest hope for restoring her to her rightful place as the home of justice, fairness and compassion. Unfortunately, you have committed a number of tactical errors in your campaign and I fear that if you do not change course soon, all hope is lost. In my opinion, you need to focus on these three areas in order to defeat George Bush in November:

1)      You must clarify what your strategy for Iraq and the war on terrorism would be if you are elected. The first step is to pound into the American voters that these are two different issues: one is a war Bush lied to get us into; the other is a war he stopped fighting after Afghanistan. The next step is to lay out precisely what you would do to extricate us from the mess in Iraq without abandoning our responsibilities to the Iraqi people. The last is to list those countries and organizations you deem to be partners or at least passive supporters of terrorism. This last would give you a clear way to set yourself apart from Bush: don’t be afraid to name names!

2)      Be creative and get people excited! Propose an entirely new tax system that is simpler and fairer and healthcare reform that is both practical and universal. This doesn't take time: there are plenty of ideas out there!

3)     Don’t fight losing battles! Focus most efforts on Missouri, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Maine, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, Arkansas, Wisconsin and Ohio. These ten states hold your keys to victory. Focus on jobs in Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio and Pennsylvania: it's no accident you are doing better in these states that are suffering worse-than-average unemployment.

Sincerely,

Christopher J. Hughey

.....................................................................................................................

America or Europe: Which is Better? Wrong Question.

Which is better? American entrepreneurialism, with its flexible job markets and minimalist approach to regulation and bureaucracy, is better than the European obsession with regulating everything in sight and the perverse logic of "helping" workers by creating rigid labor markets that discourage new hiring and therefore hurt those very workers.

Which is better? European respect for the most basic, core needs of all humans, including the right to healthcare and the right to a decent education, is better than the crass, selfish free-for-all in America, where both good healthcare and a proper elementary and secondary education are the rights of only those who can afford them.

This list could go on almost indefinitely. I am proud to be an American, as has been every generation of Hugheys since the day our country was born. I have been almost equally proud to call Europe my adopted home for most of my adult life. And I am saddened beyond words to see people from both places glaring at each across a chasm of arrogance and ignorance, wasting what is perhaps history's greatest opportunity to create something truly new, based on the best that each has to offer.

.............................................................................................

A Cold Look at the Failed Foreign Policy of this Administration

            So many accusations, so much innuendo, so many shouting matches. But let’s take a cold look at the facts. On 11 September, 2001, America suffered its worst terrorist attack ever. Let’s put aside for the moment the fact that the precursors of the Taliban, who “hosted” bin Laden and his ilk, were the mujahedin, a group funded in large part by the Reagan administration despite the former’s well-known fundamentalist, anti-Western leanings. Put aside, too, the close business ties between the Bush family (including both former and current Presidents Bush) and the Saudis and specifically many members of the bin Laden family. Instead, let’s focus on “future history”: how did George Bush handle the attack and the resulting, ongoing threats to American lives?

I would argue that he started out pretty well. I know few people who seriously suggest that we could have done other than to attack Afghanistan. The Taliban were clearly sheltering bin Laden and made no attempt to hide their agreement with and encouragement of his anti-US jihad. War in Afghanistan was inevitable from the moment the towers fell. Besides, we had all the support we needed: we enjoyed a huge outpouring of sympathy from almost every nation on Earth and our allies stood behind us 100%. The war on terror had begun and we were its righteous standard-bearers.

But then something happened on the way to defeating the forces of fundamentalist evil. After initial victory in Afghanistan, we suddenly lost our concentration, our focus on what we were fighting both for and against. (What we were fighting for is another discussion, though as a sidebar to the current topic it is worth noting that the terrorists’ greatest victory was damaging the very civil liberties they so despise and we used to treasure so deeply.) Go back to early 2002 and, keeping in mind that this was supposed to be a war on fundamentalist terror, not a war on Arabic tyranny, who would have been the most logical next target for the US military? Iraq? Why? I would have thought Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia or North Korea represented far worse threats to us. Saudi Arabia was home to most of the 9/11 hijackers and to this day teaches its youth virulent anti-Western and anti-Jewish values in its state-run religious schools. Syria and Iran were and remain well-known sponsors of terror, and indeed the latter is unashamedly pursuing a nuclear program of questionable ends. North Korea is a self-admitted disseminator of rocket technology and they care little about the intentions of their buyers. Indeed, they themselves have almost certainly finished building at least a couple of nuclear weapons, with a range that may reach as far as the western United States. Now that is what I call an imminent threat.

And yet, suddenly Iraq was the greatest threat to peace ever known to man! Never mind that Iraq’s army was of little consequence, and that no, there were no WMDs, a fact I suspect the administration knew full well but which, so obsessed were they with Saddam, they chose to ignore. Never mind the fact that the philosophy of the Ba’ath Party, with its emphasis on a sort of Arab-style pseudo-socialism and its reliance on secularism, was anathema to our true enemies, the fundamentalists. Never mind that most of our traditional allies were perplexed and later incensed, as it became obvious that we would have our little war no matter what the cost (or the facts). No, for Bush and Co., it was clearly Iraq. Saddam had to go!

And gone he is. But who in America feels safer for his defeat? Who feels that bin Laden and Al Qaeda are now less able to attack us? Who feels that terrorism has suffered a blow by our defeat of the Saddam regime? What I see is a whole new class of radicalized insurgents in Iraq, most sporting a distinctly fundamentalist worldview. What I see is a new breeding ground for anti-Americanism. What I see, in short, is more than failure, but a complete fiasco that has made us much less safe, in both the short and long terms.

The bottom line is that George Bush took us for a ride, and along the way thousands, including hundreds of American soldiers, have paid with their lives. Far from being re-elected, if anything George Bush should be impeached and run out of town.

.............................................................................................

Fail to see the logic

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, President Bush promised to take the war to the terrorists and make America a safer place. He started out well enough by invading Afghanistan, the home of the Taliban, who were hosting bin Laden and Al Qaeda. At home, he established the Office of Homeland Security. Fair enough. But then things feel apart. We left our work in Afghanistan unfinished and both the Taliban and Al Qaeda seem to be regrouping and in some cases are even going on the offensive. In Homeland Security, we are an even bigger mess, a color-coded parody of national defense, with hundreds of sensitive targets made no safer than they were three years ago. Meanwhile, Iran, an Islamic fundamentalist state, seems no more than a few years away from joining the nuclear weapons club and North Korea clearly already has at least a few such weapons, possibly with the rocket technology to target the western US.

But hey, we did get the Bush family nemesis (but former friend), Saddam Hussein! And so what? Even the Bush administration must now admit there was no link with 9/11 and that there are no WMDs to be found. I am as happy as anyone to see such a brutal dictator fall, but what did this war have to do with the war on terrorism? As far as I can see, it has had four results: 1) it created a whole new army of anti-American fundamentalists; 2) it diverted resources from the true war on terror; 3) it alienated our allies; 4) it has so far killed nearly a thousand American troops and countless thousand more Iraqi civilians. In short, it made us less, not more, safe and in the process extinguished the lives of many of our brave troops.

So my question is simple: what exactly are Bush supporters supporting? It seems to me President Bush has betrayed and lied to his country to fight a personal war and left us incredibly vulnerable in the process. I therefore fail to understand the logic of his supporters.

...........................................................................................................................

Two Myths

Since 2003, we have seen the propagation of two very persistent myths about why many of us are against the conflict in Iraq. I would like to address this issue as it seems to me that we are all ill-served by this misunderstanding. I do not pretend to speak for everyone who is against the war in Iraq, but I do think my views are fairly representative of that camp.

     The first myth is that objection to the war in Iraq is based on some liberal pacifist streak that leads everyone left of center to object to every war in all circumstances. This may be true of a small minority of the left, but based on my experience, that minority is tiny indeed. Most of us supported the president's decision to invade Afghanistan, for example, as it was clear that their Taliban leadership was playing willing host to Al Qaeda. Personally, I would have questioned the sanity, never mind the competence, of the president had he not struck fast and hard there.

      The second and even more dangerous myth regards this false debate over pre-emptive vs reactive military action. This argument basically says that those who oppose the war do not want to take any action unless America is attacked first, a view those who support the president's actions in Iraq find appalling as it suggests we should simply sit back and wait for the next attack. If that were indeed my own logic, or that of most on the left, I would be quite appalled myself! But my own objection over Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with pre-emption v. reaction. Perhaps I can clarify this point by spelling out how I saw the war on terror proceeding after Afghanistan, versus the reality of how the president has chosen to execute it.

     As I said, Afghanistan was a necessary and logical place to start the war on terror. But then something happened on the way to defeating the forces of fundamentalist evil. After initial victory in Afghanistan, we suddenly lost our concentration, our focus on what we were fighting both for and against. (What we were fighting for is another discussion, though as a sidebar to this topic it is worth noting that the terrorists’ greatest victory was damaging the very civil liberties they so despise but that we used to treasure so deeply.) Go back to early 2002 and, keeping in mind that this was supposed to be a war on fundamentalist terror, not a war on Arabic tyranny, who would have been the most logical next target for the US military? Iraq? Why? I would have thought Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia or North Korea represented far worse threats to us. Syria and Iran were and are well-known sponsors of terror and the latter is unabashedly pursuing a nuclear program with suspect aims. Saudi Arabia, our "ally", was home to most of the 9/11 hijackers and to this day espouses virulent anti-Western and anti-Israel values in its state-run religious schools, thereby churning out the next generation of hijackers. North Korea is a self-admitted disseminator of rocket technology and they care little about the intentions of their buyers. Indeed, they themselves have almost certainly finished building at least a couple of nuclear weapons, with a range that may reach as far as the western United States. Now that is what I call a threat.

     And yet, suddenly Iraq was the greatest threat to peace ever known to man! Never mind that Iraq’s army was of little consequence, and that no, there were no WMDs, a fact I suspect the administration knew full well. Never mind the fact that the philosophy of the Ba’ath Party, with its emphasis on a sort of Arab-style quasi-socialism and its reliance on secularism, was anathema to our true enemies, the fundamentalists. No, for Bush and Co., it was clearly Iraq. Saddam had to go! And gone he is. But who in America feels safer for his defeat? Who feels that bin Laden is now less able to attack us? Who feels that terrorism has suffered a blow for our defeat of the Saddam regime? What I see is a whole new class of radicalized insurgents in Iraq, many, indeed most, sporting a distinctly fundamentalist worldview. What I see is a new breeding ground for anti-Americanism. What I see, in short, is more than failure, but a complete fiasco that has made us much less safe, in both the short and long terms.

      From this view of the war on terror, it should be obvious that this is not a debate about pre-emption versus reaction, but rather a debate about this administration's choice of targets and their motivations for choosing Iraq as the next enemy after the Taliban. It is hard not to wonder why Iraq was chosen when there were so many other, more logical targets and it is even harder therefore not to see this as Bush’s own, very personal war that has taken many American lives but made us no safer in the process.