Nothing Aside

The Man, The Failure: The President of the United States

Really you should just be reading Andrew Sullivan's take on this Miers nomination.  It's spot on:

The one thing that could motivate him to appoint a crony as obviously unqualified as Miers is precisely to stick a finger in the eye of those accusing him of cronyism. Tell him we need more troops in Iraq? It's the one thing he won't do. Tell him he's a big spender? We get: "It's going to cost whatever it costs." Tell him he has botched the Iraq occupation? He'll give the architects Medals of Freedom. There's an adolescent streak of pure willfulness in the man. He cannot and will not self-correct. If pushed into a corner, he will simply repeat the error in order to prove himself immune to criticism. We had one chance to correct this - the only one he understands. And he got away with re-election after four years of spectacular, unconservative incompetence.

Frankly, we should be thankful he didn't nominate Karl Rove or Tom DeLay.  The way things are going these days in the up-is-down, black-is-white world of the Bush administration, such a ridiculous joke wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility.

Ohio 2004: What Really Happened

Voting in the 2004 election will be one of my most memorable moments of college.  After waiting six hours, I was able to cast my vote.  Other students at Kenyon waited up to 11 hours.  Why the wait?  There were two voting machines for over 1,400 registered voters and one of them broke down for several hours in the morning.  Despite these setbacks, Kenyon students stuck it out.  Many were voting in a presidential election for their first time (my second time) and saw it as the height of their civic duty to wait as long as it would take to cast their vote.  This was Ohio, after all.  It was billed as The Next Florida (including by me), as polls showed a tight race between John Kerry and George W. Bush. 

Was it ever.  Officially the tally in Ohio came down to a margin of just over 100,000 votes.  For the second time, Ohio was Bush country. 

But is that how it should have been if all the votes had been cast and counted correctly?  I'm not one to buy into conspiracy theories or argue what has already been decided, but when I recently came across this March 2005 article by Christopher Hitchens, the rabidly pro-Iraq War British socialist who was no fan of John Kerry, which pointed out some simply absurd irregularities in the Ohio election,  I was intrigued and startled.  There are some incredibly troubling things in this article.  Here are a few of the key paragraphs:

First, the county-by-county and precinct-by-precinct discrepancies. In Butler County, for example, a Democrat running for the State Supreme Court chief justice received 61,559 votes. The Kerry-Edwards ticket drew about 5,000 fewer votes, at 56,243. This contrasts rather markedly with the behavior of the Republican electorate in that county, who cast about 40,000 fewer votes for their judicial nominee than they did for Bush and Cheney. (The latter pattern, with vote totals tapering down from the top of the ticket, is by far the more general—and probable—one nationwide and statewide.)

In 11 other counties, the same Democratic judicial nominee, C. Ellen Connally, managed to outpoll the Democratic presidential and vice-presidential nominees by hundreds and sometimes thousands of votes. So maybe we have a barn-burning, charismatic future candidate on our hands, and Ms. Connally is a force to be reckoned with on a national scale. Or is it perhaps a trick of the Ohio atmosphere? There do seem to be a lot of eccentrics in the state. In Cuyahoga County, which includes the city of Cleveland, two largely black precincts on the East Side voted like this. In Precinct 4F: Kerry, 290; Bush, 21; Peroutka, 215. In Precinct 4N: Kerry, 318; Bush, 11; Badnarik, 163. Mr. Peroutka and Mr. Badnarik are, respectively, the presidential candidates of the Constitution and Libertarian Parties. In addition to this eminence, they also possess distinctive (but not particularly African-American-sounding) names. In 2000, Ralph Nader's best year, the total vote received in Precinct 4F by all third-party candidates combined was eight.

In Montgomery County, two precincts recorded a combined undervote of almost 6,000. This is to say that that many people waited to vote but, when their turn came, had no opinion on who should be the president, voting only for lesser offices. In these two precincts alone, that number represents an undervote of 25 percent, in a county where undervoting averages out at just 2 percent. Democratic precincts had 75 percent more under- votes than Republican ones.

In Precinct lB of Gahanna, in Franklin County, a computerized voting machine recorded a total of 4,258 votes for Bush and 260 votes for Kerry. In that precinct, however, there are only 800 registered voters, of whom 638 showed up. Once the "glitch" had been identified, the president had to be content with 3,893 fewer votes than the computer had awarded him.

In Miami County, a Saddam Hussein-type turnout was recorded in the Concord Southwest and Concord South precincts, which boasted 98.5 percent and 94.27 percent turnouts, respectively, both of them registering overwhelming majorities for Bush. Miami County also managed to report 19,000 additional votes for Bush after 100 percent of the precincts had reported on Election Day.

All of these irregularities are troubling and would suggest the need for some major electoral reform.  But that is not the motivation for Hitchens' piece.  What he is concerned about is the unusual aligning of the stars such that the vast majority of voting problems and errors favored one party, the Republicans, and one candidate in particular, George W. Bush.  I have to say, on this point, I find it difficult to disagree with Hitchens' concerns:

Machines are fallible and so are humans, and shit happens, to be sure, and no doubt many Ohio voters were able to record their choices promptly and without grotesque anomalies. But what strikes my eye is this: in practically every case where lines were too long or machines too few the foul-up was in a Democratic county or precinct, and in practically every case where machines produced impossible or improbable outcomes it was the challenger who suffered and the actual or potential Democratic voters who were shortchanged, discouraged, or held up to ridicule as chronic undervoters or as sudden converts to fringe-party losers.

This is no small concern.  When I heard the calls of "Fraud in Ohio!" I dismissed them exactly as many did: as left-wing liberal sore loser syndrome.  Yes, perhaps there were long lines at Kenyon or other similar problems at some districts in Cleveland and other areas, but I never figured that the margin would be cut to zero or beyond simply by correcting these few unfortunate mistakes. 

But Hitchens' piece sheds some new light on the widespread - and undeniably one-sided - irregularities that took place state-wide.  These irregularities were big and seemingly could have been enough to swing the state of Ohio from red to blue - and with it, the entire country.  This is serious stuff.  It's too bad that the prevailing view among political analysts out there is so dismissive of those who point out glaring electoral problems.  Ohio's 2004 election results shouldn't be taken for granted.  Something happened.  We deserve to know more about it.

Congressional Ethics: Ney

The 18th district of Ohio, where Kenyon is located, should take another look at Rep. Bob Ney before they vote for him again.  It looks like he might be Robin to Tom DeLay's Batman.

Celebrating War

Ignoring the blatant waste of money which accompanies every inauguration ceremony, I find it dispicable that the theme of the celebration is "a nation at war."  Why are we celebrating that?

WASHINGTON -- Soldiers will dance free of charge at President Bush's second inauguration, a record $40 million-plus celebration for "a nation at war" financed by some of the same big donors who bankrolled Bush's re-election campaign.

The president's private inaugural committee, calling on corporate and individual donors to contribute as much as $250,000 apiece, has struck a military-minded theme for a three-day series of events leading to the swearing-in on Jan. 20.

Certainly there are better themes than that.  It is like they are not even trying.  For instance, if I completely bought into the Neocon dream, I would suggest an inauguration theme surrounding "freedom" or "democracy".  But "war"?  There is no reason to ever celebrate war itself.  Its fine if a partisan inauguration (and it will be partisan since this president only bothers to represent those who voted for him and not all Americans), but at least play to positive talking points.

Celebrate the thoroughly dishonest electoral victory - but don't celebrate the war which takes, on average, two Americans soldiers every day.

The Next Step

I haven't written in about a week.  Partially this is because I have had a lot of work, but mostly it's because I've had a case of what The Onion would call "liberal outrage fatigue."  I've essentially come to grips with the fact that we get another four years of Bush.  There really isn't much choice. 

The Economist said it best, however, when they said that Bush shouldn't see his reelection as vindication but as an opportunity.  I have little hope that he will actually see it this way but there's always that chance.  I won't cover why he shouldn't see it as vindication; repeating all the disasters of his first term will only make me more depressed that we reelected him.  But Bush should see the next four years as an opportunity to actually do something positive. 

First on his list should be Middle East peace.  Never before has a president come into a term with such a huge opportunity for dramatic change in that part of the world.  With Arafat finally out of the way the hope of a new view on the conflict will arise and Abbas or whoever becomes the next Palestinian leader needs to realize it.  I suspect that the new Palestinian leader will be a bit hestitant to move too quickly towards peace negotiations, but Bush should push nevertheless.  Ironically I think Sharon may be the best Israeli prime minister in a while to have a meaningful shot at offering peace.  Sharon and a new Palestinian leader sit at the edge of a monumental opportunity.  Bush needs to appoint a special envoy to go to Jeruselem and not come back until he/she has a deal.  It is the lynchpin for success everywhere in the middle east.  Peace can happen now and we shouldn't let it get away.

But on some other points, I fear that Bush will ignore the vast opportunities he has been given and will instead push to divide the nation even further.  Emboldened by a substantial majority in the Senate and an equally solid bloc in the House, Bush is well positioned to ignore the will of the 48% of the country who voted for his opponent. 

It frightens me that he constantly speaks of the "political capital" he has earned through this win.  First off, politicians should never say that kind of stuff out loud.  That's the kind of stuff that you only say to Karl Rove.  Americans don't want to be "capital" in the hands of their elected officials.  That's not what it's all about.  But secondly, it's barely anything to begin with.  Bush's margin of victory was the smallest by an incumbent since Woodrow Wilson.  That's not a mandate, that's a clear reflection that the country hasn't changed hardly at all since 2000.  Only three states changed hands in this election compared to 2000.  There's nothing resounding about that. 

So let's look at what Bush has proposed so far and see if you remember ever hearing about any of these issues during his reelection campaign:

1. Privatizing Social Security - Did Bush ever talk about this on the campaign trail?  NO.  It would scare away the elderly voters.  But suddenly it's become a high priority objective.
2. Tax Reform.  Also known as a flat tax or a national sales tax.  Also known as a horrible idea which incredibly screws the lower spectrum of American tax payers.  The rich get off with a super low tax rate (I've heard 17%) while everyone else pays a comparatively higher percentage of their income since they already earn less in the first place.  But hey, that's Bush's base.  Again, you didn't hear much about this one either, did you?  That's because it would seem extreme (which it is) and would scare off moderates.
3. Killing the Environme... er, Drilling for Oil in ANWR.  It's been a pet project of Republicans for a while but now they may have the votes to actually destroy that pristine wildlife refuge.  I don't remember anything about this in the campaign, but suddenly it's popped up again.
4. Ban Gay Marriage.  Karl Rove said as much recently.  After failing to get it passed this past summer the White House plans to come back at the issue.  And they better hurry too, people might actually start to make their own reasoned opinions about homosexuality and decide that, actually, two gay people having civil marriage rights in no way destroys their own marriage!  Gotta stop the gays before public opinion shifts against bigotry!  While renewing the fight against a minority of the population wasn't expressly mentioned, "moral values" clearly played a decisive role in reelecting Bush.  So there you go: an issue Bush ran on that he's actually going to pursue in a second term.

Why didn't Bush run on what he actually wanted to do in a second term then?  Because it would scare the pants off of people.  His massive 51% mandate would drop to levels that would send him back to Texas come January.  But now that the election is over, we can go ape crazy in Fallujah, start the witch trials for gay Americans, move the vast majority of the tax burden to the poor and destroy the environment. 

Oh, that's not what you voted for?  Hmm.

Mapping the Results

The Blogging of the President: 2004 has a good collection of maps that have turned up that try to explain the outcome of the presidential race.  There are some great graphical examples of what exactly happened and where each candidate got their support. 

Some of the ones I found particularly informative, useful or striking:

• Purple America.  Maybe not as divided as we all thought.  But I'm still frightened by Utah.

• Population Density.  So tell me again why Wyoming and Montana gets three whole electoral votes?

• Vote Share Intensity by County.  The urban versus rural split doesn't get much crisper than that.

• Slave State vs. Free State.  Hmm... I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

  

I Fear For America

Where to begin? While I'm not totally surprised that Bush won, I was stunned at how he won. Voters said moral issues were their number one concern. In this time of economic malasis and international crisis, the issue that most motivated people was the threat of gay marriage. That gives me incredible pause about the state of our nation. People put discrimination ahead of their own economic well-being and personal safety.

But secondly, I was amazed at how much Bush won by. Yes it's really only about 100,000 votes here in Ohio that made the difference, but nationally Bush achieved a 51-48% mandate victory. He won with more than a 3 million vote margin. That makes me really worry about our country.

Think about the message that we send to the world with this election. We are saying that we're OK with stiffling budget deficits that could potentially bring the world economy to its knees when combined with sky-high oil prices and an increasing trade deficit. We're saying that we have no problem with the way Bush has handled the War in Iraq and that the increase in the coalition casualty rate does not concern us. Meanwhile more than 1,100 American soldiers are dead. And for what? A country that we don't have the will to fully help? Nothing is changing in Iraq, meaning more soldiers die every day because of the incompetence of this administration, and the voters say "Four More Years!" We've demonstrated that we don't care about the plight of 45 million Americans who lack health insurance. We're signing off on a drastically underfunded education initiative that was poorly formulated in the first place. We are nodding our heads while the rich get richer and the poor are ignored because they aren't Republican voters anyway.

But then I remember: Many of those who voted for Bush never think of things in the way I formulated that last paragraph. They have never thought about what others think of us or what we're saying about ourselves by the leaders we choose. To them, these moral choices dominate because the Bible says so. Since when is it a Christian value to ignore your fellow man?

What worries me personally though, is how twisted this next term will be. Bush's overriding concern will be in foreign policy whether he likes it or not. I assume he will try to make "democratization of the Middle East" his lasting legacy. This means his focus will be heavily on foreign affairs. But this isn't why most of his supporters voted for him. Yes, it may be why some other blogs supported him, or why some conservative professors at my school supported him (we can argue about that some other time), but for the majority of Bush supporters, foreign policy isn't even on the radar. They care about the destruction and armageddon that will befall us all when loving couples enter a relationship. How insane is that? They don't care about foreign policy and our image in the world, but that is exactly the issue that Bush will be dealing with.

Bush doesn't have a role in the gay marriage debate. He's president. If you want to effect that policy, vote for your state senator based on that. The president does not control marriage policy. That's plain and simple.

But on that point, I'm ashamed that Ohio passed its constitutional amendment against gay marriage and anything related to gay relationships. Nearly every state official in Ohio was against the amendment, but it passed with about 60% of the vote. What is wrong with people? That relationship does not threaten your own in any way! What's worse is that state amendments passed in every state they were on the ballot. Way to be progressive guys!

I don't know, I've never felt so estranged from my country before. I could accept a Bush win if it were based on a legitimate issue like terrorism or homeland security or something. I would disagree, but I would at least understand. But that's not why Bush won. He won because people are bigots. If issues determined the election Kerry would have won in a landslide. But America has become a faith-based democracy. Issues don't matter anymore. I'm frightened.

We've told Bush that everything he's done is A-Okay. This is a man who has never been held accountable for anything in his life and we failed in our one chance to finally hold him responsible for his actions. What do you expect will happen in a second term if we've said that all his disastrous policies are nothing to worry about? More of the same, but worse. Much worse.

Democracy Takes Six Hours

That's right. I went down to my Gambier precinct at 11:15am this morning after my Elections and Political Parties class. Six hours and 15 minutes later I had voted. Whew.

From what I have heard, the Gambier precinct had the longest line in the country. My six hours probably won't even be the longest here. The line was far longer even after I left at 6pm to the point where the people at the end were likely to face a good eight hours before they would get to vote.

What was the problem? There were only two voting machines for a precinct that has about 1,400 registered voters. Hmm. That's not right. Meanwhile the College Township precinct, which shares the building with the Gambier precinct also had two voting machines - except it only has about 300 registered voters. So, while students had to wait anywhere from four to eight hours to cast their all important vote here in Ohio, long-time residents were in and out in minutes. That's not their fault of course, but the Board of Elections certainly screwed up on this one.

What worries me is that while many students were willing to set up camp and waste away the day inching around the halls of a community center, if this happened in a precinct made up of working Americans this would be totally unacceptable. The Ohio Board of Elections really missed the boat on this one. As a result Gambier has been inundated with reporters and has become a quirky oddity in various news reports. It just shouldn't be this hard to run a democracy.

Presidential Prediction: Kerry 272-266

I suppose it's that time. Time to make up my mind and decide how I think this election will really turn out. I do this partly so I have a chance of being able to say "Hey look! I'm a genius!" if things turn out how I predict them come November 3, but also because I need to do this anyway since I have a paper that requires me to do just this that is due on Election Day morning.

So, without futher ado, here is how I see the map shaping up:

The way I see it, 48 of the states can be determined as of now. Florida and Ohio remain utterly impossible to declare. However, without those two states, Kerry has 252 electoral votes, leaving him 18 short of victory. Bush has 239, or 31 short of victory. Keep in mind that Florida represents 27 electoral votes and Ohio brings another 20. So what does this all mean? While Kerry needs to win just one of these two remaining states, Bush would need to win them both. Looks good for Kerry.

As such, Kerry could win Ohio and lose Florida and win 272-266. Or he could take Florida and lose Ohio and win 279-259. If he were to win both, he would carry the day 299-239. That would be impressive.

On the other hand, if Bush was able to pull it off and win both Ohio and Florida, he would win 286-252 over Kerry. I see this as unlikely since it's so difficult to allocate precious resources in these last few days such that one can win everywhere, but who knows.

So, what does this mean for Bush? Essentially his hopes rest on a strategy something like this:

1) Fight hard in either Florida or Ohio but don't let Kerry figure out which one is your priority and which one you're surrendering.

2) Pick up Wisconsin in order to help push the one bigger state (Ohio or Florida) over the top.

This is why Bush has spent so much time in Wisconsin of late. He needs it in order to make the big ticket state actually pay off without having to campaign in both big ticket states. You might note that this strategy for Bush leads to a 276-262 victory for Bush if he takes Florida and Wisconsin and leaves Ohio to Kerry. You might also note, more troublingly, that if instead Bush wins Ohio and Wisconsin and leaves Florida to Kerry, we end up with a 269-269 tie which, in essence, is a Bush win according to the makeup of the House of Representatives.

That's why both Kerry and Bush have been camping out in Wisconsin. It's pivotal. Ultimately, whoever wins two of those three states, wins the election.

And here is how I see things shaking out:

Kerry will win 272-266. Despite the fact that Ohio polls have generally been marginally Bush friendly over the past month or so, Kerry has picked up steam. Furthermore, Bush has been noticeably absent from Ohio in these crucial last few days. Conversely Kerry has almost taken up residence.

In Florida, where the polls actually show a tighter race which would seem to help the challenger, I have little faith in Florida being allowed to go to Kerry unless the margin of victory is more than 5,000 votes. There is simply too much at stake and too many lawyers who know the legal terrain in Florida after the 2000 election. Plus there's Jeb Bush. These factors all contribute to my general lack of confidence in Florida despite promising poll numbers.

Two days ago I would have just about written off Wisconsin for Bush. He seemed to have really taken root and his support seemed to have grown. But then I've read and heard that the Kerry team is quite confident that they can pull it off. They have put some strong hours of campaigning into the state and I think they have paid off. In the end, Wisconsin has a history of going blue that I just don't think will be abandoned so easily. Turnout will be crucial, especially in the face of some nasty Republican efforts in Milwaukee to scare minority voters into staying home for fear of committing an imaginary felony. The depths the GOP will go to are stunning.

Other states:

Iowa. It's lost. Bush has really played it well in the Hawkeye state and it seems as those Kerry has conceded it, evidenced by his lack of stops there recently. It's too bad, but at some point choices have to be made about where to fight. Iowa's 7 electoral votes just don't make it worthwhile to fight a tough fight there. One thing of note about Iowa is that Karl Rove has been quoted as saying that the reason Gore won Iowa in 2000 was because of his post-convention riverboat tour down the Mississippi River. He was able to get to some river counties that otherwise wouldn't be on the usual campaign schedule and this likely tipped the scales his way. If only Kerry had followed Gore's lead?

Minnesota. There was talk recently that it was a crucial state, but it seems as though both campaigns have realized that it's Kerry country. It's a good thing too. Minnesota hasn't voted for a Republican candidate since 1972. That even counts 1984 when Minnesota was the only state not to go for a second Reagan term. Those democratic roots are deep.

New Mexico. After looking pretty decent for Kerry through September and the beginning of October, Bush seems to have pulled ahead late in the game and looks bound to take the state. It's unfortunate since the only reason Bush will win is because he has taken the lead so late, thus making it not cost-effective to wage a battle there when resources would go further in states that have more electoral votes. Unfortunately New Mexico is a net pickup for Bush.

Colorado. It appears as though the constitutional amendment to change the allocation of electors will not pass. That's probably bad news for Kerry since he would likely gain 4 of the state's 9 electoral votes if it were to pass. Both Colorado senate candidates have come out against it and it looks likely to fail by about 55%. The concept of reallocation of electors is a bad one for Colorado if it's a unilateral decision, but if we could get every state to change in this way it would be a wonderful idea. But the debate on the electoral college can wait until another time.

Nevada. Kerry hasn't led in a poll in Nevada since the beginning of September. That doesn't bode well for a big change on election day. Gore also lost Nevada but the thinking had been that Nevada was trending Democratic due to a big population surge of immigrants and blue-staters. Maybe if the candidate wasn't an East Coaster Nevada could have swung. Maybe next time.

Missouri. Likewise to Nevada, Kerry hasn't led in Missouri since early September. Both campaigns essentially gave up on the state sometime in late September and ever since Bush has been polling about 6% better than Kerry. Might this be the year that Missouri fails to predict the winner?

Michigan. Kerry has been ahead in Michigan by small margins, but nevertheless has been ahead consistently. Again, both campaigns have moved on to other closer states, giving Kerry a crucial big ticket (17 electoral votes) state. But, Gore had won it in 2000 so while it's a victory, it's not going to help in the end.

Pennsylvania. Much like Michigan, Pennsylvania is a state that Gore won in 2000 and Kerry can't win without in 2004. That said, Kerry will win Pennsylvania. I'm not sure why Bush has spent sooooo much time in the state over the past few months though. Perhaps he's hoping that if he puts in massive time there that Kerry will have to give up crucial hours campaigning in Ohio or Florida to defend Pennsylvania. This seems to have backfired on Bush. Instead of having Kerry run back to Pittsburgh of Philadelphia every week, Kerry has confidence that Pennsylvania will be there for him. As a result Bush has wasted time there and has allowed Kerry room to make gains in more dynamic states. Karl Rove will regret sending Bush to Pennsylvania more than 40 times when this is over.

West Virginia. I don't know what to say. There are twice as many registered Democrats as registered Republicans, but the influence of the Bible can make people vote against their best interests. This state, perhaps more than any other, has been convinced that Kerry will tax the Bible and make men marry each other. It's insane GOP propoganda, but it seems to have worked. Bush will carry the state and West Virginia will wonder why it can't get any jobs. Sigh.

New Hampshire. Bush won it in 2000 by the narrowest of margins. Kerry, largely by virtue of being from neighboring Massachusetts, is well known in the state. Unlike other areas where voters have this media-bought conundrum of not liking Bush but not yet being convinced about Kerry, New Hampshire voters have been watching Boston television for the past two decades and know what Kerry is all about. Plus the Red Sox won the World Series. Don't underestimate the potential for a euphoria vote.

Let's see, what else? Arkansas, New Jersey, Hawaii, Virginia, Arizona. All of these have been talked about as potential swing states, but I don't buy it. There just isn't enough there. New Jersey and Hawaii will stick with Kerry and Arkansas, Virginia and Arizona will stay with Bush. Ignore the chatter about these less than crucial states.

So there you have it. Things look good for Kerry, though they are far from certain. Interestingly Kerry could quite possibly win the electoral college and lose the popular vote. His polling numbers in New York, California and other big urban states are not as strong as Gore's in 2000. This could leave him with narrower victories in more places. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony for Bush! Perhaps if that were to happen we could finally get some consensus that the electoral college needs to go.

Prediction: Kerry 272-266.

The Art of Political Jujitsu

I'm confused. When I first heard that there was a new bin Laden videotape I thought it would surely be a blow to Bush. Short of a bin Laden endorsement of Kerry, it seemed to me that any sighting of bin Laden alive and well would enforce the fact that um, he's still alive more than three years after al-Qaeda hit us. What am I missing?

Bush was the one who proudly proclaimed that we would get bin Laden "dead or alive" and that while "he can run, he can't hide." Well what about that? He's clearly still alive and he's still wanted. He's clearly still running and clearly still hiding quite well. And, if anything he's gotten stronger. In previous videos he's looked pale and nearly dead while wearing military clothing in some mountains somewhere. In this video he's looking clean, dressed in white and gold and looking confident. What am I missing?

I know what some will say: The sight of bin Laden will make Americans run into the arms of their commander-in-chief for safety. Huh? That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. The whole reason bin Laden is around to release these videos is because he's still on the loose. If Bush had been a competent leader he would have focused on al-Qaeda from day one and never have let up. Instead he gave up on bin Laden. As a result he's still around, still serving as the mouthpiece for a disquieted Arab conscience.

What's more, look at what bin Laden said:

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands."

This strikes me as fundamentally correct, though bin Laden is enormously dishonest about it. No matter who we elect, U.S. policy still won't change much. We will still back Israel to an unacceptable degree to many Arabs, and we will still be in Iraq no matter what Kerry promises or what Bush won't tell us. These are two realities that will not change regardless of who wins.

Furthermore, we will always have a stake in the region because it is where the resources are. That's an unavoidable fact of international relations. As a part of that, we will always be stuck supporting the lesser of two or three evils and will be stuck supporting the autocracy of Egypt, the fundamentalism of Saudi Arabia and the like. We're stuck. Our goals in the region are fundamentally different than the goals that that region has for itself. That is a conflict that will not change no matter who is president.

So, why the spin for Bush? He's failed to get this guy, but now gets a boost when the guy he failed to capture shows up again? That's idiotic. If that's the case, then Bush has no incentive to actually capture bin Laden. He can just keep him alive as a boogyman to come out and scare voters. But hey, that's me being cynical again...