The Tyranny of the Majority

Well after that heading this might seem strange, but I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving, at least those readers in the U.S. My family had a nice time, and we are still recovering from the overdose of food.

I know I haven't been posting as much as I used to, and I promise it will get better. The problem is that everything is just so depressing. I was looking back through my blog, and I am one depressing guy, it is just post after post of negativity. I really wanted to do a positive post today, and I was preparing for that, but of course, Dennis Hastert had to get in the way.

For those of you who know the name, but can't place him, Hastert is the Republican majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives. He is the guy who gets to make and enforce all the rules in the House. Well he has just made an unprecedented change.

See in the past, any bill could get debated and discussed, any bill could get voted on. Not any more. Hastert recently announced that he is changing House rules so that no bill will even be considered unless the "Majority of the Majority" approves of it. What this means is that unless more than 50% of the Republicans support the bill, it won't even come to the floor. This is simply an amazing abuse of power. They can do it, but they shouldn't.

This means that if there are any bipartisan bills, even if they would pass easily because all Democrats and nearly half the Republicans were in favor of it, it would not even get a chance. This is not even theoretical any more. Recently the House tried to pass the intelligence reforms that were suggested by the 9/11 commission. These reforms had broad bipartisan approval. The President said he supported them. The majority of the Democrats and a good chunk of Republicans supported them. The bill would have easily passed. Unfortunately it was not allowed to come to a vote though, because a majority of Republicans disapproved.

This is a supposed to be a democracy, instead we are getting a tyranny of the majority. Nothing will be allowed to be even considered in the House unless the Republicans are supporting it fully. There will be no opportunity for any Democratic supported bills to even be debated in the House. Democrats will only be able to react to Republican bills, they will only be able to have legislative success if they vote for Republican presented bills. This is outrageous.

There are a couple of reasons I think they are doing this. In future campaigns, they will be able to point at their Democratic opponents, and accuse them of doing nothing in Congress but obstructionism. They will be able to say "See my opponent, he spent x number of years in the House, and did nothing positive, only opposed bill after bill after bill." Of course most people won't realize that this is because of the Republican control of the agenda. I also think they are doing this simply because they can. They see it as their right as victors. However I mentioned earlier that it is an unprecedented change, and I think it is a dangerous one to make.

Remember the NAFTA agreement? NAFTA was passed in the House (under a Democratic majority) by the majority of the Republicans and a minority of the Democrats. This would never happen under these kinds of rules. The Republicans are setting a precedent that could forever change the nature and tone of our Congress. It will become an even more bitterly divided place, and somehow I think that maybe that is what they want as well. They plan on becoming the permanent majority, and maybe this is part of the plan. Our only hope is that the American people will wake up to what they are doing, and it will backfire on them. However I don't have much hope of that happening.

In the meantime, we will now have a government agenda that is totally and fully the Republicans. There will be no room for ANY Democratic initiatives. Kerry is talking about pushing a bill in the Senate to provide health insurance for all children, but it will die in the House, because it won't even get discussed.

This is a usurpation of power, and a dangerous one.

Here is a link!

Tax Law. The boring issue we all need to know more about.

One of Bush's stated goals for his second term is reforming the tax code. When I heard this, it frightened me, not just because he had given us no details, but because it seemed clear based on his past performance that this would mean disastrous changes. The problem with tax law is that it is just too complicated and boring for most people to pay close attention to. They don't want to know the details, they just want to know how it effects them. Unfortunately, tax cuts and "reformation" are often spun in such a way as to confuse the issue so that people think they are getting more than they are. The idea that Bush's past tax cuts were primarily for the middle class is a good example of this, when clearly they benefited the very rich.

So what does all this mean? Bush is planning on reforming the code, and I for one am waiting with bated breath to see what kind of damage he is planning on doing. In the past he has cut taxes for the very wealthy, moving more of the tax burden to the middle class. He has also cut taxes on investment income, increasing again the burden on those who work for a living. So is he going to do the same thing again?

It looks like he is, and it just gets worse. According to a news item in the Washington Post, some of the details of the next tax cut plans have begun to emerge. There is little surprise in where Bush wants to "simplify" the tax code. As stated in the article, they are planning on cutting "interest, dividends and capitals gains from taxation, expand tax breaks for business investment and take other steps intended to simplify the system and encourage economic growth"

What this means of course is that those who live off inheritances, the prototypical trust funder, end up paying no taxes. Those who work for a living end up paying a larger share. These kinds of tax cuts benefit the very wealthy, and mostly ignore most Americans. How many of the working poor in our country will benefit from cuts in dividends? Even so, this isn't really surprising.

What IS surprising is how Bush is planning on paying for these tax cuts, because he has already said he wants his "simplification of the tax code" to be revenue neutral. In order to pay for them, he plans on "eliminating the deduction of state and local taxes on federal income tax returns and scrapping the business tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance." Yes you did read that correctly. He wants to remove all tax deductions for local and state taxes. This of course means that the middle class share goes up even further. I would hazard a guess that by far, most Americans would end up with a tax increase in this situation. Most Americans would pay more in tax increases because of the lost deduction, than they would get back in interest and dividend tax cuts. Of course for the very wealthy that is the opposite.

As for the second way he will pay for the tax cuts, it is absolutely stunning! He is going to eliminate the business tax deductions that help businesses provide health insurance for their employees. Without these tax deductions, what incentive would businesses have to provide insurance?! This is a recipe for thousands of companies cutting employer provided health plans, and millions of Americans either going without insurance or having to find private insurance on their own. Anyone who has ever tried that, knows that finding insurance on your own is incredibly expensive, because you have no bargaining power.

I simply have a hard time believing that they actually plan on doing that. We already have a health care crisis, and this would simply increase the problem astronomically. If this report is accurate, I have a hard time understanding why they would do that. I can only think of two reasons why they would do that.

One is because they simply don't care. They have their core constituency, and they will not be effected. Now that they don't have to be re-elected, they can do whatever the hell they want! As much as I think this is possible, I don't think it is the real reason. That leads me to my second theory. The truth is that I simply cannot see this passing. Even though Congress is Republican through and through, it would be wildly unpopular, and I would have a hard time seeing it pass. That is why I think it is meant to be shocking, it is meant to be unpopular, and it is meant to not pass.

Which then means that they already know it won't pass, and it is just providing them with a way that they can claim that their "simplification" of the tax code was planned as revenue neutral. That way they can push the changes, and when the Democrats (and enough Republicans) vote against the idea of stripping health insurance from millions, they can blame the Democrats for the resulting deficits. They will keep their precious tax cuts for the wealthy dividend classes, and will be able to blame the Democrats for the negative consequences.

But wait a minute! Didn't Bush say he wanted to half the deficit? Do you really still believe anything he says?

I think this just plays into the whole "Starve the Beast" philosophy of many in the Republican party, and espoused by men like Grover Norquist. This philosophy basically goes like this. You increase the deficits through tax cuts to the point where the Federal Government simply can no longer function without financial ruin. The only choice then, is to cut programs like Social Security and Medicare; programs the Grover Norquist Republicans can't stand. They have long ago realized that these programs are politically untouchable because they are so popular. The only way to get rid of them is to manufacture fiscal crisis.

Bush has already shown no interest in deficit reduction; as we have seen he has done exactly the opposite. If he truly wants more tax cuts, there is simply no way that the government can continue to support these social programs. Greenspan himself said just last week that the deficit was getting to the point that social programs would need to start being cut. The plan is in process, the strategy underway.

We had all better start learning about tax law, no matter how boring and difficult it might be. Our future might depend on it.

Purges, firings, consolidation of power.

The last couple of weeks since the election have seen some major shake-ups in the halls of power. The Bush cabinet has lost a third of its members, and it is possible it will even continue. The C.I.A. has been losing experienced top level operatives at an alarming rate. Other agencies have been effected as well, but the two most interesting, and probably most significant, are the State Department and the C.I.A.

Both of these departments have been through a difficult 4 years. The State Department has been at logger heads with the rest of the Bush Administration over foreign policy most of the time. Under Colin Powell, they were a voice of sanity in the wilderness. They objected to many of the most dangerous foreign policy initiatives, and they were criticized by other members of the Bush Administration for being too cautious, and not willing enough to buy into the President's policy initiatives. Well that will now change.

With Powell leaving, and Condaleeza Rice replacing him, one of the main voices of reason in the Administration has been silenced. Rice is already indicating a shakeup at State, she will likely start purging those in the State Department who aren't quite as willing to toe the Administration line as she is. Rice is a smart woman, but she is not known for her independance. Her strength (as far as Bush is concerned), is that she will buy wholeheartedly into policy initiatives, and she will be a facilitator, not an obstructionist. This is good for Bush, but not so much for the world.

One of my biggest criticisms of Bush is that he insulates himself (or is insulated by others). He admits he never reads the papers, and that he gets all his information from his advisors. Well, if your advisors are good, this is a bad way to make decisions but not disastrous. However the replacements he is making for those cabinet members who are leaving do not inspire confidence. Most of those leaving the Administration are men who had years of independent experience. Most of those replacing them are distinguished only by their rise to power with Bush. They are loyalists, not necessarily experts. This is extremely scary when you consider that Bush doesn't have an independent source of information; if those who advise him are all loyalists and "yes men", then how is he going to make decisions?

The other big shakeup is at the C.I.A. The recent appointment of Porter Goss as the head of the C.I.A. has been extremely rough for the agency. The C.I.A. has not had a good four years. They failed to detect and stop 9/11, they failed to draw conclusions from agents who found possible attack preparations and they failed to give accurate assessments on Iraq's WMD programs. While the Bush Administration did distort the information they were given by the C.I.A., the fact that the C.I.A. totally failed to find that Iraq had NO WMD, was a disaster.

Much of the criticism of the C.I.A. over the last few years has been that it is too willing to tell the President what it wants to hear. The C.I.A. needs to be independent. It needs to give solid, fact based reports, not tainted in any way by politics. That is what politicians need to make good decisions. Without that, we can never be sure of our intelligence. Many have argued, and I agree, that the C.I.A. was too willing to give the Bush Administration what they wanted on Iraq. They were too willing to support the Administration's search for reasons to invade. A fully independent and dispassionate search for WMD for example would have found no evidence to support the idea that they existed.

So what is the solution for this issue? Of course it would be to make the C.I.A. more independent, to make sure it remembers its charter for giving unbiased fact based intelligence. However the appointment of Porter Goss has done the exact opposite, and that is why C.I.A. leaders are leaving in droves. Someone leaked a memo from Goss that read as follows:

"I also intend to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road. We support the administration and its policies in our work. As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies."

Huh??? What Goss is saying is clear. The agency is required to support the administration's policies. They are not to oppose them in any way, or give support to the opposition. Are they a political organization now? Are they only going to produce intelligence that supports the president's policies? Are they going to suppress intelligence that might hurt the president's policies? This is an extremely damaging memo.

Some may say this is just politics. However if we cannot rely on our intelligence services to provide good, solid, unbiased intelligence, then that makes every one of us less safe. It means that they are concentrating on supporting policies instead of securing our nation. It is incredibly dangerous.

All of these changes are a dangerous trend. Bush is surrounding himself with people who are known for their loyalty rather than their expertise. He is ensuring our intelligence is biased. We are in for a long 4 years.

I am a hypocrite, and I admit it.

I have been a staunch opponent of States Rights for years, but I am now willing to become a staunch supporter. Hypocritical? Flip Flop? Sure, both those things.

In the past I have been a proponent of a strong Federal Government, at the expense of the states, for a few reasons. Firstly, it has always seemed important to me that every person in America deserves an equal shot, an equal footing, and equal rights. I have always felt for example, that all school funds should be distributed on a national level. This allows for every child in America to get an equal shot at good quality education. I have also supported educational standards set from Washington, to ensure that kids in some States did not get a substandard education. It always seemed to me that this was critical to ensure fairness across the country.

The other big issue for me was rights. States Rights has long been the clarion call of those fighting desegregation, and other civil rights. The south long argued that they should be able to determine these issues locally, not have them imposed by the national government. I opposed this strongly, because I supported civil rights, and the civil rights of every American was important to me, even those in states that might choose to have less rights than others. Since the federal government was imposing the ideals that were important to me, I supported the idea of federal power over states rights.

There are lots of other issues as well, but those are two good examples.

Now we live in a different world however. The federal government is now almost universally hostile to the issues that I hold dear. They are determined to dismantle social security. They are determined to reform tax laws so they are less progressive. They are determined to support faith over fact. There are even those with great influence who support abolishing some civil rights laws, and hate crime laws and other such issues that are important. There are those who want to break down the barriers between church and state.

These are now the issues that might get imposed upon us from Washington. So of course I am a hypocrite, and I am now a strong proponent of states rights. I believe now that Washington State (where I live) should be allowed to determine many of these issues ourselves. Since it is mostly a blue state, I feel that the outcome would be much closer to my values than if these issues are imposed from the other Washington. What I have really learned though is that my position on States Rights is more about the related issues than States Rights itself. States Rights are not important to me, what is important to me is progressive ideals.

Salon.com has a great article about this today, addressing the same issue. Are we in the blue states about to start calling for a more disparate union? Are we going to try and distance ourselves from the policies of the federal government? It is going to be very interesting to see how this plays out.

Fallujah. A whimper?

One of the biggest mistakes you can make as a military commander (yes, I am an expert ;) is to underestimate the intelligence of your opponent. Your plans will rarely turn out the way you hope.

In Fallujah, it seemed that our military brass thought that the insurgents in Fallujah would stand and fight. It seemed that they thought that this would be the insurgent's last great battle. That they would face the might of our forces, and in one fell swoop we would wipe them out, paving the way for free and democratic elections in January.

Well it didn't quite work out that way. Most of the insurgents packed up and went off to other parts of the country to fight another day.

Now of course it is hard to work out the reality from the rhetoric. Our commanders are not idiots, and I am sure they suspected that what actually occurred in Fallujah would happen. So why were they telling their troops to prepare for the ultimate battle? Why was the Administration building this up when we would only end up disappointed? I don't really know why the Administration does half of the things they do, but it seemed that the optimism overshadowed the reality again. Seems to happen quite a bit in the Bush Administration.

The battle for Fallujah is not over yet, and I don't want to minimize the sacrifice of those brave soldiers who fought and died in the city. But it was clearly not the major battle we had been led to expect. This comes back to the intelligence of our enemies though. When we underestimate it, that is when we get in trouble.

Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. You are an insurgent, and your goal is to drive the U.S. from Iraq. You have weapons, but no-where near the firepower or force available to your adversary. Your strength is in your unpredictability, your ability to blend into the civilian population, your ability to hide and then strike out at the most advantageous opportunity, when you can choose the time and place.

You have been hearing for weeks that the U.S. is about to invade Fallujah. This time they are coming and staying, because they have no choice if they want to liberate it before elections. You our outnumbered and outgunned. In a face to face firefight at the U.S.'s choice of time and place, you will lose your natural advantage. You will have no chance to win.

What do you do?

Of course you leave, so that you can continue to fight the occupiers another day. You leave, regroup, and start striking again when you can with your natural advantages. There is little to no advantage to staying put and dying under overwhelming firepower. Insurgencies aren't about territory anyway. They are about changing minds, both those of the occupiers, and of the civilian population. The best way to win an insurgency is to infuriate the occupiers to the point that they over react, and kill large numbers of civilians. This will increase the civilians who sympathize with you, and you do that enough, you make it impossible for the occupiers to govern. When you don't have the firepower to take on the occupation head on, that is really the only option.

Why do we seem to keep thinking these insurgents are idiots? Why do we think they are stupid enough to fight us on our terms? While at least some of the insurgents are likely Islamic extremists with death wishes, we are likely to get some of them to be willing to fight us. However many of the insurgents are fighting for what they perceive as their country. They want us out of Iraq, as they see us as occupiers. We have probably created many of them when we have killed civilians in the past, and their family members seek revenge. This kind of insurgent is not going to throw their life away. They are going to seek another opportunity.

Since the only way for the insurgents to win is to win over the hearts and minds of the population, this is really the only way we can win as well. Every civilian we kill simply creates more insurgents. However if we can convince the Iraqis that we are really trying to help them, that we want to improve their lives, and that we really have no designs on empire or their oil, then we can starve the resistance of support. That is how you defeat an insurgency. That is what we need to do.

Ashcroft is gone! Will we get someone better?

One of the few silver linings of the last few weeks was the news that John Ashcroft was resigning from the job of Attorney General of the United States. Ashcroft was, to put it nicely, a nut, quite possibly one of the most ideological men to hold the position. He was one of the chief proponents of the Patriot Act, an act which fundamentally changed the relationship between the government and the people. He held people in detention with no access to lawyers or opportunities to defend themselves, for years at a time, all in the name of protecting our freedoms. He did more to remove our freedoms than any other man in years.

I am not sad to see him go.

Well now Bush (I won't be able to say President Bush for a while, give me time to mourn) has announced his replacement. At first glance it seems like a reasonable move. He has named his long time counsel, Alberto Gonzales as the new Attorney General. As a Hispanic, this is actually a fairly progressive move, and Bush should be commended for that. Other than being a minority though, what do we really know about him?

Well what we do know is not exactly flattering. I had hoped that the replacement for Ashcroft would be someone who might restore some of the respect for the rule of law, and the respect for intrinsic rights, that Ashcroft trampled all over. Gonzales is not that man.

Exhibit number one is his counsel to Bush that basically said torture was fine, and that the Geneva Convention was full of quaint aspects, and that it did not apply to those captured in Afghanistan. He was the chief architect of the now infamous memo that laid out the Administrations policies regarding Taliban and Al Qaida fighters captured in Afghanistan. He was the one who said these men should be sent to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba so they could be "outside" U.S. law. He was the one who claimed that torture was not torture unless it caused major organ failure. He was the one who claimed that Bush could waive the Geneva Convention or Federal War Crimes statutes whenever he felt like it.

In other words, he pretty much laid out the legal framework that allowed for soldiers to be held without rights for 3 years, and set the foundation that led to the abuses in Abu Ghraib.

So it seems likely to me that we will not see any improvement in the policies coming from the Attorney General's office. In fact, it appears that things may possibly get worse. Even with this background, he will likely get through relatively unscathed through the confirmation hearings, and we will be living with his views on "human rights" for the next four years. If he believes that international and U.S. law can be disregarded at the whim of the President, what else can Bush ignore? If he believes that prisoners of war do not deserve Geneva Convention protections, what other protections are on the chopping block? If he believes torture is a valid investigatory process, then who else will be subject to non-fatal inducements?

We need an Attorney General who will uphold the law, not look for ways to circumvent it for convenience sake.

Here are some links:

http://www.slate.com/id/2109495/
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002087096_webcabinet10.html

Environmental policies for the next 4 years.

One of the major issues that was barely discussed during the campaign was the environment. It came up rarely, and in fits and starts, but was never a focus of the discussion. This is a real shame, since the President's environmental record is awful. Here are some highlights:

- Endangered species. Bush has fought to undermine the endangered species act numerous times, and has listed the least number of new endangered species of any president since the act was instituted.

- Wetlands. The Bush administration removed clean water act protection from all isolated watersheds. In other words, any wetland or water system that doesn't eventually flow into one of our major rivers and into the sea. This removed millions of acres of protection for wetlands, which can now be developed or polluted as desired.

- Air Pollution. Bush pushed through the Clean Skies initiative, which weakened current clean air standards, by making most of the provisions voluntary rather than regulatory. There used to be regulations for example that required power plants that were going through upgrades or refurbishment, to include pollution reduction measures while they were making the changes. This was scrapped.

- Energy policy. Bush's energy policy was formulated in secret meetings with energy companies. Nothing else really needs to be said about this.

- Protected lands. Bush has allowed new coal plants to be built near national parks. He has allowed increased development, drilling and mining on public lands. He has encouraged this even in national wildlife areas. He has designated less new land for protection than any other modern president, while allowing more access for industry to currently protected lands. He has also opened up national forests for logging, while removing provisions that allowed for public review of logging plans.

- Global warming. Bush has continually avoided the issue, even going as far as to say that science has not yet come to a consensus on global warming, and that we are not even sure if it exists. He withdrew from the Kyoto treaty, while suggesting no alternative. While there may have been some problems with the treaty, he made no attempt to suggest any other ways we could slow the process, preferring to allow industry to increase output of global warming gases. He has fought any suggestion of curbs on industry in numerous arenas, and at numerous times.

This is just a start. If you follow the link above, you will see that the Bush Administration has been a consistent assault on environmental protections. The excuse is always that we need a vibrant economy, and that business needs a free hand to succeed. This is a recipe for short term success and long term disaster.

The second Bush Administration will be no better. A perfect example of this is a recent report from the Arctic Council. The Arctic Council is a collection of all the nations that border on the Arctic, including of course the United States. This group has spent the last 4 years studying the environmental impact of global warming on the arctic. What they have found is disturbing, as it appears that global warming is occurring in the arctic at approximately twice the rate of the rest of the world. There have been significant ice loss, increased water and air temperatures, and major habitat changes, and it appears they are accelerating.

So how did the Bush Administration react to this information? By working hard to block any policy recommendations from being publicized by the group. The Bush Administration feels that the science is too immature and that they "lack the evidence to prepare detailed policy proposals." What exactly were these "detailed" policy proposals?

One example was this paragraph which the Bush Administration opposed:

Arctic Council urges the member states to individually and when appropriate, jointly, adopt climate change strategies across relevant sectors. These strategies should aim at the reduction of the emission of greenhouse gases.

Seem fairly innocuous and common sense? Not to the Bush Administration which is determined to fight any suggestion that any responsibility or acknowledgement of the problem ever occur. They are determined that business and polluters should never have to change their ways, if those changes would in any way impact their bottom line.

I am all for protecting our business interests. There is no reason we have to destroy our economy. On the other hand though, we also have to protect our environment. We have a responsibility to provide a clean and healthy environment to future generations. Not only that, but it is morally wrong to be causing global climate change which will have a major impact on those in other nations, especially the masses of people who will need relocation, food assistance etc. How dare we say that our wealth is more important to protect than their basic necessities. I am not advocating radical change, but I do think we need to take this issue more seriously, and realize the responsibility we have. American's make up a small percentage of the world's population, however we produce the greatest amount of greenhouse gases. If these are having a serious impact on the world that will effect millions of people, then we need to act, and act now. It is only morally right.

What Now?

Sorry I didn't post yesterday, I was literally too depressed to write. However I am feeling slightly better today, so here we go!!!

The big question now for Democrats, is what is next? What do we do now? I have been keeping an eye on the pulse of the party, and it appears that the recriminations are flying fast. People are blaming Kerry. People are blaming the stupid red-necks in the red states. People are blaming Howard Dean. People are blaming Karl Rove. We need to get all this blaming out of our system asap, and start working on the 2006 election.

I think we need to do two things. First of all, we need to ignore Bush's (and Kerry's) call for unity. Second, we need to redefine ourselves in moral terms. Let me explain in more detail.

Firstly, we are a divided nation. It is extremely clear. Kerry called on us to start the healing, and that is a fine idea, but not a recipe for success. Bush asked us to start to come together, and work together on advancing his policies. This should really be translated as "We won, so you need to recognize that the American people all want our policies, so roll over and play nice." This of course ignores the fact that most Americans don't approve of most of his policies; remember, more than 50% said we were on the wrong track. What won the election for him was single issues, like terrorism and gay rights. It also ignores the fact that Bush barely talked about ANY of his plans for the second term, so people were not voting on these. Does anyone remember Bush talking about reorganizing the tax code? How about privatizing social security? He even denied he was going to do that during the debates!

The other reason to not give in to his policies, is that they are a disaster waiting to happen. They go against every principle we stand for. We stand for a fair taxation policy, and if we allow the wealthy to further their gains, we have not done our job. We stand for fiscal responsibility, and if his policies are going to increase the deficit, we need to stand up and fight that. We stand for equality and rights, so we cannot rollover as these are trampled on. We stand for ensuring that our seniors have a comfortable retirement, and we need to fight to ensure that even the poor can enjoy their golden years. These are principles worth fighting for, and if we roll over for Bush, then we are exactly the kinds of flip floppers the Cons accused Kerry of being.

Finally, fighting these policies is the only sane move. We will NEVER win if we are simply Republican-lite. If we support all their policies, then why would anyone vote for us? We need to provide a strong alternative. This leads into my second "thing we must do!"

The second thing is we need to redefine our positions as moral issues. We did this in the past with huge success, but we forgot how to along the way. Think of Martin Luther King. His fight was at its base a moral fight. The issue of discrimination and inequality is a moral issue. However somehow, since then, we have forgotten that our position is a moral one, not just an intellectual or logical one. As Bush proved, logic can be trumped by emotion. Reality by Morality. In order to win, we need to embrace this, not reject it. We need to remember our roots, and remember that the things we fight for are morally right, not just rational.

When a child's future depends upon the lottery of birth, it is a moral outrage. When a poor child gets a second rate education, this is a moral outrage. When a man works full time to support his family, but still cannot get by on minimum wage, that is a moral outrage. When families have to choose between food and health care coverage, that is a moral outrage. When poor seniors who have worked hard all their lives, are forced to live in poverty because our society forgets them, that is a moral outrage. When we treat people differently based on their race, creed, color, lifestyle or heritage, that is a moral outrage. When we choose to honor the wealth of corporations over the sanctity of our environment, that is a moral outrage. When we send children to die in foreign lands, killing people who were no threat to us, that is a moral outrage. When we ignore our part in climate change that will negatively effect billions of people, that is a moral outrage. When we sit back and do nothing while the wealthiest in our country get wealthier, while more families are in poverty, that is a moral outrage.

These are all moral issues. They may not even be rational. They may not be logical. It may be dreaming to believe that we could eradicate poverty in our nation. It may only be faith that leads us to believe that we can have sustainable development. It may only be hope that we can allow every child equal opportunities. However saying that these moral values are any less important than those spouted by the right is preposterous.

We can fight on their own ground, because our fight is at its most basic a moral fight. We stand for moral principles of the highest order. We stand for morality that cannot be denied. We even fight for moral principles that can be supported in the Bible. These are moral principles worth fighting for.

If we retool our message, so that it is a moral message, not just a rational message, we again can inspire and excite the masses. That is what they will respond to. It is not discussions of fiscal responsibility, or discussions of rationality in decision making. It is grand hopes and dreams, the stuff of visionaries, that can lift and inspire the people of our great nation. Do that, and we will be back beating those who destroy those dreams.

Congratulations to the Republicans and President Bush

Well it is all over, and I was wrong, the pollsters were wrong, the exit polls were wrong, hey pretty much everyone but Karl Rove was wrong. The last polls all showed a close race, but most of the pollsters were calling it for Kerry. The exit polls yesterday were all showing significant Kerry wins in most of the swing states, and in the overall popular vote.

It is clear though, that the majority of Americans want what Bush has to offer. He is the first President in years to actually win with more than 50% of the popular vote. 4 million more Americans wanted him than wanted Kerry. Not only did he win significantly, but the Republicans increased their hold on the House and the Senate, which will make it easier for them to push their agenda. A number of supreme court positions will likely be opening up, and Bush will be able to stock it with conservatives.

So the American people have spoken, and they have said they want a much more conservative America. This is of course depressing for me, but it is pretty clearly the case.

One thing that does seem clear, from turnout, exit polls and initiative wins, is that a major reason for Bush's win was the moral issues, especially gay marriage. Bush support for the gay marriage constitutional amendment is highly popular, and those who vote based on this issue came out in droves, as could be seen in the initiative wins for this issue across the country.

My theory is that many (not all, but many) Republicans are single issue voters. They vote based on abortion, gun rights, gay marriage, small government, terrorism, etc. It seems to me that they are a coalition of people who find one issue that resonates with them, and then use that as a litmus test. This seems to be much more prevalent in Republican voters than Democratic ones.

Anyway, now we need to prepare for another 4 years of President Bush. Looking over the last 4 years, that makes me extremely nervous. There is very little that was positive about the last four years, and now that Bush is freed from needing to be re-elected, as well as the larger mandate he has, I don't think much will hold him back. We are in for four more years of Environmental degradation, four more years of ignoring global warming, for more years of corporate interests over our interests, four more years of international isolation, four more years of conservative moral legislation, four more years of faith based policies, four more years of war and terror. Fun huh!

Actually, I am almost glad that Bush will have to deal with Iraq himself. It will be horrendous for our troops, but the majority voted for him, so what can I say. Iraq would have been an intractable mess for either Kerry or Bush, so at least this way Bush will fully get the blame for the mess. Recently an anonymous source (likely a member of the Joint Chief's of Staff) said that Powell had confided in him that we were losing the war in Iraq, and that at current troop levels we will not be able to get to victory. So either Bush will be instituting a draft, or we will be simply perpetuating the war interminably. It is a disastrous situation.

Anyway, I can't see much in the policy arena that will be positive for me in the next four years, which is rather depressing. But we will survive, and I will be here, calling them on every stupid disastrous decision they make. It will be a wild ride.

So who is going to win tomorrow?

This is of course the "Big Question" and if I knew the answer I could retire to Tahiti. :) There are lots of prognosticators in the media and online, and they have started letting us know who they think will win. Tucker Carlson, the conservative Crossfire host has called it (to his chagrin) for Kerry, saying that he believes that the anger against Bush is stronger that the excitement for Bush. I think he has a point. John Zogby (of the ubiquitous Zogby polls) has also called it for Kerry, mostly on the strength of the idea that undecideds and those who have not been polled (cell phone users etc) will fall on the Kerry side.

There are of course those who have also called it for Bush, usually because they feel that the fact that the last week of the campaign has been almost solely fought on the terrorism and foreign policy battleground. They say this will help Bush because by large margins, most Americans feel that Bush will do a better job protecting us from terrorists. So when the election is about this issue, Bush will prevail. I think that the Bin Laden video does speak to this, but I am not convinced that their argument is correct.

The bottom line is this; no-one knows at this point. Most polls are VERY close. If you look at the popular national vote, all the polls are within the margin of error. Fox News' latest poll shows Kerry beating Bush, 48 to 46. Rasmussen has Bush 49.4, Kerry 48.8. Zogby has Bush 48, Kerry 47. Gallup's latest is a 49/49% draw. Just about the only poll that had a large difference was a recent Newsweek poll that showed 50% for Bush, 44% for Kerry, but that is an outlier, as all other polls are much closer.

The real important polls though are the battleground polls, as those make the real difference. It doesn't matter who wins the popular vote (as Gore can tell you through his tears), all that matters is who wins the electoral college. There are a large group of states that no-one is concentrating on, because they are pretty much solid in each camp. But there are a number of states that are extremely close, and could easily go either way.

Florida, the bane of the 2000 election, is one of them. Fox News' latest poll has Kerry up 49 to 44% in Florida. Insider Advantage has it at 48% even. Zogby has Kerry by 1, 48 to 47%. Quinnipiac has Bush by a huge 51 to 43%. Gallup's latest has Kerry up 49 to 46%. Mason Dixon has Bush up 49 to 45%. What this all means of course is that it is really anybody's game in Florida. It could easily go either way. What Kerry has in his favor is that so far early voters in Florida have leant his way. Add to that the usual swing of undecideds to the challenger, and the fact that young people with cell phones don't get polled, yet they lean to Kerry, I think Kerry has a really good chance of pulling it out of the bag here.

The other big states are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan and possibly New Hampshire and New Mexico. I think New Hampshire will go for Kerry and New Mexico for Bush. That leaves the other 6, all of them as close as can be. Whoever wins the majority of these states, will win the presidency. If I had to guess right now, I would say Minnesota will go for Kerry, and Iowa for Bush. Pennsylvania is leaning Kerry, as is Michigan. I think the really close ones are probably Wisconsin and Ohio, and I don't know which way they will go.

It is going to be an exciting night tomorrow night!

If you want to do some of your own research, here are some interesting sites. Slate Magazine has an excellent Election Scorecard, which breaks down the states by who they think is likely to win each one. If you scroll down, they also have an excellent table with all the polls available at a glance per state. RealClearPolitics.com also does a good job making the poll info available. They are a little harder to dig around, but they are interesting.

ElectoralVote.com is another good one, although they really only take the absolutely latest poll for each state, rather than running averages (like RealClearPolitics) or analysis (Like Slate). Professor Sam Wang of Princeton University has a more statistical Meta-Analysis of the polls, and his prediction is a Kerry victory.

Personally I think it will come down to turnout (which the Democrats should win this year) as well as those undecided's and unpolled masses, who currently look to be leaning towards Kerry. So right now I am pretty confident, but I won't be letting myself get too excited until tomorrow. So my prediction? I think of the battleground states, Kerry will win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota and Florida. Bush will win Iowa. That leaves Wisconsin and Ohio. If Bush wins both of these, then we will have an electoral vote tie, 269 to 269, which will put Bush in the Whitehouse, as the House of Representatives will then decide the President. However, if he loses either of those states, then Kerry wins. Since I think those are the two real battleground states, and Bush only wins if he wins both of them, then I am inclined to give the election to Kerry.

We will see how I do tomorrow!