Oregon 2004: Bush/Kerry statistically tied

From the University of Oregon's Survey Research Lab are new numbers on the presidential election. They place Oregon firmly into the category of "battleground state," and as a result we are likely to get a good bit of attention from both candidates, which is always fun. Bush leads 47-45, well within the MoE, but it's a bit surprising that Bush is on the high end in an Oregon poll, even if it's statistically insignificant. The numbers are a little stale, however, running just into the beginning the deterioration of the Iraq situation, and before the Bush press conference held last Tuesday. It does, however, cover the good jobs report the first weekend in April.

Interestingly, while in most polls Ralph Nader carries a falsely high reading (and I say that based on the dim likelihood he'll even be on the ballot in many of those states), in Oregon he captures just one percent of the polling. I think that's where he'll stay. Kerry has a 13-point edge in Portland; Bush a 12-point edge everywhere else. Bush currently has the men; they are even among women. Somewhat oddly, Kerry does better with the older voters, while Bush is favored among the younger.

Misaiming and misleading

I'm overall a fan of Atrios'. He's concise, direct, dilligent, casts a wide net, and has a wide influence on both his audience and the independent political landscape. And damned if 500 people didn't wander over from that landscape to Torrid's World one day when he alone--among the larger sites, including Sullivan--linked back to my effort to catalogue the Multnomah same sex marriage licensing issue. So i have full respect on that.

Which makes the tenor of this piece on the Bush/Blair conference somewhat disappointing:

Q: (Egyptian President) Hosni Mubarak is saying the new U.S. policy on the West Bank could escalate violence. How do you respond to his concerns?

BUSH: Yes, I think this is a fantastic opportunity.

This certainly sounds bizarre, and almost as if he is saying he is delighted at the prospect of heightened tensions on another battle front of the Middle East. And of course that's what Atrios wants you to begin supposing, as far as I'm concerned. He says "I'd like to think that there's some context that's missing from the transcript, but I can't imagine what it would be," further suggesting to me that he wants you to read that essentially verbatim and draw your own conclusions.

I don't know that I'd have a problem with reproducing the quote as he did it, because Bush did end the sentence there. However, he immediately went on to say,

You know, the fact that (Israeli Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon said, We're going to withdraw from territory, is a historic moment. And it creates a chance for the world to come together to help develop a Palestinian state based upon a solid foundation, a foundation where the institutions are bigger than the people, just like our respective governments are founded.

So clearly there's a dissonance here. We find ourselves asking that oft-required question of Bush, "what the fuck is he trying to say?" Atrios' readers offer the likely explanation: in these situations, Bush is obviously briefed on what he's likely to be asked. Surely, everyone including Bush knew a West Bank question was coming, so he prepped out a good answer. Unfortunately, it was not an open-ended question that would allow him to spiel on how great the opportunity was for a real Palestinian state to emerge from this eventually, it was a negative question asking, what if this makes things worse? But he had the prep done, so all he could do was run out the prepped answer, which began, "I think it's a fantastic opportunity."

I think the dustup over Kos' "screw them" comment was (or should have been) a warning shot across the bow. Not to stifle rhetoric that may indeed be true however harshly put, but to stay vigilant about what you say and how you put things, knowing they will be read, and are meant to be read. Your audience is always imagined (as opposed to imaginary, which I also have some experience with); you can imagine it large or small, friendly or full of potential stalkers. And if you want to have a big audience, you should already be acting as if you have one. If you don't want a big audience, and I'm ambivalent, it's less important.

But Atrios already HAS a big audience. Once you have it, it's hard to remain ambivalent. I can say fuck in my posts, and heck, so can Atrios. Self-important as the blogosphere may be, Eschaton is not the Wall Street Journal. But at worst, my mom tells me to stop swearing on my blog. Eschaton's influence means he has to cut visible financial ties to the Kerry campaign, solely on the basis of worry that worst case, something he says will overshadow Kerry's candidacy and endanger Bush's defeat.

So maybe he went silent on Kerry fundraising so that he could spin to his heart's content. But when he looked at the press conference transcript, he knew what followed. I think he had to know Bush wasn't really trying to say escalation was fantastic. But it feeds the beast. And you've got to be careful when you feed the beast. I'm by no means perfect at it, but again--the pressure is not on me quite as hard. I should still try for it, but less is at stake on my effort.

Besides, Kerry has had two days to learn to say "Brahimi," and he can't do it. And if you want a Bush quote that is full of belly-laugh parsing challenges, how about this one?

"If they [the Iraqis] believe that we'll cut and run, in other words, if times get tough, we'll just say, 'See you later,' nobody is going to take a stand for freedom and liberty."

Had the link earlier, now I can't find it. You'll have to trust me for now. How unprofessional! Small-audience thinking, I know.

You're fired!

I'm not usually one for echoing catchphrases--especially when they pump the ego and fill the coffers of people who need it like another hole in their head--but there's a beautiful synergy to this particular application of it:

He is kind of apprentice-like, isn't he? Starring Cheney as The Donald...

I've never had a political sticker on a car in my life, but I've convinced Mrs. Torrid to let this one be affixed to the Sienna. Tells you how much he annoys her, too.

Keeping tabs on Florida

Although Ohio is probably the true bellwether this year (and Kerry was doing fairly well there last month), Florida is just a more fun state to handicap because it has so many different types of constituencies to think about. Plus it's still really a GOP-trending state overall, so the better Kerry does there, the more ill it bodes for Bush around the country.

Rasmussen released their latest today; they are virtually tied--Kerry clings to a one point edge. That represents a slight drop from the last poll, but both figures are within the MoE.

The battleground states are coming slowly into focus, and so far the edge has to be to Kerry. He is tied or barely leading in every state Al Gore took, plus Florida AND Ohio, and also West Virginia.
Obviously if he takes the Gore states plus those three he wins, but since all three of those Bush 2000 states are well in play for him, his vulnerability in Pennsylvania (they are essentially tied there as well) is less of an issue. Two of the four would be plenty, especially if one of that group is not WV.

Long way to go, however.

Meanwhile, things are going GREAT in Afghanistan!

At least, that's the sunny outlook provided by Joint Chiefs Chairman Meyers. Here are some of the more priceless attempts to provide the official line without giggling uncontrollably:

"..we're a little stronger, a little beefier than we have been. That does ebb and flow," he told reporters traveling with him. "It's quite likely we could go back down to lower numbers. We will see how events unfold. I think generally most of the country is pretty secure as a matter of fact..."


..


He said the United States and Pakistan's military have "very good coordination back and forth" in the effort to flush al Qaeda and Taliban fugitives from the mountainous border area.

"My understanding is that they (Pakistan's military) are going to remain committed to activities in the tribal areas to try to help with this problem," said Myers..."There will be ongoing operations," he said, referring to Pakistan's military in the border area. "I'm not sure they are engaged right this minute but I think that you can anticipate that it won't be too long before they are engaged again."

"There's always the hunt for Osama bin Laden. We have folks who spend a lot of time worrying about where he is, where al-Zawahri is, where the top leadership in al Qaeda is," he said.

"We're out and about on patrols on the Pakistan-Afghan border region, and aggressively out there everyday," he said.


So we're on patrol out in the field, with others worrying about where Osama is, back at the office. Pakistani forces aren't engaged, but you can bet soon they will be! We have good communication with them, which is a relief, because we can't go over there to fight. And while we're reducing troops from the already low 15,000, everything's pretty secure. Except for the Taliban pretty much running the southeast part of the country. And General Dostum overthrowing the Afghan goverment in a northeastern province. And everything outside Kabul is as peaceful as Tijuana after dark.

Whew! I feel much better.

US open to Brahimi proposal on Iraqi self-rule

From NYT, finally some good news and common sense from the Bush administration: at least in broad outlines, they seem to now accept that the Iraqi Governing Council, and apparently specifically Ahmad Chalabi, cannot survive the June 30 handover. They have also apparently acquiesced in principle to the idea of having the UN appoint the principals, with influence by the US. The key will be how much influence is applied--if the US backs off just enough to exert its control from behind the scenes, and lets it be Kofi's show, it might work well enough to at the least, legitimize the process from an Iraqi perspective.

And really, that's got to be the starting point for any transfer of power. We'll see how it shakes out, but for the first time I think Bush is seeing an exit strategy, and it's "let someone else handle it." Kofi may not bail him out, but he can't win points by looking petulant. The UN has wanted control for a while; now they may get it. And that's a pretty stunning turnaround from last August, when Bush officials were taking care to replace the word "central" with "vital" before using the word "role" in reference to the UN.

Classic!

Isn't this the kind of thing that got Al Gore labeled a serial liar by the media? OK, not really 50 tons. And not really at a turkey farm. And if you insist, fine: not really mustard gas, either.

Portland goes out in a Blaze of glory

OK, so it was a disheartening defeat like many that befell the Blazers this year. So they ended their 21 year playoff run, and I think also their 15-year string of winning seasons (they finished an even 41-41 this year). So they couldn't do their part to keep the Lakers from winning the Pacific Division. And so what if they didn't even try to foul Kobe before the shot, after he'd already made one ridiculous three point buzzer beater.

But man, that was some game. Two overtimes, two amazing shots by one of the premier players in the game, down to the wire action. But that wasn't really even the best part of last night's contest. What made it special for me was the crowd, enthusiastically supporting their hometown team in a game that was meaningless to their standing. It was Paul Allen, bandaged proboscis and all, exhorting the team and fans to make noise. It was a team of players who continued to fight a more talented squad with everything they had. And who the players were, was a large part of the reason the rest all fell into place. The Blazers that finished the 03/04 season were mostly not there at the beginning, and good riddance to those that have left. I really think we've exorcised the demons of the Jail Blazers, and we can go back to unabashedly supporting the team and the sport.

It was the best time I've had watching a bitter loss in a long, long time.

Blair, slowly backing away

A decent editorial by The Scotsman (two links in one night!), on the wariness with which British PM Blair is beginning to treat Senor Bush. What's striking about the piece is the apparent revolt amongst the foreign service, against the ham-handed tactics and strategy of Bremer and the CPA:

It is an open secret that the early resignation of Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Mr Blair’s envoy to Iraq, was triggered by his frustration over the conduct of L Paul Bremer III, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Sir Jeremy and other British diplomats believe that Bremer is now refusing to listen to his Iraqi officials, military or his allies - and is focused only on the political calendar in Washington.

Now back in London, Sir Jeremy says nothing about his reasons for deciding not to see the job through. But the fury of his diplomats is filtering through Westminster: the Brits believe the Americans are losing the peace through brutal policing tactics.

The solution: more troops, which will make the US Army less overstretched - and less likely to respond to uprisings in a way which British diplomats argue is now alienating Iraqi allies and recruiting enemies.

It was always argued that, while the US excels at winning wars, Britain excels at peacekeeping. This has gone beyond jingoism: senior figures in the Foreign Office are close to despair, and have decided not to replace Sir Jeremy with a heavy- hitter.

Even our friends are starting to get sick of us.

A little Portland news

Never missing a chance to nag at Vera Katz or rail about wasteful spending for trendy Portland ideas, Jack Bog throws another dart for the proposed increase in parking fees that made it into the FY05 budget. That's fine; I don't think Sunday metering would be good for anybody, and even with all the extra revenue, it wouldn't cover even the cost of backlogged street maintenance--a pernicious problem indeed, as anyone living in Southeast or lower Southwest can tell you. Is there anything besides the natural beauty that Jack likes about Portland?

In any case, the fee changes are dead, long live the fee changes. What makes this a fun story (since the proposal is DOA and thus we can all laugh about it) is the sparring that went on over it between Mayor Vera and the Heir Apparent, Jim Francesconi. It ended up in the budget, which Katz has ultimate oversight on (increasingly so in recent years, apparently), but Francesconi--who oversees the Transportation Department under which the issue falls--claimed never to have heard of it, and said he'd never have supported such a thing. He then immediately requested to take his indignation private, lest he say anything impolitic. Vera's response was to say, "it's your bureau, Chuckles," raising a sort of Bush-like "why didn't he respond to the briefing?" kind of question for Francesconi.

The head of PDOT claimed he got a request for various revenue generating proposals...for the next budget. Imagine their surprise when someone took their idea and ran with it! (Maybe they read this USAT piece on the cash cow known as parking fines being used to meet shortfalls in cities around the country). And now Francesconi is in the uncomfortable position of admitting that he didn't read his bureaus' budgets closely enough to know that they'd submitted proposals to tax churchgoers and Sunday brunch eaters.

I didn't see mention of today's development in any of the blog biggies, but somehow I just knew one of our fair leaders would have commented on it at 1221 SW 4th. I compare Jim to Bush, Bog compares him to Kerry. The double whammy!

Reply on Afghani heroin

A trusted reader in Afghanistan warns against my rather brash declaration of both zero heroin under the Taliban, and a basis for that dearth that lay in pious indignation against the humble poppy:

I've read two scholarly historical texts on the Taliban and Reaping the Whirlwind, a hands on book by a Pakistani reporter who lived amongst the Taliban. Don't believe for one minute they ever eradicated heroin or washed their hands of drug money. They claimed not to control large sections of Afghanistan where the poppies grew. In the north the claim is factual, but not in the warlord controlled parts of the country. The Taliban had to politically distance themselves from the drug trade, but that was just public relations. They taxed the bejeebus out of the poppy farmers, they gave seminars in the efficacy of exporting drugs to the godless west. They played public relations with the drug and appeased all interested parties primarily to the benefit of the Taliban.

[Economist backgrounder]

[Selling off stockpiles at record prices before the war, despite curtailing production]

Thanks for the tip. Clearly the Taliban appeared to put halts on production in the period leading up to 9/11, but that's like worrying about Prince not recording anymore--there's enough in the vault to keep the hardcore fans happy for years. So at best, the same dough that was going to fund the Taliban is now funding the warlords. Suppose the takeover of Faryab Province by the notorious warlord General Dostum is being funded by drug money? Hmmm....

Pop quiz

From NPR:

1. According to the IMF, what percentage of Afghanistan's current GDP is the result of opium cultivation?

A: 25%
B: 50%
C: 80%
D: 90%

(Answer--B, half of GDP).

2. What percentage resulted from opium cultivation prior to the fall of the Taliban?

A: virtually 0%
B: None
C: Zip
D: Nada
E: All of the above

(Answer--E, none. The Taliban had effectively outlawed it, by punishing it with death.)

Of course I'm not saying the Taliban were best for Afghanistan because they keep horse off the streets, but it sure puts the ridiculous "I helped a terrorist" ad into perspective, doesn't it? If it doesn't, here's some help with that.

Excellent news: AEDs now mandatory on big jets

After four years of wrangling, the FAA requirement that all major non-commuter flights carry with them an automatic external defibrillator to save victims of sudden cardiac arrest, takes effect. I've mentioned the need for AEDs in public spaces before, and this is indeed good news. Kudos must go to American Airlines, who have had them in all planes for eight years. Others have not been so quick to adopt the policy, and a spokesman for the Air Transport Asssociation trade group skips right over this fact in saying, "Cardiac arrest happens frequently. The airlines decided having these on the plane is just a good thing to do." Decided once it was required, I suppose.

Also tonight, the new Real Sports aired on HBO, and one of the features was on AEDs in health clubs, the same topic I covered here last month. Two-thirds of clubs still do not have them on hand, but the tide may be changing. According to the feature, three state legislatures are considering bills concerning the issue. This spurs me to contact the fine folks at City Council, and see what, if any, attention has been given to the subject in Portland. One of the key experts on AEDs in public facilities, Richard Lazar, was interviewed for the piece and is headquarted right here in town, so maybe I'd only be plowing fields already hoed. I'd like to get the Fire Bureau behind me on this, as well as the radical idea of putting one in every police vehicle, so we'll see.

Unfortunately, the link to Real Sports isn't yet updated for April's stories. You may want to check back there later.

More from the press conference

Let's see -- Ed.

Q Mr. President, good evening. You've talked on the -- I'd like to ask you about the August 6th PDB.

THE PRESIDENT: Sure.

Q You mentioned it at Fort Hood on Sunday. You said -- you pointed out that it did not warn of a hijacking of airplanes to crash into buildings, but that it warned of hijacking to, obviously, take hostages and to secure the release of extremists being held by the U.S. Did that trigger some specific actions on your part and the administration, since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?

THE PRESIDENT: Ed, I asked for the briefing. And the reason I did is because there had been a lot of threat intelligence from overseas. And so -- part of it had to do with Genoa, the G8 conference that I was going to attend. And I asked, at that point in time, let's make sure we are paying attention here at home, as well. And that's what triggered the report.

[see the posting below this one; but here we have background only. Non-responsive.]

The report, itself, I've characterized as mainly history, and I think when you look at it you'll see that it was talking about '97 and '98 and '99. It was also an indication, as you mentioned, that bin Laden might want to hijack an airplane, but as you said, not to fly into a building, but perhaps to release a person in jail. In other words, serve it as a blackmail.

[more background, non-responsive.]

And of course, that concerns me. All those reports concern me. As a matter of fact, I was dealing with terrorism a lot as the President when George Tenet came in to brief me. I mean, that's where I got my information. I changed the way that -- the relationship between the President and the CIA Director. And I wanted Tenet in the Oval Office all the time. And we had briefings about terrorist threats. This was a summary.

[hmmm, background here as well. We do now have the important information that "this was a summary."]

Now, in what's called the PDB, there was a warning about bin Laden's desires on America, but, frankly, I didn't think that was anything new. Major newspapers had talked about bin Laden's desires on hurting America. What was interesting in there was that there was a report that the FBI was conducting field investigations. And I -- that was good news that they were doing their job.

[semi-responsive: the PDB was nothing new; the FBI was handling it.]

The way my administration worked, Ed, is that I met with Tenet all the time, obviously met with my principals a lot. We talked about threats that had emerged. We had a counterterrorism group meeting on a regular basis to analyze the threats that came in. Had there been a threat that required action by anybody in the government, I would have dealt with it. In other words, had they come up and said, this is where we see something happening, you can rest assured that the people of this government would have responded, and responded in a forceful way.


[I suppose this was the answer, here: no, because the PDB didn't require any specific actions. So I went back to agonizing over the eventual philosophical copout I was going to make on stem cell research. And tending the hogs, of course!]

In summary, the answer to "what did you do when you read the brief" was "nothing."

Still throwing it out there, hoping no one notices

from the President's press conference this evening:

Let's see -- Ed.

Q Mr. President, good evening. You've talked on the -- I'd like to ask you about the August 6th PDB.

THE PRESIDENT: Sure.

Q You mentioned it at Fort Hood on Sunday. You said -- you pointed out that it did not warn of a hijacking of airplanes to crash into buildings, but that it warned of hijacking to, obviously, take hostages and to secure the release of extremists being held by the U.S. Did that trigger some specific actions on your part and the administration, since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?

THE PRESIDENT: Ed, I asked for the briefing. And the reason I did is because there had been a lot of threat intelligence from overseas. And so -- part of it had to do with Genoa, the G8 conference that I was going to attend. And I asked, at that point in time, let's make sure we are paying attention here at home, as well. And that's what triggered the report.

WaPo says no:

The CIA now says that a controversial August 2001 briefing summarizing potential attacks on the United States by al Qaeda was not requested by President Bush, as Rice and others had long claimed. The Aug. 6, 2001, document, known as the President's Daily Brief, has been the focus of intense scrutiny because it reported that Osama bin Laden advocated airplane hijackings, that al Qaeda supporters were in the United States and that the group was planning attacks here.

After the highly classified document's existence was first revealed in news reports in May 2002 , Rice held a news conference in which she suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer. But Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic commission member, disclosed at the hearing yesterday that the CIA informed the panel last week that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA.

But a White House official who demanded anonymity replied: "We did request such a document. It's not out of the question that the CIA and others had the same idea."

Sullivan on rebranding

When I saw this column by Andrew labeled "Kerry on Iraq," I shuddered a bit--another "what would he do?--who knows?" piece. I was refreshingly surprised, however, and not so much from the lashing he gives the Bush administration on Iraq, but for the entirely rational perspective he recommends for John Kerry as an alternative. Short version: "Don't change the policy, change the director of the policy!," or "Thanks for the courage, George--we Democrats will handle the nation building for you."

It's a meme that I first saw in Kausfiles, wherein Kerry sells his candidacy not on policy difference, but on renewed stewardship. Since obviously we can't handle moving on to Iran, Syria, or North Korea just yet, we don't need a Bush type anymore, we need the mushy kind who can get the rest of the world to trust us again, and start wanting to get involved on our crazy projects once more. Similarly, we certainly don't need any more tax cuts, so let's hold the line on spending, which obviously a three-house GOP couldn't restrain itself to do. A GOP Congress checking a Democratic President--is there any better setup for fiscal prudence?

Seriously, Sullivan gives Kerry some excellent advice:

It would go something like this: "Thank you, Mr president, for your leadership in difficult times. You took some tough decisions in good faith. I disagree with you but I will not let our troops down and I will not abandon Iraq. But you, Mr president, are now part of the problem. You are too polarizing a figure to bring real peace to Iraq, and have bungled the post-liberation too badly. Your failure to find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction has undermined your credibility as a war-leader. You are too unpopular to allow European governments and the U.N. to cooperate fully in the war. One of the advantages of a democracy is that we can pursue the same goals over time with different leaders and different strategies. I intend to win the war in Iraq because we cannot afford to lose it. But I also intend to bring our allies more centrally into the task, to increase troop levels in the country, to appoint Richard Holbrooke to oversee our cooperation with the incoming Iraqi government, and ask former president Bill Clinton to re-open peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. I will be tough on terror and tough on the causes of terror. I can complete what you started. In fact, I alone can complete what you started.

It even rambles a little bit, just like Kerry would!

Worst suspicions realized

WaPo lays the eruption of full-chaos resistance squarely at Bremer's feet, where most people already saw it should go: prodding the Sadrists while dealing with the Fallujahans is one thing, but not having any plan in case they hit back is inexcusable.

When is SOMEONE going to get fired for this fucking mess, who isn't fired because he/she strayed off the reservation and told the truth at some point?

More on Condi and the Safety Dance

There emerges IMO a paradigm shift in the meme about Dr. Rice (and we all know how painful a paradigm shift in the meme can be) since her public testimony. I confess that I, like many others, was interested mainly in seeing which and how her streak of lying would be exposed. But as disturbing as the knee-jerk prevaricative instinct was, far more compelling and scary was the realization that Condi just wasn't a very good national security advisor when we needed a really, really good one. She didn't know how to get, parse or respond to information from below, and she either didn't know how or didn't care about passing information downward, either. She did a fine job of taking orders from the Vice President and going on TV, however.

DemWatch, coping with a bit of a lull after a busy primary season, is still keeping focus on the lying part. This one might be a little too technically true for it to be a major--heh--point of the speech. It's such a crude rhetorical trick that I can't get too worked up about it...except for the speed and depth with which the GOP flacks have picked it up almost word for word (leaving out the key word, themselves). Also far more interesting than the fib is the subject of the actual first national security directive: disassembling the interagency working groups that may have--surely would have--been extremely valuable when everybody should have been at DefCon 2 in the summer of 2001.

Presidential Daily Brief--August 6, 2001

The first best thing to do always is read the primary material. I don't doubt that people will reach different conclusions from the same briefing, but at least we'll all know what it said. I'm sure you've heard the arguments already: vague, specific, historical, contemporary. Read it for yourself and decide.
(tip to Political Animal for the clean link)