Andrew Raff

Andrew is the publisher of Buzz Rant & Rave. Currently, he lives in Brooklyn, NY and is a second-year student at Brooklyn Law School.

Andrew shamelessly self-promotes himself at his personal blog, AndrewRaff.com and the other parts of the AndrewRaff.com media empire: Linky Links and IPTAblog.

Undecided

The New Republic's Christopher Hayes looks at the undecided voter: Decision Makers

My seven weeks in Wisconsin left me with a number of observations (all of them highly anecdotal, to be sure) about swing voters, which I explain below. But those small observations add up to one overarching contention: that the caricature of undecided voters favored by liberals and conservatives alike doesn't do justice to the complexity, indeed the oddity, of undecided voters themselves. None of this is to say that undecided voters are completely undeserving of the derision that the political class has heaped on them--just that Jonah Goldberg, and the rest of us, may well be deriding them for the wrong reasons.

Branding

David Neiwert wrote an excellent article about the need for liberals to get aggressive in controlling how we use rhetoric to frame news and policy: Healing the heartland

Frontline looks at how Republicans have been successful at political branding in The Persuaders (Segment 5, "Give Us What We Want") and in an interview with Frank Luntz.

Election Fraud?

One of the rumors floating around the internets is that widespread electronic voting fraud caused discrepancies between exit polls and actual vote tallies-- in other words exit polls more accurately predicted the actual outcome of the election in counties which used optical scan, punch card or lever voting machines than in counties which used direct recording electronic voting machines.

There is enough evidence to demonstrate that some elctronic voting machines generated inaccurate vote counts and that electronic voting machines without voter verified paper trails are difficult to audit. But there is currently not enough evidence to prove anything beyond some irregularities, much less widespread fraud.

Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project: Voting Machines and the Underestimate of the Bush Vote

Salon: Was the election stolen?

There's little question that the American election process is a mess, and needs to be cleaned up. But even if this particular election wasn't perfect, it was still most likely good enough for us to have faith in the results. Salon has examined some of the most popular Kerry-actually-won theories currently making the rounds online, and none of them hold up under rigorous scrutiny.

Brian Lehrer Show: Claims and Counter Claims

Because the source code to these direct recording e-voting machines is proprietary to the vendors, there is no way to independently verify that the election results are accurate without an independent paper trail or some alternative independent audit mechanism.

The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 (HR 2239) introduced by Rush Holt (D-NJ) will require all voting systems to generate voter-verified permanent records. Maybe it will be passed by the next presidential election.

Representatives John Conyers, Jerold Nadler and Robert Wexler are seeking an investigation of the efficacy of voting systems from the GAO.

Building that bridge to the 19th century

Bill Clinton talked about building a bridge to the 21st century. Here in the 21st century, George W. Bush is working to build a bridge back to the 19th century.

Paul Krugman notes that Bush is not a conservative but a radical: "[Bush is] the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare." No Surrender

But, the Bush coalition seeks not only to roll back the achievements of Franklin Roosevelt, but the progressive era reforms of Theodore Roosevelt and return to unregulated robber baron capitalism. Some of TR's biggest achievements were in creating the national parks and protecting the environment. Then, conservation was conservative. Today, Bush cronies seek to loot the national park system for private gain and roll back clean air regulations.

In the New Yorker, James Surowiecki discusses how this shifts risk allocation from a collective risk-spreading approach back to rugged individualism: The Risk Society

Mapping the Election

Since we still have one vote per person rather than one vote per acre in the US (for now), maps which attempt to explain the link between voting trends and democracy are somewhat deceptive, because some areas of the country are sparsely populated.

Three professors at the University of Michigan present some of the alternative wasy to map the election results. The most useful image is this snazzy cartograph, which shows the election results on a county-by-county basis, with each county scaled for population and shaded based on the strength of support for Bush or Kerry:

Bush Makes The Case

In a speech on Wednesday, President Bush said, "For a political candidate to jump to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief." He's describing himself, right? After all, facts haven't seemed to be all that important to the Bush administration while formulating policy, and while one doesn't need to ignore reality to support Bush, it certainly helps.

Shhh, It's a Secret

Paul Krugman in the NY Times: A Culture of Cover-Ups

Although President Bush's campaign is based almost entirely on his self-proclaimed leadership in that war, his officials have thrown a shroud of secrecy over any information that might let voters assess his performance.

Does George W. Bush Understand Terrorism?

Last week, former mayor Ed Koch was a guest on The Daily Show and discussed how he supports reelecting George Bush, despite disagreeing with the President on just about every domestic issue, because stopping international terrorism is the most important issue facing America. An Annenberg Center poll finds that 52% of respondents trusted President Bush to do a better job at "handling the U.S. war on terrorism," with only 40% trusting Senator Kerry. Huh?

Bush's record in foreign policy is a key reason to vote against him. While Bush, Cheney and their acolytes argue that John Kerry does not have the balls to fight the war on terror, the Bush Adminstration fails to understand the nature of the war on terror. Not only that, but even under the Bush Adminsitration's own worldview, their actual achievements are a miserable failure.

Prof. Cooper wonders Does George W. Bush Understand Terrorism?

One of the more puzzling arguments I've seen in support of George W. Bush's re-election is that, unlike John Kerry, Bush understands how the world has changed in the wake of September 11. I encounter this argument repeatedly. Often, it comes from people who aren't thrilled by much of Bush's domestic agenda; sometimes, indeed, it comes from people who are appalled by the administration's fiscal profligacy but are inclined to vote for Bush anyway because of the terrorism issue. But I just don't get it. Sure, the president's speechwriters have written powerfully on the evils of terrorism. But the administration's actions largely belie their claim that they, and only they, understand the real dangers posed by terrorism

Legal Fiction assesses The Worst Pro-Bush Argument

One recurring argument I hear in favor of Bush is that Kerry's foreign policy instincts cannot be trusted, or that he doesn't understand the post-9/11 world.... you hear stuff like this all the time cited as the justification for not abandoning Bush. And let me say what's on my mind - this particular argument is insane. I-N-S-A-N-E. It annoys me to no end. It's like fingernails scraping across the chalkboard. I literally cringe when I hear it. Basically, when I hear someone raise this argument, I want to squeeze both sides of that person's head, shake it violently, and scream, "Have you seen this f***ing President we have?!? Have you read a newspaper in the last four years?!?"

Yet those who support Bush because of his approach to anti-terrorism policy are either out of touch with reality or willfully blind. A Program on International Policy Attitudes survey found that indeed, Bush supporters are unaware of facts and actual Bush policy, "75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found."

Elements of the "war on terror"

The "war on terror" involves three broad elements: promoting homeland security, stopping terror groups, and ending the environment which leads to terrorism. Homeland security involves domestic intelligence, securing borders, ports and entry points.

Stopping terror groups is a function of espionage/surveillance, criminal law, diplomacy, and military action. Intelligence is required to find terror cells. This procedure is very similar to uncovering organized crime rings. Diplomatic tact is necessary to obtain relevant information with other states (like Spain, France and the UK) which may be the home to other cells or members of a network. Military action is necessary only to find training camps, munitions factories or other assets which resemble those used by states, such as in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Finally, ending the environment involves deterring state sponsors of terrorism, preventing and remedying broken states and promoting economic opportunity and participatory democracy. State sponsors of anti-American terror are few and far between; no substantive link existed between Iraq and al-Qaeda before 2003. The Taliban was a state supported by terrorists more than it was a state sponsor of terrorists. Lawless areas of chaos in broken states, such as Afghanistan, Iraq. are the natural gathering places for terrorists, as they can operate without scrutiny from law enforcement. Promoting economic opportunity and participatory democracy means winning the "war of ideas." When the US supports repressive governments which stifle dissent and have a weak economy with few opportunities for success, such as Saudi Arabia, the internal anger against the government extends to anger against the US if the US continues to support that government. By blindly supporting repressive oil regimes, the US is another one of the bad guys.

Bush's Failures

Failure to promote homeland security
Despite creating a snazzy color-coded alert system, the Department of Homeland Security has failed to secure sensitive facilities. Public Citizen reports Bush Administration Leaves Chemical and Nuclear Plants, HazMat, Ports and Water Systems Vulnerable to Terrorists and blames the Adminstration's "aversion to regulation and [its] allegiance to campaign contributors" as the prime reasons for this failure.

While Dick Cheney reminds voters that the worst potential catastrophe is nuclear terrorism, the Bush Administration has failed to prioritize nuclear non-proliferation.

Failure to Understand the Nature of the Threat

In the Washington Post, Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer discuss how the Bush approach to fighting terror, which focuses on states and particular, individual al-Qaeda leaders is insufficient to meet the threat on a macro level: Afghanistan, Iraq: Two Wars Collide.

Foreign policy realists recognize state power as the driving force in foreign affairs. The Bush approach not only focuses on state and military power, it undervalues the impact of non-state actors, like al-Qaeda and is openly hostile towards the efficacy of soft power.

The Bush policy fundamentally unable to deal with this threat. By focusing only on the use of hard, military power, rather than soft power, the Bush policy is unable to create an environment where the US is once again the moral leader of the world. using soft power to obtain these ends. Theodore Roosevelt famously described the art of diplomacy as the need to "speak softly and carry a big stick." Instead of using force as one component, the Bush Administration has completely ignored Roosevelt and tact. The Bush approach is to carry a big stick and announce, "hey, motherfuckers, I've got one hell of a big motherfucking stick, and I'm going to swing it wherever the fuck I want, so come here and help me or get out of my motherfucking way."

John Eisenhower Why I will vote for John Kerry for President

Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.

Matt Haughey uses a different example, Keeping it Simple:

In the debates, Bush made it clear that his plan for keeping us secure at home was simple: always be on the offensive. He got a lot of play from it and a lot of support. But the idea of starting wars to be safe defies logic to me.

Let's say you're on a long road trip, looking for a bite to eat and a drink so you pull into an unknown bar. The place is pretty rowdy and you're kind of concerned for your safety. So you go on the offensive.

If you walked around the bar starting fights with half a dozen of the largest guys, do you think you'd be safer?

Campaign Strategy

Yet, the Bush campaign is based on the fallacy that a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorists. The NY Times editorial board noted and condemned this practice: Chiller Theater, "The Republicans' habit of suggesting that a vote for Mr. Kerry is a vote for the terrorists - a notion that drew an embarrassing endorsement from President Vladimir Putin this week - is a reminder of the reckless way this administration has squandered the public trust on public safety."

The Bush campaign will continue to attempt to confuse and frighten voters until the election: Our two main weapons are fear and fear...and fear.

Kerry provides a far superior choice

Even the New Republic, which published some of the most vocal support of the unnecessary war in Iraq now supports John Kerry for President. In another piece, Spencer Ackerman argues that Kerry would fight terrorism better and provides a clear and concise look at how and why:

In a rare moment of candor, Bush conceded in an August interview, "I don't think you can win" the war on terrorism. But Al Qaeda is not invincible. It has to denounce mainstream Islamic clerics to give its religious pronouncements credibility. Its jihadists can be isolated, captured, and killed. If elected president, Kerry will inherit the Iraq occupation, a revitalized Al Qaeda, and a surge in anti-American sentiment, all of which will make prosecuting the war on terrorism extremely difficult. But he will be armed with a strategy that attacks Al Qaeda both ideologically and militarily--something the Bush administration has failed to do. Bush probably echoes many Americans when he wonders if the war on terrorism can in fact be won. A Kerry administration just might show him how to do it.

The State of Social Security

James K. Galbraith: "Social Security is not running out of money. Here are the facts." Schieffer was wrong, Kerry was right.

The Faith-Based Presidency

In the New York Times Magazine, Ron Suskind has an astounding article about the faith-based presidency: Without a Doubt

[A senior White House aide] said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued.

The Bush Administration: out of touch with reality, and proud of it.

Is The Daily Show the best political reporting on television?

The Annenberg Public Policy Center finds that viewers of The Daily Show are knowledgeable about current political issues.:

Daily Show viewers have higher campaign knowledge than national news viewers and newspaper readers - even when education, party identification, following politics, watching cable news, receiving campaign information online, age, and gender are taken into consideration.

This study does not show that viewers are informed because they watch The Daily Show, but merely that TDS attracts viewers who are more informed than average. The study goes on to praise The Daily Show for using "irony to explore policy issues, news events, and even the media’s coverage of the campaign,” rather than going for quick jokes.

Comedy Central refutes O'Reilly's claim and finds that "viewers of Jon Stewart's show are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch 'The O'Reilly Factor,' according to Nielsen Media Research."

Informed viewers are watching The Daily Show not only because it is funny, but offers some of the best political reporting on television. Columbia Journalism Review's Campaign Desk looked at this year's political reporting to date and assembled a "Hall of Not Half Bad and Sometimes Actually Pretty Good." The Daily Show's Jon Stewart was the only television journalist among the top 10. It says something about the state of television news when the medium's top political reporter works for a fake news show.

The Washington Post hosted a chat with TDS Executive Producer Ben Karlin: "Many people in this country have strong bullshit detectors. For some reason, most major media outlets have turned theirs off out of fear of being labeled partisan."

Protect This

The House of Representatives passed The Pledge Protection Act (H.R. 2028). The bill would strip the Federal Courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, over any claim that "the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance violates the first amendment of the Constitution." In other words, the bill is meant to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on Newdow or a similar case.

At the ACS blog, Jeffrey Jamison summarizes with a comprehensive set of links: Congress Attempts to Strip Federal Courts of Power.

Yale Law professor Jack M. Balkin discusses the minor drawbacks of such a bill at Balkinization: The Pledge Protection Act of 2004

The Pledge Protection Act of 2004 is a shameless act of political pandering. It is also unconstitutional.

...
There are many legitimate reasons for Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But one reason that is not legitimate is the one that Sensenbrenner offered-- to ensure that each state gets to decide for itself what is consistent with the Federal Constitution and what is not. Legislation passed for this purpose violates a key structural principle, because it strips the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction in these cases.

About time

Yesterday, John Kerry gave a speech at New York University about foreign policy and it was a big one:

We must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror.  In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.

...
In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed.  This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence.  And the President has held no one accountable, including himself.

In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth. 

The Kerry campaign conveniently has a video of the speech

In a "Kerry-English translation," Slate's William Saletan breaks the concise Kerry speech down to 10 bullet points: Where Kerry Stands on Iraq

527

The Washington Post reports: Bush Sues to Stop '527' Groups Backing Kerry

President Bush's campaign filed a lawsuit yesterday that accuses advocacy groups that support Democratic nominee John F. Kerry of "massive" and "ongoing" violations of election laws and seeks an emergency court order to stop their activities.

There happens to be a little-known provision of the Constitution which prohibits government regulation of such speech. That provision? The First Amendment. Columbia Law professor and FindLaw columnist Michael Dorf explains Why "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and Other "527" Organizations Can't Be Silenced

It's true that, as Bush and McCain claim, 527s do circumvent the spirit--if not the letter--of existing campaign finance limits. Yet new legislation is unlikely to cure the problem. That's because the "problem" is that the people who contribute to 527s are thereby exercising their First Amendment rights to engage in political speech.

See also McConnell v. FEC.

Posner on 9/11 Report

In the NY Times Book Review, Judge Richard Posner reviews the 9/11 Commission Report: The 9/11 Report: A Dissent

The prose is free from bureaucratese and, for a consensus statement, the report is remarkably forthright. Though there could not have been a single author, the style is uniform. The document is an improbable literary triumph.

However, the commission's analysis and recommendations are unimpressive. The delay in the commission's getting up to speed was not its fault but that of the administration, which dragged its heels in turning over documents; yet with completion of its investigation deferred to the presidential election campaign season, the commission should have waited until after the election to release its report. That would have given it time to hone its analysis and advice.

See also Judge Posner blogging.