Over It

"By ADAM COHEN

At a law school Supreme Court conference that I attended last fall, there was a panel on “The Rehnquist Court.” No one mentioned Bush v. Gore, the most historic case of William Rehnquist’s time as chief justice, and during the Q. and A. no one asked about it. When I asked a prominent law professor about this strange omission, he told me he had been invited to participate in another Rehnquist retrospective, and was told in advance that Bush v. Gore would not be discussed.

The ruling that stopped the Florida recount and handed the presidency to George W. Bush is disappearing down the legal world’s version of the memory hole, the slot where, in George Orwell’s “1984,” government workers disposed of politically inconvenient records. The Supreme Court has not cited it once since it was decided, and when Justice Antonin Scalia, who loves to hold forth on court precedents, was asked about it at a forum earlier this year, he snapped, “Come on, get over it.”"

Interesting read from the "dreaded" NYT, but that case certainly made its mark on history. Did you know the justices stipulated that the case could not be used as a precident? What does this mean, exactly, and do they have that power? Read the article for more...

Y W?

Why did the American voter choose Bush over Kerry? Or, did they?
Numerous "sour grapes" reports from lefty-conspiratoriasts cite the early exit polls as evidence that the electronic voting machines were rigged before the election. How else can we explain the discrepancy between the exit polls and the final outcome? I don't (necessarily) believe this hype, but the fact remains that there is no way to prove it's false. There are no hard copies we can look back to for verification, it's all just 1's and 0's on somebody's machine. It seems to me that the paper ballot with a pencil is the best way to cast a vote and it's simple...we should have figured this out by now. We need a federal standard for the ballots, and we should have figured that out four years ago.
But since we probably can't accurately blame the voting machines, what explains Bush's big win? All the pundits agreed that the more voters who turned out, the better it would be for Kerry, but it didn't work out like that. 120 Million voters, the high end of early estimates, turned out and over 51% of them voted for Bush. Was Kerry that bad? I don't think Kerry's completely at fault here. Unexciting he may be, but he was certainly a credible candidate.
Given the voter turnout, credit for the win must be given to Karl Rove and the Republican party machine. Rove did his best "throw mud at him till he's unrecognizable" routine on Kerry and it worked, at least until the debates where Kerry won back a few. But that was a big hole to dig out of, and it cost Kerry in the long run. And playing on fear of a Kerry presidency, that it would be a victory for the terrorists, that ultimately kept many Americans from voting Kerry.
But the main reason W won is because the Republican party got up off their duffs and brought supporters to the polls. Not content with just big checks, the Repubs did what Dems have been doing for ages, reaching out to their base to turn out on election day. 120 million voters and Bush wins? There can be no other conclusion, the Republicans turned out in droves.
I guess I should have seen it coming, what with all the "W" bumper stickers that have replaced the American flag on many SUV's. "W" is a brand now....Bush could start selling shirts, luggage and perfume with that "W" logo on it and make a fortune. He IS a brand.
And the American people just bought it, even though there was a better, similar product right next to it. Advertisers take note...

Misunderestimated Again

Simple but Effective - Why you keep losing to this idiot. By William Saletan: "12:01 a.m. PT: Sigh. I really didn't want to have to write this."

I didn't want to have to read it. Those exit polls had me thinking Kerry looked like he was in good shape, so it's just more salt in the wound. Congrats Karl Rove, you've done PT Barnum proud.

Saletan thinks Bush won with "simplicity", and he's mostly right, but I think he pulled off the marketing trick called "branding". He repeats the same things and creates his brand: steadfast, strong, flag-draped, in a ray of light from God, he's like the Marlboro Man. Even for people who know that Marlboros are bad for your health, there's just something about that Marlboro Man that you trust, he seems to be the essence of "America". People don't want to vote against "America", and a lot of Bush support comes from this kind of view. I don't agree, in fact, I am more concerned for the future of our country than I've ever been.

Saletan thinks Dems should rally around Edwards in '08, but if McCain runs, nobody can beat him. And if the Dems couldn't beat this president, with his 4 year track record, I don't have much hope that the Democrats can ever get back in the White House. I'll take McCain over most any Democrat, I just wish we'd elected McCain last night or 4 years ago.

Almost everybody I voted for lost, including all of my endorsements. It's a sad day for me...

watts4u2 endorsements

Well, the time has come, we're down to the wire and decisions must be made. Here are the candidates I suggest voting for and a brief reason or two why:

President: John Kerry
If you've been reading my blog, you understand that this is an easy one for me. I am a fan of Reagan, respect Bush I, voted for Perot in '92 and Nader twice. I think the two parties are too close on too many issues thanks to their contributors. But this time, it's different. It is so vitally important to dismiss George W. Bush, that I am willing to cast off my disdain for the two-party system for the first time in my presidential voting career. I'm voting for John Kerry.

Governor (NC): Patrick Ballantine
Easley created his image funded with tax dollars and his slimy attorney general ads. He's awash in money from special interests, and he submitted a budget with lottery earnings in it when we don't have a lottery. Ballantine worries me a bit, but he has shown, at times, the ability to look beyond party politics for the greater good, such as when he submitted to having his district redrawn in a manner which made it tougher for him to keep his seat. Of course, he's not running for that seat anymore, is he?

State Senate: Woody White
Ballantine's seat up for grabs. This one has gotten ugly and I'm going to hold my nose hard when I vote. I liked Julia Boseman, at least I thought she was a breath of fresh air when she started her term as New Hanover County Commissioner. But soon it became clear that she was willing to stab people in the back and make 'behind the scenes' political deals to benefit herself, by say, getting appointed to the hospital board. The way she treated Ted Davis is abominable, and I lost all respect for her when she made a deal with the...I mean, Bobby Greer. Woody White, handpicked by his law partner Patrick Ballantine to fill his vacancy while he ran for governor, has not distinguished himself much beyond his Republican stalwarts, but he seems like he could carry on Ballantine's good work. Then his party starts attacking Boseman for being/taking money from lesbians. Well,I follow politics fairly closely in the paper, and I didn't have a clue she was gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I consider myself an informed voter and I would not have know if Woody hadn't brought it up, so I think it's fair game....especially considering that she's taking money from a gay/lesbian/transexual PAC that requires her to sign some kind of pledge. This ain't pretty folks, but we deserve to know the facts.

Senator: Erskine Bowles
This is the man responsible for balancing the federal budget and giving our country a great run in the 90's....Clinton was a nobody without Bowles. He's a get the job done guy and we need him up there.

Update 8/08: Of course all these candidates lost. The people who won all suck. I can back this up with facts. For example, Julia Boseman? Split with her gay lover and now they are having a custody battle over their adopted child. I was right. Again.

Slate Votes - At this magazine, it's Kerry by a landslide!

Slate Votes - At this magazine, it's Kerry by a landslide!: "Phillip Carter, Military and Legal Affairs Writer: Kerry

I'm casting my vote as a referendum on the Bush national security policies since January 2001. When you pour billions into homeland security without achieving a significant net gain in security, I think there's a problem. When you mislead the country about our reasons for war in Iraq, and then fail to plan effectively for military and strategic victory, you simply don't get to keep your job. When you employ lawyers to eviscerate the rule of law and make America into the world's brigand instead of the world's leader, I don't think you should be allowed to keep your office. When you allow al-Qaida to mutate and evolve into a more lethal and survivable global terror network on your watch, you haven't done your job. Sen. Kerry hasn't fully shown that he will improve on all these fronts, but I do believe he will do better than President Bush."

I hear ya! If you were for the war (even without WMD/911 ties), you should vote against Bush for bungling the war. If you were against the war, well, turns out you were right, and you know what to do...

Blogging from the Volvo

On the way to Goldsboro, and this is my first attempt at typing in the car. It could be better, but it isa marvel of technology nonetheless.

I'd really like to write an in-depth analysis of the debates, but I fell asleep before the first one ended and Anna Grace kept my attention for a lot of the VP debate. Last night's debate was such a heated affair, with the candidates practically yelling at the small audience. I thought Kerry was more convincing than Bush last night, though he could have made Bush look like more of an idiot with more well-placed jabs. It was the strongest debate I've seen, ever, but still no big line that will stand up like "You're no Jack Kennedy" or "There you go again." Maybe next time....
How anyone could be undecided at this point boggles my mind. Either you've fallen under the Bush/Cheney spell or you still have a grip on reality. Our President mislead us into an unjust war under false pretenses and has not been able to win that war and secure the peace. Do we reject him for the former, or the latter? That's the choice to me.

Certainly Wrong

Yes, the intelligence we had before the Iraq invasion was wrong. In hindsight, it is plain to see that the two main reasons for attacking Iraq have been proven false (WMD, link to terrorists/911). There are still good things that can come from the invasion...certainly removing Saddam was a good thing for millions of Iraquis. But for Bush to press that we were right in hindsight....well, that just defies reason. And the other excuses for the invasion are equally if not more dubious:
Enforce the UN Mandate and 15+ resoultions: Well, we did get the inspectors back in there and in hindsight, it is clear they were effective. Also, the strongest resolution called for "serious consequences", and specifically did not include the threat of military force. Sure the UN has a weak backbone and there are times we may need to take the lead, but to say that we exhausted every option with the international community is patently false.
We can create a model democracy in the heart of the MidEast, and like the domino theory, other states will follow their lead. Well, Friedman et al, it ain't workin' out quite like that. No, we've created a new terrorist state inside Iraq. Bush would have you believe this was a good thing...."we're killing them over there instead of them killing us over here". But the good Iraqui people now blame us for the terrorists, and resent our occupation as well. And I don't see how we've really secured our own country, the borders are as porous as ever, we scan only 4% of containers coming in our ports....there is much more we could have done for security at home, things that would actually make us safer in the USA....things that would not have endangered our fine soldiers who have been placed in this terrible quagmire.
But we are where we are. At this point, what are our goals? What is our exit strategy? When 1/3 of the troops decide not to re-enlist in a year, what are we going to do? I don't think there's a chance Germany or France will help us now. Maybe the Russians will help? Putin's got his hands full....
Now that we've reached this point in the war, I must reflect on what has been missing from the whole war plan: The Powell Doctrine. Remember? Overwhelming force for a quick and decisive victory, with a clear plan and exit strategy from the start. Bush listened to the wrong advisors. I think about that...and I think about how this war was going to "pay for itself". Sure, there was bad intelligence, but we were also mislead by Bush/Cheney for political reasons as well.
When you look back at the coalition that his father nurtured, the deadline he set, the UN Resolution, and his decision not to forge on to Bagdad for all the right reasons....George Sr. was a saint compared to W, a true steward of US leadership. By contrast, W has largely ignored the international community on Iraq, placing criticism on them, practically calling them pussies...."you're with us or against us".
Looking back, it is clear that the reasons for going to war were false. The desired results are further from reach each day. Who is best to lead us out of this terrible blunder, the guy who got us into this mess,or the man who fought in a wrong war and came home to get us out of it?

watts4u2 posts in the @U2 Forum, part II

@U2 Forum - U2 Fan Community:

People in the "Real World" section of the @U2 Forum needed some help figuring out why they shouldn't vote for George W., so I put in a few words:

" The UN never passed a resolution authorizing military force to topple Saddam. In fact, the US knew a resoultion worded that way would not pass, so they abandoned it and decided to defy the UN and invade Iraq. The resolution you speak of called for 'serious consequences' and specifically did not include a threat of force.
Also, the Congress never passed a Declaration of War, as required by the Constitution. Presidents have side-stepped this for ages, but in THIS war, we are without a doubt the aggressors and therefore Congress should have had to make a formal declaration of war. Bush would have never been able to pass that through Congress, so it wasn't even considered. They preferred the open-ended 'threat of force' bill that gave them the most leeway, and political leverage against anyone who opposed it.
The miscalculations of George W on Iraq are too numerous to count, and his insistence that things are getting better would be laughable if it weren't so sad. The war in Iraq has made the War on Terrorism much more difficult and emboldened terrorists worldwide, while at the same time we've dissed almost all of our strongest allies, with Bush's 'go it alone' policies.
But we are where we are, so the real question is what do we want to do from here? Rather than change diapers, I like the baseball analogy: it's time for a relief pitcher, and Kerry is the perfect man for the job. Respected worldwide, Kerry has experience with wars gone wrong and he is more capable of doing the job than just about anybody save John McCain (who the Republicans should have nominated in 2000....he would have won in a landslide).
If you've been a Bush-backer, but don't like the way things are going in Iraq, then say a fond 'Thank You' to George W for ousting Saddam, but place your vote for the person that can best handle the situation we are in right now.

Did you see the reaction Bush got at the UN yesterday?
We can't go on like that for another 4 years.
"

Whose side is God on?

Heaven Sent - Does God endorse George Bush? By Steven Waldman

Now that Dad has spoken, what does God have to say about the election?

The whole article is worth a read, here's the conclusion:

"...it's hard to recall another instance of a presidential campaign so confidently promulgating the idea that its candidate had divine endorsement. The potentially dangerous implication is that since God put George W. Bush in the White House, opposing him is opposing Him. A person could get smited for that.

Of course, it's always possible God did put George W. Bush in the White House. But if He did, it doesn't theologically follow that He wants him to have a second term. Even those who believe that God controls world events usually concede it is hard for humans to divine the intent of the Divine.

After all, in the Bible, God is described as doing things for all sorts of inexplicable reasons—sometimes as a reward to the people, and sometimes as a punishment."

Dub Endorses Kerry

I'm proud to present my Dad's e-mail to the larger viewing public.

People , Kerry came home after his tour in Viet Nam and testified before Congress that the war in Viet Nam was wrong . He's saying it again about Iraq . I'd say listen carefully to this man .

I did not serve in Viet Nam but spent thirteen months on Okinawa , as a Marine officer prepared to go to Nam , and sat on about a dozen court martials of Marines accused of committing atrocities in Viet Nam , so Kerry is not wrong on that account . It was a minority but it happened , and broadly . And I had $.15 martinis at Happy Hour at the Officers' Club with career Majors and Lt. Colonels who said the war was wrong , we were not fighting to win , that the " Domino theory " was not valid , that we should find a way out of the morass .

So , Kerry was not wrong in his protests as he blamed the politicians , the strategists , a minority of the troops , and tried to reason with an administration that was ultimately to come to agree with this bold dissenter . This man showed leadership , commitment , valor and real manhood while his opponent was still wrestling with his demons .

I believe that Kerry can give the USA a new start on the world scene and that the USA needs to do all we can to re-create strong allied relationships to oppose the worsening terrorist threats . Just don't dismiss Kerry as a " war protestor " . He showed uncanny awareness and resolve to take the position he did . He also might be our best approach to handling the Iraq situation that everyone is having to accept because " we are where we are " ( and not discussing whether we ought to have done what we did ) , and the terrorists' attitudes toward the USA .

Then there's the economy , jobs , health care , fair taxes , global warming , energy policy , and other issues not on this administration's radar screen . I'm only suggesting that all of us step back a bit and think about the realities , letting our brains " do the walking " , not letting our gut instincts pull the lever or point that electronic pencil !! I have voted nine times for Republican presidential nominees , including Goldwater , but I suggest , in the interest of our children and grand-children , a nod to Zell , that you consider Kerry as a viable best-case for the USA and our world .
Watts Carr III

Addressing the W Issue

I realize that I have probably been too harsh on George W with the pictures
an articles in my previous posts, but I felt the need to lay out some info
before my opinion is registered here. I don't blame him for the 7 minutes,
the National Guard Service or whatever, and I don't think he's evil. I
think he's a strong leader who is willing to make tough decisions and stand
by them.
I came of age in the 80's, a fan of Reagan, despite my dual allegiance to
Bono. I admire W's father and I was surprised that Big George lost to
Clinton in '92. I voted for Perot in that election, and I maintain, like
Ralph Nader and thousands of other people of sound mind, that the two-party
system we have is partly at fault for all of our government's failures. Not
to say that the people in government are bad, I do not think that is the
case, it is the system that has failed us.
At first, I did not understand George W's desire to rush to war with Iraq,
and now in retrospect, I still don't understand it. But there was a
"meantime" when I believed that Bush's plan would play out and maybe it
would be worth the cost in lives and dollars. I was optimistic that our
reasons for going to war were legitimate, and once the war was inevitable, I
looked for the hope in the situation. I looked to politicians I admire,
like Colin Powell, John Edwards, John McCain, John Kerry and I felt the
imminent danger of the weapons they and everyone else "knew" Iraq had. I
looked to Tom Friedman, who I respect a great deal on MidEast issues, and
like him I was hoping that it would be possible to transform Iraq into a
model for the rest of the Arab world. I hoped we would march in and find
the WMDs all over the place (with French & Russian fingerprints). I hoped
that informants would help us track down terrorists who were working with
Saddam. I hoped we could uncover all the dirt and show the world we were
right! I don't like being fooled, and I feel we were at the minimum misled.
Ah, but war is never an easy thing, and that is why great caution and
deliberation must take place before a "pre-emptive" war is launched. Even
if this war had been justified, certainly Congress should have had to
declare war. I mean, this was offensive.... This is a clear violation of
the Constitution. Not George W's fault, but he took advantage of Congress
with his open-ended war on terror resolution.
Getting around declaring war is even worse than George W's first assault on
the Constitution in the election of 2000. While not his fault (blame
usually goes to his handlers), it is outrageous that the Supreme Court
decided the election....in a 5-4 decision no less! The Constitution clearly
spells out the process if no candidates get enough electoral votes, which is
what I believe should have happened. Florida's votes should have been
discarded and Congress should have elected the President. George W would
probably still be president.....it just shows that Congress has given away
too many of its powers, in this case to the Supreme Court, in the "war"
case, to the president.
I think the Iraq War is Bush's War. I don't think anyone in the world would
deny that to be true. I am sure he staked his presidency on the war when he
launched it, and he would have gladly said so. Maybe he did? Now that we
know a) no WMD b) no new terror link info and c) no dancing in the
streets....now that we know the reasons given for going to war were false,
we are bound as patriots to hold George W accountable. It's simple
geometry, really.
I will be voting for John Kerry without hesitation. Did Florida change me?
Hell no, and I will vote for third-party candidates again.
I just think it is too important to hold this president accountable for his
war....important for our world image, our Constitution, our national debt
and our civil liberties.
Can't we go back and nominate McCain for 2000? Ah, you right wing nuts!
He'd a made a great one.
I miss Reagan, and it angers me that some Republicans see W as the "new
Reagan". George W ain't no Ronnie, folks. Sure, he's firm, determined and
won't he back down. It's just that he was wrong to push this war, wrong in
the planning for the aftermath, wrong not to listen to the right advisors,
and wrong if he thinks the $400 Billion spent on this war could not have
done much more for our safety had we used it here in America for things like
border security, Immigration Services, CIA agents to infiltrate al-Quaida,
fixing the electrical grid, etc.
This is the time for all good me to come to the aid of their COUNTRY, and
vote. It's time for regime change here at home.

Proud of that one....

Check out this site for lots of funny Bush pictures....great spoof site:
Yooha! News

Trans Am

Trans Am, originally uploaded by watts4u2.

My talented cousin Nathan Means of the band Trans Am wrote this article for Punk Voter.

Edwards or Cheney?

edwardsorcheney, originally uploaded by watts4u2.

He does make a compelling impression

Go long!

Go long!, originally uploaded by watts4u2.

I've been an Edwards fan all along, even though I don't always agree with him.

Ted & B

Ted & B
Originally uploaded by watts4u2.

And on the third day, he stood to the left...

Rev. Al meets Bono

"Those are some mighty heavy lyrics, my man"

Bono @ the DNC in Boston

U2 news article - from @U2

Read this story for an interesting and informative look at Bono and his appearance at the DNC.

"Hope is on the way!"

Some of my Republican friends may be surprised, but I'll be voting for Kerry/Edwards come November.