Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

My Kerry-Edwards Sign (I)

We live less than a block from campus, only a few blocks from where the first presidential debate was held. So the day before the debate we decided we needed a Kerry-Edwards yard sign. In an earlier post I described how I found the local Kerry-Edwards office. I went there the morning of the debate, and they gave me a yard sign, with the metal mount, saying it was just about the last one, they were going fast. We installed it as soon as we got home. That afternoon, returning from collecting the kids, I saw our neighbor from across the street, whom I'll call Ms. 'Morales'.

I should explain about the 'Morales' family. Viewed from across the street, they seem to be your typical Coral Gables residents—a very successful Cuban-American couple, a few years older than us, one college-age son. Mr. Morales is an accountant, she's a not-quite-full-time Realtor.

(I will never forget one of my first encounters with Mr. Morales back in 1992. Having just arrived from London, we moved into our house a few days after Hurricane Andrew, at a time when there was no electricity anywhere in the neighborhood, roads were impassible due to trees down, and everything was in confusion. Our house was basically untouched, but theirs sustained severe damage. Despite this, we were more disoriented than they, in part because we were not used to the heat and humidity, had no clue where anything was, no emergency supplies, not even a candle or flashlight to unpack by when it got cool enough at night to actually move.

Despite their own serious damage, the Moraleses made every effort to be helpful. When the radio started warning about not leaving damaged houses unattended due to the danger of looters, Mr. Morales come over to comfort us. We had nothing to worry about, he said. He had an arsenal in his house, and was keeping watch on things. Any looter came by he was going to shoot him. The idea of an amateur, armed with an arsenal, poised for looters across the street scared me much more than the remote prospect of the looters themselves, though I understood that Mr. Morales meant his remarks to be friendly.)

So anyway, Ms. Morales made polite conversation about the construction on our house (which proceeds, but not fast enough). Then she came to the point. “I noticed you have a new sign on your lawn.” Uh-oh, thought I. She sees it all day out of her window. This isn't going to be good.

Then she floored me: “Where can I get one?”

It seems the Moraleses, perhaps because of the college (ie draft!) age child, are now virulently anti-Bush. They voted for him in 2000, and boy are they sorry. She is angry about the war in Iraq, Ms. Morales told me—and she looked the way I feel, shaking with anger. And they're angry about the new rules that restrict travel to Cuba, and limit helping any but the closest relatives still there. They're very very anti-Bush; they're voting Kerry.

Of such things are victories made.

(This is the first of at least three stories I plant to tell over the next few days about my Kerry-Edwards sign.)

Next: Someone steals my sign two days after I put it up.

Posted in Personal, Politics: US: 2004 Election | 8 Comments

More from the ‘Buck Stops WHERE?’ Dept

Newsweek has an informative article about the apostasy of L. Paul Bremer III and the White House attempt to put the lid back on. But it buries the lead lede, and misses the real point in an interesting and sadly predictable way.

MSNBC – Inner Circle No More? At the heart of the controversy is a still-unresolved dispute over who was mainly responsible for one of the biggest mistakes of Bremer's 15-month tenure in Iraq, one that is commonly ascribed to him. This was the decision in May 2003 to reverse the efforts of Bremer's predecessor, retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, to put the ragged elements of the Iraqi Army to work. After Bremer formally disbanded the army, some disaffected soldiers were believed to have joined the insurgency, which still rages.

Administration officials said today that this decision was made on the ground in Iraq, rather than in Washington. Before the war, the plan was to get rid of Iraqi Army officers but use regular troops for security and reconstruction after Saddam's ouster. But Bremer “flipped that around,” said a White House official. He added that Bremer and his deputy, Walt Slocombe, made the decision by themselves.

But Bremer and Garner have previously indicated the decision was made in Washington. According to one official who attended a meeting that Bremer had with his staff upon his arrival in Baghdad in mid-May of 2003, Bremer was warned he would cause chaos by demobilizing the army. The CIA station chief told him, “That's another 350,000 Iraqis you're pissing off, and they've got guns.” According to one source who was at the meeting, Garner then asked if they could discuss the matter further in a smaller meeting. Garner then said: “Before you announce this thing let's do all the pros and cons of this, because we are going to have a hell of a lot of problems with it. There are a hell of a lot more cons than there are pros. Let's line them all up then get on the phone to [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld.” Bremer replied: “I don't have any choice. I have to do this.” Garner then protested further, but Bremer cut him off. “The president told me that de-Baathification comes before the immediate needs of the Iraqi people.”

That Bush himself is directly and personally responsible for one of the major boneheaded judgments of the post-invasion period explains a lot. It should have been the lead lede of the story, not that poor Mr. Bremer can expect a horse's head in his bed Real Soon Now.

But lurking behind the story is yet another example of the soft bigotry of low expectations. Somehow, GW Bush is only potentially responsible for errors he personally orders? He has no responsibility for how his team screws up? Even when he keeps them around?

Talk about teflon!

Posted in Iraq, Politics: US: GW Bush Scandals | 6 Comments

Short Dick Cheney

There's nothing in John Kerry's life since he volunteered for combat in Vietnam and won five medals while I collected five deferrments that would suggest he is anywhere as tough against America's adversaries as I am.

Actually, the offical transcript hardly needs improvement: “there isn't anything in John Kerry's background — oh, for the last 30 years — that gives you any reason to believe that he would, in fact, be tough in terms of prosecuting the war on terror.”

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election | 1 Comment

75% of What Exactly?

Matthew Yglesias: 75 Percent Of What catches Condi Rice floundering when asked how many al-Qaeda people are being counted as “leaders” when Bush et. al say they have captured or killed '75 percent of the al-Qaeda known leadership' . Given the vagueness of her answer, which appears due to total ignorance as to either the real facts or how this factoid was concocted, Matt Yglesias concludes “they could mean as few as eight people.”

Posted in 9/11 & Aftermath | 1 Comment

Is This Thread Open?

Speaking of polls, something odd and interesting has happened to this thread on election polls and predictions — it's basically been hijacked and turned into an open forum by people with something to say.

I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about that.

One the plus side, it's no cost to me, interesting to read along, and nice that readers are forming a proto-virtual-community. Where's the harm?

On the minus side, there's reasons I never created a single open thread the way, say, Daily Kos routinely does. While I like comments very much, it's a 'personal blog', not one that tries to be all things to all people, and those aren't my topics anymore. Worse, the civility level is not always optimal, and I think I'm not doing a great job of policing it.

So, should I

A) Close comments there? (Unlikely)
B) Sit back and enjoy it? (Likely, but would require amending my comments policy to note exceptions to my request for vague relevance to topic)
C) Like B, but police a bit more.
D) Create an open thread once in a while to allow topic re-set and keep the size of the thing reasonable (Possible, but I'm strangely, perhaps irrationally, reluctant)
E) Other? (Please explain)

Posted in Discourse.net | 10 Comments

Kerry’s Big Mo?

New poll results look much better for Kerry:

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry gained ground at President George W. Bush's expense in polls taken in Florida, New Jersey, Iowa, New Mexico and New Hampshire after last week's presidential debate.

Kerry has a 2 percentage point edge in Florida and the candidates are tied in New Hampshire, two states that were among those Bush won in 2000, according to the American Research Group.

In New Mexico and New Jersey, Kerry leads by 3 percentage points, within the error margin, according to polls. Bush and Kerry are tied in Iowa. The three states backed the Democratic nominee in 2000.

“Independent voters, who shifted to Bush from Kerry beginning just prior to the Republican convention, seem to be shifting back to Kerry, and that trend has intensified in the days following the first debate,'' American Research Group President Dick Bennett said in an e-mail.

One's tempted to say this is the start of major Kerry “momentum.” Trouble is, I have come to mistrust all the polls. In order to believe one, I'd need to know lots more, starting with what percentage of the electorate they think will vote, and how that number compares to 2000. I think that turnout, at least in the 'swing' states, will be substantially greater than four years ago, especially among the younger voters. Is this reflected in their models?

Then again, I suspect that exit polls got the Florida vote right (showing a Gore win), and the actual count got it wrong — in substantial part due to the “butterfly ballot” people who were polled but not properly counted. But with exit polls we don't have any doubt about who the 'likely voters' might be, so the sampling problem is easier.

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election | 15 Comments