The Nature of Reality

Okay, I'll post one more time before election night, but this is gonna be the big one. I want to talk about reality here because I believe it is at the heart of this election campaign. If Bush wins, then fantasy will have trumped reality. That's not to say that John Kerry is the arbiter of reality - I'm sure he has some odd ideas or assumptions.But Bush? That boy is as crazy as a shithouse rat.

Lets start by defining Reality. One might think that this would be difficult, but I'm very smart and I've put in the hours. There's a multitude of ways to go, but this one works best, I think: Reality is that which, when you stop thinking about it, doesn't go away.

Allow me to explain. Lets say that you're a mentally ill person. Lets say that you are deluded to such a degree that you believe you are invincible. You decide to cross a busy street, paying scant attention to the 18-wheeler truck barreling toward you. In your particular reality, that semi can't hurt you.What happens? I'll tell you what happens. You get turned into a flesh pancake, irregardless of what you choose to believe.

Objective Reality and subjective reality often diverge, and when that happens, objective reality always wins. In George W. Bush's universe, the truck didn't hit you, and if it did, it shouldn't be reported, becuase that only undermines the crossing the street effort, and even if it did hit you,that only proves his point that we all need to cross the highway in front of semis, and heck,crossing the street is hard work, and why do you hate America?

Bush's entire campaign is based on denying reality. In his universe, Iraq had WMD, Saddam was behind 9/11, we have enough troops on the ground in the middle east,and John Kerry is a liberal whiner. In Bush's reality, the economy is strong and getting stronger, in spite of a deficit in the past 4 years that outweighs cumulative deficits from the previous 200. You read that right. In Bush's reality, if you point out that there's a semi coming, you're putting the troops in danger,even though hes the one who sent them into harm's way for weapons which don't exist. In Bush's reality, he's the hero of the hour, even though its obvious he can't admit mistakes or take responsibility for them, pretty much two requisites for those who want to be heroes.

None of this means that Bush can't win. He could. But I honestly think that the only way he can win is if he is able to convince Americans his fantasy is correct. It's possible, but not likely. To break it down, lets go to the polls.

The first thing to know about the polls is: forget the 'Bush up by 3' or 'Bush ahead by 1' headlines. Those headlines are created because to sell papers, there needs to be a loser and a winner. The science of polls tells us that whenever an incumbent president's approval is below 50%, he's in trouble. Why? Because since 1960, undecided voters break for the challenger over the incumbent at a rate of 86%. That means that the key stat is, how many points under 50% is Bush on election day? At the moment, every poll has Bush under 50, with his best showing being 49% and his worst showing being 46%. All good news for Kerry. Now the fact that 49% of the American electorate believes the fantasy Bush is trowelling out is scary, but the good news is that if you have concluded that he's full of shit, you're very unlikely to vote for the man.

So there you have it. If the public rejects fantasy, this time next week, we will have a new president elect. Lets hope the above column is grounded in reality. :)

Putting my money where my mouth is

Ok, for anyone out there who is still waiting for me to post about movies and videogames, you're gonna have to wait a little bit. Like, till November 3. (Although here are my picks for videogames - Halo2 and Rome-Total War, and for movies, you will not go wrong with The Incredibles. Count on it.)

For now, its more politics. So, I was just getting into the shower the other day and I had this feeling sweep over me. A feeling that John Kerry was going to win the election.

A couple of points to note here. One, obviously, I want John Kerry to win. It aint no secret. So therefore, what's the big deal? And two, so what? Why should my feeling be at all significant? Well, first, even though I make no secret of my personal preference, I think of myself as more on the realistic/pessimistic side of the continuum, as opposed to optimistic/misguided. This is a significant intuition because it's very rare. Just looking at this thing as objectively as I can, if Kerry is withing 4 points of Bush on election day, I see him winning it due to undecided voters breaking to the democrats. It just seems to make sense to me. So I figured I'd write it down here beforehand. Of course, if I'm wrong, that'll be the last thing I care about anyway.

I hope I'm not wrong.

You've probably read all about John Stewarts withering takedown of conservative pundit Tucker Carlson on Crossfire last Friday If you haven't, read the transcript here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html

John Stewart is my freaking hero. For the record, My favorite part is when he calls Carson a dick. I was just so glad that someone gave the mainstream media a kick in the ass.

Well, here are some thoughts before the third debate. It’s become clear that the first debate did something very rare – it changed the campaign dynamic. As much as I’d like to think that was because Kerry did a great job, I think it was more that Bush did such a horrible job. That clanking you heard was the scales falling from undecided voter’s eyes.
Since that debate, the new dynamic has been a dead heat. One poll will show Bush ahead, another Kerry, a third a complete tie. This means that the second debate didn’t convince anyone new to change their mind…or to change their mind back. If the third debate goes the same way, this dynamic will likely last until November 2nd, which means the ground game in each state will decide who wins.

Unless someone scores a knockout tomorrow night.

A knockout in a presidential debate is a very rare thing. In fact, I’ve only ever seen one in a vice presidential debate – Bentsen nailing Quayle for comparing himself to Jack Kennedy. 16 years later, that one still zings. Scoring a knockout isn’t the same as ‘beating’ your opponent. It means making them look so small and pathetic even their supporters have to acknowledge it. Now, I think Kerry has the capacity to do it, and he certainly as the ammunition to do it with. If he’s gonna do it, Wednesday night would be the perfect time. Now, it may be that Kerry thinks that it’s too risky to do, that this new dynamic is actually not so bad. Or – it may be that Joe Lockhart and the Clinton people who have been helping Kerry in the last three weeks have prepped him with certain circumstances where he can unleash the haymaker. I would love to see that happen – it would be a kind of political perfect storm – but we’ll have to see. But it’s a measure of how much this race has changed since before the first debate that I’m now hoping for Kerry to put Bush away rather than just keep in contention.

Oh, and one other thing - Kerry really should use Bush's 'he can run, but he cannot hide' line against him.

The Weight.

I had an interesting discussion with a friend the other day. We were talking about the vice-presidential debate and I was commenting on what I considered to be the astounding number of bare faced lies uttered by Dick Cheney. Anyway, my friend said something like "...ahh...they were both lying." Then he moved on, as if that part of the discussion was dispatched with.

Let's just stay I begged to differ.

First of all, lets, for the same of argument, say that Edwards did lie a few times during the debate. NONE of his apparent misstatements come NEAR Cheney's assertion that he had never linked 9/11 to Iraq. Contrast that with what Cheney says was Edwards' most egregious error - saying that American troops are bearing 90% of the casulaties in Iraq.These two lies are not the same. One of them witholds the fact that there are Iraqi army nationals fighting alongside coalition troops (and to be fair, every news organizationin the world counts the casualties like Edwards). Cheney's lie, on the other hand, is made up of thin air. There are numerous tv and print interviews showing Cheney making the connection. So theres a question of style that distinguishes them from each other. There's also a question of consequences. Edwards 'lie', at worst, misrepresented a percentage. Cheney's lie was part of a deliberate attempt by the Bush administration to connect Saddam and 9/11, thus creating popular support for the war. Thousands of people have died as a result. It goes without saying that these lies are not equal.

The fact that they are 'both lies' does not make them equal. That's like saying that shoplifting a bag of Doritos is the same as killing an old lady. They're both crimes. But they have a different weight. And that's how I feel
about the Bush/Cheney campaign lately. yeah, they're politicians, and yeah, politicians lie - but the scope and consequences of these lies are unprecedented. And that doesn't get seen by the public when they read the 'fact check' table in the paper the next day. These lies aren't equal. Okay. Rant over.

The Veeps

I agree with most pundits that last nights debate was a tie, which means a net win for the dems. Face it - most debates are a tie. It's very rare that a debate reframes a campaign, as "Kerry v Bush I - Massacre at Coral Gables" did. Cheney is a far superior debater to Bush, and proved it tonight. If you couldn't check any facts after the debate, you might even give him an edge. But the truth is, this guy swims in a sea of lies. He looks staright at Edwards and says "I never asserted that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11". He looks straight at Edwards and says Kerry raised taxes 100 times. he looks straight at Edwards and says "I've never met you before tonight." Lies all.

Cheney has gravitas, which initially, to me, seemed to throw Edwards off a little. But he soon came back and gave it back to Cheney. It was like that a lot - punch, counterpunch. That's fine. All Edwards needed to do was tie. That cements the new dynamic, which is that this race is a dead heat. Same with Kerry on Friday - he doesn't need to clock Bush in round two. The damage is done. he just needs to contend and not make a bad mistake. That keeps it close until the last few days, when who knows what will happen.

Post-debate dust-settling

Sorry it's been a few days since my last post. I was in Wisconsin for a wedding. I listened to the debate on Thursday night as my wife and I drove across the midwest, frantically hopping from AM station to AM station as each one sputtered out of range. Eventually we managed to get a good signal out of Cincinatti (!) and were able to hear the whole thing.

Now, hearing a debate as opposed to seeing and hearing a debate is a fascinating experience - you wonder what you're missing. You've probably heard the story about the 1960 debates - those who heard it thought Nixon won, while those who saw it thought Kennedy won.

Kerry won on both TV and radio. For the record, I'm not a huuge Kerry guy. I want him to win because 4 more years of Bush is a terrifying prospect (and I don't use that adjective lightly), but he has exasperated me some over the past few months. I think his voting for the war in Iraq was a mistake. That being said, Kerry did a pretty good job at clarifying what is a pretty nuanced position (that is, he voted to use force provided it was done with allies and with a clear, organised plan for post-war reconstruction - those things being left undone, he's against the war as it's been waged). That's quite a cool trick for someone with a reputation for being...less than to the point. He made a few good little jabs, and a couple of solid uppercuts. My favorite lines were .."...colossal error in judgement...'; ..."...I made a mistake about how I talk about the war. President Bush made a mistake in going to war. Which is worse?"; and, ...'...it's possible to have convictions and be wrong."

All of these made Kerry look good, but what really helped him was how bad Bush looked. Honestly, I would have looked presidential next to him. Stammering, whining like a teenager who wants to borrow the car, hunched like a monkey. And making little to no sense at all, while hardly ever answering the questions. This isn't how Americans want to see their president. This is why the White House limits opportunities to see him in unscripted situations. Their curtain of spin falls away and the little chimp is revealed. Still, I expect him to do better in the next two debates - not that he could do much worse. The damage is done though - he missed his chance to put Kerry away, and now - well now, it's on, like Donkey Kong.

A few posts ago I talked about how Kerry needed to win this debate to have any shot at all on November 2nd. Mission Accomplished. Thank God.