Judging elections

Just 2 short years ago, I was part of the grand civics lesson that is midterm elections. I was an election judge in Park County, Montana.

I actually had a few dangling-chad moments. Not literally, because Montana uses the optic scanners not chads on ballots. But my job was to judge the ballots that the machine spit out: overvotes, undervotes, or nonstandard replies, like people putting an X in the box instead of filling it in.

I was not alone at my table. There were four other people, including on man who was still finding votes for Gore. The woman who wrote her name at the top of the ballot? Despite clear votes, her vote, in this man's opinion, didn't count. (It was a relatively close contest for the state house, and she had voted for the Republican). The man who crossed out one vote and wrote "not him"? Also, no clear intent. That was another discarded ballot. The X's instead of the filled-in bubbles and one person who circled names--no clear intent.

I fought over those; some I won, some were disenfranchised. Some really didn't have a clear vote, and they were tossed. But the important thing to note is: this was a vote in a county and in a state that didn't really matter. The Republican house candidate (state and federal) both won handily because of the rural votes (Clyde Park, Wilsall, Gardiner) despite heavy majorities in the biggest "city" in the county, Livingston. That handful of ballots didn't make a substantive difference.

But that didn't stop a "This is clearly a vote for Gore" election judge from tossing a few red ballots into a waste can. One thing I know: liberals don't always cheat to win. Sometimes, as Bill Clinton taught us all, they cheat because they can.

Thinking of you...

In an earlier post, I pointed out that not as many people were thinking, good or bad, about John Kerry as about George W. Bush.

Another look at RCP's favorable/unfavorable average shows that the total is finally ties at 96% all the way around.

However, as the President stands at 52/44, his average hasn't changed in the last couple of weeks. Kerry's has been volatile (for this election, anyway). His unfavorable started creeping up from its earlier 43%, to 44%, and now to 46%, while his favorable has stayed steady at 50%.Bad news for Kerry: 3% of people, the 3% that previously did not have an opinion about him, now do not like him.

Bad, bad, bad, bad news for Kerry.

Feeling sorry for Kerry

I feel sorry for John Kerry.

Not because I think he'll lose. I hope he loses. It's even likely he'll lose, but I am far from complacent or confident about it.

But if he loses, he'll be remembered as a worse candidate for federal office than Gore, Mondale, McGovern, Perot, or, for that matter, John Edwards. Although it hasn't been too prominent so far, one of the most damning indictments the Right has made against Kerry isn't that he's an uber liberal senator or a flip-flopper -- it's that he is ultimately an inconsequential senator.

In nearly 30 years of public service, whatever that may mean to John Kerry, he has done nothing. He has stood for nothing, accomplished nothing, attempted nothing. His most lasting impressions from the campaign trail are a bad man-tan, manicures, fumbling footballs, and eye bags. Between the oompah-loompah jokes, the crazy looking (and sounding) wife, and the Breck-girl running mate, John Kerry has made himself a nothing, and he's had to see himself as a nothing.

As a President, having him in office would be nothing short of tragic for the country, and I hope with all my heart that Bush stomps over him so soundly at the polls that no amount of law-suits or voter fraud can glide him into office.

But as a person, I am sad to see a man in his final grand attempt at greatness, a greatness he so little understands, seeing his life aptly summarized as -- nothing.

Predictions, wish list

This isn't so much a prediction as a wish. On election night, George Bush with 58.2% of the popular vote and 368 electoral votes. I think John Kerry will only win Washington, Pregon, California, Illinois, Vermont, 3 of the 4 in Maine, and the New England States, sans New Jersey, which will be a massive Bush upset.

A lot of this is wishful thinking, but this isn't toally without merit. Bush could easily win the swing states where he's polling even or +/- 2 points to Kerry, and he'll keep everything he won in 2000: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Mexico and Colorado. The surpise swinging states -- Hawaii -- and the Rust Belt like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota, are going to pull Bush because they don't hate him because of a weak economy (like they did Bush Sr.) and they respect him because of the War on Terror, which is the only real issue in the election.

And on that issue, Kerry just makes people afraid.

Missing Iraq explosives

380 tons of stuff that could blow up buildings with a few ounces, could be used as detonators in nuclear warheads, that UN weapons inspectors passed over because it could one day be used for civilian stuff (just like Iran's nuclear material is used for ENERGY, not BOMBS, you crazy people. And that was an ASPIRIN factory in Afghanistan...)

Does it sound to anybody else like maybe we, um, found some of those stockpiled WMDs?

Loonan is wrong

Peggy Loonan, president of Life and Liberty for Woman (not to be confused, as I was initially, with Peggy Noonan, syndicated columnist) was just on Pax saying that God was pro-choice because He draws a distinction between unborn life and born life. She's wrong.

She uses as her basis some verses in Exodus (and the fact Adam was created as an adult); since she didn't actually quote them, I'm assuming that they're the ones referring to the penalty for causing a pregnant woman to lose her baby. There was a monetary recompense for that, as opposed to the death penalty that held for the murder of adults.

(And I'm leaving off here that other crimes did not always carry penalties that we nowadays would consider just or even moral; forcible rape could be atoned for by a pay-off or by the rapist marrying the victim, something I can't imagine Loonan defending or promoting.)

Umm, she's wrong in the logical conclusion to that. God did draw the distinction between the killing of unborn babies and murder. Okay, fine. Frankly, I do to, with the simple example that a miscarriage is tragic and heart-rending but still not as shattering as the death of a child. There is a difference. Even most rabidly pro-life people would acknowledge that. But that's a distinction without a difference.

God still imposed a penalty for the killing of an unborn baby. That was a human life and a life with value, even if it wasn't given the same weight as mature life. In fact, in Amos, the intentional "ripping open" of pregnant women used by an invading army was one of the reasons cited for their immintent destruction.

That leaves me thinking Loonan is wrong and God is not cavalierly pro-choice. And I wouldn't want to be standing within lightening-strike distance of Loonan.

UPDATE:
My father recalled chapter and verse from memory, in a way both pious and a little frightening, that God doesn't quite draw the line between unborn adn born life that I, and Loonan, were willing to. Exodus 21:22-23

[22] If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
[23] And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,...

And that leads into the famous "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." In other words, just causing a woman to give birth prematurely was enough for a penalty. If any mischief follows, either a miscarriage or, I suppose, a live birth but the infant died, than the man who caused it would pay with his life. Because that innocent life mattered. Loonan is still wrong.

Favorable/unfavorable

A quick glance at the RCP favorable/unfavorable ratings tells me something interesting. While the spread is roughly the same for both candidates -- Bush is 52/44 fav/unfav, Kerry is 50/43 -- both of Bush's ratings have a higher percentage of respondants than Kerry.

This is good news for the President, even the slightly higher negative. Why? 96% of people have an opinion about George W. Bush. Only 93% of people have one about John Kerry. That 3% who are thinking about the President (especially 2% that are thinking favorably about him) are not thinking AT ALL about Kerry. That's more of a spread, and more of an ultimately negative affect for the Massachusetts senator, than the Ralph Nader effect. Or, really, than George Soros's affect through MoveOn.org, et al.

Most awesome election ever

John Podheretz hit the nail on the head (like always--thanks RealClearPolitics).

Has there ever, ever, ever been an election as exciting as this one?

The answer, after some consideration, is: No way, not by a long shot.

I remember election night 2000, sitting in the dorm room next door (a million thanks, Sara Erwin Heuertz) because Sara had cable. I flipped back and forth between NBC, CNN, and FOX. I watched Russert's charts and was baffled by Dan Rather (I'm from Oklahoma, lived in Texas for 7 years--and my Great-Aunt Edna's dog don't hunt that rabbit vernacular, if you catch which way the wheat is blowing). I heard CBS call Florida for Gore with 1/2% of the precincts reporting. Then I heard NBC call it for Bush.

And in 2002, I heard one of the FOX news anchors, a really punchy blonde, start crowing about how "we won!" just after 3 a.m. Mountain Time and a long night of counting ballots as an election judge in Park County.

These were awesome moments.

But that is nothing like now. If Kerry wins, I'll not only be stunned and heartbroken, I'll be bouncing in my chair pointing out cases of voter fraud, ballot rigging, and injudicious use of courts for a totally bogus victory. If Bush wins, I'll be cheering, with one eye on CourtTV waiting for the suits for four corners of the counrty (or the globe, should internationl liberals be sufficiently incensed).

But, whatever happens, this has been a 9 month caffeine rush. I've rejoiced, wept, and studied polls like never before. I was cringed through the first debate and cheered the third, was teary when I read transcripts of Pres. Bush's convention speech, shadenfreude'd my way through the Swift Boats and Kerry's man-tan and manicure, and giggled at Edward's coif video. This election will set the tone of the nation: an isolationist, bloated, old-school yet comfortable, familiar and "safe" domestic agenda or an aggressive, unilateral, protectionist and resilient second Cold War.

Whatever happens, this has been an awesome, glorious, totally rocking ride.

Journalistic privilege

There has been a lot of talk (by that, I mean the National Journal article by Stuart Taylor, via RealClearPolitics) about whether journalists should go to jail for contempt of court for refusing to reveal sources into a federal grand jury. While Taylor protests that he doesn't want special privileges for the fourth estate the regular joes can't enjoy, he immediately turns around and declares:

But Miller and Cooper [the reporters in the Victoria Plame spy outing] seek no more than the legal protection already available to other vocational groups who must make and keep promises of confidentiality to do their jobs well: lawyers, clergy members, doctors, psychologists, and licensed social workers, not to mention spouses. And our government and other institutions will become far less open and accountable if whistle-blowers come to fear that reporters might be forced to turn them in.

While this doesn't quite jive with the claim in the sentence two steps before this one ("I am generally unsympathetic to news media claims of specially privileged status."), there's a more important issue here. Journalists aren't, and never should be, considered confidential receptacles. Any information anyone EVER tells them is expected to be blared loud and long. I think journalists should exercise discretion and restraint, but that's a different article and a different point. Things said between a husband and wife or doctor and patient or clergy and penitent are privileged BECAUSE THEY ARE NEVER EXPECTED TO BE RELAYED TO ANYONE ELSE. These things are only ever said with that understanding and to preserve these relationships, there is a legally protected confidentiality.

Journalists--and I have been one in the Bozeman area for two years--are rather expected to report things to as many people that will listen. I had a cop tell me once that a man had been found dead of a drug overdose but not to report that because they had a lead on the dealer. My editor's verbatim response: "We don't owe the cops anything." I think that's a bogus claim, but it's a prevalent one. Reporters defend sources so that the sources stay exclusive, thus increasing the reports' prestige, importance, the soul-selling scoop, not out of the goodness of the reporters' hearts.

The real story? If reporters in DC are the same as the small-town ones in the West--they wanted to screw over the President, Rove, anyone associated with the administration and got hoisted by their own petard when a judge reminded them they have a civic responsibility to back up allegations with facts.

Which brings up another question: in an era where the AP and Harper's write about events hours (or months) before they occur, if they even occur (remember the Bush booing incident?), when Dan Rather uses fabricated memos, when every major newspaper is plagiarizing, fabricating or spinning both their news stories and circulation numbers--who are these people to tell us to trust their "anonymous" "protected" sources? Without names--why should we believe what they say or even that they exist?

About gay marriage

The main reason that gay marriage is treated as a federal issue as opposed to a states' rights issue is because marriage itself is mentioned in the Constitution. No-fault divorce was resolved by the Supreme Court in 1972 (I think). It comes down to a matter of contracts: contracts initiated in one state have to be honored in others, which means Massachussetts, et al., can effectively trump the states' rights
of the rest of the Union.

Also, allowing gay "marriage" would effectively change all marriage because it would change the very definition of the institution, and I don't mean only the man-woman thing, although that is a valid point. City Journal (city-journal.org) has some articles that explore this better than I, but, essentially, the stability -- both personally and socially -- that comes from the idea of fidelity, or, as one article
phrased is, sexual exclusivity. It is apparent from recent studies that homosexuals tend to view exclusivity as unnecessary: 10% of homosexual men and 32% of women in one Massachussetts study said that fidelity was an important part of a monogomous relationship. Rather, they focus on "emotional exclusivity."

As an upswing in divorce and in adultery in heterosexuals unions should show, a lax attitude toward honoring a contract has a severe destabilizing affect on society. It hurts children, it hurts communities. E.g., ghettos or other poor neighborhoods, where illegitimacy and divorce are major factors, versus (most) middle-class households which have a more stable nuclear family.

And, too, social conservatives were ridiculed during the Lawrence v. Texas case for their slippery-slope philosophy, pointing to polygamy, adultery, and other sexual behaviors that could be legalized as a result. Within a couple of months, a man was suing the state of Utah for his (non-Mormon motivated) imprisonment for bigamy; anti-adultery laws are being reviewed in Virginia. Both cite Lawrence v. Texas.

With new definitions of marriage -- with a new population that anticipates "open" marriages and adultery (cf. Andrew Sullivan and anonymous sex, which I haven't had a chance to read up on yet but was referenced in City Journal and, I believe, National Review) -- and an already threatened legal definition of marriage (no-fault divorce,
essentially making it a non-binding contract) -- there are quite a few negative consequences from gay marriages, including civil unions.

Last to say, I am still single. There are definite disadvantages to that, including medical and estate planning, tax incentives, and, if I wanted, adoption. However, because I want to remain single, I am willing to accept these disadvantages. Likewise, a person can choose to pursue a gay lifestyle. That doesn't mean that they can then demand the benefits of a heterosexual (re: married) lifestyle, any more than I can. That may not be the fair thing in individual cases, but it is the most fair
resolution for society.