A Plea to the Protestors in New York

Please, please, keep the protests this week (and always) peaceful. I wrote yesterday that Republicans appear to be on track to have what could be a rather tremendous convention. One of the best ways for those who are opposed to much of what will be preached, and proposed inside Madison Square Garden over the next four days to detract at least somewhat from the successfulness of the convention is to stage strong protests directly outside of the Garden. However, this can and will only be a successful strategy if the protests remain peaceful. Images of dissenters being cuffed on the ground and loaded into police wagons does nothing but hurt your causes -- many of which I must admit, I believe strongly in. I guarantee you there will be no arrests taking place inside Madison Square Garden, so arrests outside of the Garden only make those on the inside appear to be the more logical ones; that the people on the inside represent mainstream American values -- a word that, much to my own dismay, seems to have been kidnapped by the political world -- more than those on the outside. The last thing the Republicans want to see outside Madison Square Garden this week are strong peaceful protests. Why? Because these do nothing to help them. If anything they will hurt them. Violent, chaotic, arrest filled protests however, will not help them. They will hurt you.

Prediction:

The Republican National Convention will be wildly successful. Maybe not by past standards -- many of which simply cannot be fairly applied to this election -- but as far as the 2004 presidential election is concerned, and especially in comparison to the Democratic National Convention, the Republicans have the opportunity to, and I believe will, have a very successful convention.

One reason for this is that in such a close election they cannot, and will not allow themselves to make anything less than a good showing. This of course applied to the Democrats as well, and they did end up putting together a good convention that allowed them to take a few positive steps forward. However, the one area in which the Democrats were lacking is the area the Republicans will use to make their convention far more successful than the Democrat's. That area is the area of attacks. The Democrats were so concerned about presenting a positive, pro-Kerry attitude that their convention wound up being wiped clean of almost every direct attack of President Bush. Instead, we heard many indirect criticisms in which Bush's name rarely, if ever, came up, followed by high praise for John Kerry. You can rest assured that the Republican Convention will be far different in this respect. While it will of course present a pro-Bush message, it will at the same time, and quite possibly more so, present a most unquestionable anti-Kerry message. The Republicans can, and most likely will use their convention as an opportunity to ravage the image the Democrats have built for John Kerry.

On top of this George Bush will be in a prime position to capitalize on his leadership on September 11, 2001. Whether or not the Republican leaders involved in the convention production will admit it, 9/11 will, if nothing else, be a hidden theme of the convention, especially when former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani speaks.

Much could be inferred from anything that could possibly be construed as excessive negativity. However, in the end this will not matter. All that will matter at the of this coming week, when the delegates are cheering for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and the balloons are falling, is whether or not something said over the course of the four day convention resonated with the small yet immensely important population of undecided voters. Given the current atmosphere surrounding the presidential race, the Republicans can capitalize big time from their convention, and in a race that is so close, "big time" could translate into nothing more than an additional 4% or 5% of the electorate. I know the Republicans know this and I know they will use every ounce of this knowledge to their advantage, which I believe will translate into a wildly successful election -- in 2004 presidential election terms of course. Personally, I hope I am wrong. If I am not though, John Kerry needs to be ready to come out swinging extra hard on September 3.

527

It's just a number, but you probably already know what I'm about to talk about...

Sen. John McCain, despite his differences with George Bush over whether the Swift Boat Vets for Truth ads should be condemned, has joined with Bush in denouncing all 527's, saying that they need to be "brought under control." While I do agree that 527's (such as the Swift Boat Vets for Truth, and MoveOn.org) should be held to stricter regulations (as opposed to a near total lack of them) this is not the time to have such a debate. Last I checked, we were mere months away from a presidential election in which the Republican and Democratic candidate were in a statistical dead heat. Thus, let's not get so upset with these groups that we take attention away from the candidates. At least the 527's are keeping the focus on Bush and Kerry -- albeit not always on topics that should matter in this election -- and not shifting it to themselves.

No more excuses...

Apparently the concept of absentee voting is becoming ever more popular...even for non-absentees. In Oregon, polls have been completely scrapped and the only way to vote is now by mail. In another 30 states, voters may vote early -- either at a poll, or by mail -- without having to provide a reason. Others allow voters to cast absentee ballots for reasons such as a long commute.

What does this mean? Well, it should mean that at some point between September and November 2, all registered voters will have a couple free minutes to vote (at least those in states offering early voting options). If you're still making excuses, please go away; you're just perpetuating the lazy American stereotype.

No Fly Lists: Stopping Democrats at Airports Everywhere

To anyone who may be emitting smoke from your head after reading this particular post's headline: I am joking. Breath.

As you may have heard though, Sen. Edward Kennedy was recently prevented from boarding a Washington-Boston flight because his name resembled that of a suspected terrorist on the government's "no-fly" list. Kennedy resolved the conflict by making a number of phone calls, including a call directly to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge -- the resolution process still took three weeks. Kennedy complained after his ordeal on behalf of the American public that most people don't have the luxury of calling Tom Ridge in such a situation.

The Washington Post is now reporting that Rep. John Lewis (D-Georgia) encountered a similar problem. However, Lewis found a different way to resolve the issue: he reserved his ticket under the name Rep. John R. Lewis. And guess what? -- poof! -- no matter red flags! This frightens me in two ways. One, that a name as common as John Lewis would appear on a "no-fly" list with no additional information is a gross oversight on the part of the groups that are supposed to be protecting our us and our way of life. Two, that a simple middle initial and perhaps a new name prefix (i.e. Dr.) is proof that the list is useless. The criteria for barring a person from a flight should extend beyond a name. There needs to be more information for the airline personnel -- yes it is airline personnel, not security personnel that check the lists -- to check to ensure both that they catch a possible terrorist using an alias and that any flag that is raised by the name of an everyday traveler is in the end no more than a brief inconvenience for the traveler. Otherwise look out for Dr. Usama Q. bin Ladin on you're next flight.

A New War for Kerry

I must admit that I believed the, in the words of the Washington Post, "unprecedented negativity" from the Bush campaign so early on in the campaign season would eventually blow up in George Bush's face. On the eve of the Republican Convention, nearly a month after the Democratic Convention and just over two months before Election Day however, I am starting to doubt my own prediction. I honestly believed the "taking the high road" method of campaigning would work well for John Kerry, portraying him as a fair, moral person. As opposed to my initial prediction, I now fear that it is Kerry's strategy that is the ticking time bomb and the soon to be released new ad from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization may be what sets it off. The new ad, unlike the first, does not make questionable claims. Instead, it will rely on irrefutable facts, and the one person Kerry cannot afford to disagree with anymore: himself.

The ad will focus on Kerry's testimony to Congress upon returning from Vietnam in which he states that U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were committing war crimes. The ad alone will be damaging to Kerry, but he and his campaign should be more worried about how it will be spun by those opposing them. For instance, it seems inevitable now that Kerry's own testimony will be used against him to discredit his claim that he is a war hero, and claim instead that he too was a war criminal.

Because of the nature of the ad, it will be extraordinarily difficult -- if not impossible -- for the Kerry campaign to refute, or even play down. Thus, probably the only way for Kerry and the groups supporting him to diminish, or at least balance out, the effect of the recent ads is to begin attacking Bush in a similar manner. Some, such as MoveOn.org have been attacking Bush harshly since the beginning -- Kerry even condemned one of their attack ads even when Bush would not condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad (a fine example of his "high road" approach) -- but Kerry himself needs to begin doing so more emphatically even if the sudden change in campaign styles does elicit a flip-flopper cry from the Bush camp.

So far, Kerry has refuted the claims made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in a major speech, even trying to link them to Bush in the process, which I must say was a fine start. But his latest action has been to file a FEC complaint that is unlikely to produce results, which makes it nothing more than the name suggests: a complaint. It is essentially the Kerry campaign whining and attempting to tattle on their bullies instead of directly and consistently retaliating. Instead Kerry should now attack Bush in the same spot Bush's supporters attacked him: his military record. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad essentially opened the door to questioning both candidates on their military record; a course which, if properly pursued, could prove quite beneficial for John Kerry. Whatever his next move, Kerry must make it with overwhelming strength and confidence; merely telling on George Bush and his friends will simply not do the trick.

How Much Longer?

Time is reporting this week that the Army has quietly released a contract announcement stating that it would like to calculate the "possible intensity and duration of a guerrilla war in Iraq." Given the recent exceedingly hostile and dangerous climate in Iraq -- especially in the city of Najaf where radical cleric Moqtada al Sadr has been hold up (he has thankfully now given signs that he is willing to take part in peace talks) -- this is a welcome move. Nonetheless, I cannot help thinking that such a study should have been performed, and would have proved significantly more useful, about a year and a half ago, or anytime before U.S. troops invaded Iraq in March 2003. Mark Thompson writes in Time that there is yet to be any sort of reply from the Pentagon as to why such a study was not performed earlier. Still, kudos to those in charge of this sort of thing (Mr. Rumsfeld, I'm looking at you) for finally getting on the ball here, but seeing as how we're dealing with war -- that thing where people, even some in the most powerful army in the world, are killed -- lets try to be a bit more on top of this next time.

IHT: South Korea warns of terror from North

IHT: South Korea warns of terror from North
President Bush announced today in a speech in Cincinnati that he planned to cut, or realign, 70,000 troops overseas in Europe and Asia. Many of the affected army bases remain from the Cold War-era such as those in Germany and South Korea - the two countries in which the largest troop cuts would take place. This comes as the International Herald Tribune reports that South Korea now fears terrorism from the North (a country known to possess weapons of mass destruction) in retaliation for an airlift of more than 460 North Korean refugees reportedly out of Vietnam.
The administration says the move will make the military more flexible in these unpredictable times. However, it seems obvious that North Korea is one of the biggest potential threats in the world today, and as the South Koreans - a country still technically at war with the North despite slowly warming relations - reporting the possibility of terrorism from North Korea - a country that openly admits to nuclear weapons programs (that doesn't seem to be a point I can make enough) - pulling troops from South Korea seems to be an action the Bush Administration may come to regret all too soon.

Six Months and One Day

This appears to be a new favorite line for George W. Bush on the campaign trail. I have heard or read transcripts of him using it on at least three separate occasions - once in rather pain-staking fashion. He of course is referring to John Kerry's plan to reduce the number of troops in Iraq within six months should he be elected on November 2. Of course in criticizing this plan, Mr. Bush is overlooking an option that he and most - if not all - of the ranking officials in his administration have overlooked once before: alliances and multilateralism. While Kerry did announce a plan to reduce troops in Iraq within six months (although earlier plans stretched out over the course of a year, and even earlier ones over his entire first term in office) his campaign made it clear that such a plan was contingent on winning over allies that feel betrayed by the current administration once again, as well as training Iraqi troops to help and in some cases replace U.S. troops. I must admit that this particular plan of John Kerry's seems vague and even slightly suspect, but I do believe that George Bush and his campaign are underestimating John Kerry. Thus far Kerry has seemed a bit week in the face of the Bush camp's attacks and has therefore allowed Bush to define him more than any challenger should like to be defined by the opposition. John Kerry needs to take this opportunity to show his strength in the face of George Bush's ridicule and harsh criticism and correct Mr. Bush's accusation that such a plan would send the message to the terrorists to just "wait six months and one day." If he continues to stand-by in the face of such comments, he will continue to send the message that he will not fight when the Bush campaign attacks, criticizes and attempts to define him to their liking. He must show that he is capable of responding with strength and wisdom to the attacks made against him. Otherwise, the Bush campaign and it's supporters will continue to mold John Kerry into the perfect candidate to run against: a beatable one.

Welcome & My Mission

Welcome to The Metropolitan Journal, a source for intelligent, insightful commentary on modern politics, society and culture in the U.S. and abroad. My intention is to post my own personal thoughts, feelings and reactions to what I see in the world around me. I will not use this site as a method of promotion or amplification of the ideas and policies of any political party, or other organization or ideology. However, I do feel it is of the utmost importance to deal with the views and ideas of all political parties, both major and minor, other political organizations, religious groups and ideologies, as well as those of other individuals such as myself, no matter how different or dissenting, with no less respect than my own. At The Metropolitan Journal, all ideas and perspectives have equal validity and are therefore worthy of equal examination. That said, I will make my own beliefs no secret, and will leave no doubt as to what they are. There is a world of difference between respecting an idea and agreeing with it, and I will therefore leave no question as to my stance on any idea I choose examine. I believe the conclusions I have arrived at are based soley on logic and reason - the only true governing forces in this world - and I will therefore spare no punches on ideas that I find to be unreasonable and illogical. Once again, there is a world of difference between respecting and agreeing with an idea: a difference that has been greatly overlooked in the world today. It will not be overlooked here.