terrorism 1, democracy 0

The conventional wisdom on the Spain attacks and subsequent election surprise is that Al Q'aeda won its first election. I agree with this analysis completely. Al Q'aeda carried out a bombing in Spain just days before a national election effectively reversing the expected outcome. The Spanish people assumed that their government's support for the war in Iraq and the War on Terror made them a target for Al Q'aeda. So what do they do? Elect a party that will pull its troops out of Iraq and reduce involvement in War on Terror.

Let me list the ways in which this was stupid (from the perspective of Spanish self-interest): 1) It is possible that in the short run, Spain is less an immediate target if they are less involved in the War, but in the long run, Al Q'aeda hates Spain as much as the US and will certainly include Spain in future attacks. 2) The War on Terror will not go away because Spain pulls out. It will just become harder for those states still fighting it. Tying this with point #1, Spain is now counting on other countries, with less resources, to protect it from terrorism.

From the perspective of international security, the Spanish election was terrible in more important ways: 1) The War on Terror will not go away because Spain pulls out. It will just become harder for those states still fighting it without Spain's help. 2) Spain's "appeasement" sends the wrong signals to Al Q'aeda, which now thinks it can change state policy in its favor by bombing a country right before national elections. Say goodbye to the days of terrorism just for the sake of terror and say hello to terrorism as calculated political strategy. You now have to fully expect Al Q'aeda to carry out bombings in every major "Western" country in the week before its national elections. If more states respond like Spain did, we can expect a major change in the global political situation.

As my colleague D.F. Cohen pointed out, America must expect that there will be a terrorist attack on November 1. This could have significant political implications. A bombing would, no doubt, be politically advantageous to Bush. In times of terror, people want stability. They want what they know and that is Bush. They don't want to take a gamble on a "whimpy" Democrat. It is, therefore, necessary that Kerry go into the election expecting there will be an attack on November 1 and with a plan for how to show the country he can deal with it. He should have his cabinet announced, detailed plans for what he will do to respond to an attack, a clear foreign policy and a specific homeland security strategy. Only if he can show the American people that he will be able to keep the country safe and respond appropriately to an attack will he have a chance of being elected.

name games

Colin Powell on unnamed members of the "coalition of the willing"
"We now have a coalition of the willing that includes some 30 nations who have publicly said they can be included in such a listing. There are 15 other nations who for one reason or another do not yet wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition."

Colin Powell on Kerry claim about unnamed foreign leaders supporting him
“I don’t know what foreign leaders Senator Kerry is talking about. It’s an easy charge, an easy assertion to make. But if he feels it is that important an assertion to make, he ought to list some names. If he can’t list names, then perhaps he should find something else to talk about.”

vice president speculation, anyone?

Well, it's time for me to stop being a bellend and post. I've got plenty of political analysis to offer, though it appears that the two of you are done with this thing.

We do know who the Democratic presidential candidate will be, so that fun is over, but now comes the real fun -- who will he choose to be VP? It has to be someone who balances the ticket (meaning someone who's not a stuffy New England liberal -- I'm not really, but I'm also a San Francisco liberal, so you can count me out) -- someone from the South, a woman, a person of another religion or a person of another race. Here are the three people I think would make strong choices:

Bill Richardson -- Latino governor of New Mexico. Has strong qualifications to be on the pike to be president -- he's the former secretary of energy, former ambassador to the United Nations, former United States congressman and is currently governor, though of a somewhat small state. The Latino population is a big one this year -- Bush has made inroads -- selecting the first Latino on a presidential ticket would be a big move and a strong sign to a large demographic that may not necessarily vote Democrat if the Democrats keep neglecting them. Also could win swing state Arizona for the Kerry.

Mary Landrieu -- Senator from Louisiana. She's a woman (clearly), has a bit of a more conservative record (read NDN) and managed to get out of a tough reelection bid alive in 2002. She would make a strong candidate because she would balance the ticket very well -- woman, from the south, etc. I don't think she has a very long legislative record (this is where I could do some research, but I'm too lazy) and she is another senator on the ticket (the Repubs. could pick apart her voting record, as they've already started doing with Kerry).

Blanche Lincoln -- Southern woman senator again, but she's running strong in Arkansas right now -- I don't even think she has a Republican opponent right now. She also has the John Edwards-esque southern accent (much like another politician we know from Arkansas) that just connects with listeners -- could be a great communicator.

Kerry/Lincoln. Kerry/Landrieu. Kerry/Richardson.

I choose Kerry/Lincoln right now because I like the idea of it, with Kerry/Richardson right behind because it also makes a huge amount of sense.

I don't think he can (or it sounds like wants to) choose Edwards -- too much of a stigma as a loser after winning only one primary (he was even beaten in southern races) and I've read that the two of them don't like eachother very much (though that may be a bit overdone). Also, his 4 years in the Senate, which made me vote for Kerry last Tuesday despite wanting so badly to find a reason not to, make for a short resume that doesn't do much for Kerry. Indeed, he is a great communicator, but I think not a very good choice for VP.

Or how about Pete Stark for VP?

in the meantime

even though you pulled the curtain closed on this thing, and in spite of there still being some worthy topics of discussion, i think there's still one lingering question upon viewing these posts and this blog...

...what the hell is a "bellend"?

time to move on

I'm pretty sick of political analysis. But now that Kerry has the nomination tucked away there is no need for further analysis until much closer to the general election. Any analysis of the general election would be premature at this point as things will develop and evolve much over the next few months.

I hope you've enjoyed the opinions, analyses, comments and debates between Seth and I over the past two months. I will always look back on our deflowering experience as political analysis with sweet memories. We gave you what you have always expected from ideoblogist - independent analysis. Many times we were right on the dot (often before any veteran analysts had come to similar conclusions). Sometimes we were wrong, but hey, everyone else was wrong about Dean being the inevitable nominee back in early January and we never jumped on that bandwagon.

On that note, I am excited that today we move on to more intellectually stimulating topics - foreign and domestic policy, political theory, philosophy and some good old fashion international relations theory. Here's to new experiences and lots more posts to come!

an unethusiastic endorsement of edwards

I voted for John Edwards. In the end it was choosing the lesser of two "not so greats".

I'm still up in the air on who I think will make a better general election candidate. John Kerry has his experience and military service to add, but his "liberal Massachussets" label will definately hurt him (he was ranked the most liberal Senator by National Journal). John Edwards is very charismatic and a relative moderate but his lack of experience would definately hurt him, especially in the national security debate, which will certainly be at the center of the next election.

Policy-wise, they're both pretty similar. Edwards is slightly more "Third Way" which I like, but then again I'm a single issue voter...

Foreign policy: I did my research. I read speaches. And in the end it was pretty much a draw for me on foreign policy. I like Edward's willingness to actively use American force for liberal ends. But his opposition to free trade is a big no no in my book. Especially since he's turned trade into main issue in the primary, since it's among the biggest differences between him and Kerry. So while I like Edwards a little more, his non-stop NAFTA bashing the past few weeks has turned my image of him sour.

So what's the moral, vote for Edwards...but in the end, I wouldn't mind working for a Kerry administration either.

triple toe loop, double flip

This is a perfect example of John Kerry taking two different positions in front of two different audiences on the same issue. No matter what you think about the Israeli security fence, this should be instructive:


Remarks at the Arab American Institute, Washington, DC, October 17, 2003
"And I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build the barrier off of the green line - cutting deep into Palestinian areas. We don't need another barrier to peace." (http://www.cfr.org/campaign2004/pub6497/john_kerry/remarks_at_the_arab_american_institute.php)


A meeting with 40 Jewish organizational leaders, New York, NY, February 29, 2004
"Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) reassured U.S. Jewish leaders that he supports Israel’s right to build a security barrier....the front-runner for the Democratic nomination went out of his way to clarify his position on the fence, which he had described as a “barrier to peace” last year in a speech to Arab Americans. Kerry said he sees the West Bank barrier, which Israel is building to prevent terrorist attacks, as a matter of self-defense" (http://www.jta.org/brknews.asp?id=98190)