We cannot make the perfect the enemy of the terrible
We join the inimitable Fafnir and the very imitable Donald Rumsfeld, out for a drive, just after hitting moose number two:

'Are parts of the car on fire? Sure. Would we like them not to be? Of course. Have I gone insane from three decades of snorting military-grade rubber cement? Quite possibly. Do we need everything to be perfect for us to go out on the road? Well, that's absurd,' says Donald Rumsfeld.

'That's very true,' says me. 'We cannot make the perfect the enemy of the terrible.'

posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:12:00 PM -- |    

 
Against getting bogged down before he was for it
John Edwards, commenting on Cheney's views as Secretary of Defense during the 1991 Gulf War:

When [Cheney] was asked why they didn't finish the job in Iraq . . . he talked about the enormous danger and risk of getting bogged down, of having to govern the country. Of the casualties that would be incurred. To use some of the same language these people have used against John, he was against getting bogged down in Iraq before he was for it.

(Via Andrew Sullivan) posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:42:00 AM -- |    

 
Kerry-Bush debate reaction
On appearances, I actually thought Kerry was crisper and meandered less than Bush, who appeared by turns tongue-tied and desperate, clinging to phrases like "hard work," and charges of "mixed message" and "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" like they were life jackets in a stormy sea. And while I don't think personal appearance foibles should play a big role, Bush had a pursed-lips "just bit a lemon" look whenever Kerry started getting after him that didn't look all that grown up to me.

Kerry decided -- I think unnecessarily -- to concede the $87 billion "flip flop" issue by asking whether that was worse than making a mistake about the war. I wish he'd just said that the president threatened to veto those same $87 billion if they were paid for the wrong way, by rolling back the tax cuts.

Bush's message wasn't mixed -- it was mixed up: over and over again, he conflated the war on Iraq with the war on terror. Now that it's clear there were no WMD there for the past many years, what little potential connection there was has fallen away. Sure, there are terrorists there now, but that's more because of Bush's actions than despite them. Kerry made that point once or twice; I just wish he'd eventually said "there you go again."

A brief media coverage observation: NBC reporterthings asked Karen Hughes how her candidate did -- and then asked the Kerry campaign what Kerry's weakest moment was! And Kerry spokesman Mike McCurry accepted the premise! Mike: next time, if there is one, you just laugh and say "That's for you guys to decide, I didn't think there were any. Kerry was great at saying X, Y, and Z." I'll send the Kerry campaign a bill.

Overall, I think Kerry landed a lot of good punches and may have shed his reputation for wordiness -- the format may have helped there. And I enjoyed it when he illustrated a number of Bush inconsistencies -- and observing to Bush that "your campaign has a word for that."

Kerry campaign: rapid response
Online Newshour first presidential debate coverage
Fox News debate coverage: transcript and video feed via Natalie Davis, whose question-by-question analysis of the debate is both worthwhile and entertaining. (Relax: she's not voting for either of 'em.)
posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:17:00 PM -- |    

 
Well, what do you expect for $100,000,000,000?
The Washington Post's Bradley Graham has taken a look at the purported missile defense system being installed in Alaska ("Interceptor System Set, But Doubts Remain: Network Hasn't Undergone Realistic Testing"). The report's tone is, um, skeptical:

But what the administration had hoped would be a triumphant achievement is clouded by doubts, even within the Pentagon, about whether a system that is on its way to costing more than $100 billion will work. Several key components have fallen years behind schedule and will not be available until later. Flight tests, plagued by delays, have yet to advance beyond elementary, highly scripted events.

Graham isn't the only one:

"A system is being deployed that doesn't have any credible capability," said retired Gen. Eugene Habiger, who headed the U.S. Strategic Command in the mid-1990s. "I cannot recall any military system being deployed in such a manner."

I can. But nattering nabobs of negativism, take note -- Rumsfeld says it's all good:

"Did we have perfection with our first airplane, our first rifle, our first ship?" Rumsfeld said in an interview last month. "I mean, they'd still be testing at Kitty Hawk, for God's sake, if you wanted perfection."

...which seems pretty similar to the relaxed view of Iraqi elections Rumsfeld is suddenly kicking around. Now, if it were only dumping a hundred billion dollars down the toilet, this all might not be so bad. But if you actually believe in this product, if you have faith in it, that's another thing entirely. The Washington Times reported last year:

North Korea is a key reason Mr. Bush ordered the rushed deployment of missile defenses by next year. The first missile interceptor base is being built in Alaska as an emergency measure to blunt North Korea's threat of an attack.

In his New Republic article "As I Say" detailing the Bush administration policies on North Korea that have been the practical opposite of those on Iraq, J. Peter Scoblic writes,

In September 2003, Powell said, "If they test, we'll take note of their test.... The president has already accepted the possibility that they might test. And we will say, 'Gee, that was interesting.'" For his part, the president seems almost Buddha-esque about an increasingly aggressive and atomic Pyongyang. When a New York Times reporter asked him last month if he was concerned about the possibility that North Korea might have six to eight nuclear weapons, Bush simply turned up his palms and shrugged.

The Scoblic article, while not suggesting a connection to missile defense, describes a self-contradictory, almost dreamworld Bush policy toward North Korean WMD development that was actually less robust and less forceful than - ahem - that of known weak-kneed liberal William Jefferson Clinton.

The Bush approach makes a kind of demented sense if he thinks he has or soon will have a "missile defense" ace up his sleeve. But you can't just say "we'll shoot the dang things down if they shoot 'em at us." You have to be able to actually do it. posted by Thomas Nephew at 2:03:00 AM -- |    

 
Department of Anything Goes
From Republicans Admit Mailing Campaign Literature Saying Liberals Will Ban the Bible, by David Kirkpatrick in the New York Times:

In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings. "When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue,'' Ms. Iverson said. "These same activist judges also want to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."

(via Mark Kleimann) Here's a look at the mailing, provided by Steve Clemons' "The Washington Note" site. Remember: anything goes! At least if it's for the Lord or the Republican Party -- after all, what's the difference? While applauding the G.O.P. lie for its possible future truthfulness, one deeply religious fellow did express some reservations. Again, the Times report:

Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, argued, "We have the First Amendment in this country which should protect churches, but there is no question that this is where some people want to go, that reading from the Bible could be hate speech."

Still, Mr. Land questioned the assertion that Democrats might ban the whole Bible. "I wouldn't say it," he said. "I would think that is probably stretching it a bit far."

Meanwhile, NBC's Tom Brokaw compounded the problem by reporting the mailing -- and then solemnly parroting the justification for the lie with a straight face. Brokaw's summary, via Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting:

The Republican National Committee now has acknowledged sending mass mailings to two states that say liberals want to ban the Bible. Republican Party officials say the mailings in Arkansas and West Virginia are aimed at mobilizing Christian voters for President Bush. Some Christian commentators say liberal support for same-sex marriage could lead to laws that punish sermons denouncing homosexuality as sinful.

Oh. Well, then I guess it's OK. No, wait, how about an extra sentence: Everybody else agrees it's typical Christian right/GOP crap. Now that would have been fair and balanced! posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:50:00 AM -- |    

 
Canvassing for Kerry in York, PA
Last Saturday I joined the Kerry campaign for some 'front line' work in Central Pennsylvania: going door-to-door to identify voters who were likely to be Kerry supporters come November.

Following the directions in an e-mail from the Kerry campaign, I arrived at the gathering point in downtown D.C. Saturday morning. We left promptly at 8 a.m. There were printouts with general information about Pennsylvania on each bus seat, which made for some interesting reading on the way up. However, I eventually didn't refer to any of it during the canvass.

York, Pennsylvania
As is probably well known, Pennsylvania is a so-called battleground state, where the presidential race is fairly close, and a significant number of electoral votes are at stake. York is at the base of what Pennsylvanians call the "big T" part of the state -- Republican territory comprising basically everything outside the Democratic strongholds in and around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Gathering new Democratic votes there might help mitigate Republican strength in the region, and put Pennsylvania in the Kerry column on Election Day.

York is an historic town. Many people don't realize that it was actually the capital of the United States from September 1776 to June 1777 -- the Continental Congress fled there from Pennsylvania one step ahead of the sheriff, as it were, seeking to put the Susquehanna River between itself and possible British pursuit. Despite its brief tenure as capital, York was the site of momentous events; the Congress ratified the Articles of Confederation and the Treaty of Alliance with France there, and it was there that Lafayette famously refused to join the "Conway Cabal" plotting to relieve George Washington of his command.

None of which mattered on Saturday, of course. After some bus difficulty, we finally arrived in York around noon. We were briefed on who and where we would be canvassing by the staff and leadership of the Democratic Party of York County: sporadic or newly registered Democratic or independent voters, living in neighborhoods within walking distance of the York campaign headquarters. We were then paired off and given a folder with a map of our neighborhood, lists of voters to contact -- three to a row, and five to eight rows per page -- and a script. There was also bottled water and even lunches for those who hadn't brought their own.

The part of town my partner and I were sent to was a struggling rowhouse area just beyond the central business district. We walked through a nice, renovated looking downtown and tourist area to get there, passing the county courthouse used by the Continental Congress on our way. There weren't many people about, but that might have had to do with a motorcycle event being held nearby that day -- York turns out to be a manufacturing center for Harley-Davidson, and the roar of motorcycles cruising through town was background noise all day. (While Pennsylvania manufacturing may be suffering, Harley-Davidson seems to be doing fine; as of 2002 at least, the company had gone twenty years without a layoff.)

Canvassing
Before approaching the first door of the day, my partner C. and I sat down and went over the script one last time. The gist of the introduction was simplicity itself:

Is _________ there? Hello, my name is _____, and this is _____. We're with the John Kerry for President campaign; can we count on your support this November 2?

If the answer was yes, we'd ask whether they'd like to help the local campaign or get a window sign. If the answer was that they would support Bush or Nader, we'd say "OK" and end the conversation -- we weren't there to waste time arguing, we were there to move on and find an ally at the next address. If the person was undecided, we were given a scripted answer to start out with, but encouraged to "speak from the heart" with our own best reasons to support Kerry instead of Bush. On the other hand, we were urged not to simply be negative about Bush. I decided to go with "I strongly believe Kerry will be more competent and intelligent about the war on terror and the war in Iraq." But as it happened, the people we spoke with were generally either strongly for or against Kerry, with hardly anyone undecided.

I took a deep breath before knocking on the first door; I've done this before, but it was about twenty years ago. Naturally, no one answered, and in fact "N/A" turned out to be the typical result of the day. One difficulty was that we often had addresses, but not apartment numbers; and the doorbells we'd find inside the entrance were often not labeled. We'd write "sorry we missed you!" and the local campaign phone number on a Kerry flier and slip it through the mail slot or under the door. But often people had simply moved -- or in a few cases, had been forced to move: we saw three or four padlocked residences and one that was wrecked and abandoned.

Despite that, the neighborhoods we worked were were pleasant to canvass. There was a block party going on at one street corner and school yard -- a DJ with CD's and loudspeakers, picnic tables in the street, a bouncing tent for kids in the school yard. The people were quite diverse, maybe even parts white, black, and Hispanic. We met one very enthusiastic neighborhood leader type, who was also noticed by some other canvassers as it turned out; I hope she's hooked up with the campaign headquarters.

We took a couple of breaks over the five hour time span. I should have counted, but I'd guess we tried to contact about seventy or eighty people during that time; of those we spoke to, nine were "1"s (strong Kerry supporters), one was a "5" (strong Bush supporter), and one was "undecided" -- well, actually, she was in the middle of a quarrel with someone else and didn't have time for us, so we ruled her a "3." As I recall, getting relatively few answers is about par for the canvassing course, so I didn't feel too bad about it.

Suggestions
One suggestion I'd have for the organizers would be to add up everyone's "1"s and volunteers and let canvassers know what the totals are before they leave. That way there's a sense of being part of a group accomplishment, whether you think you held up your end of things or not.

A second suggestion has to do with older people. If I recall correctly, none of the people my partner and I spoke with were over 65 years old, yet quite a few that old were on our list (which gave age and party registration in addition to name and address). That and signs like open windows makes me think older people sometimes chose not to answer the door bell, perhaps out of concern for their safety. It might be worth trying to call the older names on a street list by cell phone shortly before arriving, so they know who's knocking on the door or ringing the doorbell or buzzer.

Try it yourself
I enjoyed canvassing. It felt good to be out and doing something about the election, instead of just reading and fretting about it. Moreover, as my body has since reminded me, a nice long walk is really excellent exercise.

While I'm at it, let me point out something else that felt good: being among people -- both on the bus and in the campaign headquarters -- who were undaunted and cheerful about the work ahead. The campaign staff in York had a plan they believed in, and they were sticking to it. I hope that attitude is widespread; I think you're likelier to find it among people who are working on the election than among those who aren't.

I'd recommend canvassing for anyone -- if you've got a partner, you've got nothing to worry about and at least one sympathetic listener when you start to talk to someone. You'll have a good time -- and it wouldn't hurt the Kerry campaign to get a better canvasser than me!
posted by Thomas Nephew at 7:16:00 PM -- |    

 
Abject gratitude
Belle Waring said she didn't know what to say on the subject of Beslan, and then offered a lamb recipe, of all things. But it made a kind of sense, because she then said this:

I recommend washing it down with a combination of red wine and abject gratitude that your children are safe. Yes. When you wake up in the night and panic you can go look at them, to make sure their narrow chests are rising and falling in the dim room. You can smell their heads. Still alive. When Violet was just newborn she smelled a little like lamb, which made me somewhat disinclined to eat it. Now she just smells like milk and clean things. She's sleeping on the sofa next to me right now. Zoë is sleeping on a sheepskin on the living room floor. Safe. No one can get them, because the doors are locked and I'm watching them breathe.

I check in on Maddie at night, too. She still does something we call "shields up" -- middle and ring finger of her right hand in her mouth, the left hand over that, palm out. Sometimes when I kiss her, she'll breathe a little more deeply, then roll away for more good sleeping. Her hair smells like summer. And for now, she's safe.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:50:00 AM -- |