Expats Against Bush

Bin Laden Bombshell

I can't help thinking this Bin Laden tape is extremely bad news for John Kerry.

The way he invokes Kerry's name as if they're on the same side... That's not good. And remember the studies about the correlation between the terror alerts and Bush's approval rating (there is always a boost 3 to 4 days later)? Well this seems to me to be a similar animal. It refocuses people's mind on an imminent terrorist threat, after all.

And despite seeming to condemn Bush, Bin Laden knows that this tape is more likely to help his reelection efforts - which is a good thing, at least for Bin Laden. Four more years of arrogant crusading by Bush can only swell the ranks of al Qaeda's membership. Iraq is already a huge recruitment poster; what else can be done given another term? And this faux-victimisation, invoking Beirut and the Palestinian issues as justification for 9/11, is so disingenuous as to not merit further discussion.

I don't know; I am truly worried by this latest turn of events. Damn Bin Laden, damn him again. Would someone please shut him up for good?

Update

Then again, Josh Marshall suggests we should all slap each other back to our senses and keep the side up. Well, alllllright.

BC04: Fear Kerry

Well they've gone and done it. The Bush campaign have hit a new low.

John Kerry = Twin Towers in Flames.

Bush Invents Irony: Kerry's Revenge

Remember that classic Dubya quote from yesterday, about not wanting someone who jumped to conclusions in the White House? Well good on the Kerry folks, they wasted no time turning the quote around and using it to some effect:

Bush on Wednesday accused Kerry of opportunism, saying: "A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as commander in chief ... that is part of a pattern of a candidate who will say anything to get elected."

Kerry threw the words back at the president 24 hours later, announcing he was going "to apply the Bush standard" and declaring: "Mr. President, I agree with you."

"George Bush jumped to conclusions about 9/11 and Saddam Hussein," he said. "George Bush jumped to conclusions about weapons of mass destruction and he rushed to war without a plan for the peace. George Bush jumped to conclusions about how the Iraqi people would receive our troops. He not only jumped to conclusions, he ignored the facts he was given."

Attaboy, John!

Your last chance to contribute

In the assumption that most of you get these emails from Kerry / Edwards anyway, I don't tend to repost them. But I think today's message from John Edwards bears repeating:

What kind of country do we want to wake up to on November 3?

That's the question each of us must ask ourselves as we enter the final 36 hours of the most important fundraising drive in Democratic Party history.

It is hard to imagine America making a choice that could matter more than this one -- not just because the contest is so close, but because the differences between the candidates are so stark. Make no mistake about it, four more years of George W. Bush in the White House would spell disaster on many of the issues that you and I care about the most.

That's why, whatever issues you care about, you must have one overriding priority right now -- helping win powerful, persuasive victories for John Kerry and other Democratic candidates five days from now.

Our final fundraising deadline of the campaign is tomorrow night:

https://www.democrats.org/support/kerry.html

If you're concerned about making America stronger and more respected in the world, we need you to step forward now. If you believe that turning a blind eye to the mistakes President Bush has made will only deepen our dilemma in Iraq, we need you to step forward now.

If you think that President Bush's obsession with tax cuts for the wealthy is risking our economic future, we need you to step forward now. If you know we can do better creating jobs and solving America's health care problems, we need you to step forward now.

If you want to protect the future of Social Security, we need you to step forward now. If you want to safeguard the balance and integrity of the Supreme Court, we need you to step forward now. If you realize that four more years of Bush's environmental assaults will devastate America's natural resources, we need you to step forward now.

Step forward now:

https://www.democrats.org/support/kerry.html

Here's the reality. Whatever issues you care about, whichever concerns are closest to your heart, the single most important step you can take right now is helping John Kerry and other Democratic candidates win on November 2. Let's not wake up on November 3 realizing that you could have made all the difference in the world.

Thank you,

John Edwards

Was your vote influenced by the foreign media?

The BBC Online Magazine has a piece today that asks:

American expats in Britain are choosing their president. Can they help but be influenced by widespread anti-Bush feeling in Europe?

That seems like an easy answer to me (of course we are influenced by it) but I suppose it may depend on the individual. More from the article:

Whatever their differences, the Republican and Democrat campaign teams are agreed on one thing - the British media.

"The press is definitely more pro-Kerry than pro-Bush," says Sharon Manitta of Democrats Abroad UK.

"We get to see more news stories that have a definite slant than the right wing, sadly, mainstream media in America."

Can't argue with that one. Check out the rest of the article for some vox pops with various UK-based expats of both political persuasions.

Make Your Vote Count

The fine folks (well, the DNC) that brought you OverseasVote2004 (remember the banner ad that was here until yesterday?) have not contented themselves with just getting people registered to vote. They've launched a new site, Make Your Vote Count (http://www.myvotecounts2004.com/) which asks you to fill in some details about how and when you sent in your ballot, so that they can:

compile a list by county and state of overseas voters. This list will be used by Voter Enforcement officials at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to cross-check lists of voters whose ballots have been received by local election officials.

Bearing in mind all the irregularity and outright dirty tricks being pulled in this election so far (and we haven't even gotten to Election Day yet!) I can get behind this effort 100%, and I urge you all to fill in your details to ensure that your vote is counted. Remember, in a race this tight, your vote definitely counts.

Florida: The Land Where Every Vote Counts™

So the whole world knows that Florida has had its fair share of problems with counting votes. And the whole world knows that, despite having had four years to sort out its mess, problems still abound, from glitchy paperless electronic voting machines to rampant voter suppression.

But this article from the BBC is just shocking, and it affects expats most directly. Broward County, north of Miami, was to deliver 60,000 absentee ballots for this election. How many have been delivered? 2000.

The missing ballots have fuelled an atmosphere of intense suspicion in Florida, with Democrats already backing nine separate law suits in the state, says the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington.

If the result is close and decides the result in the presidential race - and both of those eventualities are perfectly likely - it seems virtually certain that protracted legal battles would follow, our correspondent says.

[...]

In 2000, Broward gave Al Gore his biggest margin among Florida counties. He won 67% of the vote there, while losing the state to George W Bush.

"It looks like they're trying to steal the vote again," said Diane Glasser, vice-chairwoman of the Florida Democratic Party.

Both the Democrats and Republicans have already begun filing lawsuits in states across America, challenging different aspects of the election process.

Whether or not this turns out to be a GOP-led effort, it is undeniable that right across our nation, Republicans are making a mockery of our democracy. History will show how underhanded and devious the GOP has been, that the very party that stands for traditional values and the American Way is undercutting the democratic process it purports to defend. Sure the Democrats are no angels, but there's getting the vote out and then there's interfering with democracy. There should be more outrage. Where is it?

Bush invents irony

Apparently Dubya just responsed to a question about Kerry's criticism of the whole al Qaqaa explosives thing (specifically, Bush & Co.'s "unthinkable incompetence" pertaining to the loss and the war in general).

Bush's response, finally, after 3 days of questions, was this witty rejoinder:

A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not who you want as commander in chief.

What?

Boy, wake up and smell what you shovelin'.

[via Washington Monthly]

The Onion's guide to Election Day

In case you have any Stateside relatives that may be feeling a bit intimidated by going and voting on Election Day, The Onion comes to the rescue with some handy tips on how to make the process easier, including some of these valuable and relevant gems:

• If at all possible, vote before work. That way, you can make smug comments to non-voters all day long.
  
• The new electronic voting machines are complicated. But don't worry: Octogenarians will be on hand to troubleshoot any technological problems that might arise.
  
• If your election official hooks you up to a machine via a needle in your arm, you are actually donating blood.
  
• Tip for those on the go: Voting a straight ticket can save you up to 15 seconds.

Speaking of Election Day, you may have noticed that I removed the banner ad for Overseas Vote 2004 - the absentee ballot request form is a bit pointless now - and also the "Vote in 2004" section to the right. Unless you are sending in a lastminute Write In Ballot by fax or through FedEx, you really should have cast your vote by now.

No Bush site for you!

Not that I think there's anything nefarious to it (it is probably cost- and traffic-related as the author supposes) but the BBC has a story pointing out that none of us overseas folks (including 6 million of us expats) can get to GeorgeWBush.Com, the official campaign site, since Monday morning. Try it out for yourself.

Expats flying home to vote

Amid continuing concerns about late, missing, or plain incorrect absentee ballots, apparently there are a handful of us expats who are making sure our votes will count - by flying back to the States to vote in person:

While some are making frantic calls to state voting offices or groups representing overseas Democrats or Republicans, others have decided the only solution is to fly to the United States.

"George W. Bush is not the right man for the job and that's why I'm paying to get on a plane to make sure I get over and vote," said B. Carter Looney, 39, a U.S. businessman who lives near Frankfurt.

"There's more to the world than just the United States," said Looney, who will spend 26 hours airborne for just three days in Arizona before returning Tuesday after voting.

Looney, overseas for 17 years, voted in every contest before 2000, but said he felt ill for a long time after missing the last election because his absentee ballot arrived too late.

"I vowed it wouldn't happen again," he said.

With all the hubbub about voting irregularities and post-election legal squabbling this year, who can blame them?

In fact, there are a couple of pieces on this subject you should check out. The NYT's piece, on the possible impact of the new "provisional ballots", makes me a bit nervous:

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 allows voters whose names cannot be found on local rolls to cast provisional ballots, with election officials making a decision later about whether the vote should count. Election lawyers now say that those ballots could determine the outcome in a handful of states where the presidential race is expected to be extremely close.

But because those ballots will have to be considered one by one, there is a real possibility that the outcome of the presidential election will not be known on the morning of Nov. 3 and that it will again turn on court decisions, say election law specialists tracking more than a half-dozen thorny legal issues in the swing states.

"We could be within the margin of litigation in all 10 or 11," said Edward B. Foley, who teaches election law at Ohio State University.

Yeeks.

And if that didn't cheer you up enough, the Washington Post has a lovely article on the possible implications of another post-election tussle:

We don't need a repetition of Florida, perhaps on a grander scale. The danger is not simply a delay in knowing who the next president is, or the prospect that he'll be hampered in governing, or the probable fury of the loser's supporters that the election was "stolen." The more unsettling danger is that, having engaged in two rounds of post-election combat, party warlords will make this a permanent part of the political process.

Election by litigation is a sensationally bad idea. Undertaken piously to guarantee voters' "rights" or to prevent "fraud," it would erode popular confidence in elections' integrity. We'd be bombarded (as we already are) by endless complaints about how compromised or corrupt voting practices have become. Sooner or later, many Americans might cynically conclude that the side with the busiest poll watchers, cleverest lawyers and friendliest judges had secured an unfair advantage

No wonder the networks are being extra-cautious this year. Once bitten... twice shy.

E Minus 7

(thanks to Wonkette for the title inspiration)

Wow. A week to go. It's been a long, hard campaign and it's been bitterly fought, but we should start to have an idea of how the chips are going to fall by the end of this week (some of us, of course, already know). Then again, we could have another nailbiter.

I will be posting some more thoughts later today, but here's a bit of a random link. If you've got time, go check out the new Eminem video. Yes, I know. The video is worth watching though, as if this is what's going out to the kids 1 week before the election then it raises my spirits a bit. I've gained a bit more respect for Mr Mathers.

Happy Birthday to Us

In all the excitement of the runup to the election (next week! gulp) I plum forgot that October 20th was the 1st anniversary of the launch of Expats Against Bush.

Before we get into the final week melée that is this election, I want to thank all of you who have visited the site, commented, helped out at meetings and come out to demonstrate over the past year. You guys rock.

And let us hope our efforts have not been in vain. I think by this time next week (Election Eve) we may all have ulcers (on both sides of the fence).

By the way, I will be going to the US Embassy election night party on, well, election night. From what I've heard it's a bit of a knees-up with lots of US and UK politicos hobknobbing, but I've also heard from an FT reporter that in most cases everyone gets too wobbly too early and almost nobody actually makes it through to hear the results. I have some serious doubts that they will have even called the election by the end of the week, let alone Tuesday night. Nevertheless, it should be an interesting event, and I can't get over the image in my head of a high school dance with two factions hugging each wall and only the occasional brave soul venturing into the middle to converse awkwardly with the others. I will of course fill you in.

Bush Supporters Misinformed; Film at 11

Remember that report a while back from PIPA that claimed that Fox viewers were consistently misinformed on basic issues? They've come out with another one(PDF here), and it's a doozy [via Washington Monthly]:

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

[...]

This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to other realms as well. Despite an abundance of evidence--including polls conducted by Gallup International in 38 countries, and more recently by a consortium of leading newspapers in 10 major countries--only 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the US having gone to war with Iraq. Forty-two percent assume that views are evenly divided, and 26% assume that the majority approves. Among Kerry supporters, 74% assume that the majority of the world is opposed.

Similarly, 57% of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would favor Bush's reelection; 33% assumed that views are evenly divided and only 9% assumed that Kerry would be preferred. A recent poll by GlobeScan and PIPA of 35 of the major countries around the world found that in 30, a majority or plurality favored Kerry, while in just 3 Bush was favored. On average, Kerry was preferred more than two to one.

"57% of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would favor Bush's reelection"

O my expat brethren, let us reflect on that one for a moment.

Even on Bush's own policies, the report says, Bush's supporters are not exactly on the ball:

Bush supporters also have numerous misperceptions about Bush's international policy positions. Majorities incorrectly assume that Bush supports multilateral approaches to various international issues--the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%)--and for addressing the problem of global warming: 51% incorrectly assume he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty. After he denounced the International Criminal Court in the debates, the perception that he favored it dropped from 66%, but still 53% continue to believe that he favors it. An overwhelming 74% incorrectly assumes that he favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. In all these cases, majorities of Bush supporters favor the positions they impute to Bush. Kerry supporters are much more accurate in their perceptions of his positions on these issues.

In other words, many Bush supporters will be going to the polls on November 2nd to vote for a phantom Bush that is beloved the world over, who has not put a foot wrong, who never lied about a thing, and who really really is the Compassionate Conservative he wants us all to believe he is.

Bzzzt! Next.

PS this table of results from the report is worth contemplating in its own window.

Salon: Suppressing the Overseas Vote

Salon.com has a fairly alarming article about potentially large numbers of us expats who could either not get their votes in in time, or else find that their ballots (official or write-in) might simply not be counted by the election boards. Like many of you, my Absentee Ballot never arrived so I had to request a Federal Write In Ballot from Democrats Abroad. Salon writes about that scenario, and it ain't pretty:

But the program's record does not inspire much confidence. Indeed, voters contacting officials to ask about the ballot have been shocked at the ignorance they've encountered. In Nepal, one embassy worker said the ballot could be mailed from the United States, which it cannot; in Chester County, Pa., an election supervisor had no idea what it was. Says Wright of the Military Voting Rights Project: "Nobody has ever heard of it. The FVAP does show up at meetings and presentations, but I bet a lot of the 5,000 election officials don't go to those meetings, judging from the very basic questions we get back."

While waiting for the FVAP to act, both parties gyrated over the Internet. AOK put up its own version online with the disclaimer that no one knew if such ballots would be accepted; Democrats Abroad and the two main registration Web sites did not. Republicans Abroad then snitched the AOK form, without the disclaimer, and put it on its site, only to shamefacedly pull it off when told that, until the FVAP formally approved it, nobody could use the darn thing. AOK finally sent out 25,000 hard copies at its own expense to voters from swing states who'd signed up on the Overseas Vote 2004 Web site.

It then tackles the ever-prickly question of which way the expat vote chips will fall:

Which way these hordes of new voters go is, in fact, the big overseas question -- assuming they get to vote. Democrats and Republicans alike see gold in both the civilian and military camps. What's undisputed is that the Bush administration has galvanized overseas voters as never before. "The entire world is against Bush, and we reflect that view that America has lost all its credibility abroad," says McQueen of Democrats Abroad. "I was tired of cringing in the supermarket whenever I spoke English to my kids, knowing how much we as Americans were hated," says Dzieduszycka-Suinat. Hills, for her part, reports that many Republicans, angered at what they see as unjust attacks, are coming out in equal droves to support the president. On both sides, stories abound of older Americans, and dual citizens who've kept their American passports, emerging like Rip Van Winkle to vote for the first time in 30 or 40 years.

In reality, the political affiliation of these voters is unknown. Both sides claim a 60 percent edge: Democrats, based on a Zogby study, say that Americans with passports tend to vote liberal. Republicans, meanwhile, cite international business and the conservatism of Pentagon civilian employees and soldiers. Yet both estimates are what military people call SWAG -- scientific wild-ass guesses -- about a woolly and ever-growing overseas population of civil servants, diplomats, employees of global businesses, students, journalists, artists, academics and, yes, soldiers on the battlefield.

America-Bashing: The Revenge

Well no sooner do I come out in public to say what nonsense that lady was spouting about getting anti-American abuse hurled at her, than I suffer some myself.

It wasn't specifically aimed at me, but I went to a comedy night in Shepherd's Bush last night that I was enjoying thoroughly until the last act came on, a middle class Londoner named Stewart Lee, who has been a standup comic for years, aside from a brief stint directing the London stage version of Jerry Springer: The Opera. I don't know if that experience (whether through the events portrayed onstage or through the day to day contact with tourist crowds) informed his material, but he had a solid five-minute-long bitter tirade against Americans near the start of his act. Not good natured, not qualified, nor aimed at our leaders. It was aimed at everyday Americans and basically accused us all of being slack-jawed yokels. I normally have thick skin, but something in the way he went for the jugular really annoyed me and I was close to either getting into an argument with him onstage or storming out. I didn't want to play into his hands, however, so I saved my ire and sent him an email instead, part of which I quote here:

[Y]our tirade against Americans (not America) really got under my skin last night. You presented an odd portrait of a man who seemed to want to promote global peace and be against bigotry, yet you turn around and tar an entire country with the same brush - guilt by association, if you will. There was no hint of "some Americans" being slack-jawed imbeciles, there was no qualification. You basically took us all and put us in the same basket. I wasn't the only American there last night, by the way.

What you said on stage is little different than standing in front of a Jewish audience and telling "Hebe" jokes. Or standing in front of a black audience and telling "nigger" jokes. It just so happens at the moment that anti-Americanism is more accepted. That does not mean that you need to pander to it, especially as you spend the previous bit berating Little Englanders for their anti-Muslim bigotry. Can you see where this comes off as a bit hypocritical? Or, at the very least, as lazy, opportunist bush league comedy?

You might argue that hey, this is just comedy and if a few people are offended, dem's da breaks. But in order to attack bigotry you should not further it for a cheap laugh. You may have noticed losing the crowd as the night went on; I would suggest thinking a little bit more about how your bits are going to go down and who they're aimed at.

I know I shouldn't get upset by something someone says on a stage. But it's hard work to continually try to repair the damage done to my country's reputation by the imbeciles in charge there, and then go for an evening's entertainment only to be lumped in with them.

Kind Regards,
-Luke Robinson

Last night's events notwithstanding, I still hold that anti-Americanism here is not nearly as bad as Ms Gould asserts. A few bad apples don't spoil the bunch, in this case.

America-bashing?

The second article by an expat American in the British broadsheets in the same weekend to really get me hot under the collar was a piece in the Sunday Times titled, simply, "I'm a Democrat for Bush." Well you can imagine that went over particularly well with the morning bagel yesterday.

Nowhere near as bad as the first article, though.

Thanks to reader Larry Boyd for pointing out the Guardian article entitled "An American Scapegoat in London" with this lede:

In Britain, America-bashing is so bad that I fear for my safety.

Oh, come on.

The author is an American expat living in London who apparently has had a pretty rotten time of it and has now decided that most Brits (and Europeans, for that matter) are merely waiting for the excuse to launch a bilious stream of anti-American invective at the first unwitting Yank to cross their paths:

I am aware that many Americans are leaving their homes abroad and returning home after decades in Europe because they can no longer endure the daily abuse. Anti-Americanism is not a result of Abu Ghraib or of a Rumsfeldian pronouncement. It is a disturbing and hurtful form of psychosis that is rapidly eroding the all-important special relationship.

What? People are leaving? That's news to me.

Speaking personally I get along just fine with just about anyone you stick in front of me. I have to be honest though, I haven't tried wearing an American flag pin on my lapel lately.

I would go on, but I just now sent in a letter to The Guardian about this article, and in case it never sees the light of day I will copy it out here:

Dear sirs,

Regarding Carol Gould's article "An American Scapegoat in London," I must take issue with her alarmist tone. I too am an American expat (with five years of London living under my belt), and I cannot square my day to day experience with what she describes. Most of my friends are Brits or continental Europeans, and even moving in these circles I rarely encounter anything stronger than good-natured ribbing. The few occasions where I've "received dressing-downs at social and professional gatherings," it's been by someone either obviously inebriated or obviously pig ignorant; and, at the end of the day, you're going to get these types in any country. No, in my experience most Brits will suss me out first as an individual, knowing that what our governments do is often at odds with what we wish they would do. I was also at Ken Livingstone's peace rally last November, and I was in Trafalgar Square later. I can tell you that the vast majority of the quarter million marchers were not interested in burning flags; however, as with every protest march in the last several decades, it's the flag-burning that makes the evening news. It's not representative of the will of the masses; neither are Ms Gould's isolated incidences of anti-Americanism. The special relationship survives, tarnished but there nonetheless.

I don't know. Maybe I am not sticking out enough to come in for the serious America-bashing.

What about you all? Do you feel threatened? I am honestly curious.

UPDATE

The original link sent to me was the original, longer article from FrontPageMag.Com, which is a rabid paranoia rag. Why did the Guardian choose to draw this alarmist drivel from the pages of a propaganda sheet? Let's take a look at some of the more salient headlines:

• "John Kerry and Lyndon Johnson share ambition, while George W. Bush and John F. Kennedy share a vision."
• "In a Frontpage Exclusive, John J. Miller discusses how the French were never our friends."
• "The Religious Left puts the blame on America and Israel -- in the Name of God."

It even has a banner ad for a retreat weekend with special hosts Zell Miller and James Woolsey. Sign me up!

Bush's Faith

You may already have seen this, but in case you haven't you should check out Ron Suskind's article in the NYT Magazine from Sunday, a scary look inside the inner circle at the White House and how faith-based instinctive decision-making has totally brushed aside reality:

And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. ''You think he's an idiot, don't you?'' I said, no, I didn't. ''No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!'' In this instance, the final ''you,'' of course, meant the entire reality-based community.

Effort to legalize torture by proxy

Please go and read this post on Obsidian Wings right now - you need to know what's being considered for inclusion in the proposed bill implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission:

The provision Rep. Markey referred to is contained in Section 3032 and 3033 of H.R. 10, the "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act of 2004," introduced by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL). The provision would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue new regulations to exclude from the protection of the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, any suspected terrorist - thereby allowing them to be deported or transferred to a country that may engage in torture. The provision would put the burden of proof on the person being deported or rendered to establish "by clear and convincing evidence that he or she would be tortured," would bar the courts from having jurisdiction to review the Secretary's regulations, and would free the Secretary to deport or remove terrorist suspects to any country in the world at will - even countries other than the person's home country or the country in which they were born. The provision would also apply retroactively.

You don't have to think too much about this without it giving you a sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach.

America: Getting Others To Do Our Dirty Work For Decades™

Debate 3: Kerry wins, Bush gaffes

Although the BBC said it was a draw this morning, a quick visit to the Washington Monthly site has a breakdown of the polls:

• CNN/USA Today/Gallup: Kerry wins 53%-39%.
• CBS News poll of uncommitted voters: Kerry wins 39%-25%
• ABC News: Kerry wins 42%-41%, even though their audience leaned heavily Republican.
• Democracy Corps: Kerry wins 41%-36%

Seems like Kerry is bound to get a boost off this.

The big story of the debate, at least in left-leaning circles, is the complete reality-denial attempt when Bush tried to convince us he always had his eye on the ball when it came to hunting down Osama [via TPM]:

Kerry accurately quoted Bush as saying he does not think much about Osama bin Laden and is not all that concerned about him. The president protested: "I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations."

But in March 2002, Bush indeed said, "I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run." He described the terrorist leader as "marginalized," and said, "I just don't spend that much time on him."

It can't be too long before a video comes out of this. I just hope it contains the words "flip" and "flop".

Banned in China

I noticed in my referrer logs a website of an expat in China mentioning one of my posts - and then saying to get to this site from China you had to go through an anonymous proxy service (presumably because the state-owned firewalls would not allow you through).

Does that mean that China has banned Expats Against Bush? Or (more likely), does that mean that we have not been placed on the "approved sites" list?

Do any of our China-based expats or ex-China-folks know what the score is here? Is this standard practice to have to go through a proxy?

Bush: Master Debater. Well, in 1994.

Wow! Take a look at this Quicktime comparison of Bush's debate style from the 1994 Texas Governor's race with that of today. There is a marked difference, I think you'll agree.

What the heck happened in ten years?

Hunting for Republicans in Paris

Just to take a break from our usual Bush bashing, I thought I'd point you towards an interesting article I found on Slate when I was looking around for some expat-related news. It details the author's quest to find some Republicans abroad in Paris, and what a mission it was (compared with finding Democrats, in any case):

Republican organizers have claimed, and several newspapers have dutifully reported, that they, too, are seeing an increase in overseas voter turnout, so I went looking for evidence. The Republicans Abroad Web site was a lost cause, a stark contrast to the Democrats Abroad site, which lists hundreds of activities in dozens of countries. In Paris alone, a Democrat can attend, in the next month, casual cafe meet-ups, elegant fund-raising dinners with guests-of-honor like author Diane Johnson (Le Divorce), a screening of Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, and after-midnight parties to watch the presidential debates live.

All I could find on the Republican site was an e-mail address for the chairman of Republicans in France, who didn't reply to my missive. A call to someone listed as serving on the group's executive committee also went unreturned.

The night after Man Ray, I went to an officially bipartisan event at the American University in Paris. About 150 Americans turned up to watch a panel of three journalists discuss the election. CNN's Jim Bitterman kicked things off with an informal poll. First he asked how many people in the room were going to vote for Kerry, and virtually everyone raised a hand. Bitterman then asked who was voting for Bush, and four hands went up. He asked how many in the audience were Republicans voting for Kerry, and about five people raised hands.

Debate 2: Momentum

At this moment in time, and for the first time in ages, Electoral-Vote.com is putting John Kerry ahead in the Electoral College, 280-239. Most polls are now indicating either a statistical dead heat or a slight lead for Kerry.

And with today's disappointing job numbers, tonight's debate on the economy should prove Bush an easy target for some well-placed barbs from Kerry.

I just hope he nails Bush to the wall.

As they say in England, Go on my son!

No WMD: Well, duh.

Right along with the stop-the-presses revelation that Dick Cheney may not be entirely inclined towards truth-telling, comes the gee-hasn't-everyone-figured-this-out-yet exclusive that Iraq did not have any WMDs:

Saddam Hussein destroyed his last weapons of mass destruction more than a decade ago and his capacity to build new ones had been dwindling for years by the time of the Iraq invasion, according to a comprehensive US report released yesterday.

The report, the culmination of an intensive 15-month search by 1,200 inspectors from the CIA's Iraq Survey Group (ISG), concluded that Saddam had ambitions to restart at least chemical and nuclear programmes once sanctions were lifted.

However, concrete plans do not appear to have been laid down, let alone set in motion. Nor did Saddam issue direct verbal orders to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The main evidence of his intentions are his own cryptic remarks, and the meaning his aides inferred from them.

The ISG conclusions, delivered to Congress yesterday, are badly timed for George Bush's re-election bid, as they starkly contradict his pre-war claims as well as statements he has made on the campaign trail.

Don't s'pose we'll hear that much about this from Bush & co, will we? They probably won't have much to say about L Paul Bremer's recent criticism of Bush's war leadership either, at least not if they can help it.

I just can't wait for the next debate, can you? There's just so much vulnerability in Bush's record, domestic and foreign that Kerry can exploit. Should be good viewing.

Important Note on Absentee Ballots

Folks, if you're like me and haven't received your absentee ballot (and according to the straw poll a couple of days ago, only 33% of our respondents have actually gotten theirs) then it's time to request a Federal Write In Ballot. I'll pass you over to Jamie Dumas of Democrats Abroad for the next steps, but before I do you should ensure that, even if you're in possession of an absentee ballot, you are voting for the right person.

Over to Jamie now:

To make sure that your vote is counted you should mail your absentee ballot as soon as possible. If you have not yet received your absentee ballot you should request a Federal Write-In Ballot.

You are eligible to use a Federal Write-In Ballot if:

* You requested your absentee ballot using the federal voting application form. (If you obtained a form from Democrats Abroad, the OverseasVote2004.com site, or from the Federal Voting Assistance Program site you used this form.)

* AND your form was sent in time to be received by October 2. (If you faxed your form before October 2 and posted the original as instructed then you are also eligible.)

You can request a Federal Write-In Ballot from Democrats Abroad (voting2004@aol.com) or the Federal Voting Assistance Program (http://www.fvap.gov/).

You should mail your Federal Write-In Ballot as soon as you receive it. If you subsequently receive your official absentee ballot you should also send that in as quickly as possible. The local election officials know to only count your Federal Write-In Ballot if they do not receive a regular absentee ballot from you.

Below are instructions for completing your Federal Write-In Ballot.

If you have any questions please email voting2004@aol.com.

Thank you for making sure that your vote is counted,

--Jamey

Federal Write-In Ballot Instructions (After the Break)

VP Debate: Cheney Lies, News at 11

I must admit I haven't watched the VP debate in full, nor have I been much inclined to - from all accounts it was a pretty predictable affair, with neither candidate standing out as the clear winner nor doing himself much of a disservice.

However, the media (for once) seems to be rather on the ball in one respect: they all agree that Cheney told some pretty barefaced lies during his responses. Newsweek even went so far as to write a whole feature on it. The most egregious claim (straight from the "black is white, up is down" school) was that he never said there was a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Oh, come on!. He's got big brass ones, that's for sure:

Cheney, challenged by Edwards, insisted last night that “I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11.” But that claim is belied by an array of interviews and public comments in which Cheney has done precisely that—by repeatedly invoking claims that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence agent. That allegation was also debunked by the 9/11 commission after the panel found abundant evidence that Atta was actually in the United States at the time the rendezvous supposedly took place.

Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly has also compiled a point by point rebuttal of Cheney's misstatements. Check it out.

Expats: Have you received your ballot yet?

As we are now at the cutoff point for new voter registration in most cases, I thought I'd do a straw poll and see how many of you expats have received their absentee ballots. I haven't received mine yet despite sending in my FPCA months ago.

How about you guys? Let us know, yea or nay, have you received your absentee ballot yet?

I have created a special poll on the EAB Forums to track your responses. Please take a moment and add your 2 cents.

We have a race again!

According to Newsweek, Kerry's strong performance in Thursday's debate has erased Bush's lead:

Removing Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who draws 2 percent of the vote, widens the Kerry-Edwards lead to three points with 49 percent of the vote versus the incumbent’s 46 percent. Four weeks ago the Republican ticket, coming out of a successful convention in New York, enjoyed an 11-point lead over Kerry-Edwards with Bush pulling 52 percent of the vote and the challenger just 41 percent.

We still have some way to go on a state-by-state basis according to the Electoral College Predictor site, but state-by-state polling is necessarily going to lag behind nationwide polling, so I expect to see a post-debate "bounce" for Kerry in the next few days.

If you're wondering how Kerry was able to prepare so well for the debate and come off so, well, directly, comedian Harry Shearer imagines what might have gone on in a pre-debate prep session.

If you're wondering why Bush did so badly, maybe it's because he's starting to sound like a broken record, even to his own folks.

On a side note, I notice our conservative brethren have vanished from this site in the wake of the debates. Hmmm. Off to drown their sorrows? Regrouping for a new round of denial? The mind boggles.

Debate 1: Not quite a floor-wiping, but close

Kerry just edged out Bush, but then again that's me talking.

I had to guffaw a couple of times as Bush misspoke:

BUSH: But to say that there's only one focus on the war on terror doesn't really understand the nature of the war on terror.

Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden. [itals mine]

Oops! Did I say Saddam? Heh, heh. Aw, you know what I mean!

Kerry's response was classic:

KERRY: The president just talked about Iraq as a center of the war on terror. Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it.

The president made the judgment to divert forces from under General Tommy Franks from Afghanistan before the Congress even approved it to begin to prepare to go to war in Iraq.

Earlier on, even Kerry had to guffaw:

LEHRER: New question, two minutes, Senator Kerry.

"Colossal misjudgments." What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?

KERRY: (laughs) Well, where do you want me to begin?

But I nearly spat out my coffee when I saw this:

KERRY: And long before President Bush and I get a tax cut -- and that's who gets it -- long before we do, I'm going to invest in homeland security and I'm going to make sure we're not cutting COPS programs in America and we're fully staffed in our firehouses and that we protect the nuclear and chemical plants.

[...]

LEHRER: Ninety-second response, Mr. President.

BUSH: I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises. It's like a huge tax gap. Anyway, that's for another debate.

My administration has tripled the amount of money we're spending on homeland security to $30 billion a year.[itals mine]

Mr Bush? You're talking about a gap between Kerry's tax plan and your spending plan? Pot, meet kettle. The fact that you then turn around and talk about tripling your spending in the same breath - well it just beggars belief. When is the shepherd's crook going to creep out from stage right and yank this idiot off?

Run Against Bush - London - Oct 16th

I'll get to the debate once I've had a chance to actually read the transcript, but in the meantime Sarah Holsen asked me to let you know that Run Against Bush is coming to London on October 16th:

Run Against Bush is coming to London!

Looking for a fun and easy way to express your displeasure with the current administration? Do you like to exercise? We have the perfect way for you to do both at the same time.
Come jog and/or walk Against Bush on Saturday, October 16th!

Where: Hyde Park (meet at Speakers' Corner, most easily accessed from Exit 4 of the Marble Arch tube station on the Central Line)
When: 4:00 p.m. (rain or shine)

Course length: 5 kilometers

In order to make the biggest statement possible, we encourage everyone to either order a Run Against Bush t-shirt from RunAgainstBush.org (www.runagainstbush.org) or make their own t-shirt and wear it to the event.

After the run/walk we will head to a local pub for drinks and conversation. Please join us and invite your friends!

For more information about this event, please email Sarah at sarah_holsen@hotmail.com or Dan Gordon at dgordon95@comcast.net. If you want more information about "Run Against Bush", visit the organisation online at www.runagainstbush.org or send an email to info@runagainstbush.org.

Cheers,
Sarah