terça-feira, janeiro 18, 2005
Political Divisions Persist After Election
Nation Unsure, Hopeful About Bush, Poll Finds
Richard Morin and Dan Balz Washington Post
President Bush will begin his second term in office without a clear mandate to lead the nation, with strong disapproval of his policies in Iraq and with the public both hopeful and dubious about his leadership on the issues that will dominate his agenda, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
On the eve of Thursday's presidential inaugural ceremonies, the survey found few signs that the country has begun to come together since Bush defeated Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) two months ago. The president has claimed a mandate from the election, but the poll found as much division today as four years ago over the question of whether Bush or Democrats in Congress should set the direction for the country.
Fewer than half of those interviewed -- 45 percent -- said they preferred that the country go in the direction that Bush wanted to lead it, whereas 39 percent said Democrats should lead the way. During the first months of his presidency, after the bitterly disputed 2000 election, Americans said they preferred Bush to take the lead by 46 percent to 36 percent.
But the public also wants cooperation from the Democrats. At a time when Democratic leaders are preparing to challenge many of Bush's major initiatives, nearly seven in 10 Americans agree that Bush's victory means that congressional Democrats should compromise with him -- even if it means compromising on their party's principles. Only one in four said Democrats must not compromise on things they find objectionable, even if it means less gets accomplished.
Looking ahead, a majority of Americans -- 55 percent -- said they expect Bush to do a better job as president in the next four years than he did during his first term. That is about equal to the proportion in January 1997 that expected President Bill Clinton's second term to be better than his first.
On Social Security, the poll offered mixed findings that underscore the enormous challenge facing Bush at the start of what both parties see as the most significant legislative battle of the second term.
Those surveyed gave Bush negative marks -- 38 percent approval vs. 55 percent disapproval -- for his handling of the Social Security issue, and three in five said the system will not have enough money to pay benefits by the time they retire. But by 54 percent to 41 percent, the public supported a plan that would include a reduction in the rate of growth of guaranteed benefits and private savings accounts financed with a portion of payroll taxes. A proposal with those elements is under consideration by the Bush administration.
Other polls have shown sizable opposition when the Bush plan is described as cutting future benefits, and the varying results among surveys suggest that the communications battle to frame the problem and the solutions may prove crucial to the outcome, as was the case in the fight over Clinton's health care plan in 1993 and 1994 and the battle to reduce the rate of growth in Medicare spending, which cost Republicans after they won control of Congress in 1994.
But Iraq and terrorism, more than Social Security, are the issues the public wants Bush to concentrate on in his second term. The poll found that Americans rank Iraq and the war on terrorism as the top priorities for Bush and Congress. More than six in 10 Americans rate the situation in Iraq as the highest priority for Bush and Congress in the coming year, and more than half say the war on terrorism also must be a top priority.
No other issue, including the economy, education, health care and Social Security, is viewed by a majority of the public as equally pressing.
Bush said in an interview last week with The Washington Post that the 2004 election was a moment of accountability for the decisions he has made in Iraq, but the poll found that 58 percent disapprove of his handling of the situation to 40 percent who approve, and 44 percent said the war was worth fighting.
The survey also found that, although Americans overwhelmingly oppose delaying the upcoming elections in Iraq, scheduled for Jan. 30, they are pessimistic that the vote will produce a stable government. Nearly six in 10 said it will not bring a stable government, but 57 percent said they see the elections as a step to the day that U.S. troops can be withdrawn from the country.
The president's overall job approval rating stands at 52 percent, up slightly in the past month. Of all presidents in the postwar era who won reelection, only Richard M. Nixon had a lower job approval rating at the start of his second term. The other chief executives began their second term with job ratings of 60 percent or higher.
A majority of Americans express disapproval of Bush on other key measures of presidential performance. A slight majority -- 52 percent -- disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy, and half or more also are dissatisfied with the way Bush has dealt with the budget deficit (58 percent disapprove), immigration (54 percent) and health care (51 percent).
Bush gets higher marks on the key issue of terrorism, where a 61 percent majority approve of the job he is doing, up eight points in the past month. And 56 percent expressed satisfaction with his education policies. The public is divided on the president's handling of environmental issues, foreign affairs and taxes.
Expectations are high for Bush as he begins his second term. Seven in 10 say they expect him to make major progress against terrorism. Smaller majorities also expect the president to move forward on the economy, Iraq, education, limiting medical and class-action lawsuits, and taxes.
But on other issues, the public is more pessimistic. Slightly fewer than half said they expect Bush to make substantial progress on Social Security (46 percent) and health care (48 percent). And even fewer expect major successes by Bush on such issues as the environment (32 percent), the deficit (35 percent) and immigration (39 percent).
The complex political challenges facing Bush and congressional Democrats can be seen in public attitudes on two issues that are emerging as the cornerstones of Bush's domestic agenda: Social Security and limiting medical malpractice and class-action lawsuits.
Overall, the public expresses more confidence in Democrats in Congress (50 percent) than in the Bush administration (37 percent) to deal with problems in the Social Security system. But another picture emerges when the public is asked to evaluate specific reform proposals under consideration by the Bush administration.
Americans divide equally over Bush's proposal to index Social Security benefits for future retirees to increases in the cost of living rather than to wage growth as is now the case, a change that would effectively mean benefits would be lower than currently projected. A clear majority of Americans -- 55 percent -- support the president's proposal to allow younger workers to put some of their Social Security savings into stocks or bonds. When packaged together, the two components draw the support of 54 percent of those surveyed.
The survey suggests that Democratic leaders may be out of step with their rank and file on the severity of the problems facing Social Security. Those leaders are attempting to thwart Bush's plans by saying there is no immediate crisis. But two-thirds of all Democrats said they worry that there is not enough money to keep Social Security funded until they retire.
The public is pessimistic about reducing partisanship in Bush's second term. Two in three Americans say Bush will not make progress on that front, but the subject ranks low on the public's list of second-term priorities.
A total of 1,007 randomly selected adults were interviewed Jan. 12 to 16 for this survey. Margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus three percentage points.
Assistant polling director Claudia Deane contributed to this report.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Richard Morin and Dan Balz Washington Post
President Bush will begin his second term in office without a clear mandate to lead the nation, with strong disapproval of his policies in Iraq and with the public both hopeful and dubious about his leadership on the issues that will dominate his agenda, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
On the eve of Thursday's presidential inaugural ceremonies, the survey found few signs that the country has begun to come together since Bush defeated Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) two months ago. The president has claimed a mandate from the election, but the poll found as much division today as four years ago over the question of whether Bush or Democrats in Congress should set the direction for the country.
Fewer than half of those interviewed -- 45 percent -- said they preferred that the country go in the direction that Bush wanted to lead it, whereas 39 percent said Democrats should lead the way. During the first months of his presidency, after the bitterly disputed 2000 election, Americans said they preferred Bush to take the lead by 46 percent to 36 percent.
But the public also wants cooperation from the Democrats. At a time when Democratic leaders are preparing to challenge many of Bush's major initiatives, nearly seven in 10 Americans agree that Bush's victory means that congressional Democrats should compromise with him -- even if it means compromising on their party's principles. Only one in four said Democrats must not compromise on things they find objectionable, even if it means less gets accomplished.
Looking ahead, a majority of Americans -- 55 percent -- said they expect Bush to do a better job as president in the next four years than he did during his first term. That is about equal to the proportion in January 1997 that expected President Bill Clinton's second term to be better than his first.
On Social Security, the poll offered mixed findings that underscore the enormous challenge facing Bush at the start of what both parties see as the most significant legislative battle of the second term.
Those surveyed gave Bush negative marks -- 38 percent approval vs. 55 percent disapproval -- for his handling of the Social Security issue, and three in five said the system will not have enough money to pay benefits by the time they retire. But by 54 percent to 41 percent, the public supported a plan that would include a reduction in the rate of growth of guaranteed benefits and private savings accounts financed with a portion of payroll taxes. A proposal with those elements is under consideration by the Bush administration.
Other polls have shown sizable opposition when the Bush plan is described as cutting future benefits, and the varying results among surveys suggest that the communications battle to frame the problem and the solutions may prove crucial to the outcome, as was the case in the fight over Clinton's health care plan in 1993 and 1994 and the battle to reduce the rate of growth in Medicare spending, which cost Republicans after they won control of Congress in 1994.
But Iraq and terrorism, more than Social Security, are the issues the public wants Bush to concentrate on in his second term. The poll found that Americans rank Iraq and the war on terrorism as the top priorities for Bush and Congress. More than six in 10 Americans rate the situation in Iraq as the highest priority for Bush and Congress in the coming year, and more than half say the war on terrorism also must be a top priority.
No other issue, including the economy, education, health care and Social Security, is viewed by a majority of the public as equally pressing.
Bush said in an interview last week with The Washington Post that the 2004 election was a moment of accountability for the decisions he has made in Iraq, but the poll found that 58 percent disapprove of his handling of the situation to 40 percent who approve, and 44 percent said the war was worth fighting.
The survey also found that, although Americans overwhelmingly oppose delaying the upcoming elections in Iraq, scheduled for Jan. 30, they are pessimistic that the vote will produce a stable government. Nearly six in 10 said it will not bring a stable government, but 57 percent said they see the elections as a step to the day that U.S. troops can be withdrawn from the country.
The president's overall job approval rating stands at 52 percent, up slightly in the past month. Of all presidents in the postwar era who won reelection, only Richard M. Nixon had a lower job approval rating at the start of his second term. The other chief executives began their second term with job ratings of 60 percent or higher.
A majority of Americans express disapproval of Bush on other key measures of presidential performance. A slight majority -- 52 percent -- disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy, and half or more also are dissatisfied with the way Bush has dealt with the budget deficit (58 percent disapprove), immigration (54 percent) and health care (51 percent).
Bush gets higher marks on the key issue of terrorism, where a 61 percent majority approve of the job he is doing, up eight points in the past month. And 56 percent expressed satisfaction with his education policies. The public is divided on the president's handling of environmental issues, foreign affairs and taxes.
Expectations are high for Bush as he begins his second term. Seven in 10 say they expect him to make major progress against terrorism. Smaller majorities also expect the president to move forward on the economy, Iraq, education, limiting medical and class-action lawsuits, and taxes.
But on other issues, the public is more pessimistic. Slightly fewer than half said they expect Bush to make substantial progress on Social Security (46 percent) and health care (48 percent). And even fewer expect major successes by Bush on such issues as the environment (32 percent), the deficit (35 percent) and immigration (39 percent).
The complex political challenges facing Bush and congressional Democrats can be seen in public attitudes on two issues that are emerging as the cornerstones of Bush's domestic agenda: Social Security and limiting medical malpractice and class-action lawsuits.
Overall, the public expresses more confidence in Democrats in Congress (50 percent) than in the Bush administration (37 percent) to deal with problems in the Social Security system. But another picture emerges when the public is asked to evaluate specific reform proposals under consideration by the Bush administration.
Americans divide equally over Bush's proposal to index Social Security benefits for future retirees to increases in the cost of living rather than to wage growth as is now the case, a change that would effectively mean benefits would be lower than currently projected. A clear majority of Americans -- 55 percent -- support the president's proposal to allow younger workers to put some of their Social Security savings into stocks or bonds. When packaged together, the two components draw the support of 54 percent of those surveyed.
The survey suggests that Democratic leaders may be out of step with their rank and file on the severity of the problems facing Social Security. Those leaders are attempting to thwart Bush's plans by saying there is no immediate crisis. But two-thirds of all Democrats said they worry that there is not enough money to keep Social Security funded until they retire.
The public is pessimistic about reducing partisanship in Bush's second term. Two in three Americans say Bush will not make progress on that front, but the subject ranks low on the public's list of second-term priorities.
A total of 1,007 randomly selected adults were interviewed Jan. 12 to 16 for this survey. Margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus three percentage points.
Assistant polling director Claudia Deane contributed to this report.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 11:28 da manhã 
sexta-feira, novembro 05, 2004
Some reactions
quarta-feira, novembro 03, 2004
Just For the Record
George Walker Bush lost in Miami-Dade, Broward, West Palm Beach and Monroe. All South Florida. [RF]
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 10:50 da tarde
La noche que se jodió Estados Unidos
por ALEJANDRO ARMENGOL
La noche del 2 de noviembre de 2004 se jodió Estados Unidos. O al menos la nación como se ha conocido en los últimos treinta y tantos años, tras la Guerra de Vietnam. No se trata sólo de que el país cambió luego de los atentados del 11 de septiembre de 2001. Las razones para explicar el triunfo republicano son más profundas. Acaban de reventar las últimas costuras que quedaban para intentar mantener la unión de una sociedad que desde mucho antes daba muestras evidentes de resquebrajamiento.
Culminó la larga etapa en que el Norte se impuso sobre el Sur e impuso una coherencia progresista, industrial y civilizadora a territorios disímiles. Se abre un nuevo período que puede desembocar en una guerra civil, el establecimiento de un estado totalitario de corte fascista y el renacimiento de una izquierda radical. Es posible que estas tendencias extremas nunca se materialicen, pero se ha ampliado la puerta que podría darles salida. A las puertas de la reelección de Bush, es el estilo político del Sur —con su carga de ignorancia y atraso, de la que no ha podido desprenderse pese al avance económico norteamericano— el que ha logrado imponerse como fuerza predominante para regir los destinos de la única superpotencia del planeta.
Basta contemplar un mapa de Estados Unidos para comprobar que el territorio está definido por líneas ideológicas que se han convertido en verdaderas fronteras. Al centro y al sur geográficos domina una mentalidad provinciana, aislacionista por principio, apegada al fanatismo religioso y hostil hacia la inteligencia. A lo largo de la costa oeste y al otro extremo —en la costa noreste— impera el cosmopolitismo, la tolerancia sexual y religiosa y el culto al conocimiento. Es un contorno delineado a brochazos, pero no carente de valor práctico a la hora de juzgar los resultados electorales del 2 de noviembre.
Lo primero que ha quedado demostrado es que los ocho años de gobierno del ex presidente Bill Clinton fueron un paréntesis, logrado por el carisma y la habilidad de un político astuto. La elección que demostró la verdadera tendencia nacional no llevó un nuevo mandatario a la Casa Blanca, sino una serie de legisladores al Congreso, y ocurrió en 1994, con el dominio republicano de ambas cámaras. Desde entonces nada ha sido igual. Hoy el Partido Republicano cuenta con una cifra de gobernadores estatales, senadores y representantes federales apenas imaginados hace cuarenta años.
¿Qué significa que los republicanos mantengan el control ampliado del Congreso, al tiempo que es casi segura la reelección del presidente George W. Bush? Pues que en los próximos meses y años serán nominados por el mandatario —y confirmados en el Capitolio— un gran número de magistrados que convertirán a la Corte Suprema y a las cortes estatales en organismos judiciales conservadores, que revertirán fallos y leyes en favor de los derechos de la mujer, las minorías raciales, los empleados y la protección ambiental. Las reducciones fiscales que benefician a las corporaciones y ciudadanos de elevados ingresos se harán permanentes, ampliándose en muchos casos. Los servicios sociales se reducirán como una justificación para reducir el déficit. La política inmigratoria será más estricta. Los programas de Bienestar Social serán privatizados en gran parte y la Asistencia Social limitada al máximo. La distinción entre la Iglesia y el Estado se volverá mas tenue y la protección del medio ambiente se verá doblegada ante los intereses corporativos. Los controles sobre la vida ciudadana se intensificarán. El presupuesto militar seguirá aumentando y la política internacional norteamericana se caracterizará por el aislacionismo y los planes hegemónicos.
Durante su primer período, Bush no se detuvo para poner en práctica una agenda de un marcado énfasis partidista, donde el fundamentalismo cristiano pasó a un primer plano, el secreto en la actuación gubernamental se convirtió en norma política y la arrogancia en las decisiones no admitieron la menor vacilación y duda. Hizo todo eso y mucho más, pese a que su llegada a Washington estuvo marcada por una decisión cuestionable de la Corte Suprema. Es imposible imaginar que ahora —tras una victoria rotunda de su partido en el Congreso y a un paso de la reelección— cambie de actitud. No se puede negar que aquello por lo que ha sido criticado por muchos —empecinamiento, fervor religioso y aislacionismo en la esfera internacional— ha contribuido en gran medida a su victoria en las urnas.
Pese a que aún no ha concluido el recuento electoral, ya pueden señalarse dos factores que contribuyeron en una medida determinante al triunfo de Bush: logró venderse como el mandatario capaz de garantizar la seguridad del país y movilizó a la base de creyentes cristianos —quienes profesan diversos cultos evangélicos— que se unieron en una cruzada moral y religiosa en favor de un presidente que supuestamente está destinado única y exclusivamente a ejercer un poder terrenal.
El resultado de elegir al gobernante del país más poderoso del planeta valorando sólo su fe religiosa y una imagen de “hombre duro” contra el enemigo exterior no es un buen presagio para el futuro de Estados Unidos. Tanto la realidad de que la economía no acaba de despegar —y que la cifra de nuevos empleos no supera al número de despedidos— como el hecho de que la nación fue lanzada a una guerra bajo premisas falsas y el atolladero actual de la situación iraquí pasaron a un segundo plano, frente a la ignorancia, el fanatismo y el miedo.
De confirmarse el triunfo de Bush, en los próximos días se analizarán los errores cometidos por el senador John Kerry a lo largo de su campaña, el papel desempeñado por determinados grupos de votantes —como los hispanos en general y los cubanoamericanos en particular— y otras razones que posibilitaron que durante otros cuatro años continúe una administración que ha dado muestras de una incompetencia que hoy por hoy parece no preocupar a la pequeña mayoría que decidió que todo continuara igual, es decir peor.
Luego de todos esos análisis imprescindibles, será necesario valorar si el Partido Demócrata no debe imitar a Bush y abandonar la política de centro que tan buen resultado dio a Clinton. No cabe duda que este año el país no estaba preparado para un político más radical al estilo de Howard Dean. Durante los próximos cuatro años, Bush hará que esta situación cambie. Esta es la única esperanza que queda en estos momentos.
(C) AA 2004
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 1:52 da tarde
Y ahora...
Kerry Concedes Defeat; Bush Wins Second Term
Dan Balz and Mike Allen Washington Post
President Bush won his bid for reelection this morning after challenger John F. Kerry conceded the election in a telephone call to the president at 11 a.m. The concession ended an overnight drama over the vote count in Ohio and gave Bush the second term in office that was denied his father 12 years ago.
Kerry plans an early afternoon appearance at Boston's historic Faneuil Hall for a public concession in front of his supporters.
Bush aides already were planning a victory announcement for this afternoon, but the Massachusetts senator's decision not to prolong the vote counting brought a swift end to any possibility that the 2004 election would turn into a rerun of the disputed 2000 contest.
Kerry aides originally believed there might be enough provisional ballots in Ohio -- ballots cast by voters not on the official registration rolls -- to win that state. After overnight analysis and a series of early morning meetings, Kerry and his advisers realized that the estimated 150,000 provisional ballots were not enough to overcome Bush's current margin of 136,000 votes in Ohio, even if he were to win the lion's share of them.
"We wanted to wait and see and be as careful as we could about what the reality on the ground was," Kerry strategist Joe Lockhart said. "When we had a chance to do that, I think we made the judgment that the time was right for John Kerry to call the president and concede."
With Ohio in the president's column, Bush claimed 274 electoral votes -- four more than the 270 needed for victory -- with Iowa and New Mexico still too close to call. In contrast to 2000, Bush also won the popular vote, capturing 51 percent of ballots cast. Kerry won a close vote in Wisconsin, putting his electoral total at 252.
Bush's advisers were convinced hours earlier that there was no way Kerry could win. At about 5:40 a.m., as the Kerry campaign weighed its options, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. went to the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington to tell supporters, "We are convinced that President Bush has won reelection." He added, "This all adds up to a convincing electoral college victory as well as a strong endorsement by his fellow Americans in the popular vote."
Roughly 120 million people, 60 percent of eligible voters, cast ballots in the election, the Associated Press reported, the highest turnout since 1968. Many strategists thought turnout that high would favor Kerry, but the Bush campaign more than held its own in the battle to get their voters to the polls.
The events of the morning -- as many had predicted -- unfolded in uncertainty because the final tally for Ohio -- with 20 decisive electoral votes -- was incomplete due to uncounted "provisional ballots" cast by individuals whose eligibility was in doubt.
With nearly all the votes counted, Bush led 51 to 49 percent in Ohio. Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell (R) originally estimated that there would be 175,000 provisional ballots by the time the counties finish their tabulations, but later calculations reduced that figure to between 150,000 and 155,000,. Kerry's campaign did not dispute the estimate.
The state was set for a potentially prolonged election when Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), had appeared at Boston's Copley Plaza in the middle of the night vowing to continue the fight. "John Kerry and I made a promise to the American people that in this election every vote would count and every vote would be counted. Tonight we are keeping our word and we will fight for every vote. You deserve no less."
Kerry advisers reported pandemonium inside the campaign at that time as they scrambled to assess the situation in Ohio, with memories of the bitter recount in Florida four years ago still vivid.
Bush had planned to speak to supporters once the results were clear but held off once Edwards made his announcement, with aides expressing irritation at the Democrats. At the time Edwards spoke, Bush was leading Kerry by more than 3 million votes nationally.
As the presidential election headed toward potential legal wrangling, Republicans expanded their majority in the Senate and appeared likely to do the same in the House. In Senate races, the GOP picked up open Democratic seats in Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and South Carolina, while Democrats captured open Republican seats in Illinois and Colorado. In the most closely watched race, Senate Democratic leader Thomas A. Daschle narrowly lost to former House member John Thune (R) in South Dakota.
Michigan tipped to Kerry early this morning and Nevada went to Bush. With Ohio's 20 electoral votes, Nevada was enough to give him the presidency.
As the Kerry campaign closed down for the night, three other states remained in play: Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico. Bush led in New Mexico by less than 2,000 votes and in Iowa by about 11,000 votes. Kerry led in Wisconsin by about 20,000 votes. Recount provisions varied in some of the remaining closely contested states.
With the election shaped by the fight against terrorism and the country deeply divided over the war in Iraq and the economy, energized voters poured out in extraordinary numbers nationwide, prodded by the two campaigns, which worked overtime to get their supporters to the polls.
Polling places in some battlegrounds, including Ohio, stayed open long after their scheduled closings as officials struggled to handle a surge in turnout that some experts said could match the most recent high-water mark, set in 1992 -- and perhaps exceed it. Despite threats of legal challenges and other disruptions, voting generally appeared to go smoothly in most states.
Early exit polls appeared to give Kerry a small advantage, but as the night wore on and the actual vote tallies mounted, Democratic exuberance gave way to tense hours of counting and increasing pessimism. When the president fought off Kerry's challenge in Florida, the state that produced the bitter 36-day recount battle four years ago, he significantly complicated Kerry's route to the 270 electoral votes needed to win.
The pattern of the returns proved to be a virtual rerun of the 2000 election, with many of the states that created such drama in that contest once again keeping the candidates and the American people on edge as they watched returns roll in. By early this morning, only one state had switched sides from 2000, with Kerry taking back New Hampshire from the Republicans.
Otherwise, there were no surprises as the states began to report. Bush methodically secured his base in the South and border states, capturing his home state of Texas as well as Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Missouri and Kentucky. He won Indiana and West Virginia, which was a Democratic bastion until Bush won it four years ago. In the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains, he rolled to a series of victories.
Kerry began a march across the country's northern tier, beginning in New England with victories in his home state of Massachusetts as well as in Connecticut, Rhode Island and Vermont. To that he added Maryland, the District, and several big prizes: California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, which the Bush campaign looked at briefly, and Illinois, one of the few states in the Midwest that were not closely contested.
But the two sides were focused on two of the big states where the candidates had spent most of their time and money, Florida and Ohio, and on half a dozen other states that could tip the balance: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico. As the counts came in, the campaigns struggled to examine the data for clues to the outcome.
Early in the day, based on exit polls by the National Election Pool, Bush appeared to be in danger of losing the election and joining his father in being swept out of office after a single term. George H.W. Bush lost his reelection bid in 1992 to Bill Clinton, and the current president systematically sought to avoid the mistakes he believed cost his father that election. But the fact that he did not significantly expand his coalition over that of four years ago put him in another tough fight this year.
After the 2000 election, the country united around Bush's presidency when terrorists attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. But that unity faded and, after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the nation became polarized. Yesterday's electorate appeared as divided as it was four years ago.
Bush and Kerry monitored the voting last night from their respective bases of operation in Washington and Massachusetts. Bush voted in Texas in the morning, stopped in Columbus, Ohio, in a show of support for his campaign workers there, and returned to Washington in the afternoon.
Bush spent the evening at the White House residence, surrounded by family and a few close advisers. Kerry began his day in La Crosse, Wis. He then flew to Boston to vote and returned to his Beacon Hill home. He spent four hours doing 38 satellite interviews with local television stations, trying to spur his supporters to vote. Edwards joined in that effort.
Three issues dominated the campaign and shaped yesterday's vote: terrorism, the war in Iraq and the national economy. Kerry overwhelmingly won among those who said Iraq and the economy were the most important issues to them, while Bush won by a landslide among those who cited terrorism. Beyond those issues, a fifth of yesterday's voters said moral values influenced their choice, and Bush won them by 4 to 1.
No barometer has been watched more closely throughout the campaign than the president's approval rating, often considered an indicator of the chance of winning reelection. Ronald Reagan and Clinton were reelected with approval ratings in the mid-fifties, while George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter lost when their approval ratings plunged to 40 percent or below.
Yesterday, according to exit polls, Bush's approval rating stood at 51 percent, still occupying a political netherworld that provided evidence of how competitive the race remained to the end.
Outside events shaped the campaign far more than the candidates' strategists did, helping to negate some of the normal advantages enjoyed by an incumbent seeking reelection. The campaigns battled over whether the economy is in clear recovery or is still struggling. At several crucial turns, job figures put Bush on the defensive, and voters gave the economy negative marks yesterday but split over whom they trust more to fix things.
Iraq proved even more troubling for Bush. As the general election campaign opened in the spring, a succession of events put him back on his heels, such as evidence that the insurgency was stronger than the United States had estimated, mounting casualties and then the prison abuse scandal. Bush struggled to explain his policy. In the final weeks, Iraq took center stage again, with stories of kidnappings, beheadings, criticism of the president's policies and more casualties. Yesterday, voters split almost evenly over whether it was right or wrong to go to war, with a majority saying things there are not going well.
The 2004 campaign will rank as the longest and costliest in American history, a battle that began the day after Kerry wrapped up the Democratic nomination contest on March 3 and continued through the trench warfare of turning out voters until the polls closed last night. At times, it was also one of the most negative, marked by angry anti-Bush energy that first surfaced during the Democratic primaries and by relentless criticism of Kerry by the Bush campaign.
When the Democratic nomination fight began in early 2003, Bush was in a strong position, coming off a historic midterm election victory by his party that was fueled in part by the unity engendered by his actions after the Sept. 11 attacks. He enjoyed an approval rating of 60 percent or better, but over the next months the president took a huge gamble by beginning the war in Iraq. The success of the initial invasion drove his popularity even higher, but over time the war became the most divisive decision of his presidency.
Bush's campaign wasted no time in going after Kerry, pummeling him as a politician who had been on both sides of virtually every major issue of the past two decades. Bush began the attack with a touch of humor, but the Bush campaign's advertising and Vice President Cheney's rhetoric carried a much sharper edge that soon began to cut into Kerry profile.
The challenger took a narrow lead heading into his convention in Boston in late July. There, over four nights of speeches and celebration, the campaign highlighted the senator's service in Vietnam, hoping once and for all to convince voters that he had the credentials to be commander in chief. He emerged temporarily stronger -- until the Bush campaign and its allies struck back.
August quickly became an ordeal for Kerry. A group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth aired television ads questioning his combat record in Vietnam, and with a minimal amount of money it took the entire presidential campaign back almost four decades into a debate about that divisive war. Bush could not escape the fracas either, with new questions raised about his service during the war, but it was Kerry who bore the brunt of it.
Republicans gathered in New York at the end of August for their convention and skillfully reconnected Bush with the events surrounding Sept. 11, 2001, the high point of his presidency and a powerfully emotional hinge point for the country. The Republicans also used their convention, in a way the Democrats did not, to attack the opposition.
Bush emerged from his convention with a lead in the polls and pressed his advantage throughout September. Kerry went through another staff shake-up, recruiting several veterans of the Clinton administration and realigning responsibilities. He also set the stage for a fresh debate about Bush's policies in Iraq, reengaging on an issue that had turned into one of Bush's biggest problems.
The debates gave Kerry another opening, and he took advantage. In the first debate, Bush looked and occasionally sounded impatient and angry, and even his supporters knew the challenger came out as the winner. Through two more debates, Kerry more than held his own, providing a morale boost to his campaign and, more important, to the legions of Democrats who had watched August and September with growing alarm.
The final weeks generated some of the toughest rhetoric of the campaign and a back-to-basics strategy from both candidates. Fighting more bad news from Iraq, Bush continued to question Kerry's fitness to lead the country in the war on terrorism. Kerry seized on every headline he could find, including the lack of flu vaccine, to indifferent job numbers and missing high explosives in Iraq to argue that Bush's presidency has been a failure. Kerry called for a fresh start; Bush warned Americans not to take the risk.
President Bush won his bid for reelection this morning after challenger John F. Kerry conceded the election in a telephone call to the president at 11 a.m. The concession ended an overnight drama over the vote count in Ohio and gave Bush the second term in office that was denied his father 12 years ago.
Kerry plans an early afternoon appearance at Boston's historic Faneuil Hall for a public concession in front of his supporters.
Bush aides already were planning a victory announcement for this afternoon, but the Massachusetts senator's decision not to prolong the vote counting brought a swift end to any possibility that the 2004 election would turn into a rerun of the disputed 2000 contest.
Kerry aides originally believed there might be enough provisional ballots in Ohio -- ballots cast by voters not on the official registration rolls -- to win that state. After overnight analysis and a series of early morning meetings, Kerry and his advisers realized that the estimated 150,000 provisional ballots were not enough to overcome Bush's current margin of 136,000 votes in Ohio, even if he were to win the lion's share of them.
"We wanted to wait and see and be as careful as we could about what the reality on the ground was," Kerry strategist Joe Lockhart said. "When we had a chance to do that, I think we made the judgment that the time was right for John Kerry to call the president and concede."
With Ohio in the president's column, Bush claimed 274 electoral votes -- four more than the 270 needed for victory -- with Iowa and New Mexico still too close to call. In contrast to 2000, Bush also won the popular vote, capturing 51 percent of ballots cast. Kerry won a close vote in Wisconsin, putting his electoral total at 252.
Bush's advisers were convinced hours earlier that there was no way Kerry could win. At about 5:40 a.m., as the Kerry campaign weighed its options, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. went to the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington to tell supporters, "We are convinced that President Bush has won reelection." He added, "This all adds up to a convincing electoral college victory as well as a strong endorsement by his fellow Americans in the popular vote."
Roughly 120 million people, 60 percent of eligible voters, cast ballots in the election, the Associated Press reported, the highest turnout since 1968. Many strategists thought turnout that high would favor Kerry, but the Bush campaign more than held its own in the battle to get their voters to the polls.
The events of the morning -- as many had predicted -- unfolded in uncertainty because the final tally for Ohio -- with 20 decisive electoral votes -- was incomplete due to uncounted "provisional ballots" cast by individuals whose eligibility was in doubt.
With nearly all the votes counted, Bush led 51 to 49 percent in Ohio. Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell (R) originally estimated that there would be 175,000 provisional ballots by the time the counties finish their tabulations, but later calculations reduced that figure to between 150,000 and 155,000,. Kerry's campaign did not dispute the estimate.
The state was set for a potentially prolonged election when Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), had appeared at Boston's Copley Plaza in the middle of the night vowing to continue the fight. "John Kerry and I made a promise to the American people that in this election every vote would count and every vote would be counted. Tonight we are keeping our word and we will fight for every vote. You deserve no less."
Kerry advisers reported pandemonium inside the campaign at that time as they scrambled to assess the situation in Ohio, with memories of the bitter recount in Florida four years ago still vivid.
Bush had planned to speak to supporters once the results were clear but held off once Edwards made his announcement, with aides expressing irritation at the Democrats. At the time Edwards spoke, Bush was leading Kerry by more than 3 million votes nationally.
As the presidential election headed toward potential legal wrangling, Republicans expanded their majority in the Senate and appeared likely to do the same in the House. In Senate races, the GOP picked up open Democratic seats in Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and South Carolina, while Democrats captured open Republican seats in Illinois and Colorado. In the most closely watched race, Senate Democratic leader Thomas A. Daschle narrowly lost to former House member John Thune (R) in South Dakota.
Michigan tipped to Kerry early this morning and Nevada went to Bush. With Ohio's 20 electoral votes, Nevada was enough to give him the presidency.
As the Kerry campaign closed down for the night, three other states remained in play: Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico. Bush led in New Mexico by less than 2,000 votes and in Iowa by about 11,000 votes. Kerry led in Wisconsin by about 20,000 votes. Recount provisions varied in some of the remaining closely contested states.
With the election shaped by the fight against terrorism and the country deeply divided over the war in Iraq and the economy, energized voters poured out in extraordinary numbers nationwide, prodded by the two campaigns, which worked overtime to get their supporters to the polls.
Polling places in some battlegrounds, including Ohio, stayed open long after their scheduled closings as officials struggled to handle a surge in turnout that some experts said could match the most recent high-water mark, set in 1992 -- and perhaps exceed it. Despite threats of legal challenges and other disruptions, voting generally appeared to go smoothly in most states.
Early exit polls appeared to give Kerry a small advantage, but as the night wore on and the actual vote tallies mounted, Democratic exuberance gave way to tense hours of counting and increasing pessimism. When the president fought off Kerry's challenge in Florida, the state that produced the bitter 36-day recount battle four years ago, he significantly complicated Kerry's route to the 270 electoral votes needed to win.
The pattern of the returns proved to be a virtual rerun of the 2000 election, with many of the states that created such drama in that contest once again keeping the candidates and the American people on edge as they watched returns roll in. By early this morning, only one state had switched sides from 2000, with Kerry taking back New Hampshire from the Republicans.
Otherwise, there were no surprises as the states began to report. Bush methodically secured his base in the South and border states, capturing his home state of Texas as well as Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Missouri and Kentucky. He won Indiana and West Virginia, which was a Democratic bastion until Bush won it four years ago. In the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains, he rolled to a series of victories.
Kerry began a march across the country's northern tier, beginning in New England with victories in his home state of Massachusetts as well as in Connecticut, Rhode Island and Vermont. To that he added Maryland, the District, and several big prizes: California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, which the Bush campaign looked at briefly, and Illinois, one of the few states in the Midwest that were not closely contested.
But the two sides were focused on two of the big states where the candidates had spent most of their time and money, Florida and Ohio, and on half a dozen other states that could tip the balance: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico. As the counts came in, the campaigns struggled to examine the data for clues to the outcome.
Early in the day, based on exit polls by the National Election Pool, Bush appeared to be in danger of losing the election and joining his father in being swept out of office after a single term. George H.W. Bush lost his reelection bid in 1992 to Bill Clinton, and the current president systematically sought to avoid the mistakes he believed cost his father that election. But the fact that he did not significantly expand his coalition over that of four years ago put him in another tough fight this year.
After the 2000 election, the country united around Bush's presidency when terrorists attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. But that unity faded and, after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the nation became polarized. Yesterday's electorate appeared as divided as it was four years ago.
Bush and Kerry monitored the voting last night from their respective bases of operation in Washington and Massachusetts. Bush voted in Texas in the morning, stopped in Columbus, Ohio, in a show of support for his campaign workers there, and returned to Washington in the afternoon.
Bush spent the evening at the White House residence, surrounded by family and a few close advisers. Kerry began his day in La Crosse, Wis. He then flew to Boston to vote and returned to his Beacon Hill home. He spent four hours doing 38 satellite interviews with local television stations, trying to spur his supporters to vote. Edwards joined in that effort.
Three issues dominated the campaign and shaped yesterday's vote: terrorism, the war in Iraq and the national economy. Kerry overwhelmingly won among those who said Iraq and the economy were the most important issues to them, while Bush won by a landslide among those who cited terrorism. Beyond those issues, a fifth of yesterday's voters said moral values influenced their choice, and Bush won them by 4 to 1.
No barometer has been watched more closely throughout the campaign than the president's approval rating, often considered an indicator of the chance of winning reelection. Ronald Reagan and Clinton were reelected with approval ratings in the mid-fifties, while George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter lost when their approval ratings plunged to 40 percent or below.
Yesterday, according to exit polls, Bush's approval rating stood at 51 percent, still occupying a political netherworld that provided evidence of how competitive the race remained to the end.
Outside events shaped the campaign far more than the candidates' strategists did, helping to negate some of the normal advantages enjoyed by an incumbent seeking reelection. The campaigns battled over whether the economy is in clear recovery or is still struggling. At several crucial turns, job figures put Bush on the defensive, and voters gave the economy negative marks yesterday but split over whom they trust more to fix things.
Iraq proved even more troubling for Bush. As the general election campaign opened in the spring, a succession of events put him back on his heels, such as evidence that the insurgency was stronger than the United States had estimated, mounting casualties and then the prison abuse scandal. Bush struggled to explain his policy. In the final weeks, Iraq took center stage again, with stories of kidnappings, beheadings, criticism of the president's policies and more casualties. Yesterday, voters split almost evenly over whether it was right or wrong to go to war, with a majority saying things there are not going well.
The 2004 campaign will rank as the longest and costliest in American history, a battle that began the day after Kerry wrapped up the Democratic nomination contest on March 3 and continued through the trench warfare of turning out voters until the polls closed last night. At times, it was also one of the most negative, marked by angry anti-Bush energy that first surfaced during the Democratic primaries and by relentless criticism of Kerry by the Bush campaign.
When the Democratic nomination fight began in early 2003, Bush was in a strong position, coming off a historic midterm election victory by his party that was fueled in part by the unity engendered by his actions after the Sept. 11 attacks. He enjoyed an approval rating of 60 percent or better, but over the next months the president took a huge gamble by beginning the war in Iraq. The success of the initial invasion drove his popularity even higher, but over time the war became the most divisive decision of his presidency.
Bush's campaign wasted no time in going after Kerry, pummeling him as a politician who had been on both sides of virtually every major issue of the past two decades. Bush began the attack with a touch of humor, but the Bush campaign's advertising and Vice President Cheney's rhetoric carried a much sharper edge that soon began to cut into Kerry profile.
The challenger took a narrow lead heading into his convention in Boston in late July. There, over four nights of speeches and celebration, the campaign highlighted the senator's service in Vietnam, hoping once and for all to convince voters that he had the credentials to be commander in chief. He emerged temporarily stronger -- until the Bush campaign and its allies struck back.
August quickly became an ordeal for Kerry. A group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth aired television ads questioning his combat record in Vietnam, and with a minimal amount of money it took the entire presidential campaign back almost four decades into a debate about that divisive war. Bush could not escape the fracas either, with new questions raised about his service during the war, but it was Kerry who bore the brunt of it.
Republicans gathered in New York at the end of August for their convention and skillfully reconnected Bush with the events surrounding Sept. 11, 2001, the high point of his presidency and a powerfully emotional hinge point for the country. The Republicans also used their convention, in a way the Democrats did not, to attack the opposition.
Bush emerged from his convention with a lead in the polls and pressed his advantage throughout September. Kerry went through another staff shake-up, recruiting several veterans of the Clinton administration and realigning responsibilities. He also set the stage for a fresh debate about Bush's policies in Iraq, reengaging on an issue that had turned into one of Bush's biggest problems.
The debates gave Kerry another opening, and he took advantage. In the first debate, Bush looked and occasionally sounded impatient and angry, and even his supporters knew the challenger came out as the winner. Through two more debates, Kerry more than held his own, providing a morale boost to his campaign and, more important, to the legions of Democrats who had watched August and September with growing alarm.
The final weeks generated some of the toughest rhetoric of the campaign and a back-to-basics strategy from both candidates. Fighting more bad news from Iraq, Bush continued to question Kerry's fitness to lead the country in the war on terrorism. Kerry seized on every headline he could find, including the lack of flu vaccine, to indifferent job numbers and missing high explosives in Iraq to argue that Bush's presidency has been a failure. Kerry called for a fresh start; Bush warned Americans not to take the risk.
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 1:10 da tarde
Palm Beach y Broward respiran aliviados
H. POLEO y R. FERREIRA / El Nuevo Herald
BROWARD / WEST PALM BEACH
Los funcionarios electorales de los condados Palm Beach y Broward respiraron aliviados anoche cuando el equipo de votación y otros aspectos logísticos de sus respectivos procesos electorales fluyeron sin mayores incidentes, excepto una alta incidencia de electores que autoridades calificaron de inesperados.
Foto: Rui Ferreira
''Los problemas fueron múltiples, pero ninguno relacionado con la forma de votar, sino por el número abrumador de electores que acudieron a las urnas'', declaró a El Nuevo Herald el subdirector de elecciones de Palm Beach, Martin Rogol.
En este condado estaban habilitados para votar 729,575 personas, pero al cierre de esta edición las autoridades no habían informado el porcentaje de los que concurrieron a las urnas.
Hace cuatro años, el sistema electoral de Palm Beach se colapsó con el sistema de boletas ''mariposa'' y el sistema de perforación, pero en estos comicios la votación fue hecha con máquinas electrónicas.
Aun así hubo contratiempos, aunque menores. En nueve máquinas, las baterías no funcionaron y los votos no fueron registrados, pero los electores fueron advertidos a tiempo por los empleados condales y repitieron sus votaciones. Sin embargo, 37 máquinas sencillamente desaparecieron.
''Fueron rápidamente respuestas'', se aprestó a aclarar Rogol.
Pero como la demanda electoral fue mayor que la oferta, por una hora y media el sistema telefónico se desplomó con las quejas de los electores.
Foto: Rui Ferreira
Rogol explicó que por la mañana unas 16,000 líneas telefónicas de la empresa BellSouth tuvieron que ser desviadas hacia otras empresas, pero una vez restablecidas las comunicaciones ''la cosa se normalizó'' a media tarde.
Según una emisora de radio local, la mayoría de las llamadas telefónicas que hicieron colapsar las líneas telefónicas tuvieron que ver con dudas de electores sobre dónde debían votar.
''Ese ha sido nuestro mayor problema. La gente quiere votar, pero no sabe dónde. Hay que encaminarla'', declaró Jeanny Alvarez, una activista latina de la campaña Bush-Cheney, quien estuvo todo el día orientando a electores en las afueras de un colegio electoral, en el centro de West Palm Beach.
El conteo de los votos comenzó sobre las 4 p.m., cuando se realizó la primera reunión de supervisión del resultado electoral con el análisis de las boletas ausentes que, mientras tanto, comenzaron a ser entregadas por el Servicio Postal.
También comenzaron los primeros problemas. La comisión de supervisión fue presidida por el juez Barry Cohen, quien ya había jugado un papel clave en los comicios presidenciales del 2000.
La reunión, que duró hora y media, fue presenciada por abogados nombrados por los dos partidos quienes impugnaron paulatinamente la anulación de unas 100 boletas por la comisión, la cual estaba integrada, además, por la supervisora de elecciones del condado de Palm Beach, Teresa LePore, y la abogada Karen Marquez.
''Las boletas han sido anuladas porque los sobres no tienen ninguna firma que las avale por parte del elector'', explicó Cohen.
Por otra parte, no todos los empleados del Condado tenían claros sus deberes. Uno de ellos, en la estación de bomberos del downtown de West Palm Beach, amenazó con arrestar al fotógrafo de El Nuevo Herald Roberto Koltún pese a que este cumplió cabalmente las leyes estatales de mantenerse a la distancia reglamentaria del centro de voto.
Foto: Rui Ferreira
''Lo que sucedió con su fotógrafo es un ejemplo de la confusión con que ellos [los empleados del gobierno condal] se están debatiendo'', indicó Berta Jamison, una abogada de Illinois que vino a la Florida como voluntaria de una Organización No Gubernamental (ONG) a ayudar en la campaña del senador John Kerry.
''Los entiendo, quieren limpiar la imagen de hace cuatro años. Pero es difícil'', agregó la letrada, quien intercedió por el reportero gráfico.
En Broward, al terminar esta edición, la mayoría de los 777 centros electorales ya habían cerrado, y sólo 21 máquinas de votación de las más de 5,000 máquinas del presentaron problemas, informó Gisela Salas, subdirectora de elecciones de Broward.
Gran parte de los problemas que experimentaron las máquinas se debió a fallas eléctricas, y esas máquinas fueron reemplazadas por nuevos aparatos. En Coral Springs, algunos votantes se quejaron de que una de los aparatos estaba registrando votos para el candidato equivocado, pero la falla y los votos fueron corregidos, aseguró la subdirectora.
''Fue un problema de calibración. La calibramos correctamente y no hubo problemas'', explicó Salas.
Sin embargo, Elliot Minzberg, director legal para la organización Protección Electoral, informó que había recibido informes de algunos votantes que habían sido dirigidos al recinto electoral equivocado.
''La dirección y el número del recinto no eran los correctos en sus tarjetas de registro electoral'', explicó Minzberg.
Algunos votantes experimentaron filas de más de una hora para votar, sobre todo en la mañana. Sin embargo, las colas fueron disminuyendo a lo largo del día. Por la tarde, la mayoría de los votantes podían ejercer su derecho al sufragio sin tener que esperar más de unos pocos minutos.
En el Centro Comunitario de Sunview, en Fort Lauderdale, Yadi Pascual, cubana de 25 años, esperó menos de cinco minutos para votar, a las 9 a.m. Su amiga, Idalmis Santiago, puertorriqueña de 32 años, votó por primera vez ayer.
''Voto porque estoy cansada. Queremos un cambio'', acotó Santiago.
Los funcionarios electorales atribuyeron la calma del día a que más de 265,000 del millón de electores en Broward votaron en forma anticipada.
(C) 2004 El Nuevo Herald
BROWARD / WEST PALM BEACH
Los funcionarios electorales de los condados Palm Beach y Broward respiraron aliviados anoche cuando el equipo de votación y otros aspectos logísticos de sus respectivos procesos electorales fluyeron sin mayores incidentes, excepto una alta incidencia de electores que autoridades calificaron de inesperados.
Foto: Rui Ferreira
''Los problemas fueron múltiples, pero ninguno relacionado con la forma de votar, sino por el número abrumador de electores que acudieron a las urnas'', declaró a El Nuevo Herald el subdirector de elecciones de Palm Beach, Martin Rogol.
En este condado estaban habilitados para votar 729,575 personas, pero al cierre de esta edición las autoridades no habían informado el porcentaje de los que concurrieron a las urnas.
Hace cuatro años, el sistema electoral de Palm Beach se colapsó con el sistema de boletas ''mariposa'' y el sistema de perforación, pero en estos comicios la votación fue hecha con máquinas electrónicas.
Aun así hubo contratiempos, aunque menores. En nueve máquinas, las baterías no funcionaron y los votos no fueron registrados, pero los electores fueron advertidos a tiempo por los empleados condales y repitieron sus votaciones. Sin embargo, 37 máquinas sencillamente desaparecieron.
''Fueron rápidamente respuestas'', se aprestó a aclarar Rogol.
Pero como la demanda electoral fue mayor que la oferta, por una hora y media el sistema telefónico se desplomó con las quejas de los electores.
Foto: Rui Ferreira
Rogol explicó que por la mañana unas 16,000 líneas telefónicas de la empresa BellSouth tuvieron que ser desviadas hacia otras empresas, pero una vez restablecidas las comunicaciones ''la cosa se normalizó'' a media tarde.
Según una emisora de radio local, la mayoría de las llamadas telefónicas que hicieron colapsar las líneas telefónicas tuvieron que ver con dudas de electores sobre dónde debían votar.
''Ese ha sido nuestro mayor problema. La gente quiere votar, pero no sabe dónde. Hay que encaminarla'', declaró Jeanny Alvarez, una activista latina de la campaña Bush-Cheney, quien estuvo todo el día orientando a electores en las afueras de un colegio electoral, en el centro de West Palm Beach.
El conteo de los votos comenzó sobre las 4 p.m., cuando se realizó la primera reunión de supervisión del resultado electoral con el análisis de las boletas ausentes que, mientras tanto, comenzaron a ser entregadas por el Servicio Postal.
También comenzaron los primeros problemas. La comisión de supervisión fue presidida por el juez Barry Cohen, quien ya había jugado un papel clave en los comicios presidenciales del 2000.
La reunión, que duró hora y media, fue presenciada por abogados nombrados por los dos partidos quienes impugnaron paulatinamente la anulación de unas 100 boletas por la comisión, la cual estaba integrada, además, por la supervisora de elecciones del condado de Palm Beach, Teresa LePore, y la abogada Karen Marquez.
''Las boletas han sido anuladas porque los sobres no tienen ninguna firma que las avale por parte del elector'', explicó Cohen.
Por otra parte, no todos los empleados del Condado tenían claros sus deberes. Uno de ellos, en la estación de bomberos del downtown de West Palm Beach, amenazó con arrestar al fotógrafo de El Nuevo Herald Roberto Koltún pese a que este cumplió cabalmente las leyes estatales de mantenerse a la distancia reglamentaria del centro de voto.
Foto: Rui Ferreira
''Lo que sucedió con su fotógrafo es un ejemplo de la confusión con que ellos [los empleados del gobierno condal] se están debatiendo'', indicó Berta Jamison, una abogada de Illinois que vino a la Florida como voluntaria de una Organización No Gubernamental (ONG) a ayudar en la campaña del senador John Kerry.
''Los entiendo, quieren limpiar la imagen de hace cuatro años. Pero es difícil'', agregó la letrada, quien intercedió por el reportero gráfico.
En Broward, al terminar esta edición, la mayoría de los 777 centros electorales ya habían cerrado, y sólo 21 máquinas de votación de las más de 5,000 máquinas del presentaron problemas, informó Gisela Salas, subdirectora de elecciones de Broward.
Gran parte de los problemas que experimentaron las máquinas se debió a fallas eléctricas, y esas máquinas fueron reemplazadas por nuevos aparatos. En Coral Springs, algunos votantes se quejaron de que una de los aparatos estaba registrando votos para el candidato equivocado, pero la falla y los votos fueron corregidos, aseguró la subdirectora.
''Fue un problema de calibración. La calibramos correctamente y no hubo problemas'', explicó Salas.
Sin embargo, Elliot Minzberg, director legal para la organización Protección Electoral, informó que había recibido informes de algunos votantes que habían sido dirigidos al recinto electoral equivocado.
''La dirección y el número del recinto no eran los correctos en sus tarjetas de registro electoral'', explicó Minzberg.
Algunos votantes experimentaron filas de más de una hora para votar, sobre todo en la mañana. Sin embargo, las colas fueron disminuyendo a lo largo del día. Por la tarde, la mayoría de los votantes podían ejercer su derecho al sufragio sin tener que esperar más de unos pocos minutos.
En el Centro Comunitario de Sunview, en Fort Lauderdale, Yadi Pascual, cubana de 25 años, esperó menos de cinco minutos para votar, a las 9 a.m. Su amiga, Idalmis Santiago, puertorriqueña de 32 años, votó por primera vez ayer.
''Voto porque estoy cansada. Queremos un cambio'', acotó Santiago.
Los funcionarios electorales atribuyeron la calma del día a que más de 265,000 del millón de electores en Broward votaron en forma anticipada.
(C) 2004 El Nuevo Herald
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 1:01 da tarde
terça-feira, novembro 02, 2004
West Palm Beach, four years later...
ALEA JACTA EST
por RUI FERREIRA
En unas seis horas el electorado estadounidense comienza a votar. Han tardado cuatro años en llegar a este momento y este es un momento totalmente inesperado porque hace tres años y medio que el mundo no es el mismo. Y el mundo no es el mismo porque unas 3.000 almas murieron cuando dos torres se derribaron. Y cuando esas dos torres se cayeron otras 150.000 mil personas quedaron marcadas para morir. Era una cuestión de tiempo.
Las elecciones de hoy no son, por eso, unas elecciones normales. No podían serlo, se realizan bajo el estigma del miedo, sobre 153.000 cadáveres y por vez primera en un país dividido entre dos proyectos que se venden como diferentes. Entre un hombre que no admite errores y está convencido que es el único que nos puede garantizar la seguridad y otro que esencialmente sostiene lo mismo pero no sabe articularlo. Y no ha sabido articularlo porque se ha preocupado demasiado en lo que piensan los demás de él que en decirle a los demás que piensa para ellos.
Los estadounidenses están habituados a ser conducidos. La sociedad estadounidense es una sociedad de conducidos. Desde las filas de los boy-scouts hasta los pulpitos de las iglesias, pasando por la bolsa de valores, siempre hay alguien conduciendo a otro, aunque sea para montarse a un autobús. No creen en la colectivización pero lo hacen todo colectivamente. Por eso las encuestas están empatadas, porque hace meses que los norteamericanos saben por quien van a votar.
Pero a diferencia de otras ocasiones no se sabe por quién. No ha sido posible escrutar quien ha sido su opción y por eso tienen al mundo en un vilo. Por décadas, o centurias, se les ha metido en la cabeza que son los conductores del mundo y quienes dictan sus reglas, costumbres o hábitos. Pero ahora lo tienen en vilo y no dan el más mínimo indicio de su opción. Y eso es peligroso.
Un escenario que apareció este principio de semana es un empate matemático en los votos electorales lo cual pondría el desenlace en las manos del Congreso y el Congreso está inclinado hacia un lado que hace cuatro años llegó al poder con menos votos que su oponente. Y durante estos cuatro años ha gobernado bajo el espectro de la ilegitimidad, una permisa que la sociedad estadounidense puede no aguantar un periodo más.
Por menos que esto hubo una guerra civil. Podríamos, ahora, estar en la antesala de una guerra “incivil”. Podríamos no estar aquí dentro de cuatro años.
Dicen que el pueblo es sabio. Pero los sabios son hombres de carne y hueso, que se debilitan al ser conducidos por otros sabios que suelen creer detener la verdad en sus manos como un dogma adquirido. El problema no es un hombre creer que habla con Dios; el problema es ocultarle que Dios no existe. No es de sabios ni de valientes. Es, sencillamente, de ignorantes.
Por creer en Dios un hombre derrumbó dos torres y murieron 3.000 personas. Por hablar con Dios, otro hombre mandó a matar a 150.000. Ahora los norteamericanos van a votar pero nadie sabe en que mesa él vota.
Las elecciones de hoy no son, por eso, unas elecciones normales. No podían serlo, se realizan bajo el estigma del miedo, sobre 153.000 cadáveres y por vez primera en un país dividido entre dos proyectos que se venden como diferentes. Entre un hombre que no admite errores y está convencido que es el único que nos puede garantizar la seguridad y otro que esencialmente sostiene lo mismo pero no sabe articularlo. Y no ha sabido articularlo porque se ha preocupado demasiado en lo que piensan los demás de él que en decirle a los demás que piensa para ellos.
Los estadounidenses están habituados a ser conducidos. La sociedad estadounidense es una sociedad de conducidos. Desde las filas de los boy-scouts hasta los pulpitos de las iglesias, pasando por la bolsa de valores, siempre hay alguien conduciendo a otro, aunque sea para montarse a un autobús. No creen en la colectivización pero lo hacen todo colectivamente. Por eso las encuestas están empatadas, porque hace meses que los norteamericanos saben por quien van a votar.
Pero a diferencia de otras ocasiones no se sabe por quién. No ha sido posible escrutar quien ha sido su opción y por eso tienen al mundo en un vilo. Por décadas, o centurias, se les ha metido en la cabeza que son los conductores del mundo y quienes dictan sus reglas, costumbres o hábitos. Pero ahora lo tienen en vilo y no dan el más mínimo indicio de su opción. Y eso es peligroso.
Un escenario que apareció este principio de semana es un empate matemático en los votos electorales lo cual pondría el desenlace en las manos del Congreso y el Congreso está inclinado hacia un lado que hace cuatro años llegó al poder con menos votos que su oponente. Y durante estos cuatro años ha gobernado bajo el espectro de la ilegitimidad, una permisa que la sociedad estadounidense puede no aguantar un periodo más.
Por menos que esto hubo una guerra civil. Podríamos, ahora, estar en la antesala de una guerra “incivil”. Podríamos no estar aquí dentro de cuatro años.
Dicen que el pueblo es sabio. Pero los sabios son hombres de carne y hueso, que se debilitan al ser conducidos por otros sabios que suelen creer detener la verdad en sus manos como un dogma adquirido. El problema no es un hombre creer que habla con Dios; el problema es ocultarle que Dios no existe. No es de sabios ni de valientes. Es, sencillamente, de ignorantes.
Por creer en Dios un hombre derrumbó dos torres y murieron 3.000 personas. Por hablar con Dios, otro hombre mandó a matar a 150.000. Ahora los norteamericanos van a votar pero nadie sabe en que mesa él vota.
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 1:48 da manhã
Will Bush give his "one finger" victory salute?
Volatile numbers push states to front of race
Kathy Kiely USA TODAY
ORLANDO — John Kerry campaigns here this morning. President Bush had his turn Saturday, while Kerry running mate John Edwards was in Daytona Beach. On Sunday, Kerry was in nearby Tampa.
ORLANDO — John Kerry campaigns here this morning. President Bush had his turn Saturday, while Kerry running mate John Edwards was in Daytona Beach. On Sunday, Kerry was in nearby Tampa.
The blitz of campaign stops in central Florida reflects how intensely focused the presidential race has become before Tuesday's election. The battle to determine who will lead the nation is down to a handful of states, which the candidates are visiting again and again. They are the states that Bush and Kerry need to win to reach 270 electoral votes and capture the White House. (Related link: Bush, Kerry nearly deadlocked)
As the campaign draws to a close, the race remains close in about a dozen states. In Michigan, a state that Democrat Al Gore won in 2000, polls show Bush within striking distance of Kerry. The president visited Saturday, forcing Kerry to counter with a stop on Monday. In New Hampshire, a state Bush won four years ago, Kerry now has a narrow lead.
Polls show Bush with a narrow lead in Nevada, a state he won four years ago. New Mexico, a state that went for Gore by 366 votes, remains too close to call. Colorado leans Republican, but the Kerry camp is pinning its hopes on a surge of Hispanic voters, drawn to the polls by a chance to vote for Ken Salazar, the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate.
Here's how the race shapes up in six other key states where USA TODAY polled late last week:
Florida: 27 electoral votes
Four years ago, the Supreme Court's decision to end the six-week recount here gave Bush Florida's electoral votes and the presidency. This year, both parties have urged Floridians to take advantage of the state's early-voting provisions, and voters responded in droves. Most experts expect early voting here to break records.
According to the USA TODAY poll, it already has: Of 1,300 registered voters in the poll, 30% said they had already cast their ballots.
Lars Hafner, a Democrat who represented St. Petersburg in the state Legislature, thinks that may be an important factor behind Kerry's showing. Bush had a 51%-43% lead last week. The most recent poll shows Kerry ahead among likely voters, 50%-47%.
Hafner says that heavy turnout for early voting is building momentum for Kerry.
"People tend to follow trends," Hafner says.
The poll showed Kerry making some gains among Florida's female voters, who favor him 54%-41%.
Pennsylvania: 21 electoral votes
Bush's 50%-46% lead among likely voters in the USA TODAY poll in this state puts him in position for a big upset. Gore won Pennsylvania with 51% of the vote four years ago, and the state now has a Democratic governor, Ed Rendell.
Among the larger group of registered voters, Kerry led by 2 percentage points.
Though many polls have shown a tight race, some Pennsylvania analysts continue to give Kerry an edge because of the Democratic Party's historical ability in presidential years to turn out voters in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. "I think it's very hard for Bush to win Pennsylvania," says Terry Madonna, a political scientist at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster and director of the Keystone Poll.
But Madonna acknowledges that Bush's effort to turn out conservative voters in the center of the state is unprecedented. "I don't think we fully understand all the dynamics at work," he says.
Ohio: 20 electoral votes
Since Kerry sewed up the Democratic nomination last spring, no state has received more visits from him and Bush than Ohio. The state is a traditional presidential bellwether. Four years ago, it went narrowly for Bush. The USA TODAY poll gives Kerry a 50%-46% edge, up from last week when he had a 1-percentage-point advantage.
Bill Binning, a political scientist at Youngstown State University who has been active in Republican politics, says he believes Kerry has a chance of winning Ohio. But he adds: "I don't know if it's going to be within the margin of litigation." A lawsuit already has been filed challenging the eligibility of some newly registered Ohio voters.
Binning says Ohio voters share the president's positions on social issues but are "disheartened by the economy."
Minnesota: 10 electoral votes
Nowhere is the collapse of independent candidate Ralph Nader illustrated more vividly than here.
A state that likes independents so much it made pro wrestler Jesse Ventura its governor for four years, Minnesota gave Nader 5% of the vote in 2000. But according to the USA TODAY poll, he now has the support of only 1% of Minnesotans.
Bush and Vice President Cheney have made a combined 18 visits to Minnesota since March in a state that Gore won by just 2 percentage points four years ago. But Nader's disintegration appears to have helped this year's Democratic nominee: The poll gives Kerry a 52%-44% edge.
Wisconsin: 10 electoral votes
Gore won this state by less than 1 percentage point in 2000. Bush and Kerry are making all-out efforts to win Wisconsin this year, making multiple visits to the state in the closing days. But the latest USA TODAY poll gives Bush a comfortable 52%-44% lead. The president has been ahead since August.
Bush and Kerry are to hold dueling rallies today on opposite banks of the Milwaukee River, just a few blocks and one hour apart.
Iowa: 7 electoral votes
The poll shows this state, which Gore narrowly won four years ago, still a dead heat. Bush's 48%-46% advantage is within the 3-percentage-point margin of error. Another poll, released Sunday by The Des Moines Register, showed Kerry with a 48%-45% lead, also within the poll's margin of error.
This is another state where early voting can be a factor. In 2000, Bush led in the Election Day balloting by 7,200 votes, but he lost the state because Gore had a 11,000-vote advantage in early voting. Early voting has been underway here for more than a month.
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 1:42 da manhã
Swing states lean to Kerry
Susan Page USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Sen. John Kerry has erased President Bush's modest lead and the two candidates head into Election Day tied at 49%-49%, a nationwide USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows as an extraordinarily bitter and expensive campaign prepared to end.
Across the dozen battleground states expected to determine the winner, Kerry holds a 5-percentage-point edge — including small leads among likely voters in the critical states of Ohio and Florida. He trails by a similar margin in the third big battleground, Pennsylvania. (Related link: States pushed to front of race)
But USA TODAY polls nationwide and in six competitive states show a contest that either candidate could win. The battle between mammoth get-out-the-vote operations and the prospect of a flood of new voters are key to whether Bush wins four more years or joins his father as a one-term president.
The findings suggest that Osama bin Laden's warning to Americans in a video broadcast Friday failed to provide the boost for Bush that some analysts predicted. That development and the disclosure last week that 377 tons of high explosives were missing from an Iraqi site U.S. troops failed to secure seemed to have damaged his standing.
A week earlier, Bush had led Kerry on who would better handle the situation in Iraq by 11 percentage points; that edge shrank to 4 points. The 22-point advantage Bush had held in handling terrorism was cut in half.
Last week, Bush led Kerry 51%-46%.
The new survey of 1,573 likely voters, taken Friday through Sunday, has a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.
"It seems like a scary Halloween for George Bush," Kerry pollster Mark Mellman says. "People in this country clearly want a fresh start."
Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for the Bush campaign, said that the race is close but that Bush is in a good position. He disputes Gallup's assumptions about the 3% of likely voters who said they were undecided.
Gallup's formula assumes that 9 of 10 of those voters would support Kerry, based on analyses of previous presidential races involving an incumbent.
Without allocating those voters, Bush led Kerry 49%-47% among likely voters. Among the larger group of registered voters, Kerry led Bush 48%-46%.
The candidates crisscrossed the same territory on Sunday. Bush stumped in Florida — with rallies in Miami, Tampa and Gainesville — before flying to Cincinnati. Kerry campaigned in Dayton and New Hampshire before heading to Tampa. Bush asked for support from wavering Democrats and vowed to prosecute the war on terror. Kerry promised a "flurry of activity" and "real steps" if elected to protect the nation's security.
In the surveys:
•A 52% majority said they were dissatisfied with the way things were going in the USA. Bush's job-approval rating slipped to 48%, below the 50% benchmark critical for incumbents.
•Terrorism was the most important issue cited by voters in the national poll and in Florida and Pennsylvania. But in four Midwestern states — Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin — the economy was ranked first.
•In Florida, 30% of registered voters said they already had cast their ballots, using early voting sites and absentee ballots. They supported Kerry 51%-43%.
And Ralph Nader?
The independent candidate who helped swing the 2000 election to Bush isn't much of a factor this time. Among 1,573 likely voters, he was backed by 9.
WASHINGTON — Sen. John Kerry has erased President Bush's modest lead and the two candidates head into Election Day tied at 49%-49%, a nationwide USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows as an extraordinarily bitter and expensive campaign prepared to end.
Across the dozen battleground states expected to determine the winner, Kerry holds a 5-percentage-point edge — including small leads among likely voters in the critical states of Ohio and Florida. He trails by a similar margin in the third big battleground, Pennsylvania. (Related link: States pushed to front of race)
But USA TODAY polls nationwide and in six competitive states show a contest that either candidate could win. The battle between mammoth get-out-the-vote operations and the prospect of a flood of new voters are key to whether Bush wins four more years or joins his father as a one-term president.
The findings suggest that Osama bin Laden's warning to Americans in a video broadcast Friday failed to provide the boost for Bush that some analysts predicted. That development and the disclosure last week that 377 tons of high explosives were missing from an Iraqi site U.S. troops failed to secure seemed to have damaged his standing.
A week earlier, Bush had led Kerry on who would better handle the situation in Iraq by 11 percentage points; that edge shrank to 4 points. The 22-point advantage Bush had held in handling terrorism was cut in half.
Last week, Bush led Kerry 51%-46%.
The new survey of 1,573 likely voters, taken Friday through Sunday, has a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.
"It seems like a scary Halloween for George Bush," Kerry pollster Mark Mellman says. "People in this country clearly want a fresh start."
Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for the Bush campaign, said that the race is close but that Bush is in a good position. He disputes Gallup's assumptions about the 3% of likely voters who said they were undecided.
Gallup's formula assumes that 9 of 10 of those voters would support Kerry, based on analyses of previous presidential races involving an incumbent.
Without allocating those voters, Bush led Kerry 49%-47% among likely voters. Among the larger group of registered voters, Kerry led Bush 48%-46%.
The candidates crisscrossed the same territory on Sunday. Bush stumped in Florida — with rallies in Miami, Tampa and Gainesville — before flying to Cincinnati. Kerry campaigned in Dayton and New Hampshire before heading to Tampa. Bush asked for support from wavering Democrats and vowed to prosecute the war on terror. Kerry promised a "flurry of activity" and "real steps" if elected to protect the nation's security.
In the surveys:
•A 52% majority said they were dissatisfied with the way things were going in the USA. Bush's job-approval rating slipped to 48%, below the 50% benchmark critical for incumbents.
•Terrorism was the most important issue cited by voters in the national poll and in Florida and Pennsylvania. But in four Midwestern states — Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin — the economy was ranked first.
•In Florida, 30% of registered voters said they already had cast their ballots, using early voting sites and absentee ballots. They supported Kerry 51%-43%.
And Ralph Nader?
The independent candidate who helped swing the 2000 election to Bush isn't much of a factor this time. Among 1,573 likely voters, he was backed by 9.
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 1:40 da manhã
The Apparent Heir
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Columnists for this newspaper are not allowed to endorse presidential candidates. But I think this election is so important, I am going to break the rules. I hope I don't get fired. But here goes: I am endorsing George Bush for president. No, no - not George W. Bush. I am endorsing his father - George Herbert Walker Bush.
The more I look back on the elder Bush - Bush 41 - the more I find things to admire and the more I see attributes we need in our next president.
Let's start with domestic policy. The elder George Bush was the real uniter, not divider, the real believer in a kinder, gentler political dialogue. Yes, he had a Democratic Congress to deal with, so he had to be more conciliatory, but it came naturally to him. In 1990, the elder Bush sided with Congressional Democrats to raise taxes, because he knew it was the right thing for the economy, despite his famous "Read my lips" pledge not to raise new taxes. While that 1990 tax increase contributed to his re-election defeat, it laid the foundation for the Clinton tax increases, which, together with Mr. Bush's, helped to hold down interest rates and spur our tremendous growth in the 1990's and the buildup of a huge surplus.
On foreign policy, the elder Bush maintained a healthy balance between realism and idealism, unilateralism and multilateralism, American strength and American diplomacy. He believed that international institutions like the U.N. could be force multipliers of U.S. power. Rather than rubbing Mikhail Gorbachev's nose in the dirt, the elder Bush treated him with respect, and in doing so helped to orchestrate the collapse of the Soviet Union, the liberation of Eastern Europe and the reunification of Germany without the firing of a single shot. The nonviolent unraveling of the Soviet Empire ushered in a decade of prosperity and an era of unprecedented American power and popularity.
The alliance that Mr. Bush, Brent Scowcroft and James A. Baker III built to drive Saddam out of Kuwait had so many allies it virtually turned a profit for America. Mr. Bush chose not to invade Baghdad in 1991. Right or wrong, he felt that had he tried, he would have lost the coalition he had built up to evict Saddam from Kuwait. He obviously believed that the U.S. should never invade an Arab capital without a coalition that contained countries whose support mattered in that part of the world, such as France, Egypt, Syria or Saudi Arabia.
The elder Bush rightly understood that it was not in Israel's interest, or that of the U.S., for Israel to be expanding settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. The Madrid peace conference convened by the elder Bush paved the way for both the Oslo peace process and the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty, which ended Israel's diplomatic isolation with countries like India and China. It was also the elder Bush who laid the groundwork for the Nafta free-trade accord, completed by President Bill Clinton.
In short, the elder Bush understood the importance of acting in the world - but acting wisely, with competence and preparation. His great weakness was his public diplomacy. He wrongly antagonized American Jews by challenging their right to lobby on behalf of Israel. He could have given more voice to the amazing liberation of humanity that the collapse of the Soviet Union represented and to the American anger over the Tiananmen Square massacre. Although, in his muted response to Tiananmen, the elder Bush kept China-U.S. relations from going totally off the rails, which kept China on a track to economic reform. Although he raised taxes, he never really explained himself. So his instincts were good, his mechanics were often flawless, but his words and music left you frustrated. Still, the legacy is a substantial one. Over time, historians will treat the elder Bush with respect.
So as we approach this critical election of 2004, my advice, dear readers, is this: Vote for the candidate who embodies the ethos of George H. W. Bush - the old guy. Vote for the man who you think would have the same gut feel for nurturing allies and restoring bipartisanship to foreign policy as him. Vote for the man you think understands the importance of facing up to our fiscal responsibilities for the sake of our children. And vote for the man who has the best instincts for balancing realism and idealism and the man who understands the necessity of using energetic U.S. diplomacy to make Israel more secure - by helping to bring it peace with its Arab neighbors, not just more tours from American Christian fundamentalists.
Yes, next Tuesday, vote for the real political heir to George H. W. Bush. I'm sure you know who that is.
(C) 2004 The New York Times
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 1:23 da manhã
segunda-feira, novembro 01, 2004
"Bush es más malvado que estúpido"
Conocí a “TD” hace unos 10 años en un viaje que hizo a La Habana. Se apareció en mi casa una noche con un amigo común y pasamos toda la noche conversando. “TD” trabajaba entonces en Vanity Fair y vivía en París y me proporcionó una de las más interesantes visiones de Estados Unidos. Después, como por el año 1994 lo vi de nuevo en Port-au-Prince después del desembarco de las tropas de Estados Unidos. Lo curioso, recuerdo que lo conversábamos bastante, “TD” era un poco conservador con relación a Estados Unidos y ahora no hay duda que Bush le ha “lavado” el cerebro. [RF]
Q&A T.D. ALLMAN, Escritor y periodista
Soy más joven que Kerry y menos que Bush. Mi familia es de Nueva Inglaterra y vivo en Nueva York. Mi pareja es un físico atómico chino. No tengo hijos. ¿Política? La verdad. Soy ateo: esta vida es nuestra única oportunidad de crear bondad, y Bush prefiere la maldad, como cuento en El hombre más peligroso del mundo,que es él
-¿Quién es más peligroso, Bush o Bin Laden?
-¡Bush!
-¿Por qué?
-Porque Bush es gratuito, Bush era del todo innecesario.
-También Bin Laden.
-Pero la sensación de injusticia vivida en el orbe islámico hacía predecible y casi inevitable la aparición de algún Bin Laden...
-Bueno, pero a George W. Bush lo han fabricado ustedes, los estadounidenses...
-Alto: no olvide nunca que Bush es un presidente ¡no electo! No olvide nunca que Bush obtuvo menos votos que Al Gore...
-Pero le han permitido ustedes gobernar.
-Ésa es nuestra desgracia: todo ha sido corrupto en torno a George W. Bush desde el principio. Recuerde quién le otorgó la presidencia: William Rehnquist, presidente del Tribunal Supremo, un hombre de trayectoria racista y receloso de la democracia.
-¿Y podría mañana repetirse un enredo similar al de hace cuatro años?
-¡Sí! Todo es posible...
-¿Y por qué no han mejorado ustedes su conflictivo sistema electoral y de escrutinio?
-¡Eso digo yo! Enmendamos la Constitución para prohibir el aborto o la quema de banderas... y no acometemos esto. ¡Estamos dormidos! Es trágico, porque lo que se dirime mañana es algo más importante que una pugna entre dos candidatos de dos partidos.
-¿Qué se dirime?
-Se dirime si un grupito de personas es o no capaz de maquinar una guerra ilegal e injusta, mentir, confundir al ciudadano y conseguir instaurar su oscuro régimen de poder.
-Suena como si estuviésemos ante unas elecciones a las que se presentase Hitler...
-¿Ah, sí?
-Se sonríe usted...
-No digo más. Siga, siga preguntando.
-¿A qué atribuye usted la peligrosidad del presidente Bush, a maldad o a estupidez?
-¡Qué estúpido es tener la oportunidad de hacer el bien y elegir hacer el mal! Pero es más malvado que estúpido, pues le traen al pairo las consecuencias de sus actos.
-¿Tan locamente irresponsable es Bush?
-¿Sabe quién es Bush? Bush es ese niño pijo que jamás logró nada por esfuerzo propio, que se burlaba de los compañeros de clase, consentido y arrogante, infantil e irresponsable, que yerra y le da igual, que disfruta provocando disputas y que vive convencido de que todo se le debe y de que él es víctima del hostil y odioso mundo. ¡Ése es Bush!
-¡Qué cariño le tiene usted!
-Bush demuestra que cualquiera puede llegar a presidente: es un inútil aupado por una sucesión de discriminaciones positivas.
-¿Discriminaciones positivas? ¿Cuáles?
-Tantas... Ser nieto de senador e hijo de ex presidente. Entrar en Harvard (pese a sus bajas notas en Yale) sólo por su apellido... Y la última ha sido entregarle la Casa Blanca.
-¿Para quién es más peligroso Bush?
-De entrada para los iraquíes, que bastantes tiranos han padecido para que ahora les bombardeen y torturen (la cárcel de Abu Graib es un buen termómetro de la temperatura moral de Bush)...Yluego para el mundo y para los propios estadounidenses, cuya seguridad a Bush le importa muy poco.
-¡Si se supone que ésa es su prioridad!
-¡Miente! ¿Qué medios orquestó para evitar que algo como el 11-S sucediera? ¿Y qué medios pone ahora? Si de verdad le importase mi seguridad y la de mis conciudadanos, en vez de dedicar millones de dólares a la guerra de las galaxias y a guerras en Oriente, ¡los dedicaría a la mejora de la seguridad en los aeropuertos y fronteras, cosa que no hace!
-¿No?
-El 95% de los contenedores que cada día entran en Estados Unidos no son revisados. Bush finge que le apena la muerte de nuestra gente..., pero le da igual. ¡Jamás acompañará el féretro de un soldado muerto en Iraq!
-Lógico, electoralmente.
-Cobarde, humanamente. Bush y su camarilla (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz...) tienen algo en común: en su juventud todos se escaqueraron del ejército. ¡Gallinas! Provocan peleas para que se peguen otros por ellos.
-Algún otro interés habrá detrás de todo...
-Cheney encarna los intereses del complejo industrial-militar estadounidense: él es el piloto del avión. Rumsfeld es el copiloto. Wolfowitz es el radar. Y Bush es la azafata.
-¿Y diría que están forrándose todos ellos?
-Sí, pero no simplifiquemos: ¡ojalá fuera sólo el dinero lo que mueve a esa camarilla! No cometerían tantas barbaridades... No. Les arrastra su pulsión agresiva e irracional, desapegada de todo sentido de la realidad. ¡La realidad ha sido proscrita de mi país!
-Sus conciudadanos ven en Bush a alguien fuerte que les defiende del mal, ¿no?
-Sí, ése es el discurso. ¡Pero si alguien en el mundo encarna hoy el mal, es Bush! Si presidiese un país árabe o balcánico y actuase con esa gratuidad y doblez, diríamos: "Bush es el mal". Pero como preside Estados Unidos, país que presuponemos bueno... ¡Por favor! ¡Nadie desde Gorbachov ha cambiado tanto el mundo como Bush..., pero para peor!
-¿Qué haría usted para mejorar esto?
-Tres cosas: acabar con Bush, acabar con Bush y acabar con Bush.
-¿Y luego?
-Limpieza general.Ytener todos muy claro algo: este Estados Unidos es un factor desestabilizador del mundo. ¡Construyan ya ustedes Europa, por favor, y olvídennos!
-¿No confía ya en la gente de su país?
-Soy pesimista... Deploro el total desinterés de mis conciudadanos por el resto del mundo... ¿Sabe qué aprenden hoy nuestros hijos? Que los que mejor mienten, ganan.
VÍCTOR-M. AMELA La Vanguardia
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 5:58 da tarde
Police arrests journalist for photographing voters
Jane Daugherty Palm Beach Post
A widely published investigative journalist was tackled, punched and arrested Sunday afternoon by a Palm Beach County sheriff's deputy who tried to confiscate his camera outside the elections supervisor's headquarters.
About 600 people were standing in line waiting to vote early when James S. Henry was charged with disorderly conduct for taking photos of waiting voters about 3:30 p.m. outside the main elections office on Military Trail near West Palm Beach.
A Palm Beach police officer stands guard keeping the media and non-voters away from the people standing in line to vote early Monday, Nov. 1, 2004, in West Palm Beach, Fla. People waited on line for hours to cast their vote. (AP Photo/J. Pat Carter)
A sheriff's spokesman and a county attorney later said the deputy was enforcing a newly enacted rule from Elections Supervisor Theresa LePore prohibiting reporters from interviewing or photographing voters lined up outside the polls.
But the arrest drew expressions of outrage from a leading Florida civil liberties expert — and even from one of LePore's fellow county election supervisors.
When Deputy Al Cinque tried to grab Henry's camera, Henry ran about 100 feet across the pavement on the side of the elections office before he was tackled by the deputy.
Cinque yelled at Henry, "Hold still, stop moving," after he pinned Henry on the pavement, punched him in the back and grabbed Henry's left arm to put a handcuff on his wrist.
Cinque then jerked Henry, 54, to his feet by his left arm and slammed his body against a parked car, where the deputy punched him again as Henry tried to hand him identification cards that were later found on the pavement.
A widely published free-lance journalist, as well as a Harvard-educated lawyer and economist, Henry has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, U.S. News and World Report and The New Republic.
Police officers keeps the media and non-voters away from the people standing in line to vote Monday, Nov. 1, 2004 in West Palm Beach, Fla. at the county election headquarters. Strict security measures are in place. (AP Photo/J. Pat Carter)
According to his Web site, www.submergingmarkets.com, he is working on "an election-year book, due out this fall, that explores how the U.S. is falling behind the rest of the democratic world, including countries like Brazil and South Africa, with respect to the practice of electoral democracy."
Asked why Henry was being arrested, Cinque said, "You're not allowed to take pictures of voters."
Henry repeatedly told the deputy: "I'm a journalist. I'm a journalist doing my job."
A Palm Beach Post reporter and British journalist Marcus Warren, of the London Daily Telegraph, witnessed Henry's arrest. So did dozens of waiting voters.
Sheriff's spokesman Paul Miller said that before being transported to the Palm Beach County Jail, Henry was examined by paramedics when he complained of shoulder pain. Henry has been charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest without violence, Miller said.
"We're not going to let anyone interfere with the orderly conduct of the elections process here," Miller said.
LePore refused to come to the main desk of elections headquarters to comment on the arrest. She did not return later calls for comment.
One of LePore's peers, Leon County Elections Supervisor Ion Sancho, called restricting reporters and photographers on public sidewalks outside polling places "an outrage. I'm shocked. The First Amendment right to be there is absolute.
"Outside our early voting place we had Japanese journalists, the BBC, all kinds of reporters and photographers," added Sancho, who is based in Tallahassee. "It's a public place, a public sidewalk. There is no statute, no law that can take away your right to talk to someone who is willing on a public sidewalk as long as no one is obstructing or interfering."
Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, also called Henry's arrest an outrage. "Where did Theresa LePore get the authority to criminalize activities protected by the First Amendment?"
Unidentified election officials carry a empty absentee ballot collection box back to the drop off point at the county election headquarters in West Palm Beach, Fla., Monday, Nov. 1, 2004, as people stand in the long line, far rear, waiting to vote early. (AP Photo/J. Pat Carter)
Henry was one of the original "Nader's raiders" who worked decades ago with consumer advocate Ralph Nader, and was vice president for strategy for IBM/Lotus before he founded the Long Island-based Sag Harbor Group, a consulting firm that focuses on technology strategy. He has continued his investigative reporting career at the same time, in 2004 publishing The Blood Bankers, a book reporting on "dirty banking" in developing countries. The book includes an introduction from former U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley.
The Rev. George Wilson, a Presbyterian minister from Long Island, N.Y., who accompanied Henry to West Palm Beach Sunday morning, said Henry was interested in touch-screen voting in Palm Beach County and had arrived to observe the process.
"We flew down this morning," Wilson said. "I can't believe they're treating him this way. He was just standing there taking pictures.
"When did taking photographs outside in a public place become a crime?"
Wilson retrieved Henry's Minolta camera with a large lens from the top of the trunk of the parked car after Henry was put in a sheriff's car.
Assistant Palm Beach County Attorney Leon St. John, who represents the elections supervisor, said Henry had been charged with disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, based on LePore's instructions to deputies.
He said the charge against Henry was based on new rules LePore implemented Friday, prohibiting reporters from talking to or photographing voters while they are in line outside the polls. He said she made the rule as the result of "numerous complaints by voters about being photographed and interviewed."
However, The Post and other newspapers and television stations had previously interviewed and photographed voters in line without incident since early voting began Oct. 18. LePore did not mention any new restrictions on interviews and photographs during a meeting with news media representatives Friday.
As for Henry, St. John said: "From what I understand, this man (Henry) was taking photos of people in line close up. He was ordered by the deputy to stop and to move to the media tent...
"He said something inappropriate to the deputy, like 'screw you,' then took a picture of the deputy. He then took off running and tripped and fell in the parking lot."
In fact, Cinque tackled Henry in the parking lot a few feet from a Post reporter and Warren, the British journalist.
"That's not what the deputy told me," St. John said.
LePore spokesman Marty Rogol described Henry as "a so-called investigative reporter who gave people phony credentials."
Told that Henry had been published in The New York Times, The Washington Post and other publications, Rogol said Henry had presented "Xeroxed credentials that looked phony and were not accepted" by the deputy who arrested him.
Late Sunday, Miller said Henry "will probably spend the night in jail." He was still there late Sunday night on $500 bail.
A widely published investigative journalist was tackled, punched and arrested Sunday afternoon by a Palm Beach County sheriff's deputy who tried to confiscate his camera outside the elections supervisor's headquarters.
About 600 people were standing in line waiting to vote early when James S. Henry was charged with disorderly conduct for taking photos of waiting voters about 3:30 p.m. outside the main elections office on Military Trail near West Palm Beach.
A Palm Beach police officer stands guard keeping the media and non-voters away from the people standing in line to vote early Monday, Nov. 1, 2004, in West Palm Beach, Fla. People waited on line for hours to cast their vote. (AP Photo/J. Pat Carter)
A sheriff's spokesman and a county attorney later said the deputy was enforcing a newly enacted rule from Elections Supervisor Theresa LePore prohibiting reporters from interviewing or photographing voters lined up outside the polls.
But the arrest drew expressions of outrage from a leading Florida civil liberties expert — and even from one of LePore's fellow county election supervisors.
When Deputy Al Cinque tried to grab Henry's camera, Henry ran about 100 feet across the pavement on the side of the elections office before he was tackled by the deputy.
Cinque yelled at Henry, "Hold still, stop moving," after he pinned Henry on the pavement, punched him in the back and grabbed Henry's left arm to put a handcuff on his wrist.
Cinque then jerked Henry, 54, to his feet by his left arm and slammed his body against a parked car, where the deputy punched him again as Henry tried to hand him identification cards that were later found on the pavement.
A widely published free-lance journalist, as well as a Harvard-educated lawyer and economist, Henry has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, U.S. News and World Report and The New Republic.
Police officers keeps the media and non-voters away from the people standing in line to vote Monday, Nov. 1, 2004 in West Palm Beach, Fla. at the county election headquarters. Strict security measures are in place. (AP Photo/J. Pat Carter)
According to his Web site, www.submergingmarkets.com, he is working on "an election-year book, due out this fall, that explores how the U.S. is falling behind the rest of the democratic world, including countries like Brazil and South Africa, with respect to the practice of electoral democracy."
Asked why Henry was being arrested, Cinque said, "You're not allowed to take pictures of voters."
Henry repeatedly told the deputy: "I'm a journalist. I'm a journalist doing my job."
A Palm Beach Post reporter and British journalist Marcus Warren, of the London Daily Telegraph, witnessed Henry's arrest. So did dozens of waiting voters.
Sheriff's spokesman Paul Miller said that before being transported to the Palm Beach County Jail, Henry was examined by paramedics when he complained of shoulder pain. Henry has been charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest without violence, Miller said.
"We're not going to let anyone interfere with the orderly conduct of the elections process here," Miller said.
LePore refused to come to the main desk of elections headquarters to comment on the arrest. She did not return later calls for comment.
One of LePore's peers, Leon County Elections Supervisor Ion Sancho, called restricting reporters and photographers on public sidewalks outside polling places "an outrage. I'm shocked. The First Amendment right to be there is absolute.
"Outside our early voting place we had Japanese journalists, the BBC, all kinds of reporters and photographers," added Sancho, who is based in Tallahassee. "It's a public place, a public sidewalk. There is no statute, no law that can take away your right to talk to someone who is willing on a public sidewalk as long as no one is obstructing or interfering."
Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, also called Henry's arrest an outrage. "Where did Theresa LePore get the authority to criminalize activities protected by the First Amendment?"
Unidentified election officials carry a empty absentee ballot collection box back to the drop off point at the county election headquarters in West Palm Beach, Fla., Monday, Nov. 1, 2004, as people stand in the long line, far rear, waiting to vote early. (AP Photo/J. Pat Carter)
Henry was one of the original "Nader's raiders" who worked decades ago with consumer advocate Ralph Nader, and was vice president for strategy for IBM/Lotus before he founded the Long Island-based Sag Harbor Group, a consulting firm that focuses on technology strategy. He has continued his investigative reporting career at the same time, in 2004 publishing The Blood Bankers, a book reporting on "dirty banking" in developing countries. The book includes an introduction from former U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley.
The Rev. George Wilson, a Presbyterian minister from Long Island, N.Y., who accompanied Henry to West Palm Beach Sunday morning, said Henry was interested in touch-screen voting in Palm Beach County and had arrived to observe the process.
"We flew down this morning," Wilson said. "I can't believe they're treating him this way. He was just standing there taking pictures.
"When did taking photographs outside in a public place become a crime?"
Wilson retrieved Henry's Minolta camera with a large lens from the top of the trunk of the parked car after Henry was put in a sheriff's car.
Assistant Palm Beach County Attorney Leon St. John, who represents the elections supervisor, said Henry had been charged with disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, based on LePore's instructions to deputies.
He said the charge against Henry was based on new rules LePore implemented Friday, prohibiting reporters from talking to or photographing voters while they are in line outside the polls. He said she made the rule as the result of "numerous complaints by voters about being photographed and interviewed."
However, The Post and other newspapers and television stations had previously interviewed and photographed voters in line without incident since early voting began Oct. 18. LePore did not mention any new restrictions on interviews and photographs during a meeting with news media representatives Friday.
As for Henry, St. John said: "From what I understand, this man (Henry) was taking photos of people in line close up. He was ordered by the deputy to stop and to move to the media tent...
"He said something inappropriate to the deputy, like 'screw you,' then took a picture of the deputy. He then took off running and tripped and fell in the parking lot."
In fact, Cinque tackled Henry in the parking lot a few feet from a Post reporter and Warren, the British journalist.
"That's not what the deputy told me," St. John said.
LePore spokesman Marty Rogol described Henry as "a so-called investigative reporter who gave people phony credentials."
Told that Henry had been published in The New York Times, The Washington Post and other publications, Rogol said Henry had presented "Xeroxed credentials that looked phony and were not accepted" by the deputy who arrested him.
Late Sunday, Miller said Henry "will probably spend the night in jail." He was still there late Sunday night on $500 bail.
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 3:52 da tarde
Hugo Chavez et Mme Rice
"Si Chavez est un vrai problème, le gouvernement Bush en est un beaucoup plus grand pour le monde (...), qui envahit les peuples, jette des bombes sur les enfants et les femmes."
Le président vénézuelien Hugo Chavez a ainsi répondu à la conseillère du président Bush, Condoleezza Rice, rebaptisée par lui "Condoléance Rice". Celle-ci avait affirmé, dans une interview au Pittsburgh Tribune-Review que M. Chavez "est un vrai problème" car "il continuera à chercher des façons de subvertir la démocratie de son pays et des façons de rendre malheureux ses voisins".
Elle a ajouté qu'il allait poursuivre ses "contacts" avec le président cubain Fidel Castro, "impliqué dans les Forces armées révolutionnaires de Colombie" (guérilla des FARC). Les Américains, avec leur "énorme avantage technologique (...) lancent des bombes sur toutes les personnes qu'ils suspectent" en Irak, a renchéri M. Chavez.
Le président vénézuelien Hugo Chavez a ainsi répondu à la conseillère du président Bush, Condoleezza Rice, rebaptisée par lui "Condoléance Rice". Celle-ci avait affirmé, dans une interview au Pittsburgh Tribune-Review que M. Chavez "est un vrai problème" car "il continuera à chercher des façons de subvertir la démocratie de son pays et des façons de rendre malheureux ses voisins".
Elle a ajouté qu'il allait poursuivre ses "contacts" avec le président cubain Fidel Castro, "impliqué dans les Forces armées révolutionnaires de Colombie" (guérilla des FARC). Les Américains, avec leur "énorme avantage technologique (...) lancent des bombes sur toutes les personnes qu'ils suspectent" en Irak, a renchéri M. Chavez.
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 3:27 da tarde
O Jon Stewart no Crossfire
O Jon Stewart, pivot do Daily Show, foi ao Crossfire e aqui estão os “infames” 14 minutos que tanto deram que falar.
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 1:27 da tarde
IRAN GOES FOR BUSH
The head of the Iranian security council said President Bush's re-election would be in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's calling Iran part of an axis of evil, accusations that Iran harbors Al Qaeda members and threats of sanctions over nuclear ambitions. Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than have Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council. [AP, 10/20/04]
"We should not forget that during Bush's era despite his hard-line and baseless rhetoric he didn't take, in practical terms, any dangerous action against Iran," Mr. Rowhani said. [Washington Times, 10/28/04]
"We should not forget that during Bush's era despite his hard-line and baseless rhetoric he didn't take, in practical terms, any dangerous action against Iran," Mr. Rowhani said. [Washington Times, 10/28/04]
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 6:14 da manhã
Polls apart
An American election that reveals much about the outside world
The chiaroscuro caricatures of America drawn during a close and compelling election campaign suggest that the most pressing problem after the votes are cast will not be the litigious lawyers (are there any other kind?) but the lingering external preconceptions about the US that have hardly been given more colour and depth over the past few months. For the apparent sake of clarity, and to reinforce one’s own smug sense of moral superiority, Americans are, in general, portrayed as religious rednecks who somehow balance crass consumerism with a fundamentalist spirituality that is only or a tree or two better than rock worship. For all the wealth of a country supposedly in thrall to mass materialism, dialectical materialism is yet to be sold on hypermarket shelves and God still mans the checkout.
That the world outside is destined to be disappointed by John Kerry, if he were to win, is far more certain than the outcome of the election itself. Not because Mr Kerry is incompetent, but because he is not what Europeans want him to be. And for all the mocking of George W. Bush, a second term would at least be informed by a recognition that some mistakes were made and economic principles violated. The serious external problem for both candidates is the single-axis sensibility that leads countries to define themselves as being "not America".
After the end of the Second World War, national identity in the West was, in part, plotted against two axes, the Soviet and the American, but the former has disappeared and the latter is almost viscerally rejected. The change was obvious during the Clinton presidency, but he charmed all comers, while a language-mangling President Bush has struggled to play outside Peoria. Mr Kerry may appear presidential in that he has a face fit for Mount Rushmore, but instead of displaying the winning wit of the crafty diplomat, he turns the English sentence into a never-ending delight for fetishists of subordinate clauses.
There are serious international issues at stake in the election, foremost among them Iraq. President Bush has not cut and run, as his critics suggested was inevitable six months ago, though the immediate aftermath of the war was tragically mismanaged and there has not been decisiveness in dealing with areas such as Fallujah. Mr Kerry, too, is unlikely to cut and run, but does he have a longer-term commitment to rebuild Iraq? Without guarantees of security, there will be little investment, and without investment, the people of Iraq will hardly be able to fulfil their potential.
The Iraq issue again highlights the mismatch of US domestic reality and international expectation. Do those who have sincere concerns about Iraq genuinely want the US to withdraw immediately? Should the Iraqi people be left to stew in a cauldron spiced with absurdist nationalism, extremist Islam and go-for-broke gangsterism?
Unless there is more effort to comprehend the US, and presidential campaigns bring coverage but not necessarily enlightenment, the frustration outside will grow exponentially. And to presume that America is “polarised”, as much coverage suggests, and that one of those poles is firmly planted in the values of neo-socialist liberal rationalism, or however else the dominant ideology of Europe is defined, is to believe that the most telling difference between Athens, Greece, and Athens, Georgia, is topographical.
That the world outside is destined to be disappointed by John Kerry, if he were to win, is far more certain than the outcome of the election itself. Not because Mr Kerry is incompetent, but because he is not what Europeans want him to be. And for all the mocking of George W. Bush, a second term would at least be informed by a recognition that some mistakes were made and economic principles violated. The serious external problem for both candidates is the single-axis sensibility that leads countries to define themselves as being "not America".
After the end of the Second World War, national identity in the West was, in part, plotted against two axes, the Soviet and the American, but the former has disappeared and the latter is almost viscerally rejected. The change was obvious during the Clinton presidency, but he charmed all comers, while a language-mangling President Bush has struggled to play outside Peoria. Mr Kerry may appear presidential in that he has a face fit for Mount Rushmore, but instead of displaying the winning wit of the crafty diplomat, he turns the English sentence into a never-ending delight for fetishists of subordinate clauses.
There are serious international issues at stake in the election, foremost among them Iraq. President Bush has not cut and run, as his critics suggested was inevitable six months ago, though the immediate aftermath of the war was tragically mismanaged and there has not been decisiveness in dealing with areas such as Fallujah. Mr Kerry, too, is unlikely to cut and run, but does he have a longer-term commitment to rebuild Iraq? Without guarantees of security, there will be little investment, and without investment, the people of Iraq will hardly be able to fulfil their potential.
The Iraq issue again highlights the mismatch of US domestic reality and international expectation. Do those who have sincere concerns about Iraq genuinely want the US to withdraw immediately? Should the Iraqi people be left to stew in a cauldron spiced with absurdist nationalism, extremist Islam and go-for-broke gangsterism?
Unless there is more effort to comprehend the US, and presidential campaigns bring coverage but not necessarily enlightenment, the frustration outside will grow exponentially. And to presume that America is “polarised”, as much coverage suggests, and that one of those poles is firmly planted in the values of neo-socialist liberal rationalism, or however else the dominant ideology of Europe is defined, is to believe that the most telling difference between Athens, Greece, and Athens, Georgia, is topographical.
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 6:03 da manhã
Democrats unleash their daughters
Chelsea and her father
CHELSEA CLINTON gave her first political speech as the Democrats unleashed a line-up of presidential and vice-presidential daughters in Florida. Flanked by President Kennedy’s daughter Caroline, Al Gore’s daughter Karenna, and Vanessa Kerry and Cate Edwards, daughters of the Democratic candidate and his running mate, Ms Clinton said: “I have a couple of experts in the family, and I hope I do them proud.”
Ms Clinton, 24, confessed to being “a little nervous” before appearing at a rally near Tampa — one of several they held in a concerted last-minute effort by the Kerry campaign to appeal to younger voters. “To be honest, I couldn’t imagine being anywhere else today. I couldn’t imagine not being in Florida because the stakes are too high and the choice is too clear,” she told the rally.
Caroline Kennedy compared the election to the knife-edge 1960 contest in which her father narrowly defeated Richard Nixon. The crowd chanted “J. F. K.” — the initials of both her father and John Forbes Kerry.
Karenna Gore-Schiff, arguing that the 2000 election was stolen from her father when the US Supreme Court ended Florida’s recount drama in Mr Bush’s favour, said: “We know we really won. They won’t steal it again.”
Tim Reid The Times
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 5:57 da manhã
Fotos
Editorial de "El Mundo"
Hay que votar a Kerry para evitar que Bush repita
Este periódico nunca se ha pronunciado sobre unas elecciones democráticas que se celebran en otro país, pero la gran trascendencia de la convocatoria del próximo martes y sus repercusiones internacionales nos determinan a pedir el voto para el senador John Kerry, virtualmente empatado en las encuestas con George W. Bush. Nuestra edición electrónica llega a miles de votantes hispanos en EEUU y EL MUNDO se distribuye en las grandes ciudades de ese país, por lo que nos dirigimos a esos lectores -siendo conscientes de que su sufragio puede ser decisivo- para que voten a Kerry. Ello supondría un castigo para la mala gestión de Bush, probablemente el peor presidente de EEUU desde los tiempos de Hoover y la Gran Depresión.
Todo va a depender previsiblemente de un puñado de votos en la decena de estados indecisos, especialmente en Florida y Pensilvania, que, por su peso electoral, pueden dar la victoria a uno u otro candidato. Pero la aparición de Bin Laden en la recta final de la campaña podría beneficiar al presidente Bush al focalizar el debate sobre la seguridad y la lucha contra el terrorismo, si bien es cierto que también pone en evidencia su fracaso en su intento de capturar al autor intelectual de la masacre del 11-S.
Las amenazas de Bin Laden contra EEUU podrían decantar hacia Bush a los votantes indecisos, reforzando el mensaje del presidente de que el país sigue todavía sumido en una guerra contra el terrrorismo islámico.
Para Europa y para España la trascendencia de estas elecciones es incuestionable, pues está en juego el convivir cuatro años más con el unilateralismo que ha impregnado las políticas de la Administración Bush o poder emprender el camino de la cooperación internacional al que el senador es proclive.
La promesa
Kerry representa otro estilo de gobernar bien distinto, mucho más basado en la racionalidad que en los prejuicios de Bush y su entorno. No es un hombre brillante, pero sí serio y conocedor por su trayectoria en el Senado de los grandes asuntos de Estado.La derecha americana le tacha despectivamente de «liberal», adjetivo que en Europa equivaldría a una posición de centro. Pero, además, su programa contrasta con el del aspirante republicano en aspectos muy importantes como la vuelta al multilateralismo, la supresión de la pena de muerte, el control de la venta de armas y la extensión de la sanidad pública.
Por contraste, como escribe hoy Ron Suskind en nuestras páginas, Bush se ha convertido en un gobernante mesiánico, rodeado de unos asesores que piensan lo mismo que él, que aleja a quien le contradice y cada vez más convencido de que Dios guía sus decisiones políticas.
Tras su discutible victoria de hace cuatro años, Bush prometió que gobernaría para todos los americanos. Pero ha hecho todo lo contrario. Ha dividido al país y lo ha alejado de sus aliados europeos, fomentando el antiamericanismo en el mundo.
El gran acontecimiento que ha marcado la gestión del actual presidente ha sido el 11-S, que conmovió a la sociedad estadounidense. Bush reaccionó al principio con prudencia, pero luego se fue radicalizando hasta cometer el gravísimo error de invadir Irak.
Para justificar el ataque contra Sadam, Bush acuñó la nefasta doctrina del ataque preventivo y despreció la legalidad internacional al no conseguir el suficiente respaldo en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU. Pero además inventó la existencia de armas de destrucción masiva y unas imaginarias conexiones del terrorismo internacional con el dictador iraquí que jamás se han podido demostrar.
Otro punto negro de la gestión de Bush ha sido la violación de los derechos humanos y de las garantías constitucionales, ejemplificados en el arbitrario internamientos de cientos de presos en Guantánamo y en leyes como la Patriot Act, que permite el encarcelamiento de cualquier sospechoso sin orden judicial.
Fracaso económico
Su política económica, al igual que la de su padre, ha sido un completo fiasco. Ha dilapidado la herencia de Clinton, dejando al país con un astronómico déficit presupuestario de 500.000 millones de dólares, tras reducir los impuestos a los ricos y aumentar el gasto militar. La creación de empleo se ha estancado, el cierre de fábricas ha empobrecido zonas como Ohio, Illinois y Pensilvania y los principales índices bursátiles están hoy por debajo de enero de 2000.
No es extraño, por ello, que una amplia mayoría de los negros, los hispanos y los nuevos votantes se decanten por Kerry, cuya victoria podría contribuir a reactivar la economía si acierta a generar unas expectativas de paz en Oriente Próximo y en Irak.
Bush se negó a suscribir el tratado de desarme de armas biológicas y químicas, pero también los acuerdos de Kioto, ahora aceptados por Rusia. Su desprecio al medio ambiente ha ido tan lejos que ha autorizado unas prospecciones petrolíferas en Alaska que Kerry ha prometido revocar.
Los detractores de Kerry aseguran que es una incógnita. No lo creemos porque su trayectoria personal y política es intachable. Pero quien ha dejado de ser una incógnita es el presidente Bush.Su unilateralismo supone un peligro para la paz mundial y nos conduce a un enfrentamiento frontal con el mundo musulmán. No queremos ni imaginar lo que supondría Bush al frente de EEUU otros cuatro años, por lo que estamos seguros de que Kerry, con todas sus limitaciones, será un presidente mucho mejor.
Todo va a depender previsiblemente de un puñado de votos en la decena de estados indecisos, especialmente en Florida y Pensilvania, que, por su peso electoral, pueden dar la victoria a uno u otro candidato. Pero la aparición de Bin Laden en la recta final de la campaña podría beneficiar al presidente Bush al focalizar el debate sobre la seguridad y la lucha contra el terrorismo, si bien es cierto que también pone en evidencia su fracaso en su intento de capturar al autor intelectual de la masacre del 11-S.
Las amenazas de Bin Laden contra EEUU podrían decantar hacia Bush a los votantes indecisos, reforzando el mensaje del presidente de que el país sigue todavía sumido en una guerra contra el terrrorismo islámico.
Para Europa y para España la trascendencia de estas elecciones es incuestionable, pues está en juego el convivir cuatro años más con el unilateralismo que ha impregnado las políticas de la Administración Bush o poder emprender el camino de la cooperación internacional al que el senador es proclive.
La promesa
Kerry representa otro estilo de gobernar bien distinto, mucho más basado en la racionalidad que en los prejuicios de Bush y su entorno. No es un hombre brillante, pero sí serio y conocedor por su trayectoria en el Senado de los grandes asuntos de Estado.La derecha americana le tacha despectivamente de «liberal», adjetivo que en Europa equivaldría a una posición de centro. Pero, además, su programa contrasta con el del aspirante republicano en aspectos muy importantes como la vuelta al multilateralismo, la supresión de la pena de muerte, el control de la venta de armas y la extensión de la sanidad pública.
Por contraste, como escribe hoy Ron Suskind en nuestras páginas, Bush se ha convertido en un gobernante mesiánico, rodeado de unos asesores que piensan lo mismo que él, que aleja a quien le contradice y cada vez más convencido de que Dios guía sus decisiones políticas.
Tras su discutible victoria de hace cuatro años, Bush prometió que gobernaría para todos los americanos. Pero ha hecho todo lo contrario. Ha dividido al país y lo ha alejado de sus aliados europeos, fomentando el antiamericanismo en el mundo.
El gran acontecimiento que ha marcado la gestión del actual presidente ha sido el 11-S, que conmovió a la sociedad estadounidense. Bush reaccionó al principio con prudencia, pero luego se fue radicalizando hasta cometer el gravísimo error de invadir Irak.
Para justificar el ataque contra Sadam, Bush acuñó la nefasta doctrina del ataque preventivo y despreció la legalidad internacional al no conseguir el suficiente respaldo en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU. Pero además inventó la existencia de armas de destrucción masiva y unas imaginarias conexiones del terrorismo internacional con el dictador iraquí que jamás se han podido demostrar.
Otro punto negro de la gestión de Bush ha sido la violación de los derechos humanos y de las garantías constitucionales, ejemplificados en el arbitrario internamientos de cientos de presos en Guantánamo y en leyes como la Patriot Act, que permite el encarcelamiento de cualquier sospechoso sin orden judicial.
Fracaso económico
Su política económica, al igual que la de su padre, ha sido un completo fiasco. Ha dilapidado la herencia de Clinton, dejando al país con un astronómico déficit presupuestario de 500.000 millones de dólares, tras reducir los impuestos a los ricos y aumentar el gasto militar. La creación de empleo se ha estancado, el cierre de fábricas ha empobrecido zonas como Ohio, Illinois y Pensilvania y los principales índices bursátiles están hoy por debajo de enero de 2000.
No es extraño, por ello, que una amplia mayoría de los negros, los hispanos y los nuevos votantes se decanten por Kerry, cuya victoria podría contribuir a reactivar la economía si acierta a generar unas expectativas de paz en Oriente Próximo y en Irak.
Bush se negó a suscribir el tratado de desarme de armas biológicas y químicas, pero también los acuerdos de Kioto, ahora aceptados por Rusia. Su desprecio al medio ambiente ha ido tan lejos que ha autorizado unas prospecciones petrolíferas en Alaska que Kerry ha prometido revocar.
Los detractores de Kerry aseguran que es una incógnita. No lo creemos porque su trayectoria personal y política es intachable. Pero quien ha dejado de ser una incógnita es el presidente Bush.Su unilateralismo supone un peligro para la paz mundial y nos conduce a un enfrentamiento frontal con el mundo musulmán. No queremos ni imaginar lo que supondría Bush al frente de EEUU otros cuatro años, por lo que estamos seguros de que Kerry, con todas sus limitaciones, será un presidente mucho mejor.
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 5:47 da manhã
Mientras... en Uruguay
Dan como vencedor al Frente Amplio
MONTEVIDEO.- El Frente Amplio, liderado por Tabaré Vázquez, ha obtenido el 43,34% de los votos cuando se ha escrutado el 25,38% de los sufragios emitidos en las elecciones generales del domingo en Uruguay, informó la Corte Electoral. Si gana este candidato, sería la primera vez que gana la izquierda en la historia del país.
De 631.488 votos computados, 274.012 son para el Frente Amplio, una coalición de partidos de izquierda cuyo candidato a presidente, Tabaré Vázquez, se proclamó ganador hace varias horas y fue aceptado como tal por sus dos principales rivales en la urnas.
Tabare Vazquez, a la izquierda, proclama su victoria. (AP Foto/Matilde Campodonico)
Para ganar en primera vuelta se precisa la mitad más uno de los votos. Si ningún candidato lo consigue, los dos más votados deben competir en una segunda vuelta.
Con más de un cuarto de los votos emitidos contabilizados, el Partido Nacional logró 245.833 (38,88 por ciento), en tercer lugar aparece el Partido Colorado, con 71.934 votos (11,37 por ciento) y en cuarto el Partido Independiente, con 9.908 (1,55 por ciento).
El voto era obligatorio y estaban habilitadas 2.487.816 personas.
En la misma jornada se sometió a consulta una reforma de la Constitución para hacer que el agua y el saneamiento queden bajo la órbita estatal exclusivamente, y la mayoría de los votantes (59,59 por ciento) dijo "sí", según datos oficiales provisionales.
Si todo continúa como apuntan los primeros datos, sería la primera vez en los 174 años de historia uruguaya que un presidente distinto al de los dos partidos tradicionales, el Colorado y el Blanco, ambos de centroderecha, se alza con el poder.
El candidato de la coalición izquierdista Frente Amplio (FA), Tabaré Vázquez, ha proclamado en la madrugada de este lunes su victoria, según datos provisionales.
Gargano destacó en conversación telefónica desde Montevideo que esta victoria en la primera vuelta, que deberán confirmar los resultados oficiales a partir de las 3:00 locales (las 6:00 en la España peninsular), es "producto de muchos años" de trabajo del Frente Amplio, desde su creación en 1971, y el "remate de una larga trayectoria" para cambiar el país.
Por otra parte, los candidatos del Partido Blanco (centroderecha), Jorge Larrañaga, y del gobernante Partido Colorado (también centroderecha), Guillermo Stirling, ya admitieron el triunfo del socialista Vázquez.
Larrañaga, momentos después de emitir su mensaje ante partidarios agolpados frente a su cuartel general en la Ciudad Vieja de la capital uruguaya, se dirigió en automóvil a saludar a Tabaré Vázquez como "presidente". [EL MUNDO]
De 631.488 votos computados, 274.012 son para el Frente Amplio, una coalición de partidos de izquierda cuyo candidato a presidente, Tabaré Vázquez, se proclamó ganador hace varias horas y fue aceptado como tal por sus dos principales rivales en la urnas.
Tabare Vazquez, a la izquierda, proclama su victoria. (AP Foto/Matilde Campodonico)
Para ganar en primera vuelta se precisa la mitad más uno de los votos. Si ningún candidato lo consigue, los dos más votados deben competir en una segunda vuelta.
Con más de un cuarto de los votos emitidos contabilizados, el Partido Nacional logró 245.833 (38,88 por ciento), en tercer lugar aparece el Partido Colorado, con 71.934 votos (11,37 por ciento) y en cuarto el Partido Independiente, con 9.908 (1,55 por ciento).
El voto era obligatorio y estaban habilitadas 2.487.816 personas.
En la misma jornada se sometió a consulta una reforma de la Constitución para hacer que el agua y el saneamiento queden bajo la órbita estatal exclusivamente, y la mayoría de los votantes (59,59 por ciento) dijo "sí", según datos oficiales provisionales.
Si todo continúa como apuntan los primeros datos, sería la primera vez en los 174 años de historia uruguaya que un presidente distinto al de los dos partidos tradicionales, el Colorado y el Blanco, ambos de centroderecha, se alza con el poder.
El candidato de la coalición izquierdista Frente Amplio (FA), Tabaré Vázquez, ha proclamado en la madrugada de este lunes su victoria, según datos provisionales.
Gargano destacó en conversación telefónica desde Montevideo que esta victoria en la primera vuelta, que deberán confirmar los resultados oficiales a partir de las 3:00 locales (las 6:00 en la España peninsular), es "producto de muchos años" de trabajo del Frente Amplio, desde su creación en 1971, y el "remate de una larga trayectoria" para cambiar el país.
Por otra parte, los candidatos del Partido Blanco (centroderecha), Jorge Larrañaga, y del gobernante Partido Colorado (también centroderecha), Guillermo Stirling, ya admitieron el triunfo del socialista Vázquez.
Larrañaga, momentos después de emitir su mensaje ante partidarios agolpados frente a su cuartel general en la Ciudad Vieja de la capital uruguaya, se dirigió en automóvil a saludar a Tabaré Vázquez como "presidente". [EL MUNDO]
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 5:33 da manhã
L'éditorial du "Monde"
Le choix américain
Oussama Ben Laden vote-t-il George W. Bush ou John F. Kerry ? La machiavélique irruption du chef d'Al-Qaida dans la campagne électorale américaine, à quatre jours du scrutin, fameuse "surprise d'octobre" redoutée par tous les stratèges, a brutalement replacé cette élection dans son véritable contexte : celui du 11-Septembre et de ses suites.
John Kerry, le candidat démocrate, estime que la guerre en Irak, en détournant les ressources militaires américaines de la lutte contre Al-Qaida, a empêché la capture de Ben Laden et renforcé la menace terroriste. Le président Bush, lui, joue ouvertement sur la peur de nouveaux attentats, toujours présente chez ses concitoyens, et demande aux électeurs de lui donner quatre ans de plus pour mener à bien sa "guerre mondiale contre le terrorisme". Chacun peut donc exploiter l'intervention d'Oussama Ben Laden à son avantage : M. Kerry en y voyant la preuve de l'échec de la politique de son adversaire, M. Bush en poussant encore un peu plus le facteur peur.
Prendre parti dans une élection à l'étranger n'est pas dans la tradition du Monde. L'enjeu exceptionnel de l'élection présidentielle du 2 novembre, pourtant, et les termes dans lesquels se présente ce choix historique nous ont convaincus qu'une victoire de John Kerry était souhaitable, au-delà des frontières des Etats-Unis.
Car il s'agit bien d'un choix entre deux visions du monde et du droit. George W. Bush propose à ses compatriotes de sortir du système qu'ils ont connu jusqu'au 11 septembre 2001, celui-là même pour lequel il avait fait campagne en 2000, lorsqu'il promettait une politique étrangère américaine frappée du sceau de "l'humilité". La vision du président Bush est celle d'un pays en guerre, une nouvelle forme de guerre aux contours et aux règles impossibles à définir. Une guerre si particulière qu'il faut lui sacrifier des règles de droit sur lesquelles est fondée la démocratie américaine, remplacer la tradition de transparence par l'opacité et la manipulation, et ignorer l'architecture internationale qui est au centre d'un consensus mondial depuis plus d'un demi-siècle.
John Kerry sait que le monde a changé le 11 septembre 2001. Mais il refuse de voir dans le terrorisme quelque force supérieure qui justifie une remise en cause des fondements de la démocratie américaine et de l'ordre international. Son engagement personnel pendant la guerre du Vietnam, son expérience de la politique étrangère et sa vision "internationaliste" du monde, sa capacité à reconnaître ses erreurs, ainsi que la force de conviction dont il a fait preuve au cours des trois débats présidentiels en font un homme d'Etat beaucoup plus apte que M. Bush à répondre aux défis de l'après 11-Septembre.
Pour la marche du monde, une victoire de John Kerry est préférable le 2 novembre. Pour que l'Europe et les Etats-Unis aient une chance de prendre ensemble un nouveau départ. Et pour qu'à la Maison Blanche s'installe une équipe non plus guidée par le Bien et le Mal, mais par le droit et la justice.
• ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 31.10.04
John Kerry, le candidat démocrate, estime que la guerre en Irak, en détournant les ressources militaires américaines de la lutte contre Al-Qaida, a empêché la capture de Ben Laden et renforcé la menace terroriste. Le président Bush, lui, joue ouvertement sur la peur de nouveaux attentats, toujours présente chez ses concitoyens, et demande aux électeurs de lui donner quatre ans de plus pour mener à bien sa "guerre mondiale contre le terrorisme". Chacun peut donc exploiter l'intervention d'Oussama Ben Laden à son avantage : M. Kerry en y voyant la preuve de l'échec de la politique de son adversaire, M. Bush en poussant encore un peu plus le facteur peur.
Prendre parti dans une élection à l'étranger n'est pas dans la tradition du Monde. L'enjeu exceptionnel de l'élection présidentielle du 2 novembre, pourtant, et les termes dans lesquels se présente ce choix historique nous ont convaincus qu'une victoire de John Kerry était souhaitable, au-delà des frontières des Etats-Unis.
Car il s'agit bien d'un choix entre deux visions du monde et du droit. George W. Bush propose à ses compatriotes de sortir du système qu'ils ont connu jusqu'au 11 septembre 2001, celui-là même pour lequel il avait fait campagne en 2000, lorsqu'il promettait une politique étrangère américaine frappée du sceau de "l'humilité". La vision du président Bush est celle d'un pays en guerre, une nouvelle forme de guerre aux contours et aux règles impossibles à définir. Une guerre si particulière qu'il faut lui sacrifier des règles de droit sur lesquelles est fondée la démocratie américaine, remplacer la tradition de transparence par l'opacité et la manipulation, et ignorer l'architecture internationale qui est au centre d'un consensus mondial depuis plus d'un demi-siècle.
John Kerry sait que le monde a changé le 11 septembre 2001. Mais il refuse de voir dans le terrorisme quelque force supérieure qui justifie une remise en cause des fondements de la démocratie américaine et de l'ordre international. Son engagement personnel pendant la guerre du Vietnam, son expérience de la politique étrangère et sa vision "internationaliste" du monde, sa capacité à reconnaître ses erreurs, ainsi que la force de conviction dont il a fait preuve au cours des trois débats présidentiels en font un homme d'Etat beaucoup plus apte que M. Bush à répondre aux défis de l'après 11-Septembre.
Pour la marche du monde, une victoire de John Kerry est préférable le 2 novembre. Pour que l'Europe et les Etats-Unis aient une chance de prendre ensemble un nouveau départ. Et pour qu'à la Maison Blanche s'installe une équipe non plus guidée par le Bien et le Mal, mais par le droit et la justice.
• ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 31.10.04
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 5:27 da manhã
Voto cubano: un cambio dictado por la realidad
por JIM DEFEDE
Si la última encuesta de The Miami Herald es correcta, el camino a la Casa Blanca ya no pasa exclusivamente por La Pequeña Habana sino que ahora recorre las calles de Wynwood, Allapattah y Homestead.
Y si eso es verdad, el presidente Bush estaría en un grave peligro.
La encuesta del Herald muestra al senador John Kerry ganando el condado de Miami-Dade con 54.3 por ciento de los votos, y 41.5 por ciento por Bush. Cuatro por ciento está indeciso.
Si dividimos esos electores indecisos a la mitad, Kerry llega a 56 por ciento, Bush a 43 y Ralph Nader terminará con menos de 1 por ciento.
Si Kerry gana Miami-Dade 56 a 43, entonces es muy probable que gane la Florida. He aquí por que:
Según la encuesta del Herald, hecha por Zogby International, Kerry está bien ubicado para ganar Miami-Dade por entre 90,000 y 100,000 votos.
A Bush le sería muy difícil superar en el resto del estado si pierde por un margen tan grande en el condado más populoso de la Florida.
Si el margen de error de la encuesta fuera a favorecer a Bush, entonces Kerry le ganaría 53 a 46 por ciento (en vez de 56 a 43). Pero aún así, debido a los nuevos electores, Kerry siempre sacaría 50,000 más votos que Bush.
Y he aquí por qué la encuesta del Herald parece cierta.
Entre el 2000 y el 2004, la división entre demócratas y republicanos es prácticamente la misma en casi todas las categorías.
En el 2000, una abrumadora mayoría de cubanoamericanos apoyó a Bush y la última encuesta del Herald muestra que ahora está sucediendo lo mismo.
En el 2000, el voto negro y judío fue abrumadoramente a favor de Gore, y la última encuesta muestra que está sucediendo lo mismo con Kerry. Entre los anglos, Kerry tiene ventaja pero Bush ha estrechado la diferencia.
El único grupo que es radicalmente diferente es el de los hispanos no cubanos, que está respaldando a Kerry casi dos a uno.
En general, los hispanos (cubanos y no cubanos) apoyan a Bush, según la encuesta del Herald, con 62 por ciento diciendo que va a votar por el presidente y 35 por ciento diciendo que va a votar por Kerry.
Con todo, eso es una gran mejoría para los demócratas en relación con el 2000, cuando 73 por ciento de los hispanos apoyaron a Bush y sólo 27 por ciento votó por Gore.
Y casi todas esas ganancias para Kerry han venido de mexicanos, salvadoreños, dominicanos, colombianos y puertorriqueños, entre otros. Muchos de los cuales van a estar votando por primera vez.
En el 2000, Bush ganó entre todos los hispanos por 135,000 votos. Según la encuesta del Herald, la ventaja de Bush entre los hispanos en el 2004 será de menos de 95,000 votos.
Estrechar esa diferencia en 40,000 votos entre el 2000 y el 2004 sería una enorme victoria para los demócratas y muestra el tremendo impacto que grupos de inscripción de votantes como Mi Familia están teniendo en las elecciones de este año. En seis meses, Mi Familia ha inscrito 66,000 nuevos electores en la Florida, mucho de ellos en Miami-Dade y la mayoría de ellos son hispanos no cubanos.
La New Democrat Network, el Service Employees International Union y el Environmental Action Fund, están gastando $1.6 millones en anuncios dirigidos a los electores hispanos, llamándolos a votar por Kerry.
En realidad, estas elecciones pudieran terminar definitivamente con el desproporcionado impacto que los cubanoamericanos han tenido en las elecciones presidenciales en los últimos 25 años.
Siempre se ha supuesto que si los republicanos consiguen 80 por ciento del voto cubanoamericano van a ganar la Florida. Es por eso que los políticos, tanto demócratas como republicanos, han tratado de complacer a este bloque cubanoamericano durante tanto tiempo en todo, desde el embargo con Cuba y el comercio con la isla hasta la política de pies secos/pies mojados.
Pero en estas elecciones, el presidente Bush pudiera conseguir hasta 82 por ciento del voto cubanoamericano y todavía perder debido a los avances de los demócratas entre otros hispanos.
Y, si eso sucede, se habrá alterado para siempre la importancia de los electores cubanoamericanos.
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 5:17 da manhã
In a Changed Florida, The Acrimony Remains
By Manuel Roig-Franzia and Dale Russakoff
Washington Post
MIAMI - Four years of fermenting political acrimony is funneling into the final hours of a campaign for Florida's crucial electoral votes awash in brawls over lost absentee ballots and accusations about plots to disenfranchise black voters.
The emotional residue of Florida's pivotal role in the 2000 presidential election morass shaped the race here from the beginning and shows no signs of waning -- a big billboard in the vital swing city of Tampa declared, "Last election, the Supreme Court decided. This time, you decide." Not far away, Kelly Given, a supporter of President Bush, lined up at an early-voting precinct and said, "Last election opened a Pandora's box we'll never be able to close."
Yet, for all the obvious comparisons to the days of recounts and dimpled chads, the Florida of 2004 is a very different place from the Florida of 2000, even as polls show the presidential race as close as it was four years ago. The punch cards and the butterfly ballots are gone, replaced in 15 counties by touch-screen voting machines, whose reliability has been questioned by voter advocates. There are 1.5 million new voters, huge crowds outside the state's first presidential election early-voting locations and far higher percentages of Hispanics who are not Cuban Americans.
Voters cast their ballots at the Miami-Dade election headquarters in Miami. Photo: J. Pat Carter -- AP
"Florida is now the most complex state in America," said Simon Rosenberg, president of the Washington-based New Democrat Network, which is running ads targeting Hispanic voters in Florida. "It is the hardest state to poll."
Chaotic handling of absentee ballots has turned Broward County -- a Democratic stronghold north of Miami that supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry believe could tip the election in their favor -- into a pre-election flash point. Broward County Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes -- who took over the job after Gov. Jeb Bush (R) removed the previous supervisor for botching an election -- blamed the post office for losing 58,000 absentee ballots. Later, she lowered the figure to 6,000.
Whatever the figure, U.S. Postal Service officials say they have done nothing wrong and are scrambling to get replacement ballots to voters. More than 2,400 replacement absentee ballots from Broward County and an additional 5,600 from the Democratic bastion of Palm Beach County -- many with out-of-state addresses -- were dropped off late Saturday, long after mail carriers were gone, a Postal Service spokesman said.
"There's no way in hell those people are going to get their ballots in a timely fashion," spokesman Gerry McKiernan said. "They should get their act together over there."
The absentee-ballot follies left Christina Bray, who has a home in Deerfield Beach, Fla., in tears after days of trying to get a ballot sent to her other home in Washington. "I feel like I live in a Third World country," said Bray, 57, a retired World Bank employee.
The Democrats' worries about absentee ballots in Broward and Palm Beach counties are countered by some GOP fretting in Miami, where the president's campaign wants a boost from Cuban American voters. Only half of the county's absentee ballots had been returned by Sunday afternoon, which Republicans said was far below the usual return rate.
Luz Otero, who works odd jobs after being laid off by the state agriculture office, makes $11.03 an hour to open absentee ballots arrayed on tables inside steel cages at Miami's election warehouse. "Some only vote for president," she said, adjusting her blue surgical gloves.
Upstairs, lawyers for both parties are haggling over disqualifying absentee ballots, foreshadowing what will be an aggressive effort to question votes. Eric Buermann, who was chief counsel to the Bush campaign in Florida in 2000, said some concessions were being made for elderly voters with wobbly signatures. "We're compassionate challengers," he quipped.
Republicans plan to have 5,000 poll workers in the state on Election Day, and Democrats expect to have 6,000. Democrats have accused Republicans of targeting precincts in predominantly African American neighborhoods to slow down lines and discourage black voters.
Poll-watcher signup lists in several counties show the GOP plans to monitor all or most predominantly African American precincts but far fewer predominantly white precincts, said Rep. Kendrick Meek, Kerry's Florida campaign chairman. "It's beyond coincidence," he said.
Democrats also have accused the governor of bias for using an error-plagued list of ineligible felons that disproportionately removed blacks from voter rolls. The list was discontinued, but Republicans have recently renewed efforts to question the eligibility of thousands of former felons.
Republicans say they are merely focusing on precincts Democrats won by large margins in 2000. Spokeswoman Mindy Tucker Fletcher accused Meek of concocting controversies to stir the Democratic base. "It's the 15th, 16th or 17th thing they've come up with that is just all wrong," she said.
Many of the concerns about long lines on Election Day -- and the voters they might discourage -- have been fed by television footage of giant turnouts for early voting. More than 1.8 million people have voted early or by absentee ballot, nearly 20 percent of the state's 10.3 million voters. One woman in an early-voting line in Tampa said she had gotten automated calls from Kerry, actor Danny DeVito, Jesse L. Jackson and Bill Clinton, though she had to hang up on the former president's recording because her mother clicked in on call waiting.
Some have waited more than three hours to cast early ballots, and there have been reports of pizza deliveries being made to people waiting in line and of couriers standing in lines at election offices to deliver absentee ballots. Early voting has favored Democrats, but Republicans are enthused by a 2 to 1 advantage for white, Republican voters over black, Democratic voters in early ballots cast in Duval County, where the city of Jacksonville and its large block of African American voters is critical to Democrats.
"If we had turned out more of our base the last time, we would have done a lot more to eliminate the deficit" in the popular vote, said Wallace Klussman, a member of the Texas Strike Force, a group campaigning for Bush in Jacksonville.
Operatives on both sides are obsessing over Florida's Hispanic vote, and the angling to appeal to Spanish speakers is intense. "No Mas Bush" bumper stickers are in such demand that they are approaching collectible status. Kerry chanted the slogan Friday in downtown Miami and delivered several lines in Spanish: "Esta es la eleccion mas importante de nuestras vidas," he said. (This is the most important election of our lives.) The president, who often incorporates Spanish into campaign appearances, told a crowd Sunday in Coral Gables, scene of the first presidential debate, that they should vote to retain first lady Laura Bush, whom he described as "bella," beautiful.
Calle Ocho, where men in guayaberas lean into roadside windows for cups of cafe Cubano, is mockingly referred to as "the Berlin Wall" by political activists in Miami these days. Republicans clump on one side at Cafe Versailles, the city's most famous Cuban restaurant, and Democrats gather at the Kerry campaign office across the street, hoping to peel off a few votes from traditionally Republican Cuban American voters angry about new policies restricting family travel to the island.
"There are some closet Democrats over there," said Lourdes Cantilla, nodding her head across the crowded boulevard in the heart of Little Havana.
Democrats hope the influx of Puerto Ricans to the Orlando area will act as a counterweight to what is still expected to be a heavily GOP vote in parts of South Florida. Puerto Ricans typically vote for Democrats, but Republicans have tried to steer support to the president by placing three Puerto Rican candidates on the ballot for state and local offices.
But they have not convinced Norma Alvarez, who moved to Florida a year ago from Puerto Rico. Alvarez, sipping coffee at her sister's Orlando home, said she fears for her son who is in the U.S. Army and will go to Afghanistan in March. "I'm very worried about a lot of things that are going on -- the war, the economy, health," she said. "Life is getting harder."
Much of the work to find disaffected voters, such as Alvarez, is done by out-of-state volunteers.
Juanita Brown, who had the words "Kerry Si!" painted on her arm, voted early in California and flew to Florida to encourage women to vote. She watched Bruce Springsteen sing "Promised Land" and the Kerry campaign anthem "No Surrender" next to her mother, Millie Cowan, who left the mountains of North Carolina to vote near her winter home in Florida. "This is the most important election in my lifetime," Cowan, 83, said at the raucous rally.
Doug McGregor, Florida coordinator for the College Republican National Committee, wanted to witness one of his candidate's last big Florida events, too. But he started thinking that he might be able to win the election himself by persuading 50 Bush supporters to vote in the same time it would have taken him to attend the president's rally at Tinker Field in Orlando.
"I was torn," he said. With time slipping away he had to make a choice. He went after the 50 voters.
Russakoff reported from Tampa and Orlando. Staff writer Darryl Fears contributed to this report from Jacksonville.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Washington Post
MIAMI - Four years of fermenting political acrimony is funneling into the final hours of a campaign for Florida's crucial electoral votes awash in brawls over lost absentee ballots and accusations about plots to disenfranchise black voters.
The emotional residue of Florida's pivotal role in the 2000 presidential election morass shaped the race here from the beginning and shows no signs of waning -- a big billboard in the vital swing city of Tampa declared, "Last election, the Supreme Court decided. This time, you decide." Not far away, Kelly Given, a supporter of President Bush, lined up at an early-voting precinct and said, "Last election opened a Pandora's box we'll never be able to close."
Yet, for all the obvious comparisons to the days of recounts and dimpled chads, the Florida of 2004 is a very different place from the Florida of 2000, even as polls show the presidential race as close as it was four years ago. The punch cards and the butterfly ballots are gone, replaced in 15 counties by touch-screen voting machines, whose reliability has been questioned by voter advocates. There are 1.5 million new voters, huge crowds outside the state's first presidential election early-voting locations and far higher percentages of Hispanics who are not Cuban Americans.
Voters cast their ballots at the Miami-Dade election headquarters in Miami. Photo: J. Pat Carter -- AP
"Florida is now the most complex state in America," said Simon Rosenberg, president of the Washington-based New Democrat Network, which is running ads targeting Hispanic voters in Florida. "It is the hardest state to poll."
Chaotic handling of absentee ballots has turned Broward County -- a Democratic stronghold north of Miami that supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry believe could tip the election in their favor -- into a pre-election flash point. Broward County Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes -- who took over the job after Gov. Jeb Bush (R) removed the previous supervisor for botching an election -- blamed the post office for losing 58,000 absentee ballots. Later, she lowered the figure to 6,000.
Whatever the figure, U.S. Postal Service officials say they have done nothing wrong and are scrambling to get replacement ballots to voters. More than 2,400 replacement absentee ballots from Broward County and an additional 5,600 from the Democratic bastion of Palm Beach County -- many with out-of-state addresses -- were dropped off late Saturday, long after mail carriers were gone, a Postal Service spokesman said.
"There's no way in hell those people are going to get their ballots in a timely fashion," spokesman Gerry McKiernan said. "They should get their act together over there."
The absentee-ballot follies left Christina Bray, who has a home in Deerfield Beach, Fla., in tears after days of trying to get a ballot sent to her other home in Washington. "I feel like I live in a Third World country," said Bray, 57, a retired World Bank employee.
The Democrats' worries about absentee ballots in Broward and Palm Beach counties are countered by some GOP fretting in Miami, where the president's campaign wants a boost from Cuban American voters. Only half of the county's absentee ballots had been returned by Sunday afternoon, which Republicans said was far below the usual return rate.
Luz Otero, who works odd jobs after being laid off by the state agriculture office, makes $11.03 an hour to open absentee ballots arrayed on tables inside steel cages at Miami's election warehouse. "Some only vote for president," she said, adjusting her blue surgical gloves.
Upstairs, lawyers for both parties are haggling over disqualifying absentee ballots, foreshadowing what will be an aggressive effort to question votes. Eric Buermann, who was chief counsel to the Bush campaign in Florida in 2000, said some concessions were being made for elderly voters with wobbly signatures. "We're compassionate challengers," he quipped.
Republicans plan to have 5,000 poll workers in the state on Election Day, and Democrats expect to have 6,000. Democrats have accused Republicans of targeting precincts in predominantly African American neighborhoods to slow down lines and discourage black voters.
Poll-watcher signup lists in several counties show the GOP plans to monitor all or most predominantly African American precincts but far fewer predominantly white precincts, said Rep. Kendrick Meek, Kerry's Florida campaign chairman. "It's beyond coincidence," he said.
Democrats also have accused the governor of bias for using an error-plagued list of ineligible felons that disproportionately removed blacks from voter rolls. The list was discontinued, but Republicans have recently renewed efforts to question the eligibility of thousands of former felons.
Republicans say they are merely focusing on precincts Democrats won by large margins in 2000. Spokeswoman Mindy Tucker Fletcher accused Meek of concocting controversies to stir the Democratic base. "It's the 15th, 16th or 17th thing they've come up with that is just all wrong," she said.
Many of the concerns about long lines on Election Day -- and the voters they might discourage -- have been fed by television footage of giant turnouts for early voting. More than 1.8 million people have voted early or by absentee ballot, nearly 20 percent of the state's 10.3 million voters. One woman in an early-voting line in Tampa said she had gotten automated calls from Kerry, actor Danny DeVito, Jesse L. Jackson and Bill Clinton, though she had to hang up on the former president's recording because her mother clicked in on call waiting.
Some have waited more than three hours to cast early ballots, and there have been reports of pizza deliveries being made to people waiting in line and of couriers standing in lines at election offices to deliver absentee ballots. Early voting has favored Democrats, but Republicans are enthused by a 2 to 1 advantage for white, Republican voters over black, Democratic voters in early ballots cast in Duval County, where the city of Jacksonville and its large block of African American voters is critical to Democrats.
"If we had turned out more of our base the last time, we would have done a lot more to eliminate the deficit" in the popular vote, said Wallace Klussman, a member of the Texas Strike Force, a group campaigning for Bush in Jacksonville.
Operatives on both sides are obsessing over Florida's Hispanic vote, and the angling to appeal to Spanish speakers is intense. "No Mas Bush" bumper stickers are in such demand that they are approaching collectible status. Kerry chanted the slogan Friday in downtown Miami and delivered several lines in Spanish: "Esta es la eleccion mas importante de nuestras vidas," he said. (This is the most important election of our lives.) The president, who often incorporates Spanish into campaign appearances, told a crowd Sunday in Coral Gables, scene of the first presidential debate, that they should vote to retain first lady Laura Bush, whom he described as "bella," beautiful.
Calle Ocho, where men in guayaberas lean into roadside windows for cups of cafe Cubano, is mockingly referred to as "the Berlin Wall" by political activists in Miami these days. Republicans clump on one side at Cafe Versailles, the city's most famous Cuban restaurant, and Democrats gather at the Kerry campaign office across the street, hoping to peel off a few votes from traditionally Republican Cuban American voters angry about new policies restricting family travel to the island.
"There are some closet Democrats over there," said Lourdes Cantilla, nodding her head across the crowded boulevard in the heart of Little Havana.
Democrats hope the influx of Puerto Ricans to the Orlando area will act as a counterweight to what is still expected to be a heavily GOP vote in parts of South Florida. Puerto Ricans typically vote for Democrats, but Republicans have tried to steer support to the president by placing three Puerto Rican candidates on the ballot for state and local offices.
But they have not convinced Norma Alvarez, who moved to Florida a year ago from Puerto Rico. Alvarez, sipping coffee at her sister's Orlando home, said she fears for her son who is in the U.S. Army and will go to Afghanistan in March. "I'm very worried about a lot of things that are going on -- the war, the economy, health," she said. "Life is getting harder."
Much of the work to find disaffected voters, such as Alvarez, is done by out-of-state volunteers.
Juanita Brown, who had the words "Kerry Si!" painted on her arm, voted early in California and flew to Florida to encourage women to vote. She watched Bruce Springsteen sing "Promised Land" and the Kerry campaign anthem "No Surrender" next to her mother, Millie Cowan, who left the mountains of North Carolina to vote near her winter home in Florida. "This is the most important election in my lifetime," Cowan, 83, said at the raucous rally.
Doug McGregor, Florida coordinator for the College Republican National Committee, wanted to witness one of his candidate's last big Florida events, too. But he started thinking that he might be able to win the election himself by persuading 50 Bush supporters to vote in the same time it would have taken him to attend the president's rally at Tinker Field in Orlando.
"I was torn," he said. With time slipping away he had to make a choice. He went after the 50 voters.
Russakoff reported from Tampa and Orlando. Staff writer Darryl Fears contributed to this report from Jacksonville.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 5:13 da manhã
