Rui @ White House 2004

Bush in Miami today. Photo by Rui Ferreira

Candidates hit Ohio, Florida on pre-election Sunday

(CNN) -- The presidential candidates began a 48-hour sprint to Election Day on Sunday, kicking off the day's battleground tours of Ohio, New Hampshire and Florida.

Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry began with remarks at a predominantly African-American church in Dayton, Ohio, while President Bush started with a rally in Miami, Florida.

Kerry talked about choices in the election to an audience of more than 1,000 worshippers at the Shiloh Baptist Church, Reuters news service reported. "It is a choice about what kind of country and society we'll have."

In Miami, Bush spoke both Spanish and English to his audience, which included many Cuban-Americans and opponents of the regime of Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

"Over the next four years we will continue to press hard and insure that the gift of freedom finally reaches the men and women of Cuba," Bush said, provoking loud applause and chants of "Viva Bush!"

The president is to remain in Florida for much of Sunday, with three campaign stops as part of his effort to win the state's 27 electoral votes. (Electoral College)

In 2000, the Sunshine State clinched the election for Bush, after a month of recounts and court challenges. (Showdown states: Iowa, Ohio, Minnesota, Florida)

Bush's second Florida appearance Sunday was in Tampa. Bush is to make his third stop in the battleground state in Gainesville, before ending the day in Cincinnati, Ohio, where the Bush campaign is hoping to head off any gains in Kerry's popularity.

From Ohio, Kerry follows on Sunday a route to New Hampshire and finally in Florida, where a rally is set for Tampa on Sunday night, just a few hours after Bush was scheduled to depart. (CNN.com's Candidate Tracker)

Far to the west, in Hawaii, as polls showed the presidential race there getting closer, Vice President Dick Cheney was scheduled to campaign Sunday in the Aloha State. He follows on the heals of former Vice President Al Gore, who attended pro-Kerry rallies there on Friday, appealing for Hawaii's four electoral votes. Both Hawaii and New Hampshire have four valuable electoral votes. (Showdown state New Hampshire)

On Saturday, the presidential candidates again devoted their attention to voters in key battleground states, pushing their domestic agendas and underscoring their strategies to fight terrorism.

Kerry spent the morning in the showdown states of Wisconsin and Iowa before landing in Warren, Ohio. Kerry has made more than 20 visits to the state since March. Polls show him gaining on President Bush, though the race between the two candidates remains too close to call.

During the Ohio rally, Kerry urged voters to remember the importance of their choice Tuesday.

"Join with me on Tuesday and we'll change the direction of America," Kerry said to the crowd. "You get to hold Bush accountable for the last four years and set this country on the right track."

He also used the issue of national security to say that what he called Bush's mismanagement of the war on terror has put the United States and its troops at risk.

"I will wage a smarter, tougher war on terrorism," he said. "I will make America safer."

The comments were made in the wake of two videotapes that were broadcast this week -- one from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden -- threatening to unleash more terror attacks against the United States. Neither candidate mentioned the tapes in their speeches. (Full story)

Bush spent Saturday morning traveling across the Midwest and ended his campaign appearances in Orlando, Florida. He currently has a lead in the polls over Kerry. (CNN.com's Poll Tracker)

During his speeches, Bush highlighted his record as a wartime president and said a steady leader is needed in the war on terror.

"The terrorists that killed thousands of people are still dangerous and ready to strike," he said at a rally in Ashwaubenon, Wisconsin, early in the day.

He called his opponent indecisive and said Kerry lacked the resolve needed to lead the nation during a perilous time.

"Whether you agree with me or disagree with me, you know where I stand, you know what I believe," Bush said.

Bush began the day with a rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where he urged supporters to go to the polls Tuesday and presented his case that he was best-suited to protect Americans. (Showdown state Michigan)

"During the last 20 years in key moments of challenge and decision, Senator Kerry has chosen the path of weakness and inaction. With that record he stands in opposition not just to me but to the great tradition of the Democratic Party," Bush said.

Kerry told a crowd in Appleton that all Americans -- Republicans and Democrats -- were united in their determination to kill bin Laden and hunt down terrorists, whom he described as "barbarians."

He said Bush was wrong to divert troops from Afghanistan and rush to war in Iraq.

"I will use all of the power that we have and all of the leadership, the leadership skill that I can summon -- and that is, believe me, more than what we have today," Kerry said. "I will lead the world in fighting a smarter, more effective, tougher, more strategic war on terror, and we will make America safer."

He repeated his assertion that Bush let bin Laden escape by using Afghan forces instead of American troops against al Qaeda in Afghanistan's Tora Bora region in the fall of 2001.

The White House has disputed that contention, and the man who commanded U.S. forces in Afghanistan at the time, retired Gen. Tommy Franks, has said it "does not square with reality."

Franks, a Bush supporter, has said that U.S. special forces played an active role at Tora Bora and that intelligence at the time placed bin Laden in any of several countries.

Both candidates have appeared in Wisconsin about a dozen times since March. In 2000, then-Vice President Al Gore edged out Bush in the state by 5,708 votes.

From Wisconsin, the two campaigns diverged, returning to other states being contested by the parties.

RUI FERREIRA / El Nuevo Herald
FT. LAUDERDALE

Rodeado de cuatro guardaespaldas, un centenar de admiradores y algunos activistas de la campaña del senador John Kerry, el controvertido cineasta Michael Moore hizo esta noche lo que dijo ser la primera de ''varias'' visitas a la Florida para ''supervisar'' estas elecciones presidenciales.


''No vamos a dejar que una vez más nos roben las elecciones. Las boletas tienen que aparecer y van aparecer'', declaró Moore, en un improvisado discurso en las escaleras de la junta electoral del condado Broward, en el downtown de Ft. Lauderdale.

Moore fue recibido también por un pequeño grupo de partidarios del presidente George W. Bush, quienes acompañaron sus palabras con continuas consignas de ''cuatro años más'' y ``No a Kerry''.

''Creo que les vamos a dar cuatro días más, porque las cosas están bien aquí en la Florida sólo tenemos que dar un empujoncito más'', señaló el autor del polémico documental Fahrenheit 911.


Moore explicó que el día de las elecciones piensa traer a su equipo cinematográfico para ''seguir de cerca'' el proceso y ``denunciar todas las irregularidades que podamos''.

La visita del cineasta coincidió con el aparente extravío de unas 60,000 boletas ausentes en el condado de Broward y una jornada de fuertes intercambios de acusaciones entre demócratas y republicanos de intentos de interferir en las votaciones adelantadas.

''Pero ustedes también pueden hacer algo. Quiero decirles que hay todo un equipo con miles de abogados voluntarios en el estado, a quienes ustedes deben llamar si no los dejan votar, porque no nos detendremos hasta que cada voto sea contado, porque todos los votos cuentan'', apuntó.


Y, ''si les impiden votar, quiero que sepan que encontraremos a los responsables'', enfatizó Moore, sin mencionar quién lo haría o a nombre de quién estaba hablando.

Según la portavoz de la campaña demócrata, Arelys Escalera, el cineasta ``está actuando por su cuenta''.


Moore dijo que participó en la protesta frente a la junta electoral porque ''el sistema electoral está en peligro'', pero también ``para asegurarles a ellos [los republicanos] que los vamos a tratar bien cuando a partir del 20 de enero el presidente Kerry tome posesión''.

''A partir de ese día los vamos a dejar casarse entre ellos; que cuando necesiten de salud pública la van a tener; que cuando traigamos a nuestros hijos de Irak también traeremos los de ellos y a partir del 20 de enero no los vamos a tratar como han tratado a las minorías en los últimos cuatro años'', enfatizó Moore.

(C) 2004 El Nuevo Herald

Police Investigating as Many as 58,000 Ballots Yet to Reach Voters in Broward County

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- Up to 58,000 absentee ballots may never have reached the Broward County voters who requested them more than two weeks ago, election officials said, and state police are investigating.

Hundreds of people have called the county elections office to complain that they never got their ballots. The phone system was so overwhelmed some frustrated voters could not get through.

The county election office said the problem involved ballots mailed on Oct. 7-8, though the number of those actually missing was uncertain. Some absentee ballots mailed on those dates have already been returned to be counted.

"We are trying to determine what occurred and whether there was any kind of criminal violation," said Paige Patterson-Hughes, spokeswoman for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

The county blamed the U.S. Postal Service. "That is something beyond our control," Deputy Supervisor of Elections Gisela Salas said. "We really have no idea what's going on."

Postal officials said the post office was not to blame.

"We have employees that we assign to handle the absentee ballots that come in," said Enola C. Rice, a Postal Service spokeswoman in South Florida. "So all the absentee ballots that are received by the Postal Service are processed and delivered immediately."

Absentee voters who did not receive a ballot can request another, which officials said would be sent by overnight mail.

© 2004 The Associated Press

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post

Could one of these electoral college nightmares be our destiny?

President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry deadlock on Tuesday with 269 electoral votes apiece -- but a single Bush elector in West Virginia defects, swinging the election to Kerry.

Or Bush and Kerry are headed toward an electoral college tie, but the 2nd Congressional District of Maine breaks with the rest of the state, giving its one electoral vote -- and the presidency -- to Bush.



Or the Massachusetts senator wins an upset victory in Colorado and appears headed to the White House, but a Colorado ballot initiative that passes causes four of the state's nine electoral votes to go to Bush -- creating an electoral college tie that must be resolved in the U.S. House.

None of these scenarios is likely to occur next week, but neither is any of them far-fetched. Tuesday's election will probably be decided in 11 states where polls currently show the race too tight to predict a winner. And, assuming the other states go as predicted, a computer analysis finds no fewer than 33 combinations in which those 11 states could divide to produce a 269 to 269 electoral tie.

Normally, such outcomes are strictly theoretical. But not this time, with the election seemingly so close and unpredictable. "Flukey things probably happen in every election, but because most are not close nobody pays any attention," said Charles E. Cook Jr., an elections handicapper. "But when it's virtually a tied race, hell, what isn't important?" Cook says this election is on course to match 2000's distinction of having five states decided by less than half a percentage point.

It is still possible that the vote on Tuesday will produce a clear winner of both the electoral and popular votes. But if the winner's margin is small -- less than 1 percent of the popular vote is a rule of thumb -- the odds increase that the quirks of the electoral college could again decide the presidency and again raise doubts about a president's legitimacy.

"Let us hope for a wide victory by one of the two; the alternative is too awful to contemplate," said Walter Berns, an electoral college specialist at the American Enterprise Institute.

But many political strategists are preparing for a narrow -- and possibly split -- decision. Jim Jordan, former Kerry campaign manager now working on a Democratic voter-mobilization effort, puts the odds at 1 in 3 that Bush will share the fate Al Gore suffered in 2000: a popular-vote win but an electoral loss. "It's actually looking more and more plausible," he said, citing a number of polls showing a Bush lead nationally but a Kerry lead in many battleground states.

A repeat of 2000 -- Bush losing the popular vote but winning the electoral count -- is considered less likely because the president has been boosting his support in already Republican states and reducing his deficit in some safely Democratic states.

Even without a split between the electoral and popular votes, there is room for electoral mischief. To begin with, there are the 33 scenarios under which the battleground states could line up so that Kerry and Bush are in an electoral tie. Even if only the six most fiercely contested states are considered -- Florida, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio and Wisconsin -- the electoral vote would be tied if Kerry wins Florida, Minnesota and New Hampshire while Bush wins New Mexico, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Under the 12th Amendment, if one candidate does not get 270 votes, the decision goes to the House, where each state gets a vote -- a formula that would guarantee a Bush victory (the Senate picks the vice president). A House-decided election could produce even more protests than the 2000 election did. That, writes Ryan Lizza of the New Republic, who spelled out 17 scenarios under which the election could end in an electoral tie, is perhaps the only way "for a second Bush term to seem more illegitimate in the eyes of Democrats than his first term."



The possibility of a tie or near-tie in the electoral college also makes it more possible for individual electors to cause havoc. In West Virginia, one of the state's five Republican electors, South Charleston Mayor Richie Robb, has said he might not vote for Bush (although he calls it "unlikely" he would support Kerry). And in Ohio, the political publication the Hotline reports, one of Kerry's 20 electors could be disqualified because he is a congressman. Such problems and "faithless electors" have surfaced before, but the elections were not close enough for it to matter.

In Maine, the state appears to be comfortably in Kerry's column. But the state splits its electoral votes based in part on the vote in each congressional district. If Bush wins in Maine's 2nd District, where Kerry has a narrow lead, the president would take one of the state's four electoral votes, a potentially decisive difference. For example, if Bush takes New Hampshire, Ohio and Wisconsin; Kerry gets Florida, Minnesota and New Mexico; and the other 44 states follow recent polls, Kerry will win the election with 270 votes -- unless Maine's 2nd District turns against him.

Conversely, Bush is favored to win Colorado's nine electoral votes. But a ballot initiative being decided Tuesday would cause the state's electoral votes to be distributed proportionally -- almost certainly meaning five electoral votes for the winner and four for the loser. Polls show the ballot initiative is likely to fail, but if it passes, the presidential election could change with it.

If Bush were to win Colorado along with the key battlegrounds of New Hampshire, New Mexico and Ohio (and other states followed polls' predictions) he would have 273 electoral votes -- but that would become a tie at 269 votes if the ballot initiative passes. Alternatively, if Kerry were to win Colorado and claim Minnesota, New Mexico and Ohio, he would have 272 votes -- until Colorado's ballot initiative returned four votes, and the presidency, to Bush.

por ALEJANDRO ARMENGOL

Mal anda la campaña por la presidencia de Estados Unidos, cuando ambos candidatos apelan cada vez más en sus discursos a los sentimientos religiosos de los electores. En el presidente George W. Bush es natural este llamado a la fe, ya que desde la llegada al poder se ha considerado un “mensajero de Dios”. Pero en su oponente, el senador John Kerry, implica una táctica de última hora que suena a desesperación ante la imposibilidad de cobrar la delantera en los días finales antes del momento cumbre, cuando los norteamericanos decidirán en las urnas el futuro de la nación y de gran parte de lo que lo que ocurra en el mundo durante los próximos cuatro años.
De acuerdo a las cifras, Kerry lleva las de perder en este terreno.

Aproximadamente el 42 por ciento de los habitantes de EEUU se consideran evangélicos o “nacidos de nuevo” —la autodenominada forma de clasificarse que caracteriza a los que como Bush dicen haber “encontrado al Señor”— quienes practican una religión cristiana, dividida en múltiples iglesias y sectas, aunque todas con el denominador común de una práctica religiosa protestante. Hay también unos cuatro millones de evangélicos que no votaron en noviembre de 2000, nuevos electores cuya amplia mayoría posiblemente se incline hacia el Presidente. Kerry, por su parte, profesa la religión católica, aunque su posición antidogmática respecto al aborto, la investigación con células madre y los matrimonios homosexuales le ha ganado la oposición de destacadas figuras de la institución católica en este país.

Desde su llegada al poder, Bush ha hecho del fundamentalismo cristiano la coraza ideológica que rige sus acciones. Incluso en varias ocasiones ha empleado el término “cruzada” para referirse a su guerra contra el terrorismo, lo que ha provocado siempre la necesidad de desmentidos y aclaraciones —por parte de sus voceros y funcionarios— para no aumentar aún más las tensiones con los musulmanes del país y el resto del mundo. Al tiempo que este alarde de fe es una de las características más notorias —y criticada— de la personalidad del mandatario, su apoyo sostenido a la causa cristiana ha sido uno de los pilares electorales que mayores dividendos le ha brindado. En la actual campaña, las iglesias han actuado como centros de reclutamiento de votantes, los pastores han urgido a sus feligreses que voten por Bush y multitud de fieles han expresado la creencia de que “Dios está usando al Presidente en su lucha contra el Maligno”. Según una encuesta luego de las elecciones de 2000, realizada por la Universidad de Akron, más de dos tercios los que dijeron asistir al menos una vez por semana a la iglesia votaron por Bush. No quiere esto decir que todos los cristianos sean ciegos abanderados del actual presidente, pero nunca como ahora —en la historia reciente de EEUU— la religión ha jugado un papel tan clave en las decisiones ante las urnas.

Kerry ha intensificado las referencias bíblicas en sus últimos discursos con el afán de ganarse a los votantes indecisos, quienes continúan siendo la gran incógnita electoral. Una táctica política válida que no impide la sospecha de que, una vez más, se coloque a la defensiva y haga el papel de caja de resonancia —en un sentido opuesto— frente a las propuestas de Bush.

El fundamentalismo cristiano tiene claro lo mucho que puede ganar si el Presidente es reelecto. Bush les ha ofrecido mayores recursos económicos a las instituciones benéficas de las iglesias y sectas, la continuación de la prohibición de fondos federales para las investigaciones con células madre y el proseguir la erosión de la distinción primordial entre Iglesia y Estado. Pero lo más importante es la certeza de que un segundo mandato de Bush implicará la nominación de uno o más magistrados a la Corte Suprema. Estas nominaciones constituyen una prioridad presidencial, e incluso sin el apoyo del Congreso —en la actualidad ambas cámaras están en manos de los republicanos— no quedaría otra opción que aceptar a jueces conservadores. De esta forma, se rompería el precario equilibrio existente en el Supremo, y éste se inclinaría irremediablemente a la derecha, con la posibilidad de que el aborto sea prohibido o limitado a los casos extremos.

Hasta ahora, Kerry se había mostrado como un católico moderado, que prefería mantener en el terreno privado sus convicciones religiosas. Durante la elecciones primarias de su partido, se mostró renuente a discutir cuestiones religiosas y destacó el peligro que representaba el intento de Bush de borrar la distancia entre Iglesia y Estado. Todo cambió durante el último debate televisivo, en que expresó: “Mi fe afecta todo lo que hago”. La declaración guarda similitudes con lo que viene expresando desde hace años Bush, incluso al referirse a las decisiones claves de su mandato. En Plan of Attack, el Presidente le confesó a Bob Woodward respecto a su decisión de lanzar la invasión a Irak: “Llegado a este punto, comencé a orar, a fin de tener la fortaleza necesaria para hacer la voluntad del Señor. …Téngalo por seguro, no voy a justificar una guerra fundamentándome en Dios. No obstante, en mi caso, oré para ser tan buen mensajero de su voluntad como fuera posible. Y entonces, por supuesto, oré por fortaleza personal e indulgencia”. Más allá de las semejanzas de los dos candidatos, en declararse hombres de fe, las diferencias son abismales. Kerry es un político práctico, que a lo largo de su carrera nunca ha puesto a los hechos por encima de sus creencias. Bush es un fanático —al estilo calvinista— que subordina la realidad a su ideología. Este fervor dogmático comenzó a acentuarse luego de los ataques terroristas del 9/11. A partir de ese momento, la actual administración acentuó un estilo de gobierno que exige la lealtad absoluta a sus seguidores, el secreto absoluto respecto a su gestión y la desconfianza total frente a cualquiera que presente un punto de vista contrario o aparezca con una información que ponga en entredicho los planes formulados.

Durante toda la campaña, las distinciones entre los aspirantes a la presidencia han estado centradas siempre en las diferencias de carácter, interpretadas como positivas o negativas de acuerdo a la militancia política de quien las contemple: Bush testarudo y Kerry analítico y dispuesto a reconocer sus errores; Bush firme y Kerry pusilánime y cambiante.

Estas diferencias, sin embargo, trascienden las personalidades. El gobierno de Bush tiene un marcado afán imperialista y una forma autoritaria, que sin duda se profundizará en caso de una victoria. No son sólo las grandes lagunas del mandatario respecto a lo que ocurre fuera de la Casa Blanca y sus limitaciones intelectuales. Tampoco su desprecio ante la opinión ajena y la renuencia a escuchar consejos hasta de sus más cercanos colaboradores, una actitud tan bien expresada por el ex secretario del Tesoro, Paul O’Neill, cuando dijo que en las reuniones de gabinete Bush se comportaba como “un ciego en una habitación llena de sordos”. EEUU está en manos de un grupo de ideólogos que pertenecen al ala ultraderechista de nuevo cuño del Partido Republicano, los llamados “neoconservadores”, quienes responden a los intereses de las corporaciones y la industria armamentista y reflejan los valores del fundamentalismo cristiano de los estados sureños. Para mantener su hegemonía, no dudarán ni por un momento lanzarse a una nueva guerra, harán todo lo posible por destruir el sistema de seguridad social y ampliarán todas las políticas que impliquen un aumento de las ganancias de los grupos más poderosos, en detrimento de las clases medias y bajas de la población.

Como ha ocurrido en otras ocasiones, el énfasis religioso que ha adquirido la campaña no hace más que ocultar la situación imperante en EEUU. Es cierto que, desde el punto de vista religioso, el enfoque pragmático de Kerry es más acorde al catolicismo, mientras que el irracionalismo de Bush encaja a las claras en el protestantismo. Pero esta nación se caracteriza por el establecimiento de vínculos políticos que trascienden las barreras del credo. ¿Cómo explicar entonces la alianza entre los fundamentalistas cristianos y el sionismo? La respuesta es fácil: ambos grupos han echado a un lado sus diferencias de fe en favor de un gobierno norteamericano que no pone freno a los desmanes del aventurerismo militar de Ariel Sharon. Al final, la victoria la tendrá el candidato que logre convencer o engañar mejor a los votantes. Para lograrlo Bush ora y Kerry reza, pero sus asesores saben que no basta con las oraciones.

(C) AA 2004

Nos ultimos dias Bush e Kerry andam com uma preocupação impressionante. Querem que o eleitorado tenha a certeza que acreditam em Deus e se são elleitos a relação do estado com a igreja não muda e em todas as moedas continuará escrito em Deus confiamos e nas notas continuarão a ter esse enorme olho aberto e maçonico que pareçe olhar para tudo e todos.

Mas o que ambos não gostam, é de que se fale até que ponto o misticismo joga um a papel nas suas vidas. Em tempos recentes tornaram-se conhecidas as idas à bruxa de Nancy Reagan na véspera de alguma decisão importante do marido. O propio George Bush admitiu que consultou o mais além antes de invadir o Iraq. Portanto, neste sentido já sabemos o que a casa gasta.

A grande incógnita é John Kerry. Dizem que na sede da campanha há muitas velinhas acesas. Não para que ele seja eleito mas sim para ver se conseguem emprego no mes que vem porque com as sondagens a virem por aí abaixo em duas semanas podem estar todos desempregados. Já é uma pista, não é? Ouça aqui.

por Zoe Valdés

Los escritores, igual que cualquier otro ser humano razonable, en principio estamos en contra de la guerra, de cualquier guerra.Estoy y estuve en contra de la guerra, primero que nada por las consecuencias espantosas que engendra y después porque me siento harta, aburrida y hasta avergonzada, con vergüenza ajena, de aquellos escritores y artistas que como papagayos oportunistas, para ganarse puntos con el poder, no paran de cacarear que están en contra de la Guerra de Irak, que escriben en contra de la Guerra de Irak, entonces, sólo para que se termine de una vez el tema de la guerra, hay que acabar con la guerra. No niego que cuando vi caer las estatuas de Sadam Husein me sentí inmensamente feliz y aún más cuando cayó el propio dictador, legañoso y miedoso en su madriguera. Bien, pero, ¿en contra de qué guerra están algunos intelectuales y artistas e incluso políticos? ¿Por qué sólo están en contra de la guerra en Irak? Ah, porque es, según ellos, una guerra de oligarcas y por ahí se sueltan en disertaciones espumeantes de cava.

¿Por qué no enfrentan su airada escritura en contra de otras guerras? ¿Por qué no ponen sus palabras en contra de la guerra que desató Osama bin Laden el 11-S en Nueva York? ¿Por qué no están en contra de la guerra desatada contra los ciudadanos españoles el 11-M? ¿Por qué no están en contra de la guerra en un continente que les interesaría y que les debería tocar más de cerca, como es el continente americano? ¿Por qué, en fin, no se manifiestan en contra de la guerra de guerrillas perpetrada desde hace casi medio siglo por el Ché y Fidel Castro? ¿Desconocen acaso la cantidad de víctimas que ha amontonado la sanguinaria guerra de narcoguerrilleros colombianos? Por mucho que me lo expliquen, no entiendo la inercia para algunas cosas y la inmovilidad para otras.

Pero en ese tema manido y manipulado no brillan sólo los escritores y artistas. En los famosos debates de George W. Bush y de John Kerry, no ha habido otro careo con sustancia internacional más contundente que el de la Guerra de Irak, teniendo al lado la peligrosísima infección de la guerrilla colombiana, una guerra sin cuartel contra inocentes, con fronteras con Venezuela, país que bajo el dominio absoluto del caudillo Hugo Chávez (y de Fidel Castro), el loco que ha dado albergue a ETA, el íntimo amigo del terrorista Carlos. ¿Cómo obviar el horror en nombre de la izquierda que desde hace años se gesta en América Latina, en materia de terrorismo internacional, incluyendo a miembros del IRA y a grupos islamistas árabes?

Fidel Castro lo afirmó, muy al inicio, en los años 70, lanzando de este modo, más que una advertencia, una amenaza al mundo: «Si nos propusiéramos ser terroristas, seríamos excelentes terroristas».Lo que no ha cesado de ocurrir. No olvidar que bajo las órdenes del Comandante Piñeyro, más conocido como Barbarroja, se creó en el Departamento América del Consejo de Estado Castrista, una célula terrorista que secuestraba, chantajeaba y asesinaba a banqueros italianos, a familias que se veían obligadas a pagar el impuesto revolucionario. ¿Les recuerda esto algo a los españoles? Además, qué raro que contra la guerra desatada por ETA se pronuncien tan poco la mayoría de los escritores y artistas españoles, que incluso con su voto han apoyado a políticos que arengan a los etarras a atentar contra otros sitios de España que no sean Cataluña.La vergüenza, como dirían los franceses.

O sea que, por lo que vemos, salvo la Guerra de Irak, todas las demás guerras parecería que fueran graciosas para algunos, gozan de gran simpatía en el núcleo de la intelectualidad y de los medios artísticos de la izquierda internacional, sobre todo de la española. Lo que constituye más que una ofensa una colaboración directa, una complicidad alevosa y excesivamente dañina, que no respeta lo principal, el derecho a la vida. Por culpa de estos tontos útiles algo mucho más trágico podría suceder, porque el día menos pensado, seremos capaces de aceptar como normal que un grupo terrorista nos haga picadillo con un collar de explosivos anudado al cuello como rutina. Sepan que ya le ocurrió a una colombiana, quien era solamente una maestra de pueblo. Aunque en estos horrores no existen distinciones que valgan. Si seguimos como vamos, el terrorismo destruirá los logros de la democracia.Ya vivimos un antecedente el 11-M en Madrid, ¿cómo han podido olvidarlo los intelectuales españoles? Indiscutiblemente, vuelvo y reitero, para cierta gente hay guerras graciosas y dictaduras simpáticas, a las que apoyan, y hasta ahora son las que más víctimas inocentes se han cobrado.

Después hay otro tipo de colaboración siniestra. La de los gobiernos de izquierda. Acabo de leer una carta de Vladimiro Roca, presidente de Todos Unidos y de los socialdemócratas cubanos, por supuesto, en la disidencia, hijo del antiguo luchador comunista Blas Roca.Vladimiro Roca se dirige al presidente Rodríguez Zapatero explicándole con puntos muy claros su posición política en la disidencia interna, su marcado deseo de diálogo, y subraya que no puede haber diálogo con quien no está dispuesto a escuchar opiniones diferentes.Más claro ni el agua y, declara Vladimiro Roca, (sería bueno que esta carta fuera publicada en algún diario español) que no comprende la posición del Gobierno de Rodríguez Zapatero en relación a la UE y Cuba, que tiene una «brillante actuación diplomática» (entrecomillado mío) en el incidente de la embajada española, el Día de la Hispanidad, mediante el portento verborreico del embajador Zaldívar, quien ofendió crudamente a los disidentes que se hallaban en la sede diplomática, invitados por él mismo, sin duda alguna. Algo que sólo podemos asimilar los que conocemos la «sutileza ibérica» (entrecomillado mío). Impensable en los medios diplomáticos galos, invitar a alguien para después agredirlo verbalmente, humillarlo y además amenazarlo. Peor si tenemos en cuenta que estos disidentes se mueven con cero posibilidades políticas dentro de su propio país, yo diría que sólo han tenido esa posibilidad cuando las embajadas los han invitado, ha sido cuando han podido ser escuchados en ambientes democráticos.Y aún peor, si no ignoramos que entre ellos se encontraba el dirigente Osvaldo Payá Sardiñas, Premio Sajarov por los derechos humanos, a quien más de 24.000 firmas cubanas, ya no clandestinas, han respaldado su Proyecto Varela. Y la reconocida disidente y economista Marta Beatriz Roque, presa en dos ocasiones, perenne luchadora por los derechos cubanos, coautora del documento La patria es de todos. Todavía ninguna ministra feminista del actual Gobierno de Zapatero ni ninguna escritora y artista de las del ¡Pásalo! se han dignado a mencionar a esta mujer ni a añadirla a su larga lista de ejemplares luchadoras por la paz y por la democracia. Ya me gustaría ver a la señora Leire Pajín, a quien acabo de ver en la televisión declarando que si la transición pacífica en Cuba, que si el diálogo. Señora Pajín, ¿cree usted que hubiera podido haber diálogo con Pinochet, con Hitler? Señora Pajín, es usted mujer, ¿no le da vergüenza dialogar con una dictadura en lugar de escuchar y dialogar con Marta Beatriz Roque o con las Damas de Blanco, el equivalente de las madres de la Plaza de Mayo? Señora Pajín, creo que usted no sabe ni de lo que habla ni conoce a las Damas de Blanco ni se preocupa por Marta Beatriz Roque. Creo que usted está puesta de bonito para repetir lo que le mandan y esperar a vestirse de maniquí a ver si le dan un chance en el próximo reportaje de revista de modas.

Para colmo, Castro se permite negar la entrada de Jorge Moragas y de un grupo de diputados holandeses, con insultos y tutti quanti.La conducta de Castro con este episodio me recuerda los múltiples momentos en que Estados Unidos ha querido levantar el embargo.La respuesta por parte de Castro siempre ha sido la misma: apretar la tuerca impidiendo de ese modo que Estados Unidos levante el embargo. Señor Rodríguez Zapatero, Castro está respondiéndole a su buena fe, en el caso de que la hubiera, como responde a los americanos.

¿Qué intelectuales de la izquierda española han firmado la reciente carta dirigida a Rodríguez Zapatero pidiéndole su apoyo en la liberación de un poeta preso? Raúl Rivero, poeta de izquierdas, enfermo, hundido en una celda llena de excrementos, de agua sucia, de ratas, de ranas, con un carcelero que lo tortura psicológicamente, de nombre Alexéi. ¿Qué pasa, por qué no se mueven? Algunos hasta han dicho que se trata de un enemigo de la revolución pagado por el imperio, ya esto lo he aclarado en varios artículos, no merece la pena que llueva sobre mojado. Hago excepción de Rosa Montero, Antonio Muñoz Molina, Fernando Savater, Juancho Armas Marcelo, pero sólo unos contados con los dedos.

Por suerte, en Francia no sucede igual y los intelectuales toman partido por los disidentes. Jorge Semprún, Jeannine Verdés-Leroux, François Masperó, Jean-Fraçois Revel, Bernard Henri-Lévy, André Glucksmann, Jean Daniel, Régis Débray, Elizabeth Burgos, Laure Adler, Jean-François Fogel, Bertrand Rosenthal, Corinne Cumerlato, Dennis Rousseau, Catherine David, Thierry Ardisson, Robert Ménard, Roman Goupil, Marek Alter, Pierre Bergé, entre otros muchos.Se ha reeditado la Carta Abierta a Fidel Castro de Fernando Arrabal, una figura excepcional de las letras españolas y galas. En uno de sus párrafos, Arrabal comenta con lujo de detalles cómo desde hace décadas los niños y jóvenes cubanos hemos tenido y tienen aún que trabajar la tierra para pagar sus estudios y las milicias de tropas territoriales, afiliarse a organizaciones castristas para ser aceptados como seres humanos. Arrabal señala que esto está prohibido en España, o sea obligar a trabajar a menores de 18 años para el beneficio del Estado y del Ejército, en condiciones de campo de concentración. Bien, pocos reparan en eso, poquísimos se suman a la protesta del poeta. El enfrentamiento a Castro, en España, es aún tímido, demasiado.

Insisto en el hecho de que contados fueron los que en su momento protestaron contra Sadam Husein cuando éste desorejaba y asesinaba a inocentes por el simple hecho de que no aprobaban su psicosis de poder, dictatorial y criminal. Pocos protestaron, y más, algunos añaden que al dictador iraquí lo pusieron los americanos, lo cual es una verdad o una falsedad a medias. Si estudiamos la Historia de Cuba, veremos cómo también, entonces, a Fidel Castro, lo puso un sector importante del Gobierno americano, de trogloditas petroleros y de mafiosos. A quienes conviene, cualquiera que sea el Gobierno, que continúe en el poder. No pienso que habrá una invasión a Cuba. Por supuesto que no la deseo, contrario a los rumores que me llegan desde Italia, de cierta gentuza que asegura haber leído, no sé dónde, que yo he apoyado la guerra en Irak y que he sugerido lo mismo para Cuba. Calumnias que no admitiré; sin embargo, espero que los intelectuales, artistas y políticos de izquierda, apoyen a la disidencia cubana ,y desde luego, se manifiesten contra otras guerras: la guerra de guerrillas y el terrorismo. Antes de que sea fatalmente tarde.

By MARIA NEWMAN
The New York Times

President Bush asserted today that Senator John Kerry's health care plan would amount to "the largest expansion of government health care in American history,'' while the widow of Christopher Reeve announced that she had decided to speak out for Mr. Kerry because he supports embryonic stem cell research that promises progress on intractable health problems.

As the campaigns count down to the Nov. 2 presidential election, Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry spent the day in swing states, pounding away at some of the shorthand themes that each candidate believes will win over undecided voters or hold on to his base: Mr. Bush tried to paint Mr. Kerry as a proponent of big government out of step with mainstream America, while his opponent said the president had "an extreme political agenda that slows instead of advances science.''

The president's address to an invited audience in Downingtown, Pa., was billed as being about medical liability reform. But Mr. Bush managed to weave in his refrain that Mr. Kerry's health plan would lead to higher costs and more federal involvement, a charge the Kerry campaign rejects.

"The federal government's going to become like an insurance company, a reinsurer, which sounds fine on the surface, except remember this, when the federal government writes the check, the federal government also writes the rules,'' Mr. Bush said.

The president said that in his second term, he wanted to make health care more affordable and accessible, while preserving the system of private care in this country. He also said he wanted to help families and individuals afford health insurance by setting up health savings accounts.

He said that Mr. Kerry's health care plan would add 22 million more Americans to the government system, and that he would make Medicaid a program so large that employers would be moved to drop private coverage.

But Mr. Bush did not mention that the Medicare law he signed would, by the administration's own estimate, move nine million more people into Medicare H.M.O.'s and other managed-care plans.

Also, during the last four years, the number of uninsured Americans increased by five million. Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that Medicare premiums would increase in January by 17 percent.

The president said Mr. Kerry had voted 10 times as a senator against reforms in the area of medical liability. He said there were too many "junk lawsuits'' against doctors.

"We want our doctors focused on fighting illness, not on having to fight lawsuits,'' he said.

The Bush campaign wants to limit medical malpractice awards to save $60 billion to $108 billion annually in health care costs. The Kerry campaign favors limits on medical malpractice premium increases, sanctions for frivolous lawsuits, and nonbinding mediation in all states.

At a news conference arranged to coincide with President Bush's 40th visit to Pennsylvania, Gov. Ed Rendell , a Democrat, said Mr. Bush was raising the malpractice issue to distract attention from increasing numbers of people losing health care coverage and the rising costs of coverage.

"This is a typical response by the president's campaign, taking a problem that exists but is on its way to being solved by other people and blowing it up in an effort to scare the voters," Mr. Rendell said, according to The Associated Press.

Mr. Kerry, speaking in Columbus, Ohio, said the president's limits on embryonic stem cell research puts him at odds with most Americans, who believe such research should be encouraged and unhindered.

"You get the feeling that if George Bush had been president during other periods in American history, he would have sided with the candle lobby against electricity, the buggymakers against cars and typewriter companies against computers,'' Mr. Kerry said.

Mr. Kerry was introduced by Dana Reeve, whose husband, Christopher, an actor, gained fame both as "Superman'' and as a forceful advocate for spinal cord research after a fall from a horse left him a quadriplegic nine years ago. Perhaps the foremost cause for Mr. Reeve, who died on Oct. 10, was the loosening of restrictions on stem cell research.

Mr. Reeve and Mr. Kerry knew each other for about 15 years, and the actor supported Mr. Kerry's positions on stem cell research.

"My inclination would be to remain private for a good long while," Mrs. Reeve said today, her voice sometimes breaking with emotion. "But I came here today in support of John Kerry because this is so important. This is what Chris wanted.''

She said her husband had spent much of his time researching the latest scientific advances and encouraging such research to find cures for illnesses.

"He was tireless,'' she said. "He talked to researchers almost every day. He challenged scientists to move from the lab to the patient.

"Most importantly, he joined the majority of Americans in believing that the promise of embryonic stem cell research is the key to unlocking life-saving treatments and cures,'' she said to loud and sustained applause.

Mr. Kerry began the day by going hunting, emerging from an Ohio cornfield wearing camouflage gear and carrying a 12-gauge shotgun. One of the several men with him carried a goose that the senator said he had shot.

Mr. Kerry made only brief remarks, saying he had stayed up late to watch the Boston Red Sox defeat the New York Yankees last night to clinch the American League pennant.

"I'm still giddy over the Red Sox,'' Mr. Kerry said to reporters at the field, according to The Associated Press. "It was hard to focus.''

Mr. Kerry, whose home base is Boston, had joined campaign aides and other supporters to cheer his team to victory. He then woke up early for the 7 a.m. hunting event at a supporter's farm.

In the meantime, the National Rifle Association bought a full-page ad in today's Youngstown newspaper, The Vindicator, saying Mr. Kerry was posing as a sportsman while opposing gun-owners' rights. The organization, which claims four million members, endorsed Mr. Bush last week. Mr. Kerry disputes the N.R.A.'s contention that he wants to "take away" guns, although he did support the ban on assault-type weapons and legislation requiring background checks at gun shows.

"If John Kerry thinks the Second Amendment is about photo ops, he's Daffy," the ad said.

RUI FERREIRA / El Nuevo Herald

El empresario y filántropo George Soros lanzó ayer en Miami un feroz ataque al presidente George W. Bush, al cual acusó de intentar suprimir toda disidencia en Estados Unidos tras los ataques del 11 de septiembre.

''Cuando Bush fue electo, me di cuenta que los valores del país tenían que ser defendidos, pero más aún tras el 11 de septiembre, cuando el presidente silenció toda crítica con la disculpa del antipatriotismo'', dijo el empresario estadounidense, de origen húngaro.



En su opinión, presentada ante unas 500 personas en el Miami Dade College en el marco de la Feria Internacional del Libro, Soros dijo que ''la campaña de Bush está saboteando la fundamentación de una sociedad libre'', porque ``admitir que se está equivocado es la fundamentación de una sociedad abierta''.

''Después del 11 de septiembre el presidente ha tratado de suprimir todo signo de disensión'', enfatizó.

Soros, quien abogó directamente por la elección del senador demócrata John Kerry, dijo que el presidente sabía que no había ninguna conexión entre Osama Bin Laden y Saddam Hussein, pero aun así invadió a Irak.

''¿Se imaginan lo que piensa el mundo de nosotros cuando escucha decir cosas como que no importa lo que se hace en Irak con tanto que vivamos seguros aquí?'', afirmó.

Pero, ``la verdad es que al violar la ley internacional, el presidente Bush no nos ha hecho más seguros''.

''Toda mi experiencia en democracia me dice que no se puede imponer la democracia por la violencia, e Irak sería el último lugar donde se me ocurriría experimentar con la implantación de la democracia'', añadió.

Soros estimó que la guerra en Irak ``ha hecho mucho daño a Estados Unidos, a nuestra sociedad, pero también a la moral de las tropas, porque no han sido entrenadas como una fuerza de ocupación''.

El empresario y autor de varios libros ha desarrollado una fuerte campaña contra el presidente en los últimos meses.



Ayer, Soros no negó que quiere ver al presidente fuera de la Casa Blanca.

''Esta no es una elección normal, sino un referendo al mandato del presidente. Si lo reelegimos, no sólo estamos respaldando sus políticas, estamos asumiendo sus consecuencias'', dijo. Es más, ``rechacemos sus políticas, porque sólo así tendremos más apoyo en el mundo''.

(C) 2004 El Nuevo Herald

Hoje fui almoçar com o George Soros. Durante hora e meia ouvi as razões porque decidiu investir metade da sua fortuna na derrota do presidente americano.

Explicou que tudo se reduz a um facto. Desde o 11 de setembro do ano 2001, que Bush não admite nenhum tipo de crítica e em nome do patriotismo calou toda a voz dissidente. Está a minar as bases de uma sociedade livre porque o direito à diferença é uma das bases das sociedades abertas.

E com isto não foi sequer consecuente com os ideais republicanos. E depois disto nada se pode esperar dele. Se reelegemos a Bush somos responsaveis pelas consecuencias. Foi George Soros hoje ao almoço. Logo ao jantar há mais. Ouça aqui.

Isto é muito simples, um fantasma ronda a América, é o fantasma do serviço militar obrigatório. Ninguem sabe como apareçeu, de onde veio. Até acabou por ser mencionado no ultimo debate presidencial.

Ontem telefonei às duas campanhas e as duas dissseram-me que nem Kerry nem Bush se opõem ao recrutamento obrigatório, mas inesperadamente começaram a atacarse uma à outra. Do estilo, a gente pensa que ele disse, nao importa que não tenha dito, de qualquer modo a gente responde já. Enfim, é o delirio.

E como a guerra do Viename deixou muitas marcas e as pessoas ainda se lembram do recrutamento obrigatório e das imagens da frente de batalla que chegavam pelas televisões, a coisa por ter o seu efeito. Ou não fosse um bom boato. Não há dúvida, meus senhores, a Guerra Fria ataca a América eleitoral. Ouça aqui.

por Deborah Charles / Reuters

Cuatro años después de apurarse para enviar abogados a Florida a fin de librar la batalla del recuento de votos, los partidos Republicano y Demócrata están desplegando miles de expertos legales a lo largo de Estados Unidos previo a las elecciones presidenciales del 2 de noviembre.

Los demócratas dicen que han reclutado a más de 10,000 abogados --muchos de ellos voluntarios-- y que tienen equipos de expertos que pueden desplazarse rápidamente en caso de problemas legales o alguna disputa en las urnas como la del 2000 en Florida.

Los resultados de ese estado fueron determinantes para que el republicano George W. Bush llegara a la Casa Blanca hace cuatro años, tras una amarga contienda legal de cinco semanas, y nuevamente ahora es uno de los diez estados reñidos en la carrera presidencial.

Bush se impuso sobre su contrincante, Al Gore, en Florida en el 2000 por 537 votos después de un discutido recuento de sufragios que terminó en la Corte Suprema de Justicia. Desde entonces Florida aprobó una ley en la que permite que se comience a votar 15 días antes del día de la elección nacional.

’’Vamos a tener cinco equipos de abogados que se puedan desplazar para luchar en cinco recuentos simultáneos’’, dijo Marc Elias, consejero general del senador de Massachusetts John Kerry, el contendiente demócrata de Bush.

’’Eso es una consecuencia de nuestra experiencia en el 2000, cuando estaba claro que ninguna de las partes ... no estaba preparada para tener una operación del tipo de la de Florida, si al mismo tiempo había una competencia reñida en Nuevo México y una carrera cercana en Iowa’’, agregó.

Los demócratas también planean tener un abogado en cada distrito electoral disputado, en cada estado clave, el día de la elección, para enfrentar cualquier acusación de anulación de votos, seguridad en las urnas u otros problemas.

Los republicanos no dijeron cuántos abogados reclutaron, pero posiblemente el número sea similar al de los demócratas.

Las autoridades del partido Republicano dicen que sus abogados estarán vigilando las elecciones para garantizar que se sigan los procedimientos adecuados y que no haya actividades fraudulentas.

La Asociación Nacional de Abogados Republicanos hace unos meses llevó a cabo un curso nacional de entrenamiento sobre la nueva ley electoral y estuvo haciendo diversas actividades de este tipo a nivel estatal.

Un fuerte incremento en el número de votantes registrados podría causar problemas, pues tradicionalmente los nuevos votantes son los que tienen problemas con las máquinas de votación, dijeron los expertos legales.

Ya han surgido disputas legales por algunos votos en ausencia y, en momentos en que una gran cantidad de tropas de Estados Unidos están en el exterior, estos sufragios fuera del país podrían jugar un papel en el resultado final.

Las máquinas de votación electrónica, que están siendo utilizadas por primera vez en una elección presidencial en muchos condados, podrían fallar o sus resultados podrían ser puestos en duda, especialmente donde no hay registros en papel.

Otros desafíos legales podrían surgir también por el uso de boletas provisorias, que bajo la ley federal, ahora deben ser provistas a los votantes si sus nombres no están en los padrones.

Early Voting Starts Amid Shadow Left by 2000 Chaos

By Manuel Roig-Franzia
Washington Post

MIAMI -- Bongo drums, rapping preachers and a smattering of all-too-familiar technical difficulties greeted Florida voters Monday as the state's first attempt at early voting in a presidential election opened the 16-day voting season in this critical battleground state.

Thousands of people, many motivated by anger over the botched 2000 presidential election, lined up to cast ballots in Miami, Palm Beach County and other parts of the state roiled by the chaos of the last presidential race. Voters wedged into Miami's cavernous downtown government center and took numbers similar to those used at grocery store deli counters. City officials tried to offer a modicum of privacy by shooing away photographers who jumped rope lines and pushed their lenses within inches of the first voters to cast ballots.


Photo Credit: J. Pat Carter-AP
Voters cast their ballots electronically in a Miami government building. Florida was one of four states to kick off early balloting yesterday.

"The circus is already getting started," said Bruce Detorres, 46, a legal aide to the poor, whose slip of paper identified him as Miami-Dade County voter number 18.

The state was thick with poll watchers attuned to every step of the process and they were spotting flaws throughout the day. Laptops used to verify registrations malfunctioned in Broward County, and computers froze in Orange County, briefly delaying voter verification.

"All I know is that we're not going to let anything slip by us," said state Rep. Shelley Vana (D), who complained after noticing missing pages on an absentee ballot she requested at a Palm Beach County polling place.

Florida's early-voting process, like almost everything about the state's election machinery, has been assailed by complaints this fall. It took an NAACP lawsuit to get additional early-voting sites in Volusia County, where voter advocates complained that the county's single location was too far from high concentrations of African American voters in Daytona Beach.

Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood announced Monday that two to four additional early-voting sites will be added in Jacksonville, where Duval County Elections Supervisor John Stafford resigned, citing health problems. Demonstrators had gathered outside the elections supervisor's office to protest a previous decision to limit sprawling Duval County, with its large numbers of African American voters, to a single early-voting location. In Tallahassee, the state Supreme Court ruled against labor unions that wanted to allow voters, including those displaced by hurricanes, to cast provisional ballots outside their designated precincts.

Florida -- which was joined in early-voting Monday by Colorado, Texas and Arkansas -- is not the first state to conduct early balloting this year. Voters in Michigan, Missouri and Iowa have been able to cast presidential ballots since last month. But the passionate buildup to early voting here is virtually unrivaled.

Chants echoed off the tile in the Miami government center as the 11 a.m. start of early voting approached: "Let's go vote. No more Bush."

The overwhelmingly Democratic partisan crowds, with large numbers of black voters, voiced an almost universal outrage about the 2000 election.

"It was a rip-off," said Sonia Bethel, a nursing home assistant who proudly displayed the ticket that labeled her as early voter number 1.

Bethel, a native of the Bahamas voting for the first time, said she would cast her ballot for Sen. John F. Kerry because he represented her best hope of getting better health insurance for her eight children.

The signs around Bethel guided voters in English, Spanish and Kreyol: "Early voting, Votacion anticipada, Vote Pi Bone." Outside, a lanky man pounded a bongo, and young women lingering under shade trees swiveled their hips.

The Rev. Lennox Yearwood, beads of perspiration building on his forehead, called out a steady rap: "All souls to the polls. We gonna bang that ballot box."

Cynthia Hibnick, one of thousands of lawyers who will be volunteering to work as poll watchers Nov. 2, craned her neck at the end of a long line as she tried to follow the rapping preacher's rhymes.

"I'm worried that every vote won't count," said Hibnick, 46. "The state of Florida risks being the laughingstock of the country again."

Detorres sees chaos as more of a certainty than a risk. "I expect a fiasco in Florida voting," he said.

At least this time the dead will be able to vote legally. Miami-Dade election officials said Monday that anyone who dies between the time they cast an early ballot and Nov. 2 can be assured their vote will still be counted.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Esta é posivelmente uma das campanhas eleitorais americanas mais sugeneris.

A 14 dias das eleições os dois candidatos dedicam mais tempo a atacarse um ao outro que a discutir os temas que o eleitorado quer ouvir. Não se discute sequer as difereças programáticas de cada um. Já não se trata de uma campanha entre democratas y republicanos.

O terrorismo mudou tanto a América que o seu combate se transformou num auto de fé; agora o que importa é o passado de Bush e o de Kerry, porque as pessoas acreditam que nesse passado poderia estar a chave do futuro.

E a consecuencia é que os americanos vão a votos ideologicamente divididos, cada um detrás do seu homem, cada um detrás daquilo em que acredita, como um dogma.

Neste sentido, a América política de hoje é o mais parecido que há à Venezuela de Hugo Chávez. Não há meios tons, é tudo preto ou branco. Ouça aqui

RUI FERREIRA / El Nuevo Herald

"La política del Presidente [George W. Bush] hacia Latinoamérica me toma menos de 30 segundos describirla. Realmente, no existe una política de la Casa Blanca para la región, más allá de comercio y lucha antinarcóticos''.

Así de diáfano comenzó ayer el congresista demócrata Bob Menéndez su anticipada presentación de la plataforma demócrata para el sur del continente.


Es más, amplió el tercer hispano de más alto rango en el Congreso federal, Latinoamérica ``fue la única región en el mundo a la cual esta administración le ha cortado todo tipo de ayuda económica y de desarrollo''.

Menéndez vino ayer al sur de la Florida en un esfuerzo por atraer a una enorme legión de potenciales votantes de origen latinoamericano, la cual tanto demócratas como republicanos consideran clave en esta elección presidencial.

''Kerry propone una política diferente, que llevará a los Estados Unidos hacia una política mucho más participativa en Latinoamérica, todo el tiempo'', dijo el congresista.

En su opinión, la situación en algunos países de la región se ha deteriorado tanto que se puede convertir en una amenaza después que, presuntamente, añadió Menéndez, fueron abandonados por Estados Unidos.

''En Bolivia impulsamos un presidente pro mercado y pro estadounidense, y no hicimos nada para ayudar ese país económicamente cuando estallaron las revueltas en la capital y lo obligaron a escapar'', dijo el congresista, en una comparencia en la Universidad Internacional de la Florida (FIU).

''La extrema pobreza es un problema constante: 50 millones de personas viven con menos de $1 al día. Casi 54 millones de latinoamericanos tienen hambre y sufren de desnutrición, en países como Bolivia, República Dominicana, Guatemala, Haití y Nicaragua'', dijo.

Y ''esta inversión es interés vital para la seguridad de Estados Unidos'' porque, además, ``incrementa la demanda de productos estadounidenses en una región de 500 millones de personas, lo cual lleva a la creación de nuevos empleos en Estados Unidos''.

El congresista de origen cubano también criticó la política del Presidente hacia Cuba, la cual en su opinión se caracteriza por la lentitud.

''Ha sido bajo esta administración que el comercio con Cuba se incrementó 1,400 por ciento, de $7 millones en el 2001 a $310 millones en los primeros ocho meses de este año, lo cual termina subsidiando el aparato de seguridad de Castro, pero no pone comida en la mesa de los cubanos'', dijo Menéndez.

''Seamos francos. Si el Presidente quiere seriamente retar al régimen [del gobernante, Fidel] Castro, debería haber tomado medidas en su primer año de administración, no tres años y medio después'', precisó.

Menéndez dijo que Bush ''jamás'' ha dejado de firmar la no aplicación del título tercero de la Ley Helms Burtonm, así como ''jamás llegó al nivel del presidente Bill Clinton, quien varias veces obligó a la aplicación del título cuarto'', sección que niega visas de Estados Unidos a empresarios que invierten en Cuba.

Os americanos começaram a votar esta segunda-feira. A duas semanas das eleições e graças a um particular mecanismo do sistema eleitoral, quem nao queira ir a votos no día das eleicoes tem duas opções: pode ir já depositar o seu boletim e voltar para casa descansadinho da vida. Ou então pode recorrer ao chamado “absentee ballot”, melhor traducido por “voto ausente”, que é enviado por correio mas não ‘e secreto.

Tudo isto, porque no país que se proclama a meca do sistema eleitoral, uma pessoa que vota “ausente” tem que ter outra que certifique o seu voto, assinando-o. E com a quantidade de velhinhos a fazer casos só aos amigos e que não gostam de sair à rua numa terca-feira de manhã, não é difícil adivinar o fim da historia.

Enfim, sao caracteristicas que este ano asustan e levantam fortes suspeitas de fraude. E aquí na Florida há razoões para isso, porque há cuatro anos um presidente da cámara foi demitido, cuatro vereadores aindas estao presos e um conhecido político fugiu para a Australia, porque de repente andava toda a gente em Miami a votar “ausente” e não necesariamente por quem queriam.

By RON SUSKIND
The New York Times

Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.

''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .

''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''

Forty democratic senators were gathered for a lunch in March just off the Senate floor. I was there as a guest speaker. Joe Biden was telling a story, a story about the president. ''I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad,'' he began, ''and I was telling the president of my many concerns'' -- concerns about growing problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems securing the oil fields. Bush, Biden recalled, just looked at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. '''Mr. President,' I finally said, 'How can you be so sure when you know you don't know the facts?'''

Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator's shoulder. ''My instincts,'' he said. ''My instincts.''

Biden paused and shook his head, recalling it all as the room grew quiet. ''I said, 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough!'''

The democrat Biden and the Republican Bartlett are trying to make sense of the same thing -- a president who has been an extraordinary blend of forcefulness and inscrutability, opacity and action.

But lately, words and deeds are beginning to connect.

The Delaware senator was, in fact, hearing what Bush's top deputies -- from cabinet members like Paul O'Neill, Christine Todd Whitman and Colin Powell to generals fighting in Iraq -- have been told for years when they requested explanations for many of the president's decisions, policies that often seemed to collide with accepted facts. The president would say that he relied on his ''gut'' or his ''instinct'' to guide the ship of state, and then he ''prayed over it.'' The old pro Bartlett, a deliberative, fact-based wonk, is finally hearing a tune that has been hummed quietly by evangelicals (so as not to trouble the secular) for years as they gazed upon President George W. Bush. This evangelical group -- the core of the energetic ''base'' that may well usher Bush to victory -- believes that their leader is a messenger from God. And in the first presidential debate, many Americans heard the discursive John Kerry succinctly raise, for the first time, the issue of Bush's certainty -- the issue being, as Kerry put it, that ''you can be certain and be wrong.''

What underlies Bush's certainty? And can it be assessed in the temporal realm of informed consent?

All of this -- the ''gut'' and ''instincts,'' the certainty and religiosity -connects to a single word, ''faith,'' and faith asserts its hold ever more on debates in this country and abroad. That a deep Christian faith illuminated the personal journey of George W. Bush is common knowledge. But faith has also shaped his presidency in profound, nonreligious ways. The president has demanded unquestioning faith from his followers, his staff, his senior aides and his kindred in the Republican Party. Once he makes a decision -- often swiftly, based on a creed or moral position -- he expects complete faith in its rightness.

The disdainful smirks and grimaces that many viewers were surprised to see in the first presidential debate are familiar expressions to those in the administration or in Congress who have simply asked the president to explain his positions. Since 9/11, those requests have grown scarce; Bush's intolerance of doubters has, if anything, increased, and few dare to question him now. A writ of infallibility -- a premise beneath the powerful Bushian certainty that has, in many ways, moved mountains -- is not just for public consumption: it has guided the inner life of the White House. As Whitman told me on the day in May 2003 that she announced her resignation as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency: ''In meetings, I'd ask if there were any facts to support our case. And for that, I was accused of disloyalty!'' (Whitman, whose faith in Bush has since been renewed, denies making these remarks and is now a leader of the president's re-election effort in New Jersey.)

The nation's founders, smarting still from the punitive pieties of Europe's state religions, were adamant about erecting a wall between organized religion and political authority. But suddenly, that seems like a long time ago. George W. Bush -- both captive and creator of this moment -- has steadily, inexorably, changed the office itself. He has created the faith-based presidency.

The faith-based presidency is a with-us-or-against-us model that has been enormously effective at, among other things, keeping the workings and temperament of the Bush White House a kind of state secret. The dome of silence cracked a bit in the late winter and spring, with revelations from the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and also, in my book, from the former Bush treasury secretary Paul O'Neill. When I quoted O'Neill saying that Bush was like ''a blind man in a room full of deaf people,'' this did not endear me to the White House. But my phone did begin to ring, with Democrats and Republicans calling with similar impressions and anecdotes about Bush's faith and certainty. These are among the sources I relied upon for this article. Few were willing to talk on the record. Some were willing to talk because they said they thought George W. Bush might lose; others, out of fear of what might transpire if he wins. In either case, there seems to be a growing silence fatigue -- public servants, some with vast experience, who feel they have spent years being treated like Victorian-era children, seen but not heard, and are tired of it. But silence still reigns in the highest reaches of the White House. After many requests, Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, said in a letter that the president and those around him would not be cooperating with this article in any way.

Some officials, elected or otherwise, with whom I have spoken with left meetings in the Oval Office concerned that the president was struggling with the demands of the job. Others focused on Bush's substantial interpersonal gifts as a compensation for his perceived lack of broader capabilities. Still others, like Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, a Democrat, are worried about something other than his native intelligence. ''He's plenty smart enough to do the job,'' Levin said. ''It's his lack of curiosity about complex issues which troubles me.'' But more than anything else, I heard expressions of awe at the president's preternatural certainty and wonderment about its source.

There is one story about Bush's particular brand of certainty I am able to piece together and tell for the record.

In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.

''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''

Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''

The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.

A few weeks later, members of Congress and their spouses gathered with administration officials and other dignitaries for the White House Christmas party. The president saw Lantos and grabbed him by the shoulder. ''You were right,'' he said, with bonhomie. ''Sweden does have an army.''

This story was told to me by one of the senators in the Oval Office that December day, Joe Biden. Lantos, a liberal Democrat, would not comment about it. In general, people who meet with Bush will not discuss their encounters. (Lantos, through a spokesman, says it is a longstanding policy of his not to discuss Oval Office meetings.)

This is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith. It could result in a loss of confidence in the decision-maker and, just as important, by the decision-maker. Nothing could be more vital, whether staying on message with the voters or the terrorists or a California congressman in a meeting about one of the world's most nagging problems. As Bush himself has said any number of times on the campaign trail, ''By remaining resolute and firm and strong, this world will be peaceful.''

He didn't always talk this way. A precious glimpse of Bush, just as he was ascending to the presidency, comes from Jim Wallis, a man with the added advantage of having deep acuity about the struggles between fact and faith. Wallis, an evangelical pastor who for 30 years has run the Sojourners -- a progressive organization of advocates for social justice -- was asked during the transition to help pull together a diverse group of members of the clergy to talk about faith and poverty with the new president-elect.

In December 2000, Bush sat in the classroom of a Baptist church in Austin, Tex., with 30 or so clergy members and asked, ''How do I speak to the soul of the nation?'' He listened as each guest articulated a vision of what might be. The afternoon hours passed. No one wanted to leave. People rose from their chairs and wandered the room, huddling in groups, conversing passionately. In one cluster, Bush and Wallis talked of their journeys.

''I've never lived around poor people,'' Wallis remembers Bush saying. ''I don't know what they think. I really don't know what they think. I'm a white Republican guy who doesn't get it. How do I get it?''

Wallis recalls replying, ''You need to listen to the poor and those who live and work with poor people.''

Bush called over his speechwriter, Michael Gerson, and said, ''I want you to hear this.'' A month later, an almost identical line -- ''many in our country do not know the pain of poverty, but we can listen to those who do'' -- ended up in the inaugural address.

That was an earlier Bush, one rather more open and conversant, matching his impulsiveness with a can-do attitude and seemingly unafraid of engaging with a diverse group. The president has an array of interpersonal gifts that fit well with this fearlessness -- a headlong, unalloyed quality, best suited to ranging among different types of people, searching for the outlines of what will take shape as principles.

Yet this strong suit, an improvisational gift, has long been forced to wrestle with its ''left brain'' opposite -- a struggle, across 30 years, with the critical and analytical skills so prized in America's professional class. In terms of intellectual faculties, that has been the ongoing battle for this talented man, first visible during the lackluster years at Yale and five years of drift through his 20's -- a time when peers were busy building credentials in law, business or medicine.

Biden, who early on became disenchanted with Bush's grasp of foreign-policy issues and is among John Kerry's closest Senate friends, has spent a lot of time trying to size up the president. ''Most successful people are good at identifying, very early, their strengths and weaknesses, at knowing themselves,'' he told me not long ago. ''For most of us average Joes, that meant we've relied on strengths but had to work on our weakness -- to lift them to adequacy -- otherwise they might bring us down. I don't think the president really had to do that, because he always had someone there -- his family or friends -- to bail him out. I don't think, on balance, that has served him well for the moment he's in now as president. He never seems to have worked on his weaknesses.''

Bush has been called the C.E.O. president, but that's just a catch phrase -- he never ran anything of consequence in the private sector. The M.B.A. president would be more accurate: he did, after all, graduate from Harvard Business School. And some who have worked under him in the White House and know about business have spotted a strange business-school time warp. It's as if a 1975 graduate from H.B.S. -- one who had little chance to season theory with practice during the past few decades of change in corporate America -- has simply been dropped into the most challenging management job in the world.

One aspect of the H.B.S. method, with its emphasis on problems of actual corporations, is sometimes referred to as the ''case cracker'' problem. The case studies are static, generally a snapshot of a troubled company, frozen in time; the various ''solutions'' students proffer, and then defend in class against tough questioning, tend to have very short shelf lives. They promote rigidity, inappropriate surety. This is something H.B.S. graduates, most of whom land at large or midsize firms, learn in their first few years in business. They discover, often to their surprise, that the world is dynamic, it flows and changes, often for no good reason. The key is flexibility, rather than sticking to your guns in a debate, and constant reassessment of shifting realities. In short, thoughtful second-guessing.

George W. Bush, who went off to Texas to be an oil wildcatter, never had a chance to learn these lessons about the power of nuanced, fact-based analysis. The small oil companies he ran tended to lose money; much of their value was as tax shelters. (The investors were often friends of his father's.) Later, with the Texas Rangers baseball team, he would act as an able front man but never really as a boss.

Instead of learning the limitations of his Harvard training, what George W. Bush learned instead during these fitful years were lessons about faith and its particular efficacy. It was in 1985, around the time of his 39th birthday, George W. Bush says, that his life took a sharp turn toward salvation. At that point he was drinking, his marriage was on the rocks, his career was listless. Several accounts have emerged from those close to Bush about a faith ''intervention'' of sorts at the Kennebunkport family compound that year. Details vary, but here's the gist of what I understand took place. George W., drunk at a party, crudely insulted a friend of his mother's. George senior and Barbara blew up. Words were exchanged along the lines of something having to be done. George senior, then the vice president, dialed up his friend, Billy Graham, who came to the compound and spent several days with George W. in probing exchanges and walks on the beach. George W. was soon born again. He stopped drinking, attended Bible study and wrestled with issues of fervent faith. A man who was lost was saved.

His marriage may have been repaired by the power of faith, but faith was clearly having little impact on his broken career. Faith heals the heart and the spirit, but it doesn't do much for analytical skills. In 1990, a few years after receiving salvation, Bush was still bumping along. Much is apparent from one of the few instances of disinterested testimony to come from this period. It is the voice of David Rubenstein, managing director and cofounder of the Carlyle Group, the Washington-based investment firm that is one of the town's most powerful institutions and a longtime business home for the president's father. In 1989, the catering division of Marriott was taken private and established as Caterair by a group of Carlyle investors. Several old-guard Republicans, including the former Nixon aide Fred Malek, were involved.

Rubenstein described that time to a convention of pension managers in Los Angeles last year, recalling that Malek approached him and said: ''There is a guy who would like to be on the board. He's kind of down on his luck a bit. Needs a job. . . . Needs some board positions.'' Though Rubenstein didn't think George W. Bush, then in his mid-40's, ''added much value,'' he put him on the Caterair board. ''Came to all the meetings,'' Rubenstein told the conventioneers. ''Told a lot of jokes. Not that many clean ones. And after a while I kind of said to him, after about three years: 'You know, I'm not sure this is really for you. Maybe you should do something else. Because I don't think you're adding that much value to the board. You don't know that much about the company.' He said: 'Well, I think I'm getting out of this business anyway. And I don't really like it that much. So I'm probably going to resign from the board.' And I said thanks. Didn't think I'd ever see him again.'' [To read more of Rubenstein's speech, go here: http://prorev.com/bushcarlyle.htm.]

Bush would soon officially resign from Caterair's board. Around this time, Karl Rove set up meetings to discuss Bush's possible candidacy for the governorship of Texas. Six years after that, he was elected leader of the free world and began ''case cracking'' on a dizzying array of subjects, proffering his various solutions, in both foreign and domestic affairs. But the pointed ''defend your position'' queries -- so central to the H.B.S. method and rigorous analysis of all kinds -- were infrequent. Questioning a regional supervisor or V.P. for planning is one thing. Questioning the president of the United States is another.

Still, some couldn't resist. As I reported in "The Price of Loyalty," at the Bush administration's first National Security Council meeting, Bush asked if anyone had ever met Ariel Sharon. Some were uncertain if it was a joke. It wasn't: Bush launched into a riff about briefly meeting Sharon two years before, how he wouldn't ''go by past reputations when it comes to Sharon. . . . I'm going to take him at face value,'' and how the United States should pull out of the Arab-Israeli conflict because ''I don't see much we can do over there at this point.'' Colin Powell, for one, seemed startled. This would reverse 30 years of policy -- since the Nixon administration -- of American engagement. Such a move would unleash Sharon, Powell countered, and tear the delicate fabric of the Mideast in ways that might be irreparable. Bush brushed aside Powell's concerns impatiently. ''Sometimes a show of force by one side can really clarify things.''

Such challenges -- from either Powell or his opposite number as the top official in domestic policy, Paul O'Neill -- were trials that Bush had less and less patience for as the months passed. He made that clear to his top lieutenants. Gradually, Bush lost what Richard Perle, who would later head a largely private-sector group under Bush called the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, had described as his open posture during foreign-policy tutorials prior to the 2000 campaign. (''He had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much,'' Perle said.) By midyear 2001, a stand-and-deliver rhythm was established. Meetings, large and small, started to take on a scripted quality. Even then, the circle around Bush was tightening. Top officials, from cabinet members on down, were often told when they would speak in Bush's presence, for how long and on what topic. The president would listen without betraying any reaction. Sometimes there would be cross-discussions -- Powell and Rumsfeld, for instance, briefly parrying on an issue -- but the president would rarely prod anyone with direct, informed questions.

Each administration, over the course of a term, is steadily shaped by its president, by his character, personality and priorities. It is a process that unfolds on many levels. There are, of course, a chief executive's policies, which are executed by a staff and attending bureaucracies. But a few months along, officials, top to bottom, will also start to adopt the boss's phraseology, his presumptions, his rhythms. If a president fishes, people buy poles; if he expresses displeasure, aides get busy finding evidence to support the judgment. A staff channels the leader.

A cluster of particularly vivid qualities was shaping George W. Bush's White House through the summer of 2001: a disdain for contemplation or deliberation, an embrace of decisiveness, a retreat from empiricism, a sometimes bullying impatience with doubters and even friendly questioners. Already Bush was saying, Have faith in me and my decisions, and you'll be rewarded. All through the White House, people were channeling the boss. He didn't second-guess himself; why should they?

Considering the trials that were soon to arrive, it is easy to overlook what a difficult time this must have been for George W. Bush. For nearly three decades, he had sat in classrooms, and then at mahogany tables in corporate suites, with little to contribute. Then, as governor of Texas, he was graced with a pliable enough bipartisan Legislature, and the Legislature is where the real work in that state's governance gets done. The Texas Legislature's tension of opposites offered the structure of point and counterpoint, which Bush could navigate effectively with his strong, improvisational skills.

But the mahogany tables were now in the Situation Room and in the large conference room adjacent to the Oval Office. He guided a ruling party. Every issue that entered that rarefied sanctum required a complex decision, demanding focus, thoroughness and analytical potency.

For the president, as Biden said, to be acutely aware of his weaknesses -- and to have to worry about revealing uncertainty or need or confusion, even to senior officials -- must have presented an untenable bind. By summer's end that first year, Vice President Dick Cheney had stopped talking in meetings he attended with Bush. They would talk privately, or at their weekly lunch. The president was spending a lot of time outside the White House, often at the ranch, in the presence of only the most trustworthy confidants. The circle around Bush is the tightest around any president in the modern era, and ''it's both exclusive and exclusionary,'' Christopher DeMuth, president of the American Enterprise Institute, the neoconservative policy group, told me. ''It's a too tightly managed decision-making process. When they make decisions, a very small number of people are in the room, and it has a certain effect of constricting the range of alternatives being offered.''

On Sept. 11, 2001, the country watched intently to see if and how Bush would lead. After a couple of days in which he seemed shaky and uncertain, he emerged, and the moment he began to lead -- standing on the World Trade Center's rubble with a bullhorn -- for much of America, any lingering doubts about his abilities vanished. No one could afford doubt, not then. They wanted action, and George W. Bush was ready, having never felt the reasonable hesitations that slowed more deliberative men, and many presidents, including his father.

Within a few days of the attacks, Bush decided on the invasion of Afghanistan and was barking orders. His speech to the joint session of Congress on Sept. 20 will most likely be the greatest of his presidency. He prayed for God's help. And many Americans, of all faiths, prayed with him -- or for him. It was simple and nondenominational: a prayer that he'd be up to this moment, so that he -- and, by extension, we as a country -- would triumph in that dark hour.

This is where the faith-based presidency truly takes shape. Faith, which for months had been coloring the decision-making process and a host of political tactics -- think of his address to the nation on stem-cell research -- now began to guide events. It was the most natural ascension: George W. Bush turning to faith in his darkest moment and discovering a wellspring of power and confidence.

Of course, the mandates of sound, sober analysis didn't vanish. They never do. Ask any entrepreneur with a blazing idea when, a few years along, the first debt payments start coming due. Or the C.E.O., certain that a high stock price affirms his sweeping vision, until that neglected, flagging division cripples the company. There's a startled look -- how'd that happen? In this case, the challenge of mobilizing the various agencies of the United States government and making certain that agreed-upon goals become demonstrable outcomes grew exponentially.

Looking back at the months directly following 9/11, virtually every leading military analyst seems to believe that rather than using Afghan proxies, we should have used more American troops, deployed more quickly, to pursue Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora. Many have also been critical of the president's handling of Saudi Arabia, home to 15 of the 19 hijackers; despite Bush's setting goals in the so-called ''financial war on terror,'' the Saudis failed to cooperate with American officials in hunting for the financial sources of terror. Still, the nation wanted bold action and was delighted to get it. Bush's approval rating approached 90 percent. Meanwhile, the executive's balance between analysis and resolution, between contemplation and action, was being tipped by the pull of righteous faith.

It was during a press conference on Sept. 16, in response to a question about homeland security efforts infringing on civil rights, that Bush first used the telltale word ''crusade'' in public. ''This is a new kind of -- a new kind of evil,'' he said. ''And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.''

Muslims around the world were incensed. Two days later, Ari Fleischer tried to perform damage control. ''I think what the president was saying was -- had no intended consequences for anybody, Muslim or otherwise, other than to say that this is a broad cause that he is calling on America and the nations around the world to join.'' As to ''any connotations that would upset any of our partners, or anybody else in the world, the president would regret if anything like that was conveyed.''

A few months later, on Feb. 1, 2002, Jim Wallis of the Sojourners stood in the Roosevelt Room for the introduction of Jim Towey as head of the president's faith-based and community initiative. John DiIulio, the original head, had left the job feeling that the initiative was not about ''compassionate conservatism,'' as originally promised, but rather a political giveaway to the Christian right, a way to consolidate and energize that part of the base.

Moments after the ceremony, Bush saw Wallis. He bounded over and grabbed the cheeks of his face, one in each hand, and squeezed. ''Jim, how ya doin', how ya doin'!'' he exclaimed. Wallis was taken aback. Bush excitedly said that his massage therapist had given him Wallis's book, ''Faith Works.'' His joy at seeing Wallis, as Wallis and others remember it, was palpable -- a president, wrestling with faith and its role at a time of peril, seeing that rare bird: an independent counselor. Wallis recalls telling Bush he was doing fine, '''but in the State of the Union address a few days before, you said that unless we devote all our energies, our focus, our resources on this war on terrorism, we're going to lose.' I said, 'Mr. President, if we don't devote our energy, our focus and our time on also overcoming global poverty and desperation, we will lose not only the war on poverty, but we'll lose the war on terrorism.'''

Bush replied that that was why America needed the leadership of Wallis and other members of the clergy.

''No, Mr. President,'' Wallis says he told Bush, ''We need your leadership on this question, and all of us will then commit to support you. Unless we drain the swamp of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we'll never defeat the threat of terrorism.''

Bush looked quizzically at the minister, Wallis recalls. They never spoke again after that.

''When I was first with Bush in Austin, what I saw was a self-help Methodist, very open, seeking,'' Wallis says now. ''What I started to see at this point was the man that would emerge over the next year -- a messianic American Calvinist. He doesn't want to hear from anyone who doubts him.''

But with a country crying out for intrepid leadership, does a president have time to entertain doubters? In a speech in Alaska two weeks later, Bush again referred to the war on terror as a ''crusade.''

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Who besides guys like me are part of the reality-based community? Many of the other elected officials in Washington, it would seem. A group of Democratic and Republican members of Congress were called in to discuss Iraq sometime before the October 2002 vote authorizing Bush to move forward. A Republican senator recently told Time Magazine that the president walked in and said: ''Look, I want your vote. I'm not going to debate it with you.'' When one of the senators began to ask a question, Bush snapped, ''Look, I'm not going to debate it with you.''

The 9/11 commission did not directly address the question of whether Bush exerted influence over the intelligence community about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. That question will be investigated after the election, but if no tangible evidence of undue pressure is found, few officials or alumni of the administration whom I spoke to are likely to be surprised. ''If you operate in a certain way -- by saying this is how I want to justify what I've already decided to do, and I don't care how you pull it off -- you guarantee that you'll get faulty, one-sided information,'' Paul O'Neill, who was asked to resign his post of treasury secretary in December 2002, said when we had dinner a few weeks ago. ''You don't have to issue an edict, or twist arms, or be overt.''

In a way, the president got what he wanted: a National Intelligence Estimate on W.M.D. that creatively marshaled a few thin facts, and then Colin Powell putting his credibility on the line at the United Nations in a show of faith. That was enough for George W. Bush to press forward and invade Iraq. As he told his quasi-memoirist, Bob Woodward, in ''Plan of Attack'': ''Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. . . . I'm surely not going to justify the war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray to be as good a messenger of his will as possible.''

Machiavelli's oft-cited line about the adequacy of the perception of power prompts a question. Is the appearance of confidence as important as its possession? Can confidence -- true confidence -- be willed? Or must it be earned?

George W. Bush, clearly, is one of history's great confidence men. That is not meant in the huckster's sense, though many critics claim that on the war in Iraq, the economy and a few other matters he has engaged in some manner of bait-and-switch. No, I mean it in the sense that he's a believer in the power of confidence. At a time when constituents are uneasy and enemies are probing for weaknesses, he clearly feels that unflinching confidence has an almost mystical power. It can all but create reality.

Whether you can run the world on faith, it's clear you can run one hell of a campaign on it.

George W. Bush and his team have constructed a high-performance electoral engine. The soul of this new machine is the support of millions of likely voters, who judge his worth based on intangibles -- character, certainty, fortitude and godliness -- rather than on what he says or does. The deeper the darkness, the brighter this filament of faith glows, a faith in the president and the just God who affirms him.

The leader of the free world is clearly comfortable with this calculus and artfully encourages it. In the series of televised, carefully choreographed ''Ask President Bush'' events with supporters around the country, sessions filled with prayers and blessings, one questioner recently summed up the feelings of so many Christian conservatives, the core of the Bush army. ''I've voted Republican from the very first time I could vote,'' said Gary Walby, a retired jeweler from Destin, Fla., as he stood before the president in a crowded college gym. ''And I also want to say this is the very first time that I have felt that God was in the White House.'' Bush simply said ''thank you'' as a wave of raucous applause rose from the assembled.

Every few months, a report surfaces of the president using strikingly Messianic language, only to be dismissed by the White House. Three months ago, for instance, in a private meeting with Amish farmers in Lancaster County, Pa., Bush was reported to have said, ''I trust God speaks through me.'' In this ongoing game of winks and nods, a White House spokesman denied the president had specifically spoken those words, but noted that ''his faith helps him in his service to people.''

A recent Gallup Poll noted that 42 percent of Americans identify themselves as evangelical or ''born again.'' While this group leans Republican, it includes black urban churches and is far from monolithic. But Bush clearly draws his most ardent supporters and tireless workers from this group, many from a healthy subset of approximately four million evangelicals who didn't vote in 2000 -- potential new arrivals to the voting booth who could tip a close election or push a tight contest toward a rout.

This signaling system -- forceful, national, varied, yet clean of the president's specific fingerprint -- carries enormous weight. Lincoln Chafee, the moderate Republican senator from Rhode Island, has broken with the president precisely over concerns about the nature of Bush's certainty. ''This issue,'' he says, of Bush's ''announcing that 'I carry the word of God' is the key to the election. The president wants to signal to the base with that message, but in the swing states he does not.''

Come to the hustings on Labor Day and meet the base. In 2004, you know a candidate by his base, and the Bush campaign is harnessing the might of churches, with hordes of voters registering through church-sponsored programs. Following the news of Bush on his national tour in the week after the Republican convention, you could sense how a faith-based president campaigns: on a surf of prayer and righteous rage.

Righteous rage -- that's what Hardy Billington felt when he heard about same-sex marriage possibly being made legal in Massachusetts. ''It made me upset and disgusted, things going on in Massachusetts,'' the 52-year-old from Poplar Bluff, Mo., told me. ''I prayed, then I got to work.'' Billington spent $830 in early July to put up a billboard on the edge of town. It read: ''I Support President Bush and the Men and Women Fighting for Our Country. We Invite President Bush to Visit Poplar Bluff.'' Soon Billington and his friend David Hahn, a fundamentalist preacher, started a petition drive. They gathered 10,000 signatures. That fact eventually reached the White House scheduling office.

By late afternoon on a cloudy Labor Day, with a crowd of more than 20,000 assembled in a public park, Billington stepped to the podium. ''The largest group I ever talked to I think was seven people, and I'm not much of a talker,'' Billington, a shy man with three kids and a couple of dozen rental properties that he owns, told me several days later. ''I've never been so frightened.''

But Billington said he ''looked to God'' and said what was in his heart. ''The United States is the greatest country in the world,'' he told the rally. ''President Bush is the greatest president I have ever known. I love my president. I love my country. And more important, I love Jesus Christ.''

The crowd went wild, and they went wild again when the president finally arrived and gave his stump speech. There were Bush's periodic stumbles and gaffes, but for the followers of the faith-based president, that was just fine. They got it -- and ''it'' was the faith.

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

The bond between Bush and his base is a bond of mutual support. He supports them with his actions, doing his level best to stand firm on wedge issues like abortion and same-sex marriage while he identifies evil in the world, at home and abroad. They respond with fierce faith. The power of this transaction is something that people, especially those who are religious, tend to connect to their own lives. If you have faith in someone, that person is filled like a vessel. Your faith is the wind beneath his or her wings. That person may well rise to the occasion and surprise you: I had faith in you, and my faith was rewarded. Or, I know you've been struggling, and I need to pray harder.

Bush's speech that day in Poplar Bluff finished with a mythic appeal: ''For all Americans, these years in our history will always stand apart,'' he said. ''You know, there are quiet times in the life of a nation when little is expected of its leaders. This isn't one of those times. This is a time that needs -- when we need firm resolve and clear vision and a deep faith in the values that make us a great nation.''

The life of the nation and the life of Bush effortlessly merge -- his fortitude, even in the face of doubters, is that of the nation; his ordinariness, like theirs, is heroic; his resolve, to whatever end, will turn the wheel of history.

Remember, this is consent, informed by the heart and by the spirit. In the end, Bush doesn't have to say he's ordained by God. After a day of speeches by Hardy Billington and others, it goes without saying.

''To me, I just believe God controls everything, and God uses the president to keep evil down, to see the darkness and protect this nation,'' Billington told me, voicing an idea shared by millions of Bush supporters. ''Other people will not protect us. God gives people choices to make. God gave us this president to be the man to protect the nation at this time.''

But when the moment came in the V.I.P. tent to shake Bush's hand, Billington remembered being reserved. '''I really thank God that you're the president' was all I told him.'' Bush, he recalled, said, ''Thank you.''

''He knew what I meant,'' Billington said. ''I believe he's an instrument of God, but I have to be careful about what I say, you know, in public.''

Is there anyone in America who feels that John Kerry is an instrument of God?

''I'm going to be real positive, while I keep my foot on John Kerry's throat,'' George W. Bush said last month at a confidential luncheon a block away from the White House with a hundred or so of his most ardent, longtime supporters, the so-called R.N.C. Regents. This was a high-rolling crowd -- at one time or another, they had all given large contributions to Bush or the Republican National Committee. Bush had known many of them for years, and a number of them had visited him at the ranch. It was a long way from Poplar Bluff.

The Bush these supporters heard was a triumphal Bush, actively beginning to plan his second term. It is a second term, should it come to pass, that will alter American life in many ways, if predictions that Bush voiced at the luncheon come true.

He said emphatically that he expects the Republicans will gain seats to expand their control of the House and the Senate. According to notes provided to me, and according to several guests at the lunch who agreed to speak about what they heard, he said that ''Osama bin Laden would like to overthrow the Saudis . . . then we're in trouble. Because they have a weapon. They have the oil.'' He said that there will be an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice shortly after his inauguration, and perhaps three more high-court vacancies during his second term.

''Won't that be amazing?'' said Peter Stent, a rancher and conservationist who attended the luncheon. ''Can you imagine? Four appointments!''

After his remarks, Bush opened it up for questions, and someone asked what he's going to do about energy policy with worldwide oil reserves predicted to peak.

Bush said: ''I'm going to push nuclear energy, drilling in Alaska and clean coal. Some nuclear-fusion technologies are interesting.'' He mentions energy from ''processing corn.''

''I'm going to bring all this up in the debate, and I'm going to push it,'' he said, and then tried out a line. ''Do you realize that ANWR [the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge] is the size of South Carolina, and where we want to drill is the size of the Columbia airport?''

The questions came from many directions -- respectful, but clearly reality-based. About the deficits, he said he'd ''spend whatever it takes to protect our kids in Iraq,'' that ''homeland security cost more than I originally thought.''

In response to a question, he talked about diversity, saying that ''hands down,'' he has the most diverse senior staff in terms of both gender and race. He recalled a meeting with Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany. ''You know, I'm sitting there with Schröder one day with Colin and Condi. And I'm thinking: What's Schröder thinking?! He's sitting here with two blacks and one's a woman.''

But as the hour passed, Bush kept coming back to the thing most on his mind: his second term.

''I'm going to come out strong after my swearing in,'' Bush said, ''with fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatizing of Social Security.'' The victories he expects in November, he said, will give us ''two years, at least, until the next midterm. We have to move quickly, because after that I'll be quacking like a duck.''

Joseph Gildenhorn, a top contributor who attended the luncheon and has been invited to visit Bush at his ranch, said later: ''I've never seen the president so ebullient. He was so confident. He feels so strongly he will win.'' Yet one part of Bush's 60-odd-minute free-form riff gave Gildenhorn -- a board member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and a former ambassador to Switzerland -- a moment's pause. The president, listing priorities for his second term, placed near the top of his agenda the expansion of federal support for faith-based institutions. The president talked at length about giving the initiative the full measure of his devotion and said that questions about separation of church and state were not an issue.

Talk of the faith-based initiative, Gildenhorn said, makes him ''a little uneasy.'' Many conservative evangelicals ''feel they have a direct line from God,'' he said, and feel Bush is divinely chosen.

''I think he's religious, I think he's a born-again, I don't think, though, that he feels that he's been ordained by God to serve the country.'' Gildenhorn paused, then said, ''But you know, I really haven't discussed it with him.''

A regent I spoke to later and who asked not to be identified told me: ''I'm happy he's certain of victory and that he's ready to burst forth into his second term, but it all makes me a little nervous. There are a lot of big things that he's planning to do domestically, and who knows what countries we might invade or what might happen in Iraq. But when it gets complex, he seems to turn to prayer or God rather than digging in and thinking things through. What's that line? -- the devil's in the details. If you don't go after that devil, he'll come after you.''

Bush grew into one of history's most forceful leaders, his admirers will attest, by replacing hesitation and reasonable doubt with faith and clarity. Many more will surely tap this high-voltage connection of fervent faith and bold action. In politics, the saying goes, anything that works must be repeated until it is replaced by something better. The horizon seems clear of competitors.

Can the unfinished American experiment in self-governance -- sputtering on the watery fuel of illusion and assertion -- deal with something as nuanced as the subtleties of one man's faith? What, after all, is the nature of the particular conversation the president feels he has with God -- a colloquy upon which the world now precariously turns?

That very issue is what Jim Wallis wishes he could sit and talk about with George W. Bush. That's impossible now, he says. He is no longer invited to the White House.

''Faith can cut in so many ways,'' he said. ''If you're penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us reach for something higher than ourselves. That can be a powerful thing, a thing that moves us beyond politics as usual, like Martin Luther King did. But when it's designed to certify our righteousness -- that can be a dangerous thing. Then it pushes self-criticism aside. There's no reflection.

''Where people often get lost is on this very point,'' he said after a moment of thought. ''Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not -- not ever -- to the thing we as humans so very much want.''

And what is that?

''Easy certainty.''

Ron Suskind was the senior national-affairs reporter for The Wall Street Journal from 1993 to 2000. He is the author most recently of ''The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill.''