From Steven Fratelli in Taiwan comes a question with a challenging tone:

 

Your Blog seems devoid of any mention of Kerry's disappearance from the scene -- rather like Dracula into his crypt at first light of day.

 

I was wondering what you might have to say about that. {aside from pulling his picture down -- if that says anything.}

 

Where do you stand re the whole vote recount effort?

 

I should note, I suppose, that I didn’t pull down the picture of John Kerry – that was a link directly to his own campaign website. The campaign pulled the photo down, along with Kerry’s blog. Kerry’s campaign – and this was always its great weakness – was never about building a movement.

 

However, the idea that Kerry (or Edwards, for that matter) has disappeared from the scene is, I think, nonsense. Kerry no doubt recalls the degree to which Al Gore was received with revulsion by many in his own party after the debacle of the 2000 campaign. Having said that he may well run again, Kerry has returned to the Senate & will be a significant figure there.

 

Where I stand on the “whole recount effort” is a little more complex, tho not far from where David Corn of The Nation seems to be. Do I think that there were instances in which shenanigans went on with voting? Absolutely. Do I see any evidence that it took place to such a degree that it may have determined the outcome in any individual state? Nope. What this new cottage industry of “Kerry Won” websites is, to my mind, is an index of the deep distrust many in this country have concerning the Bush administration and the Republican party in general. The 2000 election was stolen, no question about that. Ergo, the presumption is guilty until proved innocent. Yet the 1960 election was stolen also, that time by the Democrats, and yet one sees no subsequent pattern of presidential thefts on their side during the ensuing campaigns. Both 1960 & 2000 took place in large part because they could be stolen, the race was so tight that the change of a single area could flip a state & with it the entire electoral college. 2004 wasn’t that close.

 

So I do think that every instance in which some sort of fraud or questionable behavior or return is being alleged should be investigated diligently. But unless & until it actually forces a change in the return in a given state, I’m not going to get excited about it.

 

At this point, I think that progressives have more important fish to fry. The first is the creation of a broad, long-term antiwar movement. If you think Iraq is a mess now, wait until 2008. Actually, I don’t want to – I would much prefer to force the administration’s hand and get it to pull our troops out sooner rather than later. This is especially true if one buys George Friedman’s argument that America’s true goal in Iraq is to force a Pax America on the whole of the middle east and that the real target of the invasion wasn’t Hussein so much as it was the Royal House of Saud – that suggests a military presence that would stretch out for decades. While I don’t buy Friedman’s optimism on the state of things overall, he’s on target as to the reasons for the Bush administration’s actions . . . and the long-term implications (a world war with Islam) scare the shit out of me.

 

There is an ancillary benefit to a vigorous anti-war movement as well. W will become a lame duck president even sooner if he faces stiff opposition to whatever he does. The sooner he becomes irrelevant, the better we will all be.

 

Progressives’ second major task is to prepare right now for the 2006 midterm elections. In particular, progressive forces need to focus on gubernatorial races. The next Democratic president – whenever that person is elected – will almost certainly be a current or former governor. Senators have been elected president only twice in the entire history of the United States (and watching what the Bush machine did to Kerry’s record explains why). The punditocracy of the media are always in favor of nominating senators because it’s the senators that they know. It would be a disaster to nominate a sitting senator in 2008, but a functional problem the Dems have to overcome is their weakness in leading states. As of this moment, only two current or former Democratic governors appear to be contemplating the race in ‘08 – Howard Dean & Bill Richardson. Richardson makes Kerry look like Bruce Springsteen when it comes to charisma and presence, Dean comes with his own considerable baggage. Electing more governors in 2006 won’t improve the candidate pool in 2008, but it will move the left toward a position where its choices down the road aren’t so grim.

 

The third task is to stop Rick Santorum. Santorum, the junior senator from Pennsylvania, the top fundraiser for the far right in the Senate & the leader of the “pro-life” coalition in congress, thinks he can take his (and my) blue state red & ensure an even more reactionary administration. None of this Compassionate Conservative crap for him. Santorum runs for re-election in 2006 and there is one only candidate who could derail him in Pennsylvania . . . Chris Matthews of Hardball. Santorum is one of only two senators – the other is John McCain – who could conceivably trounce my “senators don’t win” principle, especially in a wide-open race like ’08. Matthews, a native Philadelphian, has thought before of running – he worked for Jimmy Carter, Edmund Muskie & Tip O’Neill in his pre-TV days. If Matthews doesn’t run in 2006, tho, Santorum will get a free ride & we yet may live to think of W’s kleptocracy as the “good ol’ days.”