P8kice8zq6szrqrmqxag

Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

Any new signals traffic from Goreland? Intercepted reaction to the atrocious recount coverage? That would be a big 'YES.' But it'll have to wait till Tuesday morning, seeing as the TPM is writing on deadline tonight. Stay tuned.

Is it just me? Or is the media spin on the recount numbers oddly perverse? Most of the headlines run something like CNN's "Florida recount study: Bush still wins." One CNN story even said the study "showed George Bush winning even with a statewide recount," which is actually precisely what the study did not show.

This AP lede states the point accurately and does perhaps the best job of laying out the actual findings in a clear and balanced fashion: the study, said AP, showed "George W. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Al Gore, but Gore might have reversed the outcome – by the barest of margins – had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount."

I'm going to comment in greater depth after I read all the articles and as much of the data as I can get hold of or endure. But for now, these comments ...

Almost all of the headlines and articles place the emphasis on the legal strategy the Gore team adopted relatively late in the game, one which -- in retrospect foolishly -- discounted the importance of overvotes. I think the Gore people have a decent argument to the effect that they tried from the beginning to get a full statewide recount. But Katherine Harris and the Bush legal team made that impossible. And having gotten argued into a position where they had to make a tactical decision about where they thought the most votes would be, they made the wrong call.

But at this point, who cares? We know who won the election in the sense of who's actually president. Nothing is going to undo that. We've also known for some time that the specific, limited recounts Gore lost in the United States Supreme Court wouldn't have put him over the top. Maybe this means that Ron Klain's a &#@$-up. But, again, for present purposes, who cares?

The only question that's still out there is who really got the most votes. For the historical record, if all the votes had been accurately counted under Florida law as it existed at the time, who would have gotten the most votes in the state? And the study seems to say pretty clearly that that 'who' was Al Gore.

To me, that seems like the story.

Does Talking Points hook you up or does Talking Points hook you up? Early pre-leaks of the recount consortium data seem to confirm the Friday noon TPM post about Gore winning with overvotes. Apparently the consortium member sites (the Times, the Post, the Trib, CNN, etc.) get to post the results on their sites tonight at 10 PM.

With regards to the last update about Gore winning Florida on overvotes, Mickey Kaus correctly notes that it all depends on what kind of overvotes. If tons of folks in Palm Beach voted for Gore and Pat Buchanan, we may know as a matter of logic that most of these were really Gore votes. But that surmise would be irrelevant in terms of those votes counting. On the other hand, if lots of people checked Gore's name and then also put down Gore in the 'write-in' section, then under Florida law those votes could have and should have counted.

Let me try to clarify this as much as I can.

As you certainly know, Talking Points has a powerful intelligence network with both HUMINT (human intelligence) and SIGINT (signals intelligence) capabilities. And through our aggressive tracking we've been able to monitor internal Gore mafia communications in advance of the Monday release of the data.

The word from Goreland is an aggressive push to rebut the argument that they did not ask for a count of overvotes. That tells me that the overvotes in question were countable overvotes. Otherwise the 'we did so want overvotes counted' spin would be irrelevant.

Here's one other tidbit: two prominent Gore field operatives are telling fellow Gore-ites that the debate within the New York Times at the moment is over how definitively to say that Gore would have won. Whether he definitely would have won or whether he probably would have won. There also seems to be a lot of intra-Gore camp spinning, with HQ folks like Tad Devine and Monica Dixon successfully putting the blame on the Florida field team for whatever screw-ups took place.

So, as we've seen with the FBI and CIA recently, intelligence intercepts are sometimes hard to interpret. But that's what I glean based on the information I have.

The word I'm getting from within the Gore campaign is that the recount results to be revealed Monday show ambiguous results for all possible ways of counting the ballots.

With one exception, and it's a big one. If you count overvotes, Gore would have won big.

That's the scoop.

As a matter of principle I don't think Democratic consultants -- ones who make their bread and butter from the Democratic party and its various committees -- should work for Republicans, period.

So I'm not at all happy about the fact that Doug Schoen, of Penn, Schoen & Berland made a tidy sum helping Mike Bloomberg become the next mayor of New York.

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe is pulling no punches about his displeasure, especially since Bill Clinton's Democratic party made Penn & Schoen stars.

But let's reel back the huffing and puffing a bit, especially from the Green campaign. Green's campaign ads were done by Trippi, McMahon & Squier. But their noses aren't exactly clean either. Earlier this year they worked for Republican Steve Soboroff in his losing campaign to become mayor of Los Angeles!

(There is a slight technicality here: Los Angeles municipal elections are officially non-partisan. So technically, you don't run with a party label. But everyone knew that Tom Bradley was a Democrat and that Dick Riordan was a Republican. And if you wanna get technical about it, Mike Bloomberg actually is a Democrat. Really it's basically a wash.)

So it's not so much that Trippi, McMahon & Squier always rep Democrats. It's more like they just always rep losers. Maybe they should have done better oppo research on themselves before they started giving grief to Doug Schoen?

Reading over the tea leaves of Tuesday's elections, the one thing that drives me crazy or perhaps just makes me laugh are the pundits who say, "Well, sure Mark Warner won the Virginia governor's race. But only because he didn't run as a traditional liberal Democrat!"

Well, no &$#*! And more to the point, who cares? That's like saying George Pataki could never have won reelection in New York state if he ran on Tom DeLay's legislative program. Yeah, no kidding. And, again, who cares? If he did that he'd be ... well, he'd be Bret Shundler, the affable and appealing right-winger who got bulldozed by the anemic but able Jim McGreevey in the New Jersey governor's race.

The larger point here is that these pundits buy in to the fallacious notion -- propagated on the right and the left (and particularly by some unreconstructed liberals) -- that the Democratic party was born immaculate and liberal, and that any deviation from that course is just so much betrayal, backsliding, hedging and so forth.

The key to a party's strength is seldom its purity. The Schundler debacle is revealing about New Jersey precisely because it's not an anomaly. It's not enough to say that if a more moderate Republican had gotten the nod, he or she would have done better. The reason Schundler got the nomination in the first place is that New Jersey Republicans have become so mangled and eviscerated that regulars and the moderates couldn't get it together enough to nominate someone. And that left it to the freaks with the intensity to push through Schundler.

If you want the real run-down on the election results see John Judis' characteristically magisterial squib in the New Republic.

Okay, I think I was right to be suspicious. It turns out that anthrax-laced letter to the US Consulate in Lahore, Pakistan did not contain anthrax. So says a follow-up and apparently definitive test.

Now it's true that there have apparently been other cases of anthrax-tainted letters in Pakistan in recent days. But to be frank, this is the only instance of anthrax contamination from Pakistan in which a follow-up test has been done in the United States. And the initial tests were wrong. So for those other cases, I think we need more definitive evidence.

Again, I'm not doctrinaire on either question. Maybe there is anthrax in Pakistan. And maybe it all comes from Al Qaeda. But let's keep our eyes on the data and take this one step at a time.

Un-#$%#in' believable! What else to call it? I'm watching Mike Bloomberg about to give his acceptance speech after winning the New York mayor's race. Even though there were all the signs of a possible Bloomberg win for the last few days, I kept telling a friend of mine that I thought Green would pull it out.

Why? Just figured. Republicans don't win New York mayor's races, except once in a generation as a sort of ideological spring cleaning. So much for hunches.

Like my friend Mickey Kaus, I've got a bit of a soft spot for Mark Green, even though all my young Dem friends just hate the guy. But what's really got to be devastating about this defeat for Green is that this clearly wasn't an ideological win. And it wasn't a personality or ability win for Bloomberg. Mike Bloomberg won because people really don't seem to like Mark Green.

Ouch.

Today I read this article by Christopher Caldwell about the origins of the recent anthrax outbreak. (For those of you who don't read much of the conservative press, Caldwell is one of the sharpest conservative writers around today -- and well worth your reading.) In any case, I think he's a bit too critical of those who've raised the possibility that the outbreak had domestic origins. He views it as wishful thinking, pointing out the admitted shallowness of some of the pro-domestic source arguments.

Before discussing some new developments from tomorrow's papers, let me just make the following point. As someone who's cautiously been in the pro-domestic source camp, the point is not that there's anything definitively pointing to a domestic source. It's only that there are problems with the international/Al Qaeda explanation that I don't believe have been adequately answered or resolved.

For my part, the really telling problem is the content of the letters themselves and, more particularly, the very fact that the letters say they contain anthrax. From everything I've seen about the Al Qaeda MO, they'd let you find out they'd sent anthrax when people starting showing up at the hospitals. They wouldn't warn you. They'd want as high a body count as possible. Frightening as it may be to imagine, think about what would have happened if the Daschle letter would have been the first letter and it would have contained what looked like a quaint letter from a fourth grader.

(Here, some might say: but the whole point of terrorism is to terrorize. And the letter has spread a lot of terror. But I think we in the West have a an over-articulated theory of terrorism. I don't think this is how the Al Qaeda folks think. This is a topic I hope to return to later.)

In any case, I think the honest answer, as I said the day before yesterday, is that there's good evidence against both a domestic and an international source.

At least until today, that is. According to this article in the Post, a letter sent from within Pakistan to a US Consulate in Lahore, Pakistan has tested positive for anthrax.

(If you just said yikes, you're damn right.)

That really does sound like the other shoe dropping. I know there have been several cases of anthrax contamination in Pakistan over the last few days. But, frankly, a lot of these international cases have proven to be false alarms. So I've kept an open mind. But the State Department seems to have done the testing on this one. So this looks like the real deal.

What it all comes down to now is whether it turns out to be the same strain. Presumably we'll know the answer soon.

TPMLivewire