RE: [Futurework] No similarities? (was All the President's votes)

[Karen Watters Cole]

Harry, please add Progressives and Independents to your list of those who don’t like Bush2 corporate governance and corporate policy and intend to raise hell about it.  Also some real fiscal conservatives who don’t like the bigger gov’t he’s making.     We can happily disagree about the partisanship, but I take exception to your saying people don’t want peace or stability just to win.  While you may believe it, and are free to say so, I believe that people assessing this unnecessary war on its merits/demerits are separating the inevitable deaths in Iraq (civilian and combatant) differently than fans do in bleachers cheering an opponent’s loss.   More voters are becoming disaffected of the flag-waving propaganda haze and see the reality through the rhetoric.  The internet and independent media played a starring role here.  This has necessitated that Gen. Rove alter the rhetoric, as it was this week to the more Glory-ious Mission of bringing Democracy (read the Gospels) to the Middle East (read Infidels), recapturing not just political missionary zeal but mythic remnants of Manifest Destiny and the great spirit of “the American dream“, the sequel.   After trying out WMD and imminent threat, and then replacing a(n old ally) ruthless dictator with a more humanitarian regime, now the Preemptive Doctrine is Neo-Wilsonian and heroic – since the UN wouldn’t do it we had to.  Nice try, but a little late.  Still, lots of voters will go for it (Arnold is Gov.-elect of California, isn’t he?) because they want to.  Too many believed the WMD story and that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks, (promoted by Bush2 though now sheepishly denied instead of acknowledged honorably) so why shouldn’t semi-attentive voters respond to a Call to Glory?  I’ve been saying for over a year now that Bush made a mistake not calling on a great sense of mission and sacrifice for a common goal in the war on terrorism, so maybe he should have listened to the numerous experts who called for it back then - though not louder than Dick Cheney whispering otherwise.  And he can’t now ask for common sacrifice to help the economy because his tax cuts don’t really benefit the middle class, and it is a permanent loss of revenue ($230B), far above and beyond the $50 + 87B on Iraq so far or the annual cost of Homeland Security (about $30B) and lost revenue after 9/11.    Let me detour to paraphrase Krugman here: No other US President has ever cut taxes in war time. It doesn’t make sense; the opposite is expected as a shared sacrifice to protect the greater good (survival).  He can’t blame the economy on 9/11 or the war on terrorism. The math does not add up.  The only economists not now terrified by the deficit are those on the Bush payroll.  The Bush tax cuts have pre-ordained that Medicare and SS will be breached, and some are writing that was the neo-con intention all along.   Unfortunately, since Bush2 didn’t act on this advice for a Call to Action soon after 9/11, taking the cowboyish “my way or the highway” ride over the UN, (and we see why now), the moment has been lost, the effect diminished. “There was no time like the present but it’s now in the past”.   Like the late convert to religion that he is, Bush2 finally grasped the best-and-brightest reasons for pro-active foreign policy in the Middle East, but only after he had exposed himself as an opportunist for earthly gain.  If he were Jimmy Carter, he’d have a fireside chat and an honest ‘lust my heart’ moment with the public where he confessed that he misled us, but for the right reason after all, and we should lower the thermostat and wear sweaters indoors because that is what it was going to take to solve this problem.  Most of the public scorned Carter then, but who’s sorry now?  Carter is Mr. Respect.   While I am not yet predicting a dramatic reversal of the GOP in Nov 2004, I do think more voters have taken the time to learn some foreign policy issues since 9/11 and also economic issues with this Bush2 recession, so that the upcoming election will probably be another Love it or Leave it experience.  I’ve used up my allotted time talking about religious and cultural issues, but that’s where this is headed.  It will be equally divisive, if not more so than 2000, because there really is much more at stake, in blood and money, and therefore voters are more attentive.  And just as Enronitis appeared to be fading away, the SEC scandals are mutating into even uglier mutual funds horrors, soon to hit the front-page consciousness of the public.   Lastly, if it is discovered and convincingly exposed that Bush2 actively lied to the public (as Nixon lied about that third rate burglary) then all bets are off on 2004 being just a bruising, muddy rugby election.  Think about it.  If the internet had existed before Pearl Harbor was attacked and soon thereafter rumors were substantiated with evidence that FDR knew an attack was coming but just didn’t know where or when, do you think he’d have been reelected?  There is a new Deep Throat out there. It’s a ticking time-bomb. - KWC   Harry wrote: Karen, Surprising comment from someone who remarked about people objecting to "to Robert Fisk, the Brit journalist and the more ‘argumentative’ style of Brit journalism".   The fact is that anything that makes George look ineffective and wrong is grist to the mill of the political professionals. That's why I excepted you.   But, the only thought in the minds of the Democratic spin doctors is how to make Bush look bad. So, casualties in Iraq are good for the 2004 election. The worst thing that could happen in Iraq is peace, stability, and a good oil flow.   Exactly the same thing happens with the Republican political professionals. The one who loses an election is a political failure. The object is not to promote a good policy, or to solve national problems. The object is to WIN.    You say : "We need constructive debate, listening to each other’s arguments, and seeking a common purpose." I agree, but that isn't what politicians want. Their entire mission in 2004 is to win.   I am using Dragon 7 - the best so far. It's not bad. As you may know, the more you use it, the more the program learns. If you are a fast and pretty accurate typist, like Ray, use typing. If you are likely to make a few errors - or more than a few - use Dragon.   Harry, it’s a poor response from you to suggest that people complaining about deaths in Iraq are solely interested in the political outcome of the upcoming election.  Sounds more like something Rush Limbaugh would say to get better ratings.  That line of counterattack only promotes more divisiveness and disrespect.  We need constructive debate, listening to each other’s arguments, and seeking a common purpose.  These problems are too big and too critical to be tackled with half the country divided as it is.    I am anti-Bush, but would enjoy meeting the man, and his better half, certain we could find something pleasant to talk about besides the four daughters we have between us (and the trouble they can be).  If I couldn’t persuade him on some policy disagreements, I would try a few bbq recipes.  I hear the personal approach softens him up more than anything else, and I can still ‘talk southern’.  But I would be happy to ‘free the Bush twins’ by sending Daddy back home to Crawford. - KWC   By the way, is the voice recognition software you are trying out called Dragon (7)?