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)?