August 26, 2004
DON’T COUNT ON THE DEBATES.
If you expect team Kerry/Edwards to “cream” Bush and Cheney in the debates,
don’t get your hopes up.
Oh, they’ll decisively “win” the debates on the issues, but it won’t matter.
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) will see to that.
George Farah writes in
The Christian
Science Monitor:
Since 1988, the general election presidential debates have been
controlled by a private corporation - the Commission on Presidential
Debates (CPD) - that has deceptively served the interests of the
Republican and Democratic parties at the expense of the American
people....
Documents obtained from a whistleblower and published in my recent
book, "No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly
Control the Presidential Debates," show that negotiators for the major
party nominees jointly draft debate contracts behind closed doors. These
contracts dictate precisely how the debates will be run - from decreeing
who can participate, to selecting who will ask the questions, to ordaining
the temperature in the auditoriums. The CPD merely implements and conceals
the contracts, shielding the major party candidates from public
criticism...
Issues the American people want to hear about - such as free trade,
government waste, child poverty, and immigration - are often ignored. And
the debates have been reduced to a series of glorified bipartisan news
conferences, in which the Republican and Democratic candidates merely
recite prepackaged soundbites to fit 90-second response slots.
If the media’s servility to the Bush Administration extends into the
“debates,” we can expect that Bush and Cheney will encounter few
surprises. The questions will be supplied to them beforehand and their
answers will be well-rehearsed. If there are to be surprises, they will be
experienced by the Kerry and Edwards.
Even so, on “debating points,” the Democrats will surely excel. But no
matter. This is, after all, the “post-modern era,” where gut supplants
brain, imagery trumps thought, and appeals to logic and evidence are
dismissed as “elitist,” or still worse, “Bore-- ing.” And then, whatever
advantages the Democrats might achieve in the debates will likely be
undone in the post-debate “analyses.”
It happened before, in 2000. Remember?
Gore was clearly the master of the substance, the argument structure, and
the language. He addressed (albeit in too much detail and elaboration)
issues of acute and relevant concern to the public. Bush, in contrast,
sputtered and strung together incoherent fragments of his stump speech,
struggled to fill out his allotted two minutes, all the while reminding us
that in fifty-four years he had somehow failed to take full control of the
English Language. “Flash polls” taken immediately after the debates, awarded
all three to Gore.
Then the pundit and spin-doctor circus was brought in as we were all told
what we "really" saw in the debates, and what we should "really" think of
them.
After the first debate, attention was drawn to Gore’s “sighs” and away from
Bush’s inane remarks which clearly provoked those “sighs.” (The technicians
had mischievously kept Gore’s microphone on, and perhaps even “cranked it
up”). In the third debate, we were told how Gore had “invaded Bush’s
personal space.” There was virtually no mention of the content of the
debates or the ability of each candidate to deal with the issues. Instead,
we were given “drama criticism.
The less said about the disgraceful Lieberman-Cheney VP love-in, the better.
Then there were the post-election "focus groups," conducted by GOP operative
Frank Luntz, whose affiliation with the RNC was conveniently undisclosed. As
best as I recall, Luntz opened one of the “groups” with the question: "which
candidate came across as more likeable?" When the "Mr. Congeniality" prize
was awarded to Bush, Luntz immediately leapt to the non sequitor conclusion
that Bush had "won" the debate.
For a “wide-spectrum” collection of “ordinary citizens,” the focus group
appeared remarkably favorable to Bush. This was no accident. As participant
“Lisa Ramsey” reported to the (sadly) now-defunct website, Media Whores
Online:
We were told to come to a hotel in West Palm Beach an hour before the
show. Upon arrival, we were checked off a list and segregated by party. I
was close enough to the Republicans to see a man passing out "talking
points" to his fellow panelists -- telling them that it would be great if
they could incorporate them into whatever they said -- and to make it
sound personal.
I was outraged and tried to get a copy. I must have looked like a liberal,
so they sent me back to my corner. I approached one of the producers about
it, only to be blown off.
About a half an hour before the show, we were taken to the room with the
cameras. Each side had a few more people than they actually needed, so
Frank and the producer started to hand pick the participants and show them
to their seats.
Interestingly, I was passed over initially (perhaps they smelled a trouble
maker). I made it on when a gentleman had to recuse himself. I could have
sworn that he said that he was a lawyer and they said they didn't allow
lawyers, but I could be wrong.
So here we sat for what was said to be a "sound check." The guy next to me
explained in whispers that this was actual an "attitude check" and that
the producers were identifying who might possess a brain along with an
attitude. During the show, those folks would be avoided and interrupted at
all costs, my new friend said, unless they sat on the Republican side.
All said, the show looked like a one-sided Jerry Springer show ... with
the well dressed and rehearsed Republicans winning sizable airtime with
the facist talking points. I found the whole experience very disturbing.
Recently, I read an article which identified Mr. Luntz as a GOP pollster.
Now really, do you honestly believe that things will be at all different
this time?
Bush will show up, but no matter. If he just stands and drools, he will be
declared "the winner" by the stable of designated media whores appointed to
"comment" after the debates. "He drooled with dignity," we will be told.
Even so, all is not lost for the Democrats. Despite the uneven playing field
and the prejudicial ground rules, the Kerry campaign can still prevail. But
let’s hope that they’ve been giving a great deal of careful and creative
thought to these debates.
They should begin by scrupulously studying those rules, searching for
loopholes and hidden opportunities. Then they proceed to disable the
post-debate spin machines by disclosing in advance the partisan affiliations
of “experts” such as Frank Luntz.
The “subliminable” devices aimed at Al Gore (e.g., the open mike, camera
angles, etc.) must be studied, anticipated and countered. Perhaps the
Kerry-Edwards team might come up with some "subliminable" surprises of their
own.
Kerry must take advantage of his most formidable weapon: George W. Bush. For
all the pre-debate preparation that Bush is likely to endure, these debates
will be his most vulnerable moments in the campaign. There will not be
pre-selected audiences, admitted only upon signing a GOP “loyalty oath.” He
must look into the eyes of the man that he and his accomplices have been
slandering throughout the campaign – a deserter and a coward facing an
authentic military hero. Inevitably, some spontaneous words under stress
must issue from Bush’s hapless mouth, and when they do, all bets are off.
Finally, if, somehow, a media panelist were to improvise and throw a
non-scripted and savagely relevant question at Dubya (e.g. about his
abridged “military service”), we might encounter a few moments of
high-drama.
But given the state of the “librul media,” maybe, that’s just expecting too
much.
THE SWIFT BOATS: SINK OR SWIM?
What’s up with this “Swift Boat” extravaganza? Where is it headed?
Is the Kerry campaign playing “rope-a-dope,” or are they just being “dopes.”
After what Michael Dukakis encountered in 1988, John McCain the 2000 South
Carolina primary, and Max Cleland in 2002, weren’t the Kerry strategists
forewarned and fore-armed to face the unmitigated nastiness of which the
Rovian campaigners were capable? Why have the Kerry troops appeared
surprised and hapless? Or are they, as some suspect, leading Bush-Rove into
an elaborate and deadly trap?
Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe, who has been following Kerry throughout
his political career, tells Al Franken that every time a Kerry opponent
brings up his war record, that opponent gets badly burned. Oliphant is
confident that it will happen again.
Maybe so, maybe not. Perhaps Kerry will turn out like to minor-league 400
hitter who can’t handle a major league curve ball. The punditry on this
question is all over the map: Kerry’s blown it – Rove’s about to be floored
by the backlash.
For what it’s worth, here’s my take.
First of all, lets dispatch a piece of moral garbage masquerading as an
excuse for the “Swift Boat Veteran” smear. While its been heard in various
places, I’ll focus on political scientist
Larry Sabato who commented, “the Democrats asked for this by
making way too much of Kerry’s military experience at the convention. They
overdid it and what goes around, comes around.”
Aw c’mon, Professor, consider the proportion. This is like saying that if
your neighbor’s dog craps on your lawn, you are entitled to burn down his
house. Kerry’s military experience was no lie, and making use of it was good
political strategy against a party of chickenhawks, reputed to be “stronger
on defense,” and yet with a candidate who went AWOL while Kerry was under
fire.
Perhaps the Democrats “overdid it,” though I’m unconvinced. But does that
allow the “Swift Boat Veterans” to concoct and spread their malicious pack
of lies? No way. It's a familiar yet contemptible excuse of the scoundrel:
blaming the victim.
In any case, the SBVs have been thoroughly discredited. None were
eyewitnesses to the events in question, and those that were support Kerry’s
account. So too the official contemporaneous Naval Department reports. And
that’s just the start of it. The SBV’s smear wouldn’t stand up in any court,
or in any military inquiry.
So the Kerry campaign has won, right?
Wrong!
For those unwilling to give a close and scrupulous examination of the
evidence – and that’s virtually every American voter – the smear raises
doubts. “Where there’s smoke, there’s gotta be some fire.” “There’s two
sides to every dispute.” “They wouldn’t dare make such accusation unless
there were something to it.” And sure enough, for the short-term at least,
Kerry’s approval among veterans has taken a twelve-point drop.
All that is necessary for a smear to succeed, is for it to cause doubt in at
least a few voters, regardless of how much cooler heads dismiss it. So if
those falling approval numbers “stick” and there is no backlash to damage
the veracity and reputation of the hidden perpetrators – the GOP and the
Bush campaign – then Rove, Inc. wins.
We are eagerly awaiting evidence of that backlash.
However, the SBV attack may have opened up a golden opportunity for the
Kerry campaign. By putting Kerry’s military record in play, Bush’s National
Guard record is fair game. Why the Democrats haven’t hammered this issue
persistently is a mystery to me. Maybe they’ve just felt it was “old news”
and “out of bounds.”
Well, now it is in bounds, and Rove has put it there. The Dems would be
fools not to play it for all its worth. They may find that it is worth a
very great deal.
Dubya just loves to play soldier – “Mission Accomplished” and all that.
Time now to show him that War is Hell!
August 17, 2004
President Doofus
Bush’s language problem. A Deeper meaning?
By now, most of us have heard about George Bush’s monumental gaffe at the
signing of the Defense Appropriations bill: “They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we."
A common response is, “well OK, he goofed. But don’t we all, now and then.
So get over it and move on.”
Well, we might. Except that there are so many of these “Bushisms.”
I would suggest that Bush’s problem might be that his attention span is so
minuscule that he can’t remember at the end of a complex sentence, what he
said at the beginning. Or perhaps, his mind simply cannot grasp at a single
moment the subtleties of a complex sentence – the qualifications, the
logical connectors: “if – then,” “either/or,” “except for,” “without which,”
“caused by,” “on the other hand,” etc.
And these are clear indicators of operative intelligence – or the lack
thereof.
Bush has told us that he “doesn’t do nuance.” Perhaps he “doesn’t”
because he can’t.
Scary, isn’t it?
And then there is the ignorance factor:
At the August 8 convention of the “Journalists of Color,” Mark Trahant of
the Seattle Post-Intelligence, asked Bush the following question:
Most school kids learn about the government in the context of city,
county, state and federal. And, of course, tribal governments are not part
of that at all. Mr. President, you've been a governor and a President, so
you have a unique experience, looking at it from two directions. What do
you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century, and how do we
resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and the state
governments?
Bush answered:
Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been
given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And,
therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is
one between sovereign entities.
For the full impact, you must see and hear this fumble, including the
disrespectful laughs in the background. Follow this link to
Democracy.now.
Question: How much of this public display of ignorance, incompetence
and stupidity must we encounter and endure before the media and the public
finally begin to express their consternation and embarrassment that this dim
bulb is “our leader”? Or is it somehow “impolite” and “disrespectful” to
point out that the President of the United States is obviously not up to the
job?
“Hey people – that Emperor out there. He’s nekkid, I tell you –
nekkid.”
“Shut up, kid. You can’t say that about our leader.
President Looney Tunes?
Still worse is the suggestion that Dubya is on the cusp of bonkers-hood.
In “Capitol Hill Blue” we read:
President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood
swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately
express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind.
In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President
goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the
media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.”
Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge,
increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public
that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home. (Doug
Thompson, June 4, 2004).
And again:
A sullen President George W. Bush is withdrawing more and more from
aides and senior staff, retreating into a private, paranoid world where
only the ardent loyalists are welcome.
Cabinet officials, senior White House aides and leaders on Capitol Hill
complain privately about the increasing lack of “face time” with the
President and campaign advisors are worried the depressed President may
not be up to the rigors of a tough re-election campaign.
“Yes, there are concerns,” a top Republican political advisor admitted
privately Wednesday. “The George W. Bush we see today is not the same,
gregarious, back-slapping President of old. He’s moody, distrustful
and withdrawn.” (Hampton and McTavish, July 29, 2004).
Psychiatrists say the increasing paranoia at the White House is
symptomatic of Bush’s “paranoid, delusional personality.”
Dr. Justin Frank, a prominent Washington psychiatrist and author
of the book, Bush on the Couch, Inside the Mind of the President,
says the President suffers from “character pathology,” including
“grandiosity” and “megalomania” –– viewing himself, America and God as
interchangeable."
For more from Dr. Frank, listen to his interview on Air America Radio’s
“Ring of Fire” of
Sunday,
August 15.
If Bush is in fact cracking under the strain of his office, this should be
no surprise. Nothing in his life history has prepared him for the
Presidency. His business career has been a string of failures, followed by
“bailouts” by his family and friends. His brushes with the law (some would
say his clear violations of the law) have gone unpunished. He walked away
from a contractual obligation with the Texas Air National Guard without
consequence. Up to now, he has been protected from political repercussions
of that offense by a compliant media.
But now, as President, for the first time in his life he has no place to
turn for another “bailout.” The wall of media protection is beginning to
crack, as the whiff of scandal grows ever stronger and closer to the Oval
Office – Plame-gate, the outing of the Pakistani mole, the false
justifications for the Iraq war, the Abu Ghraib and Gitmo tortures, the Halliburton plundering of the Iraq
“reconstruction” funds, the ever-rising casualty figures from Iraq.
Bush is trapped. He was unfit to deal with the responsibilities and strains
of his office the day he was "selected" by his allies on the Supreme Court. Now “all the king's men” can no
longer insulate him from the burdens of office, and the strain is beginning
to show.
Should Bush seek medical help? That’s his choice. Should we be enablers?
Certainly not.
Normally, when an individual shows signs of emotional breakdown and mental
instability, he should immediately be given treatment to deal with his
symptoms. This should be done out of concern for the individual and those
with whom he is immediately involved.
Though it sounds cruel, when the individual is the President of the United
States who has the lives and welfare of billions at stake, his aberrant
behavior and judgment should be brought out into the open, so that the
public can be made aware of the emergency and thus prompted to act
appropriately – namely, by separating the unfortunate person from his
office.
Accordingly, we must demand to know of Bush’s condition. Is he back on the
bottle again? Is his behavior in the Oval Office so bizarre that executive
decisions are in practice “routed” around him, and made instead by his
“handlers.”
We must insist upon seeing Bush perform in public and off-script. He must be
asked difficult and unanticipated questions. Or if he is persistently kept
away from spontaneous Q&As and unscripted discussions, then we must demand
an explanation and justification.
If, as so many progressives insist, George Bush is emotionally and
intellectually unfit for his office, we’d better find this out and inform
the public sometime before November 2.
BURDEN OF PROOF
For some time now, I’ve been trying to distill the essence of the
mainstream media’s political bias. Now, I believe I have it. According to
the media:
Republicans are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Democrats are presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Then it gets worse: the media has little inclination either to prove
Republicans guilty or Democrats innocent. So it comes down to this: Republicans are presumed innocent, and Democrats are presumed guilty.
Period.
Sound outrageous? Well then, let’s look at the record.
We start with this gem from Robert Novak’s recent column. The anti-Kerry
book, Unfit for command, writes Novak, “sends a devastating message unless
it is effectively refuted.”
No, dammit! It only “sends a devastating message” if there is
a case against Kerry – that is, if the charges against Kerry are backed up
with evidence and the testimony is truthful. In both the courts of law and
among responsible journalists, the burden of proof is on the affirmative,
which is to say, the accusers (in law, the prosecution).
Thus, it should not be Kerry’s task to prove his innocence; it should be the
task of the accusers to prove Kerry guilty.
And those who have looked below the surface of the “Swift Boat” smear
against Kerry know that the “case” is built upon a pack of damned lies,
unsubstantiated rumor, and false testimony. The vets who said, one after
another, “I served with John Kerry,” didn’t. The doctor who claimed to have
treated Kerry, didn’t. The proof is in the military records. Those
who were in Kerry’s crew during the incidents in question all testify to
“the official version” of Kerry’s heroic deeds as recorded at the time by
the US Navy.
In a country with a responsible and honorable media, these charges would be
totally discredited and the perpetrators so completely disgraced that their
example would serve to deter others inclined to engage in such outrageous
character assassination.
But not, alas, in our country. Instead, these slanders are credited
immediately, and Kerry is challenged to come up with a refutation – which,
when offered, is muted by the media.
Contrast this with the media treatment of the succession of horrors issuing
from the Bush mis-Administration -- AWOL, Cheney’s Energy Task Force, Plame-gate,
the missing Iraqi WMDs, the “convenient” terror alerts, and now the outing
of the Pakistani “mole.”
In all cases, Bush & Co. are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and with
the demise of investigative journalism (particularly aimed against
Republicans), there is precious little opportunity for the public to hear
the evidence and the argument.
Case in point: Lt. Bush’s “unauthorized absence” from the Air National
Guard.
Even the official Bushista line concedes that Bush missed his required
physical. His various explanations have all been decisively shot down. There
simply is no plausible explanation as to how he could decide on his own not
to take that physical exam, a decision which would entail severe
consequences to any officer without the benefit of “connections.”
The lame “I got an Honorable Discharge” just won’t cut it. So the remaining
White House “explanation” for Bush’s unauthorized “leave” (i.e. AWOL)
amounts to “shut up! Now let’s move on.”
And the establishment media, by and large, won’t touch the story. George
Bush is “presumed innocent” despite the preponderance of evidence of guilt.
We expect to have much more to say in subsequent blogs about the double
standards applied to Republicans and Democrats by the corporate media.
August 12, 2004
E-VOTING – MORE COUNTERATTACKS.
Face it, Rush Holt’s bill will not make it. We’re not going to get federally
mandated paper verification of “paperless” voting. The Congressional
Republicans will see to that.
If the GOP manufactured and secretly coded machines “convert” every fourth
Kerry ballot to Bush, and if the software, after doing its dirty deed,
reverts to “normal,” we’ll not be able to prove the fraud. There will be no
record. To be sure, the final returns will show a “remarkable” discrepancy
between the pre-elections polls and the final results, but that won’t
matter. They did so in Georgia in 2002 indicating a probable “fix,” but we
were told to “get over it” and alas, we did.
But all is not lost. Here are two proposals that would serve to validate the
accuracy of the e-votes, and they would both be quite affordable and
available in time for the election.
(1) As the polls are about to open, one out of ten e-vote
machines are chosen at random, “pulled” from the polling stations, and
subjected to a simple input-output test. If the software is “fixed,” this
will show up in a discrepancy between the input and the output. The
stations and the machines would be selected by lot and on the spot, so
that no advance “unfixing” could be done.
(2) A few polling stations would be selected by lot,
immediately before polls open. These stations would NOT be identified
beforehand to the public or press. At these stations, voters would vote
BOTH by paper ballot and e-vote machines. The results would then be
compared.
The “validation teams” would include individuals of both parties, and
they would be selected from a pool of volunteers, so that they could not be
“got at” beforehand.
If such a simple and inexpensive method of validation were proposed and the
Republicans objected, the citizens would be entitled to an explanation.
And we’d all have still more reason to be very suspicious.
"I HEARD SOMEWHERE...”
“I hear that John Kerry bought all his medals,” said the young dental
assistant.
“Ungh!” was all I could say, since the dentist’s probe was somewhere amongst
my lower molars. I did, however, emphatically wave my hand in a “hold that
thought” gesture.
When I regained the use of my tongue, I asked, “where on earth did you hear
that!”
“Oh, I dunno, I just heard it.”
“And do you believe it?”
“Well, what can you believe?”
“You can believe the Navy Department records and citations, and you can
believe Kerry’s shipmates – if you bother to check it out. That’s what we
call ‘evidence’ – of the sort that you can take to the bank.”
(“I just heard it”
and “what can you believe?” The
death-rattle of civilized political discourse!)
But by then, the dentist was looking impatiently at me, and so I opened
wide.
My dentist, by the way, is a terrific young lady, maybe five years out of
Dental College. That’s ideal: close enough to graduation to be up on the
latest knowledge and techniques, and far enough in time to have gained
practical experience. It takes smarts to get through Dental College, so
obviously, she is very intelligent.
But not, as I found out, very knowledgeable about politics. Even so, she
insists on asking my opinions, and freely offers her own. Trouble is, when
I’m about to deliver my carefully structured rebuttal, she has a habit of
shoving cotton in my mouth.
Even so, some time ago, she recited the usual Republican complaints about
how our tax money is wasted on no-accounts, to whom we owe nothing.
“So,” I asked, “give me a rough guess: what percentage of the federal budget
goes to welfare and foreign aid.”
She pondered a moment, and said, “at least forty percent.”
In fact, its about one percent for each. Check it out. To our national
shame, The United States is about the stingiest of all industrial countries
when it comes to foreign aid.
Madame Dentist was astonished to hear this, and appeared to have an open
mind. So I gave her a copy of “Big Bush Lies” (two
chapters by Yours Truly), which she promised to read.. There is still hope.
So there you have it. Even the better educated and more intelligent
among us are awash in misinformation. I’m not talking about opinions here,
I’m talking about hard, verifiable facts.
Our news media, “the nervous system of a democracy,” have let us down.
Instead of information, we get “infotainment” and right-wing propaganda
disguised as “news.” (If you don’t believe it, see the video, “Outfoxed,”
which you can buy directly at http://www.outfoxed.org/).
As a study at the
University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy discovered,
the more one watched FOX news, the more misinformed on was about WMDs in
Iraq, the Saddam-Osama connection, and world opinion about the Iraq war.
And FOX (alleged) News is just the worst of them. All network and cable news
programs have abandoned the “public interest” provision that they agreed to
uphold when they get their licenses.
But I guess you knew all that. Still, it never fails to amaze and appall me
how fundamentally misinformed even well-educated individuals are concerning
the policies or even the simple facts about their own government.
And these people vote!
"DO NOT GO GENTLE..."
The recent trends look very promising for Kerry/Edwards – which means, of
course, for us all in the US of A.
John Zogby and
Christopher Conroy: tell us that “Bush is in deep trouble:”
"The most recent Zogby poll shows deeper trouble for President George
W. Bush beyond just the horserace. Mr. Bush has fallen in key areas while
Senator John Kerry has shored up numerous constituencies in his base. The
Bush team's attempted outreach to base Democratic and swing constituency
has shown to be a failure thus far, limiting his potential growth in the
electorate. . . . There are three factors contributing to Senator Kerry's
lead in the electorate; first is President Bush's eroding base, second is
his failure in outreach to swing groups and base Democratic
constituencies, and third is Mr. Kerry's strengthening of his base.
The
Nation’s Mark Hertsgaard says that the election is “John Kerry’s to
lose.”
The 2004 election is ... John Kerry’s to lose. With polls showing
independents increasingly supporting him, Kerry looks to be a probable
winner isn several swing states... This election is not primarily about
Kerry. One last lesson from U.S. presidential history: When an incumbent
runs for re-election, the vote is more a referendum on him than a judgment
on his challenger. Do voters want to give this president another four
years or not? Bush is running against himself in November, and thanks to
Iraq, that's a losing proposition. As with McCarthy, the dawn was slow in
coming, but the American middle is finally waking up. And George W. Bush
is going down."
And speaking to a business group in Alabama, Political Scientist Larry
Sabato of the University of Virginia said that Bush would “really need a
miracle” to win in November. (Gadsden Alabama Times, August 9, 2004)
The poll numbers are very encouraging. Historically, “Undecideds” tend to
“break” toward the challenger. Voter confidence in Bush as a leader against
terrorism, his strong suit, continues to fall.
Even so, for three over-riding reasons, I’d put the odds at two to one Bush
– given a continuation of current circumstances.
But current circumstances are surely not going to continue. And so, as
suggested in my previous blog, there is no telling how this contest will end
up.
These are the high cards in Bush’s hand:
- The Media. Sadly, it appears that the media are falling into
the same pattern of misbehavior that we saw in the 2000 election, when Al
Gore was portrayed early-on as a liar and a self-promoter, while the
manifest shortcomings of George Bush were regarded as off-limits. “News”
is selected and slanted to favor the Bushistas, as Shiela Samples points
out in her insightful
Open Letter to CNN, Leading questions and innuendos abound. For
example, CNN’s Judy Woodruff to a Kerry aide: “John Kerry has a problem.
People don’t know him, and those who do don’t agree with him. What
does this mean for Kerry. Is Kerry in trouble?” (Samples)
“Kerry is an enigma” is a common complaint in the media, which never seems
to entertain the idea that Kerry’s unfamiliarity might have something to
do with the media’s refusal to present Kerry and his ideas to the public.
And this leads to the additional point that even worse than the spinning
is the blackout on the Democrats, their message, and their candidates.
Exhibit A: the Democratic Convention, where the speeches of Barak Obama,
Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were, if not shut out entirely,
interrupted and followed with rebutting commentary by the usual stable of
GOP and “conservative” gas-bags.
- E-Voting. On the face of it, paperless electronic voting is a
sham – a disaster waiting to happen. Just consider the undisputed facts:
the manufacturers of the equipment and the writers of the software code
are open supporters of Bush and the GOP. The software codes are
“proprietary” – i.e., secret. Software experts, and even a few amateurs,
have repeatedly proven that the machines can be “hacked,” the numbers
changed, with no trace of the mischief left behind. There are no means to
audit (independently verify) the results.
The rebuttal? “Trust us!”
Yea, sure!. In the meantime, the GOP
stalls as time runs out for remedies.
Unless the Democrats and the Kerry campaign mount a massive counterattack
to the pending fraud, they might just as well save their money, their time
and their breath. There is good reason to believe that “the fix” is in.
And even if it isn’t, there will be no way to know, one way or the other.
We have suggested above, and elsewhere, some means to avoid this disaster. Sadly, there is scant evidence that the Democrats
are taking this emergency seriously.
- Because of their control of all branches of the government, Bush
and the GOP can control events, as we have seen with the
curiously-timed sequence of “terrorism alerts.” No doubt, Karl Rove and
his schemers have numerous surprises up their sleeves, and no apparent
qualms about using them, whatever the cost. It seems that the unraveling
of ongoing covert operations (i.e., Plame and now the Al Qaeda mole) is an
acceptable price for political advantage. Especially so, when the servile
media can be counted on not to raise a ruckus about it.
How can Kerry and the Democrats hope to overcome such an array of
obstacles?
They could do so, because the Bushevik gang is so arrogant, incompetent, and
dangerous that it just might dawn on a few pivotal elites in the media, the
financial community, the military, the government, along with an
ever-increasing number of discerning citizens, that there is much more than
a quadrennial partisan contest at stake this November.
This time, the federal government is careening toward bankruptcy, and the
economy is on the verge of collapse. The harbingers of the coming disaster
are upon us even now – consumer credit has maxed out, net joblessness is
increasing again, the consumer price index is on the rise, and the stock
market is not. The fat cats that have gained so much from the Bush
giveaways, may finally appreciate that they have nothing to gain and
everything to lose when the economy goes belly-up.
The international lawlessness of the Bush regime has earned the enmity of
governments and peoples throughout the world. And foreign governments are
creditors to more than half of our five-trillion dollar national debt, and
the source of our essential raw materials – especially oil. (See my
"The Vulnerable Giant").
Even so, the Neo-Cons are seriously contemplating an invasion of Iran, and
are not reticent at telling us about it. And Iran is vastly larger and more
powerful than Iraq, which, coincidentally, we cannot subdue.
And at the center of it all, seeking a second term with more of the same, is
a stubborn, incurious, unread, religious fanatic, who puts science and
expertise aside in favor of his instincts.
He has the whole world in his gut!
More and more investors, economists, senior military officers, diplomats,
scientists and scholars are beginning to see the madness of it all.
And God only knows what the much-abused CIA is thinking – and perchance
scheming.
Will the media finally wake up, smell the fumes, and proceed to clear the
air? We don’t need opposing rants to the right-wing scream machine (though
it might not hurt). The simple facts will do just fine.
If things go on just as they are – captive media, e-voting, controlled
events – Bush wins.
But somehow, I just can’t believe that things can continue to go on this way
for three more months. We are just not the sort of people that meekly roll
over and invites the despots to please rule us.
At least, not until now.
The words of of the poet Dylan Thomas ring in my ear:
Do not go gentle into that [dark] night
Rage, rage, against the dying of the light.
August 3, 2004
Right-Wing Regressive Idiocy of the the Week:
Where did this idea come from that everybody deserves free education?
It comes from Moscow, from Russia. It comes straight out of the pit of
hell."
Texas State Rep. Debbie Riddle.
Republican (Natch!)
Need a reference? Just ask George Will -- he's a pushover :
"[Jack Ryan] is, above all, a moralist." (George Will)
(Mr. Ryan, you may recall, withdrew from the Illinois Senate race,
when it was disclosed that he visited Parisian sex clubs).
John Kerry's Disqualifications for High Office:
He looks French.
Still worse, he speaks French.
(Mon Dieu!)
His long fingernails (for classic guitar playing) are freaky
He pays too much for his haircuts.
He looks silly in a NASA non-contamination suit.
As circumstances and information change, he changes his mind.
On the other hand, George Bush has no disqualifications whatever,
for if he did, the "librul media" would surely tells about it.
Pressure Cooker:
Don't know about you, but I am gaining an ever-increasing sense that
there is something huge in the offing. Let's call it "precursoritis." Maybe
you've experienced it before.
- you live near a major earthquake fault (as in fact I do). Then for no
apparent reason, dogs start barking, and suddenly the birds take flight.
- you are at the ocean shore, and you notice the sea level recede, down,
down, down -- a sure sign of an oncoming tsunami.
- at the base of Mt. St. Helens, there is a rumble and a groaning sound,
you look up and see wisps of smoke above the peak.
Throughout the realm the realization is dawning, not only on the public,
but also in the minds of the "movers and shakers" -- the military,
journalists, industrialists, politicians, scientists, lawyers, professors --
that the stakes in the coming election are enormous, even unprecedented.
- The Bush economy, with endless deficits, falling wages, and the
consequent loss of disposable consumer income, simply cannot go on this
way -- there is a precipice dead ahead.
- The international disgust with the lawlessness of the Bush regime is
rising, and the patience of our foreign creditors and resource suppliers
is nearly exhausted.
- Cutting edge scientific research and technological development is
shutting down in the US and migrating overseas, as literacy continues to
decrease and college enrollments decline.
- Civil liberties continue to erode, and dissent is more and more
marginalized and muffled.
- There is an ever-growing suspicion that "the fix is in" for the coming
election, when a third of all votes will be cast with "touch-screen"
machines -- unverifiable, with secret software, owned and programmed by
private companies dedicated to the election of Republicans.
- George Bush is avoiding informal contacts with the press and public,
and rarely speaks a word that is not scripted. There are reports
that he is taking antidepressants and displaying symptoms of paranoia.
- More than a third of a billion dollars have been "invested" in the
Bush campaign by corporations and individuals made obscenely wealthy by
Bush tax cuts, deregulation, and non-bid government contracts. Many more
billions of dollars will be gained with a Bush victory, or lost with a
Kerry victory.
And finally, if Bush loses, not only will The Shrub and his mob lose
their offices and perks, they might very well lose their freedom, as
responsible federal investigations finally uncover indictable evidence of
their numerous crimes.
During Clinton's administration, seventy million dollars were expended in
search of a crime -- Whitewater, "travelgate," "filegate," etc. -- and all
they could come up with was a lousy blow-job.
In stark contrast, only by the grace of a toothless Justice Department, a
compliant Congress, and a servile media, has the lid remained affixed atop
the stew of scandals -- AWOL, Plamegate, Halliburton, the tortures, and
Gawd only knows what else. And the pressure under that lid is growing by
the day.
Meanwhile, we are told, Al Qaeda is allegedly up to no good. "Allegedly."
But are they really a threat? Don't ask Tom Ridge. He'll only
cry "wolf" once again.
Can the lid stay on through November 2?
Not if a few well-placed individuals, who thought they had it made in
Dubya-land, finally wake up and realize that when our ship of state goes
down, all hands will go down with it. There will be no prosperity in the
next Great Depression. Instead, there will be mobs of millions of hungry,
homeless, unemployed, and oppressed citizens, with vivid memories of what it
was like to live in a free and prosperous country, where their votes were
securely cast and accurately counted.
Then John Ashcroft and his NRA buddies may have reason to regret their
unqualified defense of the Second Amendment, and the citizens' right to bear
arms.
On the other hand, it is quite possible that as the election approaches and
as the Paul Reveres of the progressive opposition ride through town, the
population at large will, in effect, yell back, "Aw Shaddup! Can't you see
we're trying to sleep?"
But somehow, I just don't think so. With so much at stake, it would be
unreal for the next three months to roll by uneventfully. Something has just
gotta give. The Plame prosecution may get serious. Ditto the Halliburton
investigations. Bush's Air National Guard medical records and officer
fitness reports may finally surface, and the major media might finally
acquire the testicular fortitude to publicize the dirty details (a la
the Starr Report).
Then there are all those brilliant and resourceful CIA and FBI geniuses,
who are by now totally pissed-off at their betrayal at the hands of the
Busheviks. Who can imagine what they might come up with?
Finally, perhaps the programmers at Diebold who engineered the 2002 election
"fix" in Georgia and who are now hard at work on the forthcoming 2004 fraud,
will have an epiphany and decide, "screw it -- I'd prefer to live in a free
country." Then they might expose the whole sorry scheme to a willing
publisher or broadcaster.
If you read The Crisis Papers, then it is likely that you too would
surely prefer to live in a free country.
But don't just sit back and wait to see what might happen. Help to make it
happen.