Monday, May 24, 2004
Do the Bush Haters really want Bush to lose?
What are the Bush Haters going to do if Bush loses the election? I don’t want to get ahead of myself here, as the election is still six months away and a few prison abuse photos likely won’t be enough to shut down the vast right-wing conspiracy.
But, for argument’s sake, suppose Kerry wins. What will they do? Sure, they’ll celebrate. Kerry’s in. Bush is out. But then what? Go back to their day jobs?
I think they'll become depressed a few months into 2005 when President John F. Kerry is dutifully taking care of business in the Oval Office while George W. Bush is at home in Crawford, Texas, doing what he does best - clearing brush on his ranch while drinking non-alcoholic beer.
What will they do to keep themselves busy? They could write books. They’re good at that. But what to write about? Environmental policy? Health care reform? Social Security? That stuff is so boring, especially after Dubya’s presidency. Too fact-based.
They’ll soon realize that the thousandth book written about global warming doesn’t race up the New York Times bestseller list quite like the umpteenth “inside account” portraying Bush as a slow-witted cowboy terrorist.
How to make money?
Movies? Who’s going to watch a movie with explosive accusations of the multiple S.U.V.’s in John Kerry’s driveway? Everyone knows those are Teresa’s. A movie about Kerry’s shady ties to the ketchup industry? Problem is, Kerry doesn’t have to conquer a ketchup-exporting third-world country to get rich. He did it the old fashioned way, by marrying an heiress. Again, too boring.
What will the establishment media choose to cover after Kerry is elected?
What happens when the big media conglomerates finally realize there are no Viet Cong in Iraq? Will they cover the complexities of the struggle for democracy in the heart of the Middle East? Nah, too passé. Will the Bush Haters sleep better at night when the warfare that invaded their bedroom T.V. sets for four years is replaced with endless reality T.V. show analysis and debate?
What happens when the Bush Haters realize that because of their Bushanger, all conservatives are now officially idealists, and liberals realists? Will they be comfortable with this role reversal under a Kerry administration?
What if, dare I ask, Kerry’s foreign policies are even worse than Bush’s? OK, I went too far there. Everyone knows Bush’s foreign policy is the most imperialistic in world history. Sorry, Bush Haters. Don’t even ponder that. I was way out of bounds there.
In the end, the Bush Haters have created an entire industry around defeating Bush in November. They’re doing a good job. Mad props. But what happens if they get what they hope for?
Maybe they should think about this. Sure, Bush is the worst ever, pertaining to anything. But four more years of Dubya would be very good for business. It also would give Hillary a real shot at being elected the first woman president in 2008. A storybook ending to the Bush nightmare that spawned hanging chads, CNNFOXMSNBC News contributor Janeane Garafalo, and the Dean Scream. Free health care anyone?
OK, now I’m getting ahead of myself.
What are the Bush Haters going to do if Bush loses the election? I don’t want to get ahead of myself here, as the election is still six months away and a few prison abuse photos likely won’t be enough to shut down the vast right-wing conspiracy.
But, for argument’s sake, suppose Kerry wins. What will they do? Sure, they’ll celebrate. Kerry’s in. Bush is out. But then what? Go back to their day jobs?
I think they'll become depressed a few months into 2005 when President John F. Kerry is dutifully taking care of business in the Oval Office while George W. Bush is at home in Crawford, Texas, doing what he does best - clearing brush on his ranch while drinking non-alcoholic beer.
What will they do to keep themselves busy? They could write books. They’re good at that. But what to write about? Environmental policy? Health care reform? Social Security? That stuff is so boring, especially after Dubya’s presidency. Too fact-based.
They’ll soon realize that the thousandth book written about global warming doesn’t race up the New York Times bestseller list quite like the umpteenth “inside account” portraying Bush as a slow-witted cowboy terrorist.
How to make money?
Movies? Who’s going to watch a movie with explosive accusations of the multiple S.U.V.’s in John Kerry’s driveway? Everyone knows those are Teresa’s. A movie about Kerry’s shady ties to the ketchup industry? Problem is, Kerry doesn’t have to conquer a ketchup-exporting third-world country to get rich. He did it the old fashioned way, by marrying an heiress. Again, too boring.
What will the establishment media choose to cover after Kerry is elected?
What happens when the big media conglomerates finally realize there are no Viet Cong in Iraq? Will they cover the complexities of the struggle for democracy in the heart of the Middle East? Nah, too passé. Will the Bush Haters sleep better at night when the warfare that invaded their bedroom T.V. sets for four years is replaced with endless reality T.V. show analysis and debate?
What happens when the Bush Haters realize that because of their Bushanger, all conservatives are now officially idealists, and liberals realists? Will they be comfortable with this role reversal under a Kerry administration?
What if, dare I ask, Kerry’s foreign policies are even worse than Bush’s? OK, I went too far there. Everyone knows Bush’s foreign policy is the most imperialistic in world history. Sorry, Bush Haters. Don’t even ponder that. I was way out of bounds there.
In the end, the Bush Haters have created an entire industry around defeating Bush in November. They’re doing a good job. Mad props. But what happens if they get what they hope for?
Maybe they should think about this. Sure, Bush is the worst ever, pertaining to anything. But four more years of Dubya would be very good for business. It also would give Hillary a real shot at being elected the first woman president in 2008. A storybook ending to the Bush nightmare that spawned hanging chads, CNNFOXMSNBC News contributor Janeane Garafalo, and the Dean Scream. Free health care anyone?
OK, now I’m getting ahead of myself.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
I enjoy reading Iraqi blogs, and I made this post to Zeyad's blog (http://healingiraq.blogspot.com) today:
It's hard for Americans to understand why attacks in Iraq by terrorists and Iraqis themselves continue against U.S. soldiers. What Iraqis in Fallujah did in killing U.S. civilian workers, dragging their dead bodies through the streets and hanging them from street signs is enraging. But the sad reality is that this kind of action will not be enough to force the U.S. leave, as it did in Somalia. The reality is that this project is extremely tough, perhaps tougher than anyone imagined, and that the loss of many more American and Iraq lives is a foregone conclusion. But the reconstruction is a massive machine in motion, funded by billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of American, British and Iraqi civilians, troops, police and humanitarian workers. Car bombs do little to stop this machine. Enemies of Iraqi democracy will not stop either, however, because they are clearly winning the media war. Explosions and deaths are more newsworthy on T.V. than Iraqis and Americans working together to restore water, power, and cleaning up Saddam's extensive environmental rapes, so the killing will continue. It's a war of willpower at this point.
Two things will occur this summer that will affect Iraq's future in a profound way: The June 30 handover of political control to Iraqis obviously will be a momentus day in Iraq's history. Terrorism likely will be rampant around that date, and Iraq's interim government, with America's support, must be stong enough to pave the way for national elections and a legitimate Constitution. Second, the Olympic games in Athens will mark the first time Iraq will have participated without Uday Hussein as head of its Olympic Committee in many years. This is a good thing. But terrorism also could be prevelant at the Games. If Iraq, America and Athens can hang tough through the upcoming volatile summer without severe catastrophe, it could be a historic collective triumph in the war on terror. Of course, it's a double-edge sword: jihadists are also looking for their own triumph.
It's hard for Americans to understand why attacks in Iraq by terrorists and Iraqis themselves continue against U.S. soldiers. What Iraqis in Fallujah did in killing U.S. civilian workers, dragging their dead bodies through the streets and hanging them from street signs is enraging. But the sad reality is that this kind of action will not be enough to force the U.S. leave, as it did in Somalia. The reality is that this project is extremely tough, perhaps tougher than anyone imagined, and that the loss of many more American and Iraq lives is a foregone conclusion. But the reconstruction is a massive machine in motion, funded by billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of American, British and Iraqi civilians, troops, police and humanitarian workers. Car bombs do little to stop this machine. Enemies of Iraqi democracy will not stop either, however, because they are clearly winning the media war. Explosions and deaths are more newsworthy on T.V. than Iraqis and Americans working together to restore water, power, and cleaning up Saddam's extensive environmental rapes, so the killing will continue. It's a war of willpower at this point.
Two things will occur this summer that will affect Iraq's future in a profound way: The June 30 handover of political control to Iraqis obviously will be a momentus day in Iraq's history. Terrorism likely will be rampant around that date, and Iraq's interim government, with America's support, must be stong enough to pave the way for national elections and a legitimate Constitution. Second, the Olympic games in Athens will mark the first time Iraq will have participated without Uday Hussein as head of its Olympic Committee in many years. This is a good thing. But terrorism also could be prevelant at the Games. If Iraq, America and Athens can hang tough through the upcoming volatile summer without severe catastrophe, it could be a historic collective triumph in the war on terror. Of course, it's a double-edge sword: jihadists are also looking for their own triumph.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
My brother and I were discussing Howard Dean over email. We both agreed that we have more respect for him than John Kerry now that the primaries are over. At least Dean has true convictions, I noted, whereas Kerry's convictions seem to be manufactured.
Dean has changed the tone of this year's presidential election. John Kerry surged to the top in the Democratic primaries by stealing Dean's stump speech and adding Dean's Bushanger to his golf bag, which seems to have energized the Democratic base and made it a closer race in the national Bush v. Kerry polls.
But Dean eventually got trounced because most Americans disagree with his take on the War in Iraq. Yes, the war is extremely controversial, but unlike the electorate in Europe, a slim majority of Americans agree it was a war worth fighting, despite the absence of weapons of mass destruction (a political thorn in Bush's side). And while Kerry has said Bush "fucked up" the war (Rolling Stone magazine), that doesn't change the fact that he voted for military action in the U.S. Senate last year and remains on the record as committed to finish the job in Iraq. Americans believe in the importance of containing terrorism, rogue governments and weapons of mass destruction. Americans also believe democracy is the most effective way of figthing extremism and facism, and both Bush and Kerry are both in tune with that goal. Dean, on the other hand, says the world is no safer with Saddam out of power.
To me, this election is far more intriguing than Election 2000 (despite its historic aftermath), when I didn't vote because I was no fan of Bush and Gore makes me want to puke every time I see his face.
For better or worse, Bush is a revolutionary president in terms of foreign policy. His televised war showcased a textbook military campaign, and put the world on notice that events like September 11 will not be taken lightly in America. Furthermore, Bush has committed the United States, lets just say for the next 50 years or so, to provide money, troops and diplomacy for the advancement of democracy in the Middle East. Liberals and Europeans are troubled with the way Bush is throwing his weight around, likening U.S. involvement in world affairs to imperialistic ambitions that will ultimately do more harm than good. Kerry, for his part, complains that Bush has alienated America's traditional allies around the world.
And domestically, Bush has gotten his way on several massive and somewhat controversial pieces of legislation, including Medicare reform, No Child Left Behind, and some big tax cuts.
Hard core Democrats are livid because Bush has taken advantage of their fractured party and pushed them around for the last four years. That's where Dean comes in. Dean captured the emotions of Democrats who are fed up with the Bush policies they find abhorrent. Dean sharpened the debate among Democrats in the primaries, resulting in a stronger party and a candidate in Kerry who will give Bush a run for his money.
All in all, we have a tough-minded president running against a Democrat in John Kerry who is no longer willing to bend over and take it. Kerry, stealing from Dean, has vowed to fight. We all know Bush will. In the end, it will be one of the most interesting elections in U.S. history.
If I put money on the race in Vegas today, I'd probably go with Bush. Bush's ideas may indeed be "evil" in the eyes of liberals, but he's been pushing them from his bully pulpit for four years. He's a much more disciplined politician than the average person realizes, and he's solid on the campagin trail. He has mucho dinero, and his grassroots campaign is quite impressive. Here in Arizona, a Bush/Cheney month-of-March voter registration drive has netted 6,000 new registered Republicans in just two weeks, according to campaign officials. If he is having that kind of grassroots success in other states, it could be enough to put him over the top.
Dean has changed the tone of this year's presidential election. John Kerry surged to the top in the Democratic primaries by stealing Dean's stump speech and adding Dean's Bushanger to his golf bag, which seems to have energized the Democratic base and made it a closer race in the national Bush v. Kerry polls.
But Dean eventually got trounced because most Americans disagree with his take on the War in Iraq. Yes, the war is extremely controversial, but unlike the electorate in Europe, a slim majority of Americans agree it was a war worth fighting, despite the absence of weapons of mass destruction (a political thorn in Bush's side). And while Kerry has said Bush "fucked up" the war (Rolling Stone magazine), that doesn't change the fact that he voted for military action in the U.S. Senate last year and remains on the record as committed to finish the job in Iraq. Americans believe in the importance of containing terrorism, rogue governments and weapons of mass destruction. Americans also believe democracy is the most effective way of figthing extremism and facism, and both Bush and Kerry are both in tune with that goal. Dean, on the other hand, says the world is no safer with Saddam out of power.
To me, this election is far more intriguing than Election 2000 (despite its historic aftermath), when I didn't vote because I was no fan of Bush and Gore makes me want to puke every time I see his face.
For better or worse, Bush is a revolutionary president in terms of foreign policy. His televised war showcased a textbook military campaign, and put the world on notice that events like September 11 will not be taken lightly in America. Furthermore, Bush has committed the United States, lets just say for the next 50 years or so, to provide money, troops and diplomacy for the advancement of democracy in the Middle East. Liberals and Europeans are troubled with the way Bush is throwing his weight around, likening U.S. involvement in world affairs to imperialistic ambitions that will ultimately do more harm than good. Kerry, for his part, complains that Bush has alienated America's traditional allies around the world.
And domestically, Bush has gotten his way on several massive and somewhat controversial pieces of legislation, including Medicare reform, No Child Left Behind, and some big tax cuts.
Hard core Democrats are livid because Bush has taken advantage of their fractured party and pushed them around for the last four years. That's where Dean comes in. Dean captured the emotions of Democrats who are fed up with the Bush policies they find abhorrent. Dean sharpened the debate among Democrats in the primaries, resulting in a stronger party and a candidate in Kerry who will give Bush a run for his money.
All in all, we have a tough-minded president running against a Democrat in John Kerry who is no longer willing to bend over and take it. Kerry, stealing from Dean, has vowed to fight. We all know Bush will. In the end, it will be one of the most interesting elections in U.S. history.
If I put money on the race in Vegas today, I'd probably go with Bush. Bush's ideas may indeed be "evil" in the eyes of liberals, but he's been pushing them from his bully pulpit for four years. He's a much more disciplined politician than the average person realizes, and he's solid on the campagin trail. He has mucho dinero, and his grassroots campaign is quite impressive. Here in Arizona, a Bush/Cheney month-of-March voter registration drive has netted 6,000 new registered Republicans in just two weeks, according to campaign officials. If he is having that kind of grassroots success in other states, it could be enough to put him over the top.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
tiny elvis had an affair with edigar's wife
