Friday, October 15, 2004
Venting, the day after
Okay, I went off yesterday. I apologise. I try and keep it civil, but people who are going to go off and vote go and say some stupid stuff and ruin my morning.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Venting
I have got no fucking clue why Americans equate George Bush with success in the war on terrorism.
I just read a Washington Post report on how terrorism ranks as the number one issue in New Jersey this year. A woman, quoted in the article, said "He's very strong, and there's no 'maybe' in his voice."
Another man said that he respected Bush when, "as the towers fell" the President made his mind up to "get the terrorists where they live."
The one statistic that never fails to floor my English co-workers is the high number of US citizens who still believes that there is a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. As one colleague put it, "if Saddam Hussein caught the scent of an al-Qaeda operative in Iraq he would have castrated him and eaten his testicles for breakfast." That is something that all Briton believe, not because they are weirdo, lefty liberals, but because they are sane, rational people with a (more) balanced media telling them about the world.
But, the link between Iraq and 9/11 has been forged, never to be broken in the public's mind.
That still doesn't explain why American's are willing to let Bush off the hook for Afghanistan, where the terrorists actually do live! I think John Kerry should have mentioned bin Laden's name at every engagement.
Why should Republicans be the only guys to capitalize on the fear of another attack? Invoking ObL isn't just useless scare mongering. He was the one responsible and he is still at large. Bush must be held accountable for that.
But the people who put Bush on a pedestal don't see any of the wider picture. Instead of less nuclear proliferation, the world has more (Iran and North Korea either have, or are planning on developing nuclear weapons; Libya is the only country to disarm). Around the world, under Bush's watch, there have been major terrorist incidents in Russia, Turkey, Spain, Indonesia, India and Pakistan and Israel. Bush is not responsible for these events, but I list them to show that terrorist activity is not any less today than it was when he started his war on terrorism.
Afghanistan is in shambles again, despite having their "election." Heroine production is on the rise, apparently the Taliban are regrouping and war lords are posturing themselves to take over the country.
Mission accomplished!
But, Joe Middle America will always stand tall for the President. The idiocy of the American public is really getting to me.
After a while, one has to move beyond criticising an administration and start criticising those who buy it.
I just read a Washington Post report on how terrorism ranks as the number one issue in New Jersey this year. A woman, quoted in the article, said "He's very strong, and there's no 'maybe' in his voice."
Another man said that he respected Bush when, "as the towers fell" the President made his mind up to "get the terrorists where they live."
The one statistic that never fails to floor my English co-workers is the high number of US citizens who still believes that there is a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. As one colleague put it, "if Saddam Hussein caught the scent of an al-Qaeda operative in Iraq he would have castrated him and eaten his testicles for breakfast." That is something that all Briton believe, not because they are weirdo, lefty liberals, but because they are sane, rational people with a (more) balanced media telling them about the world.
But, the link between Iraq and 9/11 has been forged, never to be broken in the public's mind.
That still doesn't explain why American's are willing to let Bush off the hook for Afghanistan, where the terrorists actually do live! I think John Kerry should have mentioned bin Laden's name at every engagement.
Why should Republicans be the only guys to capitalize on the fear of another attack? Invoking ObL isn't just useless scare mongering. He was the one responsible and he is still at large. Bush must be held accountable for that.
But the people who put Bush on a pedestal don't see any of the wider picture. Instead of less nuclear proliferation, the world has more (Iran and North Korea either have, or are planning on developing nuclear weapons; Libya is the only country to disarm). Around the world, under Bush's watch, there have been major terrorist incidents in Russia, Turkey, Spain, Indonesia, India and Pakistan and Israel. Bush is not responsible for these events, but I list them to show that terrorist activity is not any less today than it was when he started his war on terrorism.
Afghanistan is in shambles again, despite having their "election." Heroine production is on the rise, apparently the Taliban are regrouping and war lords are posturing themselves to take over the country.
Mission accomplished!
But, Joe Middle America will always stand tall for the President. The idiocy of the American public is really getting to me.
After a while, one has to move beyond criticising an administration and start criticising those who buy it.
Monday, October 11, 2004
The Second Presidential Debate -- Tim Henman vs The Idiot Savant
Saturday night, I sat in an auditorium in Red Lion Square, London WC2, with people from Democrats Abroad to watch the second Presidential debate. Pundits agree that President Bush did a far better job of presenting a case for re-election this time around than he did during the first debate. Whereas he first came off sounding angry and frustrated, this time Bush was in more control of his faculties and gave managed to give answers without scowling. Although he did make some weird gestures (winking into the audience at one point) it was classic Bush -- meaning he wasn't good, but he was effective.
The debates have always been Kerry's to win or lose. Just as it was in 2000 when the bar was set so low for Bush and so high for Gore, all Bush had to do was attack and defend, while Kerry had to attack Bush, defend his record, deflect lies and propose a different future.
John Kerry was ho-hum, if not a little underwhelming. I thought he responded to all of Bush's attacks with decent answers and provided a rigorous defence of his background and his decisions. Kerry is in such a difficult position. Just as the Republicans created a straw man Clinton out of lies, they are doing just the same with Kerry. When you lie consistantly about someone, then that person just can't respond to each and every one of them. In a world where lies that go undenied are taken as true, Kerry has to spend so much time saying that he isn't the person Bush makes him out to be. That is devastating in a political race.
It backfired for Bush in the first debate, where he sounded like an automaton, repeating the same tired phrases over and over again. Kerry deftly moved past them, asserted himself positively, and he shot up in the polls as a result. In the second debate, Bush was just as repetitious, but Kerry took the time to respond each time. As a result, Kerry was not on the offensive as much as he needed to be. As Tom Grieve of Salon.com points out, when Bush claimed Saddam was "gaming the oil-for-food to programme to get out of sanctions" and that was why we went to war, instead of pouncing on this outright lie about our reasons for going to war, Kerry took time to once again defend himself against the flip-flop charge. "Well, let me tell you straight up," he said. "I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat."
Bush didn't have answers for some tough questions. Most notably, a woman asked Bush to point out three mistakes he has made. Bush couldn't point out one he has made, other than to suggest he might have appointed some wrong people to administration posts. Did he mean perhaps Colin Powell, the most moderate of the war faction? Perhaps he meant Paul Bremer, who is currently at odds with the administration over their handling of the post-war situation.
Kerry was without an answer to what I thought was a crucial question. When rebutting the President's claim to being a good environmentalist, Kerry bizarrely raced into an answer about welfare reform and policing. "I supported welfare reform. I led the fight to put 100,000 cops on the streets of America. I've been for faith-based initiatives helping to intervene in the lives of young children for years. I was -- broke with my party in 1985, one of the first three Democrats to fight for a balanced budget when it was heresy." Essentially, Kerry didn't have an answer.
Looking at his Vision for a Cleaner Environment, a 14-page document that lays out his plan, it is clear that Kerry is bereft of any large scale environmental plan. There is no mention of holding industry accountable for pollutants dumped in public waterways. Kerry is in favour of the pollution-trading scheme, but would restrict trading around the country's national parks. What about restricting the system around major populated areas? People like clean air too. But, most importantly, there is no talk about persuading Americans that they need to do their part to ensure a healthy environment. Of course, personal responsibility of this sort is the kind of thing voters abhor, so it is no wonder it doesn't make it into his environmental manifesto.
There are things Kerry could have said to win the environmental debate, flat out. He could have mentioned a commitment to ensuring the future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He could have mentioned the increased funding through a polluters tax to the Superfund. He could have mentioned his stated commitment to creating so-called New Economy jobs to develop new fuels. But he dropped the ball and decided to gas on about 100,000 police when people expected to hear about trees.
Part of the reason I am going on and on about this is that the environment is a main issue for core Democrats. Most of dismayed that Bush has referred to himself as the Environment President, and has given the public the impression that he defends the environment at all costs. He even argues that chopping down trees is a way to ensuring healthy forests. Kerry could have made a real stand on something that didn't involve the economy or the war in Iraq. He could have pandered to his core, but he dropped that ball and dropped a big chance to really hold Bush accountable.
The problem is that Kerry is good as picking off issues and responding to criticism (or, if you will, personal attacks and lies), but he can’t deliver the knock out punch. Right now, he is the Tim Henman of American politics. He can shine for a long time, but he can't pull through when it really counts, when everyone is watching. He had the chance so many times: lies about a war in Iraq, mismanagement of domestic and international issues, concerns about civil liberties, etc. Kerry just couldn’t do it. I think I have and idea why.
To deliver a knock out punch, you have to take a chance. You have to be willing to go out there and take a big swing. Tim Henman never takes chances; he is a great percentage player. Kerry can’t afford to take chances. If he misses, even by the slightest bit, Bush will emerge stronger than before, if only because his troops will rally like the most loyal soldiers will. Any positions where Democrats believe Bush to be vulnerable are positions where Bush has shown the most rigidity. War wasn’t justified? Well, so you think Saddam was a good leader. Kyoto Treaty and the environment? I won’t sacrifice jobs so that bureaucrats in Europe can keep their jobs with Americans lose theirs. A loss of civil liberties? Only keeping America safe, and, if you aren’t guilty, then you don’t have to worry.
I understand these are simplifications, even for Bush, but they do represent the types of logic his administration uses. To nail Bush on the war in Iraq, you’d have to call the President of the United States a liar and a scoundrel on television, in front of the world on prime time television and you'd have to hope that the voters take it the right way. God help anyone who misspeaks one syllable because it would mark the end of his campaign.
The debates have always been Kerry's to win or lose. Just as it was in 2000 when the bar was set so low for Bush and so high for Gore, all Bush had to do was attack and defend, while Kerry had to attack Bush, defend his record, deflect lies and propose a different future.
John Kerry was ho-hum, if not a little underwhelming. I thought he responded to all of Bush's attacks with decent answers and provided a rigorous defence of his background and his decisions. Kerry is in such a difficult position. Just as the Republicans created a straw man Clinton out of lies, they are doing just the same with Kerry. When you lie consistantly about someone, then that person just can't respond to each and every one of them. In a world where lies that go undenied are taken as true, Kerry has to spend so much time saying that he isn't the person Bush makes him out to be. That is devastating in a political race.
It backfired for Bush in the first debate, where he sounded like an automaton, repeating the same tired phrases over and over again. Kerry deftly moved past them, asserted himself positively, and he shot up in the polls as a result. In the second debate, Bush was just as repetitious, but Kerry took the time to respond each time. As a result, Kerry was not on the offensive as much as he needed to be. As Tom Grieve of Salon.com points out, when Bush claimed Saddam was "gaming the oil-for-food to programme to get out of sanctions" and that was why we went to war, instead of pouncing on this outright lie about our reasons for going to war, Kerry took time to once again defend himself against the flip-flop charge. "Well, let me tell you straight up," he said. "I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat."
Bush didn't have answers for some tough questions. Most notably, a woman asked Bush to point out three mistakes he has made. Bush couldn't point out one he has made, other than to suggest he might have appointed some wrong people to administration posts. Did he mean perhaps Colin Powell, the most moderate of the war faction? Perhaps he meant Paul Bremer, who is currently at odds with the administration over their handling of the post-war situation.
Kerry was without an answer to what I thought was a crucial question. When rebutting the President's claim to being a good environmentalist, Kerry bizarrely raced into an answer about welfare reform and policing. "I supported welfare reform. I led the fight to put 100,000 cops on the streets of America. I've been for faith-based initiatives helping to intervene in the lives of young children for years. I was -- broke with my party in 1985, one of the first three Democrats to fight for a balanced budget when it was heresy." Essentially, Kerry didn't have an answer.
Looking at his Vision for a Cleaner Environment, a 14-page document that lays out his plan, it is clear that Kerry is bereft of any large scale environmental plan. There is no mention of holding industry accountable for pollutants dumped in public waterways. Kerry is in favour of the pollution-trading scheme, but would restrict trading around the country's national parks. What about restricting the system around major populated areas? People like clean air too. But, most importantly, there is no talk about persuading Americans that they need to do their part to ensure a healthy environment. Of course, personal responsibility of this sort is the kind of thing voters abhor, so it is no wonder it doesn't make it into his environmental manifesto.
There are things Kerry could have said to win the environmental debate, flat out. He could have mentioned a commitment to ensuring the future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He could have mentioned the increased funding through a polluters tax to the Superfund. He could have mentioned his stated commitment to creating so-called New Economy jobs to develop new fuels. But he dropped the ball and decided to gas on about 100,000 police when people expected to hear about trees.
Part of the reason I am going on and on about this is that the environment is a main issue for core Democrats. Most of dismayed that Bush has referred to himself as the Environment President, and has given the public the impression that he defends the environment at all costs. He even argues that chopping down trees is a way to ensuring healthy forests. Kerry could have made a real stand on something that didn't involve the economy or the war in Iraq. He could have pandered to his core, but he dropped that ball and dropped a big chance to really hold Bush accountable.
The problem is that Kerry is good as picking off issues and responding to criticism (or, if you will, personal attacks and lies), but he can’t deliver the knock out punch. Right now, he is the Tim Henman of American politics. He can shine for a long time, but he can't pull through when it really counts, when everyone is watching. He had the chance so many times: lies about a war in Iraq, mismanagement of domestic and international issues, concerns about civil liberties, etc. Kerry just couldn’t do it. I think I have and idea why.
To deliver a knock out punch, you have to take a chance. You have to be willing to go out there and take a big swing. Tim Henman never takes chances; he is a great percentage player. Kerry can’t afford to take chances. If he misses, even by the slightest bit, Bush will emerge stronger than before, if only because his troops will rally like the most loyal soldiers will. Any positions where Democrats believe Bush to be vulnerable are positions where Bush has shown the most rigidity. War wasn’t justified? Well, so you think Saddam was a good leader. Kyoto Treaty and the environment? I won’t sacrifice jobs so that bureaucrats in Europe can keep their jobs with Americans lose theirs. A loss of civil liberties? Only keeping America safe, and, if you aren’t guilty, then you don’t have to worry.
I understand these are simplifications, even for Bush, but they do represent the types of logic his administration uses. To nail Bush on the war in Iraq, you’d have to call the President of the United States a liar and a scoundrel on television, in front of the world on prime time television and you'd have to hope that the voters take it the right way. God help anyone who misspeaks one syllable because it would mark the end of his campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)