Bush Declares Mandate
Bush managed to read the speech Karl Rove gave him proclaliming a mandate and including two short sentences of faint praise for the vanquished foe. At one point in the speech Bush said he wanted to talk to people like me who voted for Kerry, and me being such a sincere schmuck, I made myself "all ears". He then proceeded to tell me I should trust him to do the right thing, which he said he was going to do without saying anything specific about what the right thing was. He definitely has learned the number one rule of the con man - get the victim to trust you enough to believe you are going to give them a really good deal.
But I am not really that big a schmuck. I know that while Rove was writing the speech, Bush was on the phone with the Republican powers in Congress congratulating them and mutually salivating about the prospects for all the wonderful things he is going to give Kerry supporters like me: starting to privatize Social Security; drilling for oil in primitive Alaska; reducing regulation of phone companies and media conglomerates; protection of drug companies from the dangers of the private enterprise market; medical savings accounts for those without money to even buy health insurance; continuing corporate welfare for Republican campaign contributors; etc. etc. etc
But I am not really that big a schmuck. I know that while Rove was writing the speech, Bush was on the phone with the Republican powers in Congress congratulating them and mutually salivating about the prospects for all the wonderful things he is going to give Kerry supporters like me: starting to privatize Social Security; drilling for oil in primitive Alaska; reducing regulation of phone companies and media conglomerates; protection of drug companies from the dangers of the private enterprise market; medical savings accounts for those without money to even buy health insurance; continuing corporate welfare for Republican campaign contributors; etc. etc. etc
posted by Tom Blake | 1:31 PM
3 Comments:
Given the control Bush has of both houses and the fact that the Republican majority has shifter even further right, I'd say he has a mandate. Add to that the defeat of Tom Daschle, and the Democratic Party appears to be imploding. Your reflections on the election are pointed at the Republicans. You should be considering what the Democrats should do, or what should replace the party. As a (very minor) start, fix the nomination process.
I think the nomination process worked fine and the Democrats chose the best candidate, one who came very close to defeating an incumbent Prsident in time of War, something never done in American history. I don't believe any of the other contenders could have done as well or better. With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, who do you think the Democrats should have nominated that could have beaten Bush?
What did you think of the way the Republicans chose their nominee in 2000, with the inside power elite hand picking and funding the man they knew would take care of their rich and powerful base, while at the same time pandering to the religious right?
I will be posting new comments on the health of both the Republican and the Democratic Party, so keep reading and keep commenting.
We don't have 20-20 hindsight, only a game of what if's, like what if Lincoln had a cold and decided not to go to the theater, would the march on Selma have occurred 90 years later? Historians always say that no one should play the game, but many of them do. I like your idea of a white Al Sharpton, but wasn't that Bill Clinton? The Democrats needed someone who could carry one or two of the red states (using hindsight). I have always felt that Wes Clark would have been a much stronger candidate. But what if the Democrats did not have the nomination process that is so biased to the left? Then maybe other, stronger, candidates would have shown up.
Post a Comment
<< Home