The Republican Convention and the Politics of Emotion

[a.k.a.]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0907-03.htm

"...The “anybody but Bush” sentiment is strong

this year and the Democrats are hoping that will keep their base engaged. It’s a gamble since campaigns are won by

energizing your base to help move large blocks of voters, not by a campaign of defeatist docility, designed to

influence a few undecided voters.

Ironically, swing voters seem to agree that what they’re hearing from Kerry

is not persuasive. In a Pennsylvania focus group with these voters, the Washington Post discovered, everyone thought

Bush was more specific in laying out this agenda and they liked that, even if they didn’t agree with him. But, “In

more than six hours of discussion over two separate nights, [swing voters] are hard-pressed to say anything positive

about…either candidate.” Still, you don’t see the Republicans alienating their base by abandoning their core

values in order to influence the swings...

...Woo the swing votes, Screw the base: Lose the election? --

the awkward rhyme may foreshadow poetic justice for a Democratic Presidential candidate who is unable or unwilling

to distinguish himself from the most extreme right-winger ever to occupy the White House."

[DrSmellThis]

That is certainly one

reasonable perspective. Motivating one's base is more important than converting fence sitters. I saw (progressive

Democrat) Dennis Kucinich speak out here in Oregon at an Earth Day celebration, and was amazed at his ability to

whip a young, progressive-oriented crowd into a frenzy quickly (way better than Nader, or even Arnold with his

crowd). It was like measuring the acceleration for zero to sixty in a drag race. With almost no introductory

remarks, he said in a rapid fire fashion numbers of things the crowd wanted to hear, with a look of glee on his

face. He overwhelmed them with one articulate policy statement after another; statements that were essentially the

opposite of the incumbent's. After about a minute with people's eyes getting bigger, people couldn't stand it any

more and just started screaming, as if what he was saying was like oxygen to them, and/or too good to be true.



The fascinating thing about Kucinich's campaign was that he actually received more contributions (as opposed to

more dollars) from private citizens than any other Democrat up until he dropped out; including Kerry! Unfortunately

for his supporters, these were small (like an average of $20.00) contributions. Were campaign finance reforms in

place (say, limiting contributions to $100.00 per person, or basing limits on the average American's ability to

make them, and doing the rest with public money -- that's a concept, no?), he may well have won the nomination.

He certainly demonstrated an ability to motivate the grass roots, and earned the support of small contributors. The

trouble was he couldn't afford to campaign much on his budget, compared to the other candidates; as he refused PAC

money. There's a concept for Bel and you other political process reformers: Campaigning for president without "soft

money" or PAC money!

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Dennis_Ku

cinich_Government_Reform.htm
http://w

ww.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00003572

Since Democrats are significantly more

progressive than Republicans anyway, their challenge is always partly to, literally, lead with

strength of thought and conviction; that is, to stay a little ahead of the crowd, arouse their conviction, and nudge

them forward compellingly. People should rationally expect that from Democrats anyway, and not be shocked when they

see it. Though polls are useful, that is the problem with relying on polls inappropriately. Some things are such

that typical folks don't think about them much or don't know much about them; and shouldn't be expected to have

well-formed, permanent opinions. You have to enlighten them and wake them up a little bit. You as a leader are the

one they would be turning to for inspiration and guidance. On the other hand, you don't want to be too much more

extreme in any direction than your own base. Kucinich will have to build a bigger base for himself to be successful.

But since he is no friend of big business, this will be difficult.

[DrSmellThis]

And in case there is still any

question as to whether, how unabashedly, and to what extent, that the Republicans pander to the basest

emotions (e.g., survival fear) better than the Democrats -- check out today's remarkable news item:



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/0

7/cheney.terror/index.html

My psychologist hat goes off to them! I wonder who their campaign

"psy-ops czar" is?

[koolking1]

again though, too timid a

response from the Dems. The response should have been:

"What?? Is this VP out of his mind??, the first

attack happened on their watch - they have not proven themselves capable of defending our country and they are

brazen enough to proclaim only themselves as capable of preventing future attacks- they are insane!!!"

[a.k.a.]

My psychologist

hat goes off to them! I wonder who their campaign "psy-ops czar" is?

Karl

Rove

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...27316?v=glance



http://www.bushsbrain.com/

[Whitehall]

Kucinich's problem was not money so much as the fact that his policy positions were grossly out of touch with the

broad majority of American voters. Especially the ones who worked hard enough to afford more than a $20

donation.

Money in political campaigning is a mixed issue. Certainly a candidate needs enough to get his

word out and to cover his travel etc. But have you ever, EVER heard any voter say that he or she sold their vote?

I haven't - most people who vote do indeed think over the issues and vote their enlightened self-interest.

A

solid position conveyed once trumps endless repetition of a bad idea. To believe otherwise is to deny the

legitimacy of democracy.

[DrSmellThis]

* Very illustrative! Aren't you suggesting I'd be more patriotic (i.e., believe more in the

legitimacy of democracy) to not question the current de facto political process, as to whether it might keep

more grassroots candidates out of the mix? You've learned a thing or two about political rhetoric! The Democrats

need to learn to appeal to patriotism too!

So I'll attempt to set an example in replying, and be patriotic

in kind: Sometimes our society might veer a little off its course of democracy (like when corporations took over

American culture, economics, and arguably, political processes in the mid to late 20th century) and you have to

steer it back to a more democratic, American place. There are legitimate questions about the degree of democracy of

our particular de facto system at this time; such as the one you yourself raised about politicians pandering

to special interests. Also, democracy for poor people and rich people can be two different things in hundreds of

ways (e.g., legal rights. Aren't you getting sick of seeing Michael Jackson's lawyers whine about yet another

"viscious accusation" from another child trying to "take down a celebrity"?). I'd never question the legitimacy of

Democracy. I would, on the other hand, question oligarchy and class rule as preferred forms of government. To be a

"good emotional politician" I should raise the counter question: Wouldn't supporting these types of systems, which

have infiltrated ours, be a rejection of democracy? Real democracy isn't pleasant for would be oligarchs and

classists, after all; so such elements are going to try to corrupt it from time to time. When it happens, as it has,

we have to be strong; have integrity as Americans; and resist such insidious attempts to corrupt our

freedoms. We are blessed as Americans, and democracy is our dearest blessing.

And ultimately, preserving

democracy is the best weapon against terrorism. All humans respect freedom and democracy with some part of

themselves, a part of themselves which will resist bringing it harm. The safety inherent in preserving true

democracy is immeasurably greater, and more lasting, than that resulting from the most powerful military aggression

and capabilities. In fact, it is no exaggeration whatsoever that democracy is the fundamental guarantee to

our safety. IMO, a big reason we're not getting attacked more, despite our current poor standing around the world,

is that there is a lot of hope around the world that the American system will correct itself. It's the same reason

there aren't more Oklahoma City types of tragedies. For example, note that Al Sadr and his followers, some of the

most dangerous, extreme, fundamentalist elements in Iraq, have been calmed in no insignificant portion by the

promise of participation in their own democracy (it surely wasn't just the threat of death). How remarkable is

that? Democracy is it's own security, and we lose sight of this at our own peril. To know this is a great American

joy.

* I'm not sure we can say those who can't afford larger contributions don't work hard. I recognize that

that is the traditional conservative (also classist) way of judging the situation. But there are an awful lot of

extremely poor, even impoverished hard working Americans; even an awful lot of brilliant, multitalented and/or

multi-degreed hard working poor Americans, for whom large donations to political candidates are not in their

responsible budget (One fifth of Americans don't have health insurance, for example.). Wealth can never be an

accurate reflection of merit or value on a planet of limited resources, but for many other reasons too. Should these

Americans' voices be relatively insignficant? Is that democracy?

But you raised an important issue: In general,

can money in politics, such as corporate money, affect Democracy adversely? In particular, you raised the sub

question -- can it affect voting? I have assumed it did, and know that there has been a lot of research on the

effects of political advertising, for example. Am I understanding you correctly that it can't or doesn't?

*

And not to veer off topic, but I agree Kucinich is not a centrist, as clear as his vision might be on things.

Kucinich is a progressive Democrat. But IMHO, he comes from a lot more solid of a place than Nader, who also has

some good ideas and understandings, even to many of his enemies. "Grossly out of touch" might be a little strong. As

I said, you want any good politician to have some ideas others haven't already beat to death, which means they'll

be technically "out of touch" in that respect. The whole point of progressive thinking is to be slightly ahead of

one's time in terms of the status quo mindset; but in step with one's time in terms of what mindset is needed. But

I don't think that means a progressive candidate can't win an election. The Earth and all it's changing trends

will force it's residents to change some of their beliefs eventually. It already has started to in some small ways.

I accept that he is grossly "out of touch" with how conservatives believe. But might we need to wake up a little? A

lot of people around where I live have progressive types of beliefs, so it just seems normal to me.

[InternationalPlayboy]

But have you ever, EVER heard any voter say that he or she sold their vote? I haven't - most people who vote do

indeed think over the issues and vote their enlightened self-interest.

There was an instance

just a week or three ago where some guy got in trouble with the feds for auctioning off his vote on

eBay!

Edited to add link. (I couldn't find the

original article I read a couple of weeks ago.)

[DrSmellThis]

Gotta love capitalism!

[metroman]

Just thought I'd throw this

into the mix:

25 Things We Now Know
Three Years After 911
By Bernard Weiner
Co-Editor, The Crisis

Papers
9-4-4

The Republican Party -- in a shameless , all-too-obvious attempt to manipulate the tragedy

of 9/11 for partisan ends -- chose New York City for its nominating convention. Must have seemed like a great idea

at the time.

Their coming to Manhattan not only infuriates New Yorkers, who were badly played by Bush&Co.

after the attacks, but enables the rest of us in the country to use Ground Zero as the backdrop for examining the

gross failures and crimes of the Bush Administration since that tragic day in September 2001.

So, here is

an update* of things we've learned during the three years since 9/11 -- documented mostly from government papers

and respected journalistic accounts -- about the Administration that rules in our names. If you find this compendium

useful, you might want to make this list available to your friends and colleagues, especially to those still

uncertain which presidential candidate they will vote for ten weeks from now.

THE 9/11 ATTACKS/COVERUP



1. Immediately after the destruction of the Twin Towers, Bush's Environmental Protection Agency tested

the air in and around Ground Zero. Anxious Lower Manhattan residents, worried about possible airborne toxic

particles affecting them and especially their children, were assured by the EPA on September 18 that the tests

indicated it was safe for them to return to and live normal lives in their homes and apartments and businesses. It

wasn't until two years later that the EPA admitted that they had lied to New Yorkers: The Bush Administration knew

from their own test results that the toxicity revealed was WAY over the safe levels. Typical Bush&Co. pattern:

secrecy, lies, denial, coverup.

2. There is no evidence that Bush&Co. ordered Osama bin Laden -- who had

been on the CIA payroll in Afghanistan when he and his forces were battling the Soviet occupiers -- to launch

terrorist attacks on the U.S. Resurgent radical Islam is a genuine phenomenon, with its own religious and political

roots. There definitely are Bad Guys out there.

What is well-documented is that the highest circles around

Bush were quite aware in the Summer of 2001 -- as a result of fairly detailed intelligence frantically being passed

on to them by other governments in the months and weeks before 9/11-- that a massive terrorist attack was in the

works, which likely would involve hijacked airplanes aimed at icon American economic and political targets. (The

August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," talked about al-Qaida

wanting to strike the nation's capital, preparations for airline hijackings, casing of buildings in New York,

terrorists in the U.S. with explosives, etc.) Bush went to ground in Texas, the FBI told Ashcroft to stop flying

commercial jets, etc. The attacks finally came on 9/11.

Bush could have assumed command immediately;

instead, 27 minutes went by while he sat in a schoolroom and then posed for photos. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld,

somewhere on the Pentagon premises, was strangely missing from action, uninvolved in defending the country until

after the horrific events had unfolded. Even though the protocols were clear, NORAD could not reach Rumsfeld and did

not scramble jets until long after the horrific mass-murder attacks were over. When Bush did emerge from the school,

he claims he could not reach Cheney or the White House by phone. (Passengers using cell phones on the final doomed

jet had no problems reaching their loved ones and emergency centers all around the country.)

In short, the

key Administration officials responsible for protecting America, and coordinating its responses to attacks, were not

available, either out of incompetence and confusion or out of more nefarious motives. As Nina Moliver, a 9/11 sleuth

puts it, "On 9/11, there was a grand stall. A stall for time. I learned this from a glance at the findings of the

9/11 commission. How could ANYBODY miss it? Bush and Rumsfeld didn't 'fail' on Sept 11. They succeeded

masterfully." A bit far out, to be sure, but if the Bush circle knew something was coming that morning -- and

numerous others did, including the mayor of San Francisco -- it's certainly a theory that can't be ruled out.



3. We know that the future neo-conservative architects of Bush foreign/military policy, members of The Project

for The New American Century (PNAC), knew that their ideas were too extreme for most Americans to swallow. They

noted that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one,

absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."

Again, there is no proof of

coordination by the Bush Administration with the al-Qaida terrorists who carried out the terrorist attacks, but

BushCheney and their closest aides were aware on 9/11 that they now had the "Pearl Harbor" that would clear the way

for their agenda to be realized.

4. We know that Bush and Cheney, early on, approached the leaders of the

House and Senate and urged them not to investigate the pre-9/11 activities of the Administration, because of

"national security." The coverup was beginning.

5. The 9/11 Commission examined how the intelligence

community screwed up the pre-9/11 intelligence -- thus effectively laying the blame on lower-level agents and

officials -- but says it won't issue its report on how the Bush Administration used or misused that information

until AFTER the election. The coverup continues. Many victims' families are furious.

6. We know that the

Bush Administration has been able to obtain whatever legislation it needs in its self-proclaimed "war on terror" by

utilizing, and hyping, the understandable fright of the American people. The USA PATRIOT Act -- composed of many

honorable initiatives, and many clearly unconstitutional provisions, cobbled together from those submitted over the

years by GOP hardliners and rejected as too extreme by Congress -- was presented almost immediately to a House and

Senate frightened by the 9/11 attacks and by the anthrax introduced into their chambers by someone still not

discovered. Ridge and Ashcroft emerge periodically to manipulate the public's fright by announcing another "terror"

threat, based on "credible" but unverified evidence; these announcements can be correlated almost exactly to when

Bush seems to need a headline to distract the public from yet another scandal or significant drop in the polls.



ATTACK ON IRAQ

7. We know that a cabal of ideologically-motivated Bush officials, on the rightwing

fringe of the Republican Party, were calling for a military takeover of Iraq as early as 1991. This elite group

included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Woolsey, Bolton, Khalizad and others, all of whom are now located in

positions of power in the Pentagon and White House, and, to a lesser extent, State Department.

They were

among the key founders of the Project for The New American Century (PNAC) in 1997; among their recommendations:

"pre-emptively" attacking other countries devoid of imminent danger to the U.S., abrogating agreed-upon treaties

when they conflict with U.S. goals, making sure no other country (or organization, such as the United Nations) can

ever achieve parity with the U.S., installing U.S.-friendly governments to do America's will, using tactical

nuclear weapons, and so on. In short, as they put it, the goal is "benevolent global hegemony" -- or, in layman's

English, a kind of neo-imperialism.

All of these extreme suggestions, once regarded as lunatic, are now

enshrined as official U.S. policy in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, published by

the Bush Administration in late-2002.

8. We know that the Bush Administration was planning to attack Iraq

long before 9/11, and that, even though Rumsfeld was told by his intelligence analysts that 9/11 was an al-Qaida

operation, he began dragging an attack on Iraq -- which had no significant contacts with bin Laden's network --

into the war planning. When the traditional intelligence agencies couldn't, or wouldn't, furnish the White House

with made-up "facts" to back up an attack on Iraq, Rumsfeld set up his own "intelligence" unit inside his office,

the Office of Special Plans, staffed it with political PNAC appointees, and, lo and behold, got the justifications

he wanted -- which cooked-"intelligence" turned out to be the lies and deceptions that took the U.S. into Iraq.



Note: Rumsfeld's secretive Office of Special Plans, with direct access to the Secretary of Defense and thus to

shaping policy toward Iraq and Iran, is implicated in the current, serious scandal involving possible treason

(passing classified material to foreign countries, in this case maybe Israel and Iran), with potential links to the

slimy double-agent Ahmad Chalabi and others.

9. We know that the Bush Administration felt that it could

not get Congressional and public support for its plan to attack Iraq if the true reasons were revealed -- to control

the massive Iraqi oil reserves, to obtain a military staging base in the region, and to use a U.S.-friendly


"democratic" government as a lever to alter the geopolitical situation in the Middle East and beyond. So,

according to Wolfowitz, it settled on the one justification they thought would work: accusing Saddam Hussein of

preparing to attack its neighbors and the United States with supposed massive stockpiles of "weapons of mass

destruction." Senators were lied to by Administration briefers, who told them Iraqi drone planes could drop

biochemical agents over American cities; Condoleezza Rice warned about "mushroom clouds" over New York and

Washington.

Millions of citizens across the globe, and world leaders among our own allies, warned the Bush

Administration that an attack on Iraq -- a weak country, with no military power to speak of -- was wrong, would

backfire on the U.S. and world peace, would enrage the Islamic world and produce more terrorist recruits, and would

lose America its reputation and its post-9/11 sympathy across the globe. But the Bush Administration had made the

essential decision to go to war a year before the invasion ("Fuck Saddam, Bush told three U.S. Senators in March of

2002. "We,re taking him out.) And, even though Saddam authorized the United Nations inspectors to return to Iraq to

complete their weapons survey, Bush was determined to go to car. Secretary of State Powell was dispatched to the

United Nations to outline the U.S. case and obtain authorization; his case was filled with laughably thin and phony

intelligence, and the U.N. demurred. Bush launched his attack.

10. We know that no WMDs were discovered.

No nuclear program. No missiles aimed at U.S. or British interests. No drone planes. No biochemical weaponry. Bush

and his spokesmen then attempted to change the rationale for the war away from those scary WMDs to an implication

that Saddam was part of the terrorist network that carried out the 9/11 attacks. There was no convincing proof

offered, merely the constant repetition of the non-existent al-Qaida tie -- so much so that the Big Lie technique

worked early on as 70% of Americans thought there must have been some tie-in to 9/11. The 9/11 Commission verified

that there was no such operative connection to al-Qaida. Bush publicly agreed, but Cheney and others even today

continue to suggest otherwise. When the American public stopped believing in the al-Qaida/Iraq lie, the rationale

for the war was switched again. Now the reason for the war was that Saddam Hussein was a terrible tyrant -- an

assertion everybody could agree on -- though why we toppled this guy and not a half dozen other equally as bad

dictators (some of them our close allies) was left unanswered.

10. We know that the predictions of our key

allies, and those millions in the streets who protested, have come true. The U.S., having had no "post-war" plan, is

bogged down in Iraq, facing a nationalist insurgency, and a rebellious religious faction of fighters, with no end in

sight; it has lost the countryside and is losing the cities as well. The U.S. has engineered an American-friendly

interim government that is locked into the reconstruction contracts that permit huge American corporations such as

Bechtel and Halliburton -- who, quite by coincidence, of course, are huge financial backers of the Bush

Administration -- to make out like bandits in that country, often with no-bid contracts. The U.S. has at least 14

military bases in Iraq, which it intends to continue using as a military/political lever in reshaping the

geopolitics of the Middle East -- regardless of the costs in lives and treasure, and not caring that its policies

with regard to the Palestinian/Israeli problem fan the flames of terrorism in that area of the world, and beyond.



AUTHORITARIAN MANEUVERINGS

11. We know that CIA Director George Tenet fell on his sword, taking

the thrust of the bad-intel blame away from Bush. Other elements inside the agency, outraged by Bush&Co. using them

as whipping-boys, then began leaking all sorts of damaging information about White House skulduggery. Elements in

the State Department, appalled at the neo-cons in control of U.S. military policy at the Pentagon, likewise leaked

information damaging to the extremists.

12. We know that once Bush assumed power, he moved to obtain

immunity for U.S. officials and troops from international war-crimes prosecutions, pulling America out of the

relevant treaties. We didn't know why at the time, but later, after our covert and overt behavior in Afghanistan

and Iraq and the tortures scandal erupted, we figured it out.

13. We know that Bush lawyers in the White

House and Pentagon (State Department attorneys did not agree) issued memoranda that outlined how Bush and other key

officials could avoid criminal prosecution for their wartime policies and for advocating use of "harsh interrogation

methods" (read: torture) of suspected terrorists at Guantánamo, and in Afghanistan, Iraq and other U.S. facilities

around the world. Ignoring the Founders' wise "separation of powers" -- designed to keep any leader or branch of

government from assuming total control of the levers of powers -- the lawyers claimed that whenever Bush acts as

"commander in chief" during "wartime," he is above the law. In common parlance, these are rationalizations for

authoritarian rule, by dictatorial decrees.

14. We know that the Pentagon was well aware of the tortures

at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere -- key military reports had been submitted -- but the issue was ignored until grisly

photographs and videotapes surfaced in public media documenting the "harsh interrogation methods"; some of those

methods resulted in a goodly number of deaths to prisoners under U.S. control. Several commissions reported that the

rot came from the top at the Pentagon, including Rumsfeld, but, by and large, only lower-level troops and officers

have been disciplined or charged. In the meantime, the humiliating and brutal treatment of Muslim men, women and

children in U.S. custody has reverberated throughout the Islamic world, helping create more and more converts to

terrorist organizations.

SCANDALS AT HOME

15. In two instances, the Bush Administration, for its

own political reasons, compromised American national security by naming key intelligence operatives -- one a CIA

agent, Valerie Plame, with important contacts in the shadowy world of weapons of mass destruction (outed by two

"senior Administration officials," apparently in retaliation for her husband's political comments); revealing the

name of a CIA agent is a felony. The other, more recently (apparently to show off how successful they were in their

anti-terrorism hunt), was a high-ranking mole close to bin Laden's inner circle, who could have kept the U.S.

informed as ongoing and future plans of al-Qaida. That's our anti-terrorism government at work.

16. We

know that Karl Rove -- Bush's senior political advisor, who along with Dick Cheney, manipulates Bush's strings --

has been instrumental in helping get the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" off the ground. Longtime GOP

operatives and major Bush donors supplied the money and organizing skill, and then let them loose with their lies --

with precious little skepticism displayed by the corporate-owned mass-media. Apparently, at least initially, the Big

Lie technique worked once again -- though now polls show the smears being doubted -- forcing Kerry to stop his

attacks on Bush domestic policies and concentrate on damage control. The Kerry campaign took a while to rev up its

counter-campaign, bringing in all sorts of eyewitnesses that documented the truth of his heroism in winning his

Vietnam medals. Even slimier charges are expected at any moment about Kerry's post-discharge opposition to that

war.

PROTECTING THE VOTE

17. We know that even though several large states -- among them,

California and Ohio -- have prohibited computer-voting machines from being used in the November election, unless

there is a voter-verified paper trail, most of the toss-up states will be using the touch-screen, unverified system.

This would be suspicious if Democrats or Republicans were in charge of those machines, but in this election it's

virtually all Republicans. The three largest makers of the machines are owned by far-right Republicans; those same

companies tabulate the results. Republican-leaning companies also control the testing of those machines. In short,

it smells rank -- especially inasmuch as it's been demonstrated how easily the software can be manipulated, without

anybody knowing -- and definitely looks as if the fix is in. The CEO of one of the companies, a major "Pioneer"

donor to the Bush campaign, promised Bush he would "deliver" his state to the GOP candidate, and Gov. Jeb Bush in

Florida has quashed all attempts to stop or alter computer-voting in his state. (Note: The GOP has urged all its

members in Florida to vote by absentee ballot, because the machines are "unreliable." Get the picture?)



18. We know that the GOP is trying, by hook or by crook, to lower the number of potential Democrat voters.

Attempts have been made to remove thousands of African-American citizens from the rolls (reminiscent of Florida in

2000, where anywhere from 47,000 to 90,000 black voters where disenfranchised), police agents have visited numerous

elderly black voters in their rural homes and warned them about possible violence at the polls, a GOP official in

Michigan talked about the need to "discourage" the vote in largely-black Detroit, GOP "observers" will stand outside

voting places in rural areas as possible intimidators of older black voters, GOP operatives registering new American

citizens filled out the paperwork for them and signed them up as Republicans, and so on.

19. We know that

Administration lawyers have issued memoranda making it possible for Bush to "postpone" the November election for

"anti-terrorist" reasons -- say, a major attack or "credible" threat of a major attack. Note: There has never been a

national election postponed, not even during the Civil War.

20. We know that Administration attorneys have

issued memoranda that would make it possible for Bush to be elected by partial voting. That is, he could be elected

by voters supporting him, even if citizens in pro-Kerry states were prohibited from voting or having their votes

counted. Again, the fig-leaf is "terrorism." If a "red alert" were to be issued for certain areas on November 2 --

say, the West Coast and New England states -- Bush could, under state-of-emergency declarations, "limit the

movement" of citizens in those areas, while the election proceeded as normal elsewhere. A truncated election would

be permitted, and, under this scheme, whoever had the most ballots would win.

STARVING THE GOVERNMENT



21. We know that the Bush Administration paid off its backers (and itself) by giving humongous tax breaks, for

10 years out, to the already wealthy and to large corporations. This was done at a time when the U.S. economy was in

recessionary doldrums and when the treasury deficit from those tax-breaks was growing even larger from Iraq war

costs. So far as we know, the Bush Administration has no plans for how to retire that debt and no real plan (other

than the discredited "trickle-down" theory) for restarting the economy and creating jobs. In 2004, it's clear that

whatever positive "trickle-down" effect the tax refunds may have provided, that impact is no more, and the (jobless)

"recovery" is slowing and starting to look recessional again. People need good-paying employment.

22. We

know that the HardRight conservatives who control Bush policy don't really care what kind of debt and deficits his

policies cause; in some ways, the more the better. They want to decimate and eviscerate popular social programs from

the New Deal/Great Society eras, including, most visibly, Head Start, Social Security, Medicare (and real drug

coverage for seniors), aspects of public education. Since these programs are so well-approved by the public, the

destruction will be carried out stealthily with the magic words of "privatization," "deregulation," "choice" and so

on, and by going to the public and saying that they'd love to keep the programs intact but they have no alternative

but to cut them, given the deficit, weak economy and "anti-terrorist" wars abroad.

23. We know that Bush

environmental policy -- dealing with air and water pollution, national park systems, and so on -- is an unmitigated

disaster, more or less giving free rein to corporations whose bottom line does better when they don't have to pay

attention to the public interest.

24. We know from "insider" memoirs and reports by former Bush

Administration officials -- Joseph DeIulio, Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, et al. -- that the public interest plays

little role in the formulation of policy inside the Bush Administration. The motivating factors are greed and

control and remaining in political power. Further, they say, there is little or no curiosity to think outside the

political box, or even to hear other opinions -- in other words, don't bother me with facts, my mind's made up.

Some of this non-curiosity may be based in fundamentalist religious, even Apocalyptic, beliefs.

25.

Finally (although we could continue forever detailing the crimes and misdemeanors of this corrupt, incompetent

Administration), we know that more and more, the permanent-war policy abroad and police-state tactics at home --

with the shredding of Constitutional rights designed to protect citizens from a potential repressive government --

are taking us into a kind of American fascism at home and an imperial foreign policy overseas.

As a

result, we are beginning to see more alliances between liberal/left forces and libertarians/traditional

conservatives horrified that their party has been hijacked by extreme ideologues. If Bush loses his bid for a second

term, it will come less from what we progressives do and more from those moderate-to-conservative Republicans and

Libertarians, who cannot abide what Bush&Co. have done to their party, their movement, and to this country.





* To read the previous "Things We've Learned Since 9/11" assessments in 2002 and 2003, see


http://www.bushwatch.net/weinersept.htm
here and


http://crisispapers.org/Editorials/2...gs-we-know.htm



http://www.crisispapers.org/essays/25-things.htm

[Pancho1188]

Nice

summary of some alternative press about the current administration, for those interested. Great information, Metro!

I was trying to keep it on the political analysis issue, however, to see if we could shed some light on what's

happening with Politics in America; in particular, with the use of emotion as a political tool. Your post would make

a great discussion or thread on its own merit.

Well, you could bring it right back to political

analysis...this guy obviously is using similar tactics that Kerry is using. We discussed this earlier:

"If you

find this compendium useful, you might want to make this list available to your friends and colleagues, especially

to those still uncertain which presidential candidate they will vote for ten weeks from now."

Another "Anyone

but Bush" advocate trying to move the swing voters...

[Whitehall]

Aristotle's

"Politics" or the story of Pericles.

Emotion in democracy is as old as democracy itself.

Yet, reason

in service to one's emotions can both prevent the worst pitfalls of our emotions and enforce our higher emotional

goals.

For example, patriotism - an emotion with a solid rational basis, within limits.

[belgareth]

patriotism

- an emotion with a solid rational basis, within limits.

That depends on what it is patriotism for, the

country or the government. They are not the same thing.

[DrSmellThis]

Nice posts, Whitehall and

Belgareth.

To Aristotle's Politics I'll add Plato's Republic. These are the founding documents

for Western political thought. For political rhetoric and emotions specifically, Plato's Gorgias is a short

dialog that says it all in terms of the classical critique of political rhetoric as a substitute for real

philosophy.

It is easy and common to isolate emotions from reason, and just hit people in their most primal

fears (e.g., of death and damnation, shame and humiliation) -- a strictly psychological or conditioning approach.

It's an effective population control technique. Patriotism is great in it's natural context. But when isolated off

from that and used to manipulate it is an extremely dangerous weapon of control. Vigilance is always in short

supply. Remember what Hitler accomplished with his own population of reasonable, patriotic people. (For

Aristotle a virtue taken to an extreme becomes a vice. Patriotism, though not specifically an Aristotelian virtue,

would become pridefulness and a number of other vices.) Is there any reason to believe we any less gullible than the

Germans were? Critical thinking and skepticism are extremely important when taking in any "information" (not always

in the face value of messages) with political relevance. So is the ability to think outside the box. We need to

commit to these intellectual virtues as much as any other patriotic values. Otherwise, as Bel says, we are patriotic

in the service of government and not ourselves. Without the fundamental rule and responsibility of an informed

populace, there can be no democracy. That kind of democracy, the only kind, is what our revolutionary blood was

spilled for.

Thanks A.K.A., for the info on the Karl Rove book and documentary. The documentary looks like a

must see! Apparently psy-ops have been essential to Rove's approach since his high school debate team, when he put

stacks of blank index cards on the podium to intimidate his opponents.

[belgareth]

Apparently

psy-ops have been essential to Rove's approach since his high school debate team, when he put stacks of blank index

cards on the podium to intimidate his opponents.

Clever! I wish I had thought of that.

[Holmes]

Aristotle's

"Politics"

I'll second that!

(Good post, too.)

That depends on what

it is patriotism for, the country or the government. They are not the same thing.

But they can both

be dangerous.

[a.k.a.]

Apparently

psy-ops have been essential to Rove's approach since his high school debate team, when he put stacks of blank index

cards on the podium to intimidate his opponents.

Didn’t know that, but I guess it

figures.

Besides being the most likely mastermind behind the Swiftboat Veterans, he’s also alleged to

be a master of “push polling”. Fake pollsters calling up prospective voters with questions such as:
“Would you

be more or less likely to reelect Governor Richards if you knew her staff is dominated by lesbians?” (From W’’s 1994

campaign for governor)
or, “Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he has a

Black daughter?” (from the Republican primaries)

With regards to the RNC... I don’t know what he was

up to this year, but four years ago Pat Robertson (of all people) complained that Rove wouldn’t let any speaker

deviate from his pre-packaged script. He also came up with the idea of placing token minorities on Bush’s stage, and

dreamed up the now famous slogans “no child left behind” and “compasionate conservativism”.

Let’s hope

the grand jury can put him out of comission before he pulls off any more dirty tricks.

[DrSmellThis]

Is a grand jury inverstigating

him?

[a.k.a.]

Is a grand jury

inverstigating him?

Yup. He hasn't had to testify yet. But he's a prime suspect.
"Last year,

however, Rove's taste for personal politics entangled him in an extraordinary spy scandal. He is reported to have

made calls to Washington journalists last July identifying a CIA undercover agent, Valerie Plame, who was married to

Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who had called into question the administration's claims about Iraq's alleged

nuclear programme. Rove allegedly told the journalists that Plame was "fair game" because her husband had gone

public with his criticism.

A grand jury is now investigating the leak of Plame's name, a federal felony.

Rove has denied being its source, and Wilson believes now he may have tried to push the story only after her name

had already been published. Rove has yet to appear before the grand jury, but he has retained an expensive

Washington lawyer.

"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselection...165126,00.html

http://www.m

snbc.msn.com/id/5123701/

"Sources within the investigation say evidence points to Rove approving

release of the leak. They add that their investigation suggests the President knew about Rove's actions but took no

action to stop release of Plame's

name."

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_4629.shtml

This could be very

bad for a campaign that hinges on National Security. The Dems tried to whip up some publicity back in June. But

apparently it hasn't been that big of a story yet.

[DrSmellThis]

* Thanks for the info, a.k.a. Your first link is pretty informative. This guy is one of

the most fascinating political figures in the Bush administration -- maybe a sort of human microcosm and archetype

for the dark side of contemporary American politics. The problem is knowing which if any of numerous allegations

against Rove (e.g., the Swift Boat Kerry attacks) are true. It sounds like a ton of circumstantial evidence and

ominous connections, though. If he gets fingered in the Wilson thing that would be a giant scandal, a smoking gun;

and cast Rove as a viscious, treasonous, cold-blooded, political hit-man. Somebody with no conscience leaked

the agent's name for political purposes. So Rove would be one usual suspect. That wouldn't look good for Bush, as

Rove has been one of his closest advisors and oldest friends; throughout every stage of his political career. I

wonder how the grand jury investigation will coincide with the election, timing-wise? Tomorrow I'm going to see the

documentary on him, without expecting to get any definite answers. I tried to find the book tonight, but the

bookstore was sold out.

* I can see why Bush is making sure to give his base so much of what they want

politically right now. He needs their support or complicity when it comes to defending his character and integrity.

Partisan blood is thicker than water, and the ends seem to justify the means for most in this political world,

whether due to cynicism, selfishness, greed, ignorance or some combination of these.

Who could grieve for all

the victims of even one unjust war fought anywhere, or take full emotional responsibility for what their own

government does in their name? The emotions that go along with letting information about political corruption in

seem too big for most of us to process, in the same way that grieving for a major loss is, but perhaps even moreso.

Here I can only speculate. I cannot claim to really know what governments do. On the slim chance we allow ourselves

to perceive the extremes of governmental malaise at all, do we choose to coat it with "psychological mucous" and

compartmentalize it? Aren't we all guilty of this? I know I minimized some of the corrupt things Clinton was

accused of doing (e.g., political assasination attempts, worse-than-rockstar levels of sexual hijinks, Whitewater,

etc.) because I liked some of his accomplishments (though I wasn't a registered Democrat). Despite Nixon's

reputation for being a cold-blooded crook, my parents remember him as the "great Chinese foreign policy" president.

Reagan was made of teflon; and people looked the other way for Kennedy. Maybe the Lord blessed Ford with being

boring, and Carter with being naive. But where do you draw the line, when you are freely chosing to live in this

country, and virtually all the administrations are corrupt in malignant ways?

Power is more powerful than it

used to be. The world is getting so small and interdependent! So a small "leadership ripple" makes big waves

everywhere imaginable; moreso than ever before. It really makes me struggle with cynicism, and affects my patriotism

in a negative way. I guess you just take it day by day, try to stay informed, and decide where to draw the line

based on your values for your country. It just feels like a lame position to take.

Something I learned from

talking to my parents about politics is that any possible corruption in politics, beyond a certain pedestrian line,

is unthinkable for them. Presumably, on the other side looms foolishness, paranoia, and madness. If indeed the dark

emotions of political truth are too vast for any one citizen to really feel; if even the virtues of wisdom

and courage are constrained by the strength and capacity of the human heart; if patriotism must remain blind to

endure; wouldn't unfathomable corruption be the most prudent sort to cultivate, and therefore be the

natural end state of power corruption? Was the sinister brilliance of Hitler partly a realization of this?

How much do the powerful even understand about power, and why has so little been written about it by those who have

lived it?

Demonizing rarely leads to understanding. Perhaps we all need to take a lesson from the Buddhists; for

whom nature is as brutal as it is beautiful; and for whom violence in all its dimensions is no threat to inner peace

or right action.

Last week I read this, and it helped a little:

http://books.fantasticfiction.co.uk/x1/x5086.

htm?authorid=16825

[a.k.a.]

Hope this isn’t beating a dead

horse, but I thought this article was on

topic:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0911-23.htm

"Republicans are real men. Democrats

are gay. Bush is a resolute he-man who will keep us safe from terrorists; Kerry is a flip-flopper who wants to take

a more "sensitive" approach to the war on terror and who, as Vice President Cheney sneered, seems to think "Al Qaeda

will be impressed with our softer side." Conservatives are not just tough, they're compassionate, too; as for the

Christian right, what Christian right? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! That's really all you need

to know about the Republican National Convention.

OK, so they overdid it a bit. Crazy Zell Miller had

forgotten to take his meds, Cheney looked like he wanted to strangle a cat, and maybe you had to be there to see the

humor in those anti-Kerry gag Band-Aids printed with a purple heart. Still, you've got to hand it to the

Republicans: The macho card was skillfully played. They had John McCain, the coolest guy in Congress--the only cool

guy in Congress--upon whom every male reporter in America seems to have a major crush. They had obnoxious Arnold

Schwarzenegger, America's sweetheart. And don't forget Rudy Giuliani. His speech was such a masterful blend of

brio, sentimentality and New York edge, by the end I was practically ready to vote for Bush myself.

Through

clever stage-managing and endless iteration of the discredited Saddam/Al Qaeda connection, the RNC managed to attach

to the reckless and inept Bush presidency the qualities Americans admire in men--optimism, confidence, fun, resolve,

determination, single-mindedness, strength, will, foresight. Kerry and the Dems were the opposite--pessimistic,

weak, indecisive, effeminate Breck girls and girlie men. You'd think Kerry, not Bush, had been the cheerleader in

prep school. In the contest between real men and girlie men, women don't exist. The few female speakers were there

to underline Bush's heterosexual credentials: Elizabeth Dole said Bush would protect us from gay marriage; Laura,

Barbara and the twins testified to his Dadness. And don't forget Barney, the Scottish Terrier. Real men have dogs.

Women--gays--Democrats--have cats.

You wouldn't think so, though, if you'd watched the militaristic

extravaganza that was the Democratic convention: the Swift Boat band of brothers, the saluting candidate "reporting

for duty." I cringed, I really did. It was such a blatant manipulation of imagery, so patronizing, such a kick in

the teeth to the Democratic base. ¿Quién es más macho? Maybe they could just wrestle--or better yet, take a leaf

from Zell Miller and have a duel. At this rate, we won't have a woman President until the year 3000, and she'll

have to be a five-star general. "

[a.k.a.]

Something I

learned from talking to my parents about politics is that any possible corruption in politics, beyond a certain

pedestrian line, is unthinkable for them. Presumably, on the other side looms foolishness, paranoia, and madness. If

indeed the dark emotions of political truth are too vast for any one citizen to really feel; if even the

virtues of wisdom and courage are constrained by the strength and capacity of the human heart; if patriotism must

remain blind to endure; wouldn't unfathomable corruption be the most prudent sort to cultivate, and

therefore be the natural end state of power corruption? Was the sinister brilliance of Hitler partly a

realization of this?

Maybe. But I tend towards a simpler explanation. Anxiety is one of the most

basic emotions, yet it’s one of the most difficult to refer to a specific cause. By creating a state of tension,

fear and suspicion, you can raise the anxiety level. By giving people a simple cause for this anxiety (Jews,

Muslims) you gain legitimacy for yourself and can better convince them of your ability to save them from dangers

(both real and imagined) that they don't see but nevertheless feel.

[DrSmellThis]

The two explanations aren't

mutually exclusive factors. I agree with your "simple" analysis.

Nice posted article, by the way. I don't

think you're beating a dead horse. Scummy ethics and lack of conscience aside; I guess you have to hand it to Karl

Rove as a rhetorical/political tactician. He is an absolute pro among amateurs. I just saw the documentary on him,

which was very, very disturbing; but fascinating; since the plot of the documentary (a mixture of Rove's life and

the history of certain Republican politics, especially involving G.W. Bush's political history.) is playing itself

out vividly in the current news. I learned that Rove has a strongly recognizable M.O. I'm not sure anyone since

Reagan has been as influential on Republican politics. I heartily recommend the film, Bush's Brain, to

anyone interested in the underside or hidden side of politics.

[deepblue]

Kerry will make a good

President. He most obviously isn't a Clinton, I can see that just looking at him. I believe he is more like a

Franklin D. Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln (tall) kind of President and a good man with good values.

Bush

gives tax breaks to the rich and companies that want to relocate to a foreign country taking money and jobs off

shore. Kerry wants to reverse this plutocratic trend.

Bush also wants to put an end to Social Security and

allow the government to spend more of the money that is supposed to be set aside for people's retirement (by law).

Does anyone really want to take a chance that they will be so rich in the future that a Social Security check is a

joke? When you live off your savings alone it won't last as long and life spans just keep getting longer. In fact I

can't imagine everyone having enough savings for extended retirements and they'd be put on some kind of government

funding anyhow after their savings ran out. So why pretend it won't happen and plan for it now.

Thirdly,

Bush's idea of an energy plan is to invest heavily in new coal resources. I remember a speach about new clean coal

technology. This doesn't sound like the energy of the future to me. It sounds more like the current energy regime

pocketing more money before a sweeping energy reform is found absolutely necessary.

Then we have Medicare

reforms Bush is pushing which cost more than they are worth. Why can't people continue to get medication from

Canada at a cheaper rate? Why can't Americans get a lower rate on prescription drugs like the rest of the world?

Why are foreign corporate entities setting our rates? Who will stick up for us? I'm betting on Kerry. Everyone is

crapping on Americans, and that war in Iraq is making it an even easier task ... we're a hate object. Not that I

care about that so much as all the money we've poured out in that desert wasteland, and we can't just pick up and

leave now either no matter who is President.

Bush's major campaign contributor was Enron. No wonder he did not

try nail the big guys in the company harder. Then to top it off he says let's do away with Social Security and

invest in the free market, you'll all be better off that way. I say, did the stock market crash big time or what

you moron ... your statement was equivalent to saying, "Let them eat cake."

It is time for a change in our

country and I'm more than willing to try a new horse and bet on Kerry for President.

One other point

... in the war on Iraq they always talk about numbers of men killed, but they never mention the number of men who

have lost limbs and have permanent injuries. The airplanes fly in at night when the press isn't there to meet them

and I haven't seen Bush visit the hospital yet. I think this is a shame.

[hotrocks5]

I get the feeling that the

Democrats are losing steam. There's still over a month left, but still. In the early going, you had the Abu

Ghraib prison scandal which was a very hot topic. Michael Moore's movie was also another draw. Everything from

Enron to an enormous federal deficit to the failures of George W. Bush to recognize the signs that would lead to

9/11 or the growing number of American soldiers dying in Iraq. It seemed like there was a scandal happening

everyday that was negatively affecting the Bush campaign. It didn't seem like there was any way he would be able

to get out of such a deep hole. Then things started to shift, and now all of a sudden, for whatever reason, the

previous war records of Bush and Kerry are the center of attention, and I'm guessing voters are struggling to

figure out who the hell is telling the truth. So now there's a shift from negative attention solely on Bush to a

somewhat even playing field. That gives the edge to the Bush campaign. Now maybe in the following weeks, someone

will differentiate themselves enough to appeal to the few remaining swing voters. The way I look at it, you have a

choice between an indecisive Democrat or a unilateral hillbilly who has arguably made many questionable decisions

thus far in his presidency. Hmm...tough call.

[belgareth]

The way I look

at it, you have a choice between an indecisive Democrat or a unilateral hillbilly who has arguably made many

questionable decisions thus far in his presidency. Hmm...tough call.

That's an excellent summation of

another pair of almost equally bad choices for president.

[Holmes]

That's an

excellent summation of another pair of almost equally bad choices for president.

Indeed.



The operative word, however, being almost. Even if Kerry's policies were 2% more productive, he is

still the wiser choice for the long haul.

Give Bush four more years and you're looking at major league

problems.

[belgareth]

Indeed.



The operative word, however, being almost. Even if Kerry's policies were 2% more productive,

he is still the wiser choice for the long haul.

Give Bush four more years and you're looking at major league

problems.

No offense Holmes, but you don't know if Kerry is better or worse and neither do I. Bush really

and truly sucks but how do we know that Kerry isn't as bad or worse? It's a sad state of affairs that the only

choices who stand a chance of winning the election are both worthless. Despite what anybody says about it, I don't

intend to vote for either. Not sure who I will vote for but I'll not vote before I'll vote for either of them.

[deepblue]

I can look at Kerry and know he

isn't like Clinton, Al Gore, or even Bush. Just my opinion but I think he will be a good President. He isn't as

indecisive as he is made out to be either.

I was listening to one Bush speech and he said Kerry was indecisive

over a bill to fund further operations in Iraq. Kerry hesitated for good reason too, the bill was loaded with so

much pork that had nothing to do with simply funding war efforts. If that is indecisive then you might look at

indecisive people as rather wise.

Simply judging by what he says I think he has a lot of good things on the

agenda for change too. Bush on the other hand ...

[belgareth]

I'm curious, exactly what do

you look at that allows you to so closely judge a person's capability or integrity?