The Republican Convention and the Politics of Emotion

[DrSmellThis]

Without thinking about who is right or wrong, it was really interesting how the simple ideas

of the Republican Party aroused passion so easily, as compared to the "nuanced multilayeredness" of Democratic

thinking. Many Americans will be rallied by the Republicans' speeches, which appealed to ideas that it is easy to

feel enthusiastic about. It even moved the patriot in me to listen to some of it. Of course, much of it was generic

patriotism, which no party owns. Nonetheless, the Republicans' appeals to patriotism seem more effective

emotionally. Arnold raised and exhibited an almost "-none OD like" level of this. I almost got a DIHL myself. (

Then I got a bit scared of his dictator-like presentation, but maybe he put on too much PI, or snorted some!)



I'd say that the Democrats have their work cut out for them, in terms of emotional appeal. The Republicans

have just flat out done better at this so far, IMHO. To win, Kerry needs to role model the emotions we need and want

to feel; and evoke them powerfully. He needs to be firey and passionate; sharp and clear headed to defeat the

incumbent.

Incumbency always enjoys the benefit of appealing to people's wish to strongly believe we are doing

great, of course. Then there is the fear of the unknown, which Kerry represents more than Bush as an incumbent

(Kerry should note here that there are also a few scary unknowns with Bush). They played that one up too. This is

already quite a bit of inherent emotional power the Republicans have. But there's more to it.

The Democrats are

a relatively complicated party in search of simple ideas and the strong passions that attach to them. If they want

to be successful, they need to meditate continuously until they get the same kind of emotional clarity the

Republicans seem to enjoy. It can't ride squarely on anger against Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Why? Anger isn't the

emotion of leadership, but is rather the emotion of the oppressed (The "help is on the way" slogan targeted this

issue, but fell short). It's a "beta emotion" if used too much. Conversely, fear is often evoked to great effect by

those in power.

Regarding emotional clarity, I think that the idea of "integrity" is fundamentally important for

Democrats. Integrity, personal and national, is a huge concept that seems to sum up much of what they talk about.

Integrity makes you feel comfortable with who you are, like you are a "good person". People need and yearn to feel

that. But Democrats also need to appeal better to the evocative ideas that already dominate the American emotional

palette; like freedom, democracy, security, reassurance, and hope. For example, they need a compelling idea of

"sustainable prosperity" to compete with "Reaganomics". I think sustainable prosperity results from the efficient

sharing of human and global resources, within communities wherein simple happiness and human potential are fostered.

I personally get lots of warm and fuzzy emotions thinking about that one. Peace is another wonderfully emotive idea.

A just war can only make sense, and be ultimately won, from within a compelling idea of peace.

"Prosperity",

"integrity" and "peace" are elegant political ideas that evoke deep, powerful feelings. Perhaps the Democrats should

consider using them more often. Then again, just because something feels good does not make it so.

[Holmes]

Well said.

Emotional

appeal is, sadly, what it's all about. Screw meaningful content.

How about them Bush girls? (Is Yale still

considered Ivy League?)

[Mtnjim]

[QUOTE=Holmes...Emotional appeal

is, sadly, what it's all about. Screw meaningful content....[/QUOTE]

Something I noticed because of it's

currency, (I'm not effected because I'm not an hourly employee and I live in California with laws that overrule)

was Bush's talk about making the country more "worker friendly". This from a man who just signed into law a bill

taking away "overtime pay" from millions (except for those who live in the 8 states who's laws overrule this).

[Whitehall]

I wondered too

about "worker friendly". Massive immigration or new "guest worker programs" are certainly NOT in the interest of

anyone legally currently holding or seeking a job in the USA.

Some of the other programs Bush mentioned might

have merit but the devil is in the details. The overtime rule change seems much misrepresented in the mainstream

press. It does help low wage employees.

I will admit I was a little embaressed with all the "USA" chanting

but I'm not one for mass emotions.

I'm curious about the reactions from people who saw it in other

countries.

Ultimately, a voter has four choices - Bush, Kerry, Nader, or not voting. Somebody has to hold

the job and no one is perfect. Life is full of choices like that.

[Holmes]

Ultimately, a

voter has four choices - Bush, Kerry, Nader, or not voting. Somebody has to hold the job and no one is perfect.

Life is full of choices like that.

That much is true.

Hmmm... I dont think the

Governator needs PI to get the ladies. He has enough primal instinct flowing through his blood anyway.

lol

Hopefully he can be president oneday, just gotta get that amendment passed

[DrSmellThis]

And then would Harvard be Bush

League?

Nice picture, Mr. Holmes. You may as well keep us guessing.

[belgareth]

Well said Doc. Good points that

the dems should be looking at. But I agree with Holmes' remark about emotional appeal.

[Whitehall]

The advantages the Republican Party brings to this election are fundamental ones - better leaders and

better ideas. The Democrats have built (or degraded) their power base to "gimme" special interests without a

unifying plan for every citizen. The leadership team holding office is clearly one of the best, most effective,

most clear-eyed bunch of men and women in recent history.

It's easy to get emotional once the trust is

justified.

The two best speeches were by Arnold and by Zell Miller - loved them both.

[DrSmellThis]

The advantages the Republican Party brings to this election are fundamental ones - better

leaders and better ideas. The Democrats have built (or degraded) their power base to "gimme" special interests

without a unifying plan for every citizen. The leadership team holding office is clearly one of the best, most

effective, most clear-eyed bunch of men and women in recent history.

This response is to the point in many

illustrative ways. I agree that Democrats lack a comprehensive plan. But this isn't necessarily a fatal flaw. An

incomplete plan can be better than an overly simplistic or wrongheaded, complete one. I also agree that the

Democrats are beholden to special interests. But so are the Republicans, as Belgareth would remind us. So it's

meaningless to point out that either side is. But it is logical, and quite meaningful to compare lists of who each

is beholden to. I'll save that for another post.

Lastly, I agree that Bush and company can seem

clear eyed (e.g, "Nobody ever won a war by being sensitive!") Many would vehemently disagree with us here. But for

the sake of argument, there may be certain simple facets of national and international events they are more clear

about (assuming they are genuine, also for the sake of argument). But it's easy to seem clear eyed if you

only look at the most simplistic, black and white portrayals of issues (e.g., "sensitive war vs. tough war";

"you're with us or against us"). If you see the multi-leveled, multi-contextual world as entirely composed of

plainly right/wrong and true/false ideas, and simplistic ideas at that; then whatever you do see most clearly will

be merely artificially clear, in some sense. Arguably the most "clear", black and white thinking could be the

least helpful (Therefore it's OK to be be insensitive to our potential allies who might otherwise share our

risks (such as not finding WMD), responsibilities and burdens). The smaller your perspective, and the fewer facts

you consider, the easier it sometimes is to organize it all into an "internally coherent" whole; especially if you

are willing to throw away a lot more insights and facts along the way. What that means is that internal consistency

and simple overarching ideas can seem easier to achieve.

Consider this simplistic, right-leaning political line

of thinking (a paraphrase of Bush in a TV interview): "We're tough on badguys, and we'll keep being tough until

the bad guys are gone! Our citizens must make sacrifices. Freedom has a price. Period!" The advantage of this

simplistic rhetoric is that it covers Bush's foreign, domestic, and economic policy in one fell swoop. Wow! It's

easy to understand, and helps us organize complexities to make a simple world. How satisfying! "A unifying plan for

every citizen!" Now there's an idea folks can get behind!! On the other hand, this stance is fatally flawed in its

subtleties. But when considered in isolation as a counterstance, the correct subtleties don't arouse the

passions that the stance itself does. Therefore the problem in reaching a more successful line of thinking is to

reframe the whole issue in a more compelling way. But this is extremely difficult, since the initial

framing aims at extremely primitive emotions. This kind of pandering to base emotions is an essential part of the

inherent appeal of right winged rhetoric. Politics (like pheromones!) are in no small way a battle for people's

most primitive feelings, and the Republicans are currently doing better at this. Consider the emotional power of

raising the terror alert, for example.

Can you characterize the two parties as different in this respect? I

think so. That again highlights the problem the Democrats have -- to clarify and simplify the things they believe

they have seen with a broader and deeper vision, and therefore relate emotionally to people better. This takes a lot

of work intellectually (especially since some of their ideas are newer or more "progressive"); and requires skill at

role-modeling the appropriate passions; as well as communication skills. Each party has its own challenges,

strengths and shortcomings. In fact, many who criticise Bush do so on grounds fairly independent from which party he

belongs to. I agree with Bel that neither provides the answer. I see the Democrats as at best a party in transition.

Republicans may be more internally consistent, but may be externally less appropriate to changing times.

[a.k.a.]

Kerry sold out his own party. 90% of

the Democratic delegates oppose the war in Iraq, and so does a majority of the nation.
He should be

seething with righteous indignation over a war waged under false premises — that would add some needed emotional

substance to the Democratic campaign — but he just wants to convince everybody he can fight it better. Pussy. He’s

just handing the election over to Bush.

[Holmes]

He should be

seething with righteous indignation over a war waged under false premises — that would add some needed emotional

substance to the Democratic campaign — but he just wants to convince everybody he can fight it better. Pussy. He’s

just handing the election over to Bush.

Bush is pushing buttons and pulling heartstrings. Kerry is

not.

The two best speeches were by Arnold and by Zell Miller - loved them

both.

Yeah, Arnold had me at "John Wayne." Or was it "President Richard Nixon?" No, wait: I think it

was "Girly-Men." Or "SIEG HEIL!" Shit, I can't remember.

Hey, at least he admitted that he's a bad actor.

(How endearing.)

Zell Miller?

"Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's

Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone

calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators."

Ugh. Come out of the closet already (and don't

forget your loafers).

I was just reading his autobiography, Zell Miller: M.A.N. With Huge Cock (And Proud

To Show Ya). A fascinating memoir.

[Pancho1188]

I'm sorry if this is off the

discussion as I didn't read this whole thread (being lazy), but in regards to politics and emotion...

I think

that Michael Douglas summed it up in The American President:

For the last several months

Senator Rumson has suggested that being president of this country was to a certain extent about character. And while

I have been unwilling to engage in his attacks on me, I have been here three years and three days and I can say

without hesitation that being president of this country is entirely about character. For the record, yes, I am a

card carrying member of the ACLU ... but the more important questions is why aren't you Bob. Now this is an

organization whose sole purpose is to defend the bill of rights ... so it naturally begs the question why would a

Senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for president choose to reject upholding the

constitution. Now, if you can answer that question folks than you're smarter than I am ... because I didn't

understand it until a few hours ago. America isn't easy. America, is advanced citizenship ... you've got to want

it bad ... because its gonna put up a fight. Its gonna say you want free speech? Then lets see you acknowledge a man

whose words make your blood boil who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you

would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. Its gonna say you want to claim this land is the land of the

free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens

exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that; defend that; celebrate that in your classrooms

... then you can stand up here and claim that this is the land of the free. I've known Bob Rumson for years and

I've been acting under the assumption that the reason Bob devoted so much time and energy shouting at the rain was

because he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong, Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it, Bob's

problem is that he can't sell it. He is interested in two things and two things only ... making you afraid

of it and telling you whose to blame for it ... that ladies and gentlemen is how you win elections. You gather a

group of middle aged, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time and to preach to

them about American values and character. And then you flash an old photo of the presidents girlfriend and you

tell them she's to blame for their rotten lives ... and you go on television and you call her a whore. Sidney Ellen

Wade has done nothing to you Bob. She has done nothing but put herself through school, protect the interests of

American school teachers and lobby for the safety of our natural resources. You want a character debate Bob, then

you'd better stick with me ... because Sidney Ellen Wade is way out of your league. I've loved two women in my

life. I lost one to cancer ... and I lost the other because I was so busy keeping my job, that I forgot to do my

job. Well that end right now. Tomorrow the White House is sending a bill to Congress for its consideration ... House

Resolution 455, an energy bill, calling for a twenty percent reduction in the emissions of fossil fuels over the

next ten years. It is by far, the most aggressive stride ever taken to attempt to reverse the affects of global

warming. The other piece of legislation is the crime bill. As of today, it no longer exists. I'm throwing it out.

I'm throwing it out and writing a law that makes sense. You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of

assault weapons and handguns. I consider them a threat to national security and I will go door to door if I have to

but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right and I'm gonna get the guns. We've got serious problems and we

need serious people. And if you want to talk about character and American values Bob, fine ... but you'd better

come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card, you just tell me where and when and I'll show up.

This is a time for serious people Bob and your fifteen minutes are up. My name is Andrew Shepherd and I am the

President.

Creating a campaign is easy. You tell the country what

the problems are and you say that you're the person to solve them. Winning is hard because you have to blame the

other person for all of the problems or say that their solution is dumb and yours is better.

Now I'm

going really off topic...

People complain that politicians lie. Well, I thought about this, and they have to,

basically. Bush was honest, and he got fried and later retracted his statement.

"We may never win the war on

terror..."

Wow, truth for once. You can win this just like you can't win the war on drugs...you can't prevent

individuals from doing chaotic things when you give them the freedom and liberty that incidentally extends to having

the capability to do them. If you have the right to bear arms, you automatically have the capability to cause harm

to many people. That's the reality of the situation...but politicians can't admit to that. No one will vote for

a guy who admits that the system is fallible and that you can't prevent every bad thing from happening. Kerry

comes right back and says that he will fight the war better and win...and then, naturally, Bush must retract his

statement or Kerry will look stronger than him despite the fact that Kerry can't 100% prevent random horrible acts

from happening, either.

I was thinking about this, and I may be wrong because this was a recent thought, but any

politician that started preaching the truth would lose. Therefore, it is actually by our voting that keeps liars in

office because they tell us what we want to hear, not the truth. We want to hear that we are strong, safe,

economically growing, creating jobs, etc...no one wants to hear the President admit that we're in a recession...and

if he did, the stock market would take a 1,000-point shot. Yet everyone complains that politicians lie. Who votes

in the liars, and who needs the liars to lie to sleep soundly at night? Hmmm...

The scapegoat is created with

the sole purpose of putting a face to the fear and making people safe. The war in Iraq, oil, special interests,

etc. aside, is a way to show citizens that the government is taking action and being proactive in fighting

terror...who would vote for a President who said, "Well, individuals did this, and there's not much we can do about

it. All we can do is strengthen our defenses and prevent further catastrophes in the future. However, since the

people who did this are dead from the crashes, there's not much else we can do to punish them, is there?" (again, I

know these people are part of bigger groups with leaders, but I am taking major liberties to make a point)

It's

sad, but the government is an interesting result of the human psyche.

What a psychological field day one could

have analyzing this...

Please no one take this as the start of a political debate for one side or the other...I

was just taking this as a partial psychological analysis...just brainstorming.

[Zeus]

Aw Bush better work hard if he

wants to keep those numbers up. I think he loses 1% in the polls every time his daughters are shown on TV.

[Zeus]

Hmmm... I dont think the Governator

needs PI to get the ladies. He has enough primal instinct flowing through his blood anyway. lol

Hopefully he can

be president oneday, just gotta get that amendment passed

[belgareth]

The biggest problem in the

democrats outlook is the trap many have fallen into. The issues are too complex with too many potential variables to

fully encompass. At some point you have to simplify or you do like Carter did, ponder forever and never really do

anything.

[DrSmellThis]

At some point you have to simplify or you do like Carter did, ponder forever and never really do

anything.

Pondering forever without doing anything is not pondering well. Thinking without doing (or talking

or feeling, or intuiting) is just another form of small mindedness.

But haven't we had all the cultural

lobotomies we need? Isn't our addiction to stimulation lobotomizing? How about religious fundamentalism; the mental

paralysis of fear; and excess political partisanship? How about the aforementioned black and white thinking that

dominates American policy these days?

You are doubtless one of the better thinkers here, Belgareth. But it is

worth noting that people who do think poorly or unproductively love to tell others they "think too much". There's

something to be said for figuring stuff out.

[belgareth]

Pondering

forever without doing anything is not pondering well. Thinking without doing (or talking or feeling, or intuiting)

is just another form of small mindedness.

But haven't we had all the cultural lobotomies we need? Isn't our

addiction to stimulation lobotomizing? How about religious fundamentalism; the mental paralysis of fear; and excess

political partisanship? How about the aforementioned black and white thinking that dominates American policy these

days?

You are doubtless one of the better thinkers here, Belgareth. But it is worth noting that people who do

think poorly or unproductively love to tell others they "think too much". There's something to be said for figuring

stuff out.

Exactly right. You are pointing out one of the worst, most dangerous flaws of the Bush camp. If it

doesn't fit into their philosophy they reject it out of hand. A couple of good examples are stem cell research and

the Kyoto protocols. Rather than accept the fact that there are issues to be worked out, they reject them out of

hand to the detriment of society as a whole. They have even gone so far as to try and silence their detractors by

censoring sciencetific debate. It does not solve the problem, only makes the solutions more painful in the long

run.

At the same time, the dems attempt to solve every problem by throwing money at it (Yes it is an

over-simplification, but the problem is real) and by give-aways. That simply creates additional burden on the most

productive segments of society, which is a dis-incentive to increased productivity, without really helping the most

needy except in the short term. Giving the masses bread and circuses is not the answer either.

The problem stems

from our system that encourages politics to be based on the next election, they never have a reason to think beyond

the next four years. We need to change the mind set of our leadership to look at the problems and solve them rather

than to simply talk to get votes.

Religion has no place in running a government. It is no less mind numbing than

the over-stimulation and apathy caused by too much television. I don't want to side track your very valid points by

starting a religious debate so will leave it at that. I do believe that we need to put far more emphasis on teaching

people to think ofr themselves rather than to follow any group or belief system like a flock of sheeps to

slaughter.

[Whitehall]

"Religion has no place in running a government."

This has merit but history teaches us that a civilization

without a religous bond is decadent. We denigrate the religous faith of others at our own risk.

I personally

profess no creed (OK, I can't stomach any of that mumbo-jumbo that passes for theology) but a society WITHOUT

religion scares me. What our liberals seem to want is a society were religion is replaced with legalisms and

political correctness. I don't think that will work. The Communists couldn't.

Ours might be a time when a

new religion is begin born, one that will build a faith and a moral system based on our so much greater

understanding of human nature and the place of humans on our planet and in our universe.

The religious

impulse is universal in humans. There must be a reason and we suppress it at our risk.

Unfortunately, where

we're headed seems more and more like "Brave New World" every day.

[DrSmellThis]

True. At various points you have to simplify to go/no-go, such as when your advisor interrupts you to

say New York and Washington DC have been attacked! But a black and white approach is the worst one to initially

approach something with. That is the problem of prejudices and rigidities of various kinds. And when your world

view starts to unravel around the edges, it's also time to see bigger things. Now is a time for both passionate

simplicity and largeness of vision, I would suggest. No party has claimed this sound approach as their own yet. But

that is our challenge.

If you are missing pieces of the puzzle, you can't always see the simplest picture

better by throwing away still more pieces and just working with a partial picture. Often thinking bigger is the

quickest road to elegance, or appropriate simplicity; as well as to sound and committed decisions.

Ultimately, in fact, the greatest simplicity is in seeing the bigger picture. This is a crucial philosophical issue

at stake in contemporary politics; in some sense the philosophical issue.

For example, we are

increasingly challenged to take a long term, global, earth based, cooperative and sustainable approach given our

current, rapidly shrinking world; and given the futurist space, life-support and resource issues the earth is

presenting to us. These issues are all about the bigger picture, or the need for holism. There are, of course, other

realms in which we are called to be more holistic, such as in the realms of increasingly interacting and/or clashing

spiritual approaches and religions.

According to Plato (the father of modern secular politics) and most other

philosophers, grasping more of a potential whole is the essence of wisdom, or philosophy. This would also be true,

then, of political philosophy. The lack of this wisdom lies at the heart of our political thinking these days.

[belgareth]

"Unfortunately, where we're

headed seems more and more like "Brave New World" every day." I'll agree with that point but will argue that part

of the problem is the religions.

I didn't say a there was a problem with being religious. I said that it had no

place in running a government. Look at this silliness over the ten commandments placed outside a courthouse. The

argument is religious, both sides of it! From my perspective, it doesn't matter in the least if it remains or is

moved. The entire thing is a waste of time and money. Same on the subject of prayer in school. In short, it is not

the business of government any way you look at it.

A society without principles scares me almost as much as a

deeply religious society scares me. Over the centuries, religion has played a major role in the formation of our

civilization but as also created and continues to create hatred and suffering. Respect for human rights is not

universally tied to religion or even a necessary part of it. Despite our basically religious foundations we have

committed crimes against our fellow man innumerable times, often in the name of our religions. Bad decisions are

made in government almost daily because our religions require it. The pope publicly states that government officials

cannot participate in their religion because they choose to do what they believe is right rather than follow

doctrine that ultimately harms millions of people.

Show me a religion that is compatible with the needs of a

changing, evolving society on an ever shrinking planet and I'll recant my position. But I don't believe you can do

that.

[koolking1]

"Pussy. He’s just handing

the election over to Bush."

I think the average Democrat decided long ago that Bush needed to be defeated at

all costs. Then they decided that they needed to pull together and get someone up there who could win and they

picked the wrong guy. I think now that most Democrats have decided that this election is a foregone conclusion with

Bush winning. I was in New Jersey this long holiday weekend and the Asbury Park Press did a poll and, although I

can't remember the exact results, it concluded that about half the voters favor Bush, and nearly equal amounts now

favor either Kerry or Nader. If this poll is at all accurate it means that half the Democrats have given up on

Kerry (I know I have). The next 4 years are going to be very strange ones indeed.

[a.k.a.]

I think the

average Democrat decided long ago that Bush needed to be defeated at all costs. Then they decided that they needed

to pull together and get someone up there who could win and they picked the wrong guy.

That too.

There's so much effort not to alienate the conservatives that they've lost sight of the liberals.

Another

issue is that elections are about constituencies.
The Republicans can always rely on the Christian Right so long

as they stand firm against abortion.
The Democrats used to be able to rely on organized labor and Black voters.

But union membership is only about 12% of the workforce and younger Black voters aren't registering.
Instead of

being proactive and trying to build their constituencies (registering Blacks, being more agressive on women's

issues, pushing for national health care, etc.), the Dems are trying to compete for those middle class white voters

that haven't already gone over to Bush.

If this poll is at all accurate it means that

half the Democrats have given up on Kerry (I know I have).

Well, I haven't lost sight of who I'm voting

AGAINST. I just wish there was somebody to vote FOR.

The next 4 years are going to be very

strange ones indeed.

The world economic situatation is not good. Even with a world class president,

we should expect a very bumpy ride. But when you have a (dry?) drunk at the wheel...

[Holmes]

If this poll is

at all accurate it means that half the Democrats have given up on Kerry.

Sad.

The next

4 years are going to be very strange ones indeed.

If it's Bush & Co., strange at best.

[belgareth]

Don't give up on it yet. Both

parties get a boost in ratings right after their conventions. Give things a couple weeks to settle out. Bush could

screw things up again and the war in Iraq is forcing a lot of people to reconsider their stance. Remember, it ain't

over til the fat lady sings. Nothing is decided until the ballots are all counted.

[Whitehall]

The big issue that needs to be discussed is how much responsibility does the USA need to take in preserving world

order.

Bush has shown that he is willing to lead the US into big commitments that aim for major changes an,

hopefully, improvements.

Kerry SEEMS to be saying that we can do less and either strive for a less ordered

world than Bush would like or expect other countries to do more at our suggestion.

Do we sit back and hope

the rest of the world (Russia, France?) contributes to our protection and the protection of the world economic

order?

Maybe we should sit back, or maybe the world doesn't need more order and protection but I haven't

heard a cogent argument from Kerry and the Democrats on that position. Buchanan on the right offers something like

that but the left is inarticulate. They only hate Bush and dispise America.

At least the Republican

Convention was clear in arguing that there is a big threat and that aggressive action is needed to oppose it.

Further, Kerry has not been aggressive about foreign affairs during his Senate career.

I doubt Kerry wants to

join this debate because he knows how most Americans lean.

[DrSmellThis]

Everyone agrees that we would

love things to be nice and "orderly" on the Earth (which sometimes has its own "ideas" on the issue). There is an

important question in there; and a huge question. But we'd need to define clearly and carefully what it means to

"preserve world order"; and for that matter, what is "world order" and "disorder"? Further, what is the "world

economic order"? And what does it mean to "commit" to world order? And what does it mean to "preserve" it, as

opposed, to, say, "implement" it? These are not trivial questions when we are talking about changing the world;

especially if we are talking about, in any sense, unilaterally changing it; or changing it without the other

"tenants'" consent. I'm confused about what Kerry said to make it seem like he is "striving for a less ordered

world", but hopefully defining our terms will help.

Arnold talked a bit about "the world order". Given what you

said about your favorite speeches, perhaps you had this in mind regarding the Republicans addressing the world order

at the convention: When Arnold said that "if you believe this country, not the United Nations, is

the best hope for democracy, then you are a Republican", in the context of the speech, to me he

implied something to the effect that Democracy in all it's greatness comes from America (evoking

powerful patriotic emotions in the listener); and therefore America is best qualified to say what democracy should

be around the world, and is best qualified (has the right? responsibility?) to implement democracy around the world,

as opposed to the United Nations. (again appealing to the passions of patriotism, almost making you want to accept

what he is saying on a primal level).

[DrSmellThis]

Here's a news item regarding

some of the other emotional devices Arnold used in his speech,

http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?S=2256828
...and

here's the text of the actual speech. It is definitely illustrative of the politics of emotion:



SCHWARZENEGGER: Thank you very much. Thank you. What a greeting. What a greeting. Wow. This is like

winning an Oscar -- as if I would know. Speaking of acting, one of my movies was called "True Lies." And that's

what the Democrats should have called their convention.
(APPLAUSE)
You know, on

the way up here to the podium, a gentleman came up to me and said, "Governor, you are as good a politician as you

were an actor." What a cheap shot.
(LAUGHTER)
Cannot believe it.


Anyway, my fellow Americans, this is an amazing moment for me. To think that a once-scrawny boy

from Austria could grow up to become governor of the state of California and then stand here...


(APPLAUSE)
... then stand here in Madison Square Garden and speak on behalf of the

president of the United States -- that is an immigrant's dream.
(APPLAUSE)


SCHWARZENEGGER: It is the American dream.
You know, I was born in Europe and I've

traveled all over the world. And I can tell you that there is no place, no country, more compassionate, more

generous, more accepting and more welcoming than the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)


As long as I live, I will never forget that day 21 years ago when I raised my right hand and took

the oath of citizenship. Do you know how proud I was? I was so proud that I walked around with an American flag

around my shoulders all day long.
(APPLAUSE)
Tonight, I want to talk to you about

why I'm even more proud to be an American -- why I'm proud to be a Republican -- and why I believe this country is

in good hands.
(APPLAUSE)
When I was a boy, the Soviets occupied part of Austria.


SCHWARZENEGGER: I saw their tanks in the streets. I saw Communism with my own eyes. I remember the

fear we had when we had to cross into the Soviet sector.
Growing up, we were told, "Don't look the

soldiers in the eye. Just look straight ahead." It was a common belief that Soviet soldiers could take a man out of

his own car and ship him back to the Soviet Union as slave labor.
Now, my family didn't have a

car. But one day we were in my uncle's car. It was near dark as we came to the Soviet checkpoint. I was a little

boy. I was not an action hero back then.
(LAUGHTER)
But I remember. I remember how

scared I was that the soldiers would pull my father or my uncle out of the car and I would never see them again. My

family and so many others lived in fear of the Soviet boot. Today, the world no longer fears the Soviet Union, and

it is because of the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: As a kid

I saw the socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left. Now, don't misunderstand me, I love

Austria, and I love the Austrian people.
But I always knew America was the place for me. In school,

when the teacher would talk about America, I would daydream about coming here. I would daydream about living here. I

would sit there and watch for hours American movies transfixed by my heroes like John Wayne.


(APPLAUSE)
Everything about America seemed so big to me, so open, so possible.


I finally arrived here in 1968. What a special day it was. I remember I arrived here with empty

pockets but full of dreams, full of determination, full of desire.
The presidential campaign was in

full swing. I remember watching the Nixon-Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend of mine who spoke German and

English translated for me. I heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism, which I had just left.


SCHWARZENEGGER: But then I heard Nixon speak. Then I heard Nixon speak. He was talking about free

enterprise, getting the government off your back, lowering the taxes and strengthening the military.


(APPLAUSE)
Listening to Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air.


I said to my friend, I said, "What party is he?"
My friend said, "He's a

Republican."
I said, "Then I am a Republican."
(APPLAUSE)
And I

have been a Republican ever since. And trust me -- and trust me -- in my wife's family, that's no small

achievement.
(APPLAUSE)
But I am proud to be with the party of Abraham Lincoln,

the party of Teddy Roosevelt, the party of Ronald Reagan, and the party of George W. Bush.


(APPLAUSE)
To my fellow immigrants listening tonight, I want you to know how

welcome you are in this party. We Republicans admire your ambition. We encourage your dreams. We believe in your

future.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: And one thing I learned about America is that

if you work hard and if you play by the rules, this country is truly open to you. You can achieve anything.


(APPLAUSE)
Everything I have, my career, my success, my family, I owe to America.


(APPLAUSE)
In this country, it doesn't make any difference where you were born.

It doesn't make any difference who your parents were. It doesn't make any difference if you're like me and

couldn't even speak English until you were in your 20s. America gave me opportunities, and my immigrant dreams came

true.
I want other people to get the same chances I did, the same opportunities. And I believe they

can. That's why I believe in this country, that's why I believe in this party, and that's why I believe in this

president.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: Now, many of you out there tonight are

Republican like me in your hearts and in your beliefs. Maybe you're from Guatemala. Maybe you're from the

Philippines. Maybe you're from Europe or the Ivory Coast. Maybe you live in Ohio, Pennsylvania or New Mexico.


(APPLAUSE)
And maybe -- just maybe -- you don't agree with this party on every

single issue. I say to you tonight that I believe that's not only OK, but that's what's great about this country.


(APPLAUSE)
Here we can respectfully disagree and still be patriotic, still be

American and still be good Republicans.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: My fellow

immigrants, my fellow Americans, how do you know if you are a Republican? Well, I tell you how. If you believe that

government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government, then you are a Republican.


(APPLAUSE)
If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a

member of an interest group, then you are a Republican.
(APPLAUSE)
If you believe

your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, then you are a Republican.


(APPLAUSE)
If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for

the progress of our children, then you are a Republican.
(APPLAUSE)
If you believe

this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope for democracy, then you are a Republican.


(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: And, ladies and gentlemen, if you believe that we must

be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism, then you are a Republican.
(APPLAUSE)


Now, there's another way you can tell you're a Republican. You have faith in free enterprise,

faith in the resourcefulness of the American people and faith in the U.S. economy. And to those critics who are so

pessimistic about our economy, I say: Don't be economic girlie-men.
(APPLAUSE)


SCHWARZENEGGER: The U.S. economy remains the envy of the world. We have the highest economic growth

of any of the world's major industrialized nations. Don't you remember the pessimism of 20 years ago, when the

critics said Japan and Germany are overtaking the U.S.? Ridiculous.
Now, they say that India and

China are overtaking us. Don't you believe it. We may hit a few bumps, but America always moves ahead. That's what

Americans do.
(APPLAUSE)
We move prosperity ahead.
(APPLAUSE)


We move prosperity ahead. We move freedom ahead. And we move people ahead.
And

under President Bush and Vice President Cheney, America's economy is moving ahead in spite of a recession they

inherited and in spite of the attack on our homeland.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER:

Now, the other party says that we have two Americas. Don't you believe that either. I have visited our troops in

Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, Germany, and all over the world. I've visited our troops in California, where they train

before they go overseas. I have visited our military hospitals. And I tell you this, that our men and women in

uniform do not believe there are two Americas. They believe we are one America, and they are fighting for it.


(APPLAUSE)
We are one America, and President Bush is defending it with all his

heart and soul.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: That's what I admire most about the

president. He's a man of perseverance. He's a man of inner strength. He is a leader who doesn't flinch, who

doesn't waiver, and does not back down.
(APPLAUSE)
My fellow Americans, make no

mistake about it: Terrorism is more insidious than Communism, because it yearns to destroy not just the individual,

but the entire international order.
The president did not go into Iraq because the polls told him

it was popular. As a matter of fact, the polls said just the opposite. But leadership isn't about polls.


(APPLAUSE)
It's about making decisions you think are right and then standing

behind those decisions.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: That's why America is safer

with George W. Bush as president.
(APPLAUSE)
He knows you don't reason with

terrorists. You defeat them. He knows you can't reason with people blinded by hate. You see, they hate the power of

the individual. They hate the progress of women. They hate the religious freedom of others. And they hate the

liberating breeze of democracy.
But, ladies and gentlemen, their hate is no match for America's

decency.
(APPLAUSE)
We are the America that sends out the Peace Corps volunteers

to teach our village children. We are the America that sends out the missionaries and doctors to raise up the poor

and the sick.
SCHWARZENEGGER: We are the America that gives more than any other country to fight

AIDS in Africa and the developing world.
(APPLAUSE)
And we are the America that

fights not for imperialism, but for human rights and democracy.
(APPLAUSE)
You

know, when the Germans brought down the Berlin Wall, America's determination helped wield the sledgehammers. And

when that lone, young Chinese man stood in front of those tanks in Tiananmen Square, America stood with him. And

when Nelson Mandela smiled in election victory after all those years in prison, America celebrated, too.


We are still the lamp lighting the world, especially those who struggle. No matter in what labor

camp they slave, no matter in what injustice they're trapped, they hear our call. They see our light. And they feel

the pull of our freedom.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: They come here, as I did,

because they believe -- they believe in us. They come because their hearts say to them, as mine did, "If only I can

get to America." You know, someone once wrote, "There are those who say that freedom is nothing but a dream." They

are right. It's the American dream.
(APPLAUSE)
No matter the nationality, no

matter the religion, no matter the ethnic background, America brings out the best in people.


(APPLAUSE)
And as governor -- as governor of the great state of California, I see

the best in Americans every day.
(APPLAUSE)
I see the best in Americans every day,

our police, our firefighters, our nurses, doctors and teachers, our parents.
And what about the

extraordinary men and women who have volunteered to fight for the United States of America?


(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: I have such great respect for them and their heroic

families.
Let me tell you about the sacrifice and the commitment that I have seen first-hand. In

one of the military hospitals I visited, I met a young guy who was in bad shape. He'd lost a leg, he had a hole

through his stomach, and his shoulder had been shot through. And the list goes on and on and on.
I

could tell that there was no way he could ever return to combat. But when I asked him, "When do you think you'll

get out of the hospital?" He said, "Sir, in three weeks."
And do you know what he said to me then?

He said he was going to get a new leg, and then he was going to get some therapy, and then he was going to go back

to Iraq and fight alongside his buddies.
(APPLAUSE)
And you know what he said to

me then? You know what he said to me then?
SCHWARZENEGGER: He said, "Arnold, I'll be back."


(APPLAUSE)
Well, ladies and gentlemen, America is back -- back from the attack on

our homeland, back from the attack on our economy, and back from the attack on our way of life. We're back because

of the perseverance, character and leadership of the 43rd president of the United States, George W. Bush.


(APPLAUSE)
My fellow Americans, I want you to know that I believe with all my

heart that America remains the great idea that inspires the world. It's a privilege to be born here. It's an honor

to become a citizen here. It's a gift to raise your family here, to vote here, and to live here.


SCHWARZENEGGER: Our president, George W. Bush, has worked hard to protect and preserve the American

dream for all of us. And that's why I say, send him back to Washington for four more years.


SCHWARZENEGGER WITH AUDIENCE: Four more years. Four more years. Four more years. Four more years.

Four more years. Four more years.
SCHWARZENEGGER: Thank you, America. Thank you, and God bless you

all.
Thank you.

[koolking1]

time to start gearing up

for the Arnold-Hillary slugfest in '08.

[Pancho1188]

time to start

gearing up for the Arnold-Hillary slugfest in '08.

Then we just need the good Reverend Jesse Jackson, Colin

Powell, etc. to run again as a third party, and we'd have the most interesting presidential race in history: first

woman, first foreign-born citizen, and first African-American...wow...

...not only that---and correct me if I'm

wrong---but wouldn't that also mean three people whose primary focus in life hadn't been politics until much later

in life (Actor, Reverend, First Lady and whatever else she was before that...not sure, maybe it was

political...........okay, so scratch the founding fathers in case they apply)? Interesting...

...as impossible

as that seems, I wouldn't mind seeing the first and last happening...the middle, however, is risky due to

conspiracy theorists that someone could technically circumvent the system and become President almost like The

Manchurian Candidate...but I think that the current political system prevents someone from destroying the

government...

[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