Posted on 08/14/2004 4:01:40 AM PDT by Happygal
With only a few more weeks to run before the Presidential debate the American campaign - especially the Presidential campaign - is now hotting up.
As part of the hotting up process, inevitably a certain amount of partisan nonsense gets talked, and people should not normally be unduly disturbed by the nonsense.
But a piece released by the Guardian service (London) and printed in the Irish Times on Friday - that is yesterday, by the time you get to read this - goes far beyond the normally acceptable levels allowed to even nonsense.
The piece is headed: 'The GOP elephant is tottering. George W. Bush did not make a new coalition or offer a refreshed Republicanism. The Republican Party that Nixon built is crumbling, and Bush can do little about it, writes Sidney Blumenthal.'
Sidney Blumenthal is identified as a former senior adviser to President Clinton, which is hardly surprising.
Blumenthal writes that 'George Bush came to power as a result only of a flawed Democratic strategy in 2000 and even then he lost the popular majority and had to rely upon a skewed Supreme Court to install him in office'.
That is indeed a fair enough account of how George W. Bush was made President by a vote of the Supreme Court after having narrowly failed to win a popular majority of the electorate.
Fair enough, but Blumenthal fails to allude directly to what happened at the next major electoral contest in the United States, the mid-term elections of 2002.
What happened was that George Bush fought a brilliant and exhausting political campaign for all the Republican candidates throughout the United States.
The result of those elections was an electoral triumph for the Republicans who have ever since been in control of both Houses of Congress.
Mr Blumenthal, of course, has to be perfectly aware of all that, as all politically-conscious Americans have to be, but it doesn't suit his book, so he passes it over in uneasy silence.
There are many other partisan absurdities in this lamentable article. The most conspicuous of these absurdities concerns the electoral results in California in 2002. Blumenthal writes: 'California, the home state of Nixon and Reagan, has disappeared from the Republican coalition. Its demographic transformation, especially the ever-expanding Hispanic electorate (two to one Democratic), post-industrial economy and social liberalism made it a forerunner of the future. Bush is so far behind in California that there is no campaign there whatsoever.'
It all sounds very up-to-date and well-informed, does it not? It does indeed, yet it is demonstrably total nonsense.
The present Governor of California, was elected in 2002 with the active support of President Bush, who campaigned for him in the State, and toured the State with the new Governor immediately after his election. The new Governor pledged his support for the re-election of President Bush immediately after his own election as Governor. He has recently renewed his pledge of support for the re-election of the President.
The only reason there is little discussion of the topic in California at present is that Californians assume that their State, on the advice of their Governor, will support the re-election of President Bush. As I believe will be shown to be the case.
I shall now leave Mr Blumenthal's unfortunate essay there, noting only that I have never before read a political article in an up-market publication that contained so many misstatements cloaked in pretentious rubbish.
Now, let us take a look at the current coverage of the Presidential election campaign in the American press. In the New York Times on Friday - 'yesterday' for you by the time you read this - David E. Sanger wrote: 'All this week, as the long-distance arguments between President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry have focused on the wisdom of invading Iraq, Kerry has struggled to convince his audiences that his vote to authorise the President to use military force was a far cry from voting for a declaration of war. So far, his aides and advisers concede that he has failed to get his message across, as Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have mocked his efforts as "a new nuance" that amounts to another example of the Senator's waffling.'
Meanwhile the President's attractive and able wife, Laura Bush was making an effective major political debut. As Randy Kennedy notes, in a piece on Laura in Friday's New York Times, Laura's campaign has generated far fewer headlines than that of her husband's other main surrogate, Vice-President Dick Cheney. Kennedy goes on: 'But as she begins several weeks of solo barnstorming in states crucial for her husband's re-election, Laura Bush is becoming an increasingly visible and effective part of White House strategy, largely because she is seen as someone above the rough-and-tumble of the political fray. In the last four months, she has been steadily raising her profile, projecting an image much more assertive and assured than she did during the 2000 campaign. She has also proved to be a formidable fund-raiser, generating $10m for the campaign this year while speaking at a dozen events from Maine to Missouri.
'And less than three weeks from now, in what will undoubtedly be her most important public moment of the 2004 campaign, she will give one of the prime-time speeches at the Republican National Convention in New York. (Her every handshake, smile and speech on the campaign trail are being recorded for a videotape that will be shown as she is introduced at Madison Square Garden).
'She is clearly aware of her image as a first lady who has not been involved in policy making or political infighting and she assiduously avoids contentious issues, never referring to her husband's opponent. Instead she delivered reliable applause lines this week to groups of women who own small businesses in Ohio, Wisconsin and Minnesota, reminding them that a woman, Condoleza Rice advised her husband on foreign policy and another, Margaret Spellings advised him on domestic policy.
'This means that in the White House women are in charge of everything abroad and everything at home' she said, breaking into a smile 'which sounds just about right to me'.
Another person who will play a very significant part in the Republican Convention is ex-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York. Giuilani intends, in his address to the Convention to concentrate on the Sept 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and other nearby targets.
'The terrorist attack is the single most significant event that has happened in the last four years, and is maybe one of the most important events in our history.
'So it has to be an issue in the election. Not discussing it would be like contesting an election for Abraham Lincoln and not discussing the Civil War'.
Giuliani is a hero to all New Yorkers, for his courageous role at the time of the terrorist attacks on the city, and he will certainly play a starring role at the Republican Convention.
I think that after the Convention - and after the agreed televised debates between the two Presidential candidates - it will speedily become absolutely clear that George W. Bush is about to be re-elected President of the United States.
Thanks for the post. Bush will get 58%.
O'ping! :-)
YES, YES AND YES! The race goes not to quickest but to the steadiest. And this is no ordinary time and we need the steady leadership of a proven President. And that man, Freepers, Friends and Fellow Americans - is President George W. Bush!!!
Uh, no it isn't, since our president is not elected by popular vote. In 2000, the electoral votes of ONE state were in dispute.
Otherwise, a good read.
And I like the phrase "hotting up". LOL
Yeah, I thought that too. Maybe explaining the electoral college system is a bit too complicated for us Proportional Representation voters in Ireland. ;-)
Thanks for posting the piece. Blumenthal is just one more Clintonista dedicated to the rehabilitation and revision of Clinton's "legacy". Nobody with a IQ larger than their shoe size buys any of the Clintonista tripe, but the RATS feed on it and their hate for GWB like, well, like rats. They are in for such a disappointment come November, and I can't wait for the chance to rub it in.
For those interested, there's more about Sid Vicious here:
-Liars-- and Sleaze, Incorporated... ( my files on the clintons and friends )--
*********
One final note on George W. Bush’s management style and his Harvard Business School background does not derive from the classroom, per se. One feature of life there is that a subculture of poker players exists. Poker is a natural fit with the inclinations, talents, and skills of many future entrepreneurs. A close reading of the odds, combined with the ability to out-psych the opposition, leads to capital accumulation in many fields, aside from the poker table.
By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student. One of the secrets of a successful poker player is to encourage your opponent to bet a lot of chips on a losing hand. This is a pattern of behavior one sees repeatedly in George W. Bush’s political career. He is not one to loudly proclaim his strengths at the beginning of a campaign. Instead, he bides his time, does not respond forcefully, a least at first, to critiques from his enemies, no matter how loud and annoying they get. If anything, this apparent passivity only goads them into making their case more emphatically.
Only time will tell, whether Saddam ever had any WMDs. Their non-existence has not been proven. Only time will tell whether or not Osama bin Laden (or his corpse) will be taken into custody by American Troops. Only time will tell whether or not Iraq will continue to make progress toward a transition toward a peaceful democratic government. George W. Bush knows much more information about these topics than his domestic political opponents do. At the moment, they are betting a lot of their chips on one side of these questions.
We will see by November who has the winning hand.
*******
I think G.W. has the cards. Too bad Dimocrats!
That is indeed a fair enough account of how George W. Bush was made President by a vote of the Supreme Court after having narrowly failed to win a popular majority of the electorate.
No, that is NOT a fair account of how George W. Bush became President. In the first place, the only reason the Supreme Court was involved at all was that the Florida Supreme Court decided to completely ignore Florida law as written by the Florida Legislature and make up their own "law". The U.S. Supreme court, in ever so nice language, told them they cannot do that.
In the second place, the writer doesn't seem to know that it's the Electoral College votes that count, not the popular vote. Sigh.
Other than misunderstanding exactly what happened in Florida in 2000, and not realizing that the Governator was elected last year, this is a pretty good assessment of what I think is going to happen over the next two and a half months.
But here it is after the DNC convention and not only does Kerry not have a double-digit lead over Bush (as Dukakis did in 1988, for example), but Bush actually has a small lead!
This is why the lamestream media have not been pushing polls on us lately. Because it doesn't look good for their guy. So the best they can do is make it seem like a close race when in fact, Bush is already pulling away and Kerry is fading into obscurity.
Where is Kerry and Edwards lately? They've been keeping a lower profile then Dole/Kemp at this time in '96!
The fact that Bush is opening up a lead two weeks before his own convention is absolutely devastating to the Democrats. Kerry has lost the momentum (if he had any) and Bush now has the national stage.
The only thing Kerry has going for him is that his sad-sack face will not be featured on national TV again until the debates in the fall. He might at least stop losing support until that time.
S'okay. It's obviously too complicated for half the United States to grasp, as well.
A clear-eyed, on-the-money view from the Emerald Isle. Thanks, and best to you...
The History Channel had a great piece on the Harvard poker players not too long ago. Seems they tore a hole through Atlantic City and Vegas before either burning out or being barred from the casinos.
The article places some significance on the fact that W did not gain a majority of the votes. However, one never hears that in reference to Clinton, who did not receive a majority in two elections. In fact, I seem to remember that W actually received a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton did in his first election. Yet Clinton was the darling of the left Europeans and could do no wrong in their eyes, even though he was so bad he made Jimmy Carter look like a statesman.
I am cheered by the article though. I hope he's right.
Sounds interesting.
Iz 'at En'lish or Irish?
-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)
I didn't know that!
Great, another stick for me to beat my lib friends with! :-)
"Chin up Happy. I got my hand back. ' we've only just...'" Sorry, I've been saying that. It's from Happy Gilmore. I think Kerry is well past his high water mark and will soon be coming upon a drought, with the RNC coming up, then will simply go down in flames in the debates.
I'z be 100 pur sent Paddy! ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.