D.E.M.S.K.G.L.G.K..... A non-con discussion!

jjorge - just put this in oyur blog site.

Copycat gbush - but what a difference!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11609-2003Aug18.html

The Nation

Posted August 14, 2003
STOP THE PRESSES by ERIC ALTERMAN
Posted August 14, 2003

Patriotic Gore

The words "Al Gore" are properly understood to be synonymous with the words "cautious politician." And yet speaking to MoveOn.org at New York University recently, Gore gave voice to some plain-spoken truths that were just about unsayable in the mass media until he said them. Gore accused George W. Bush of undertaking "a systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology that is felt to be more important than the mandates of basic honesty." The President, he said, was "pursuing policies chosen in advance of the facts--policies designed to benefit friends and supporters--and [using] tactics that deprived the American people of any opportunity to effectively subject his arguments to the kind of informed scrutiny that is essential in our system of checks and balances." To top it all off, Gore nervily quoted George Akerlof, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize for Economics, who told Der Spiegel, "This is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history."

The reaction was as swift as it was predictable. Recalling the hysterics of late Washington Post columnist Michael Kelly, who termed Gore's September 2002 antiwar speech to be "dishonest, cheap, low...hollow...wretched...vile...contemptible...a lie...a disgrace...equal parts mendacity, viciousness and smarm," Post editors accused Gore of leading his party "off a cliff" and "validat[ing] just about every conspiratorial theory of the antiwar left."

Yet on the very same day that these good citizens of Quinn-Broderville were fulminating about Al Gore, Post reporters Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus published a 5,331-word report detailing how Bush and his aides "made allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat than the data they had would support...withheld evidence that did not conform to their views," and "seldom corrected misstatements."

Ignoring the facts on page one of its own newspaper to launch ideologically inspired attacks on the truth is a time-honored tactic for the wingnuts who run the Wall Street Journal editorial page, but it is dismaying to see the same phenomenon taking hold at the Post--an editorial page that was considered "liberal" so recently that The American Prospect's new editor, Michael Tomasky, mistakenly included it as such in his recent study of the relative ferocity of conservatives versus liberals.

It's worth noting, by contrast, that in Britain, Tony Blair is on the ropes for offenses against democracy that--while significant--pale in comparison to Bush's. Blair faces an aggressive, independent-minded media whose members consider it their job, in the words of the BBC's head of newsgathering, Adrian Van Klaveren, "to question governments...to hold governments to account.... This is not passive journalism. This is about trying to get information which others don't want us to know."

As Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger says, "The BBC is easily the most trusted institution in the country, and you feel like the government and the right-wing media almost want to bring it down." Indeed, the conservative campaign against the BBC is quite similar to that against the New York Times, with the difference that it has been more energetically earned. Bush is still riding high in this country in part because we lack institutions like the BBC and the Guardian--that is, a press that is not shy about inviting right-wing opprobrium as it carries out its mission of holding the government accountable for its actions.

Here, the mainstream media almost always allow the Bush Administration to lie without consequence. It's not that lies go unnoticed; it's just that it's considered bad manners to worry about so silly an issue--and never more so than when those lies are deployed to justify a needless war. Even frequent Bush apologist Howard "Conflict of Interest" Kurtz could not help noticing that when Bush said, "Did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is: absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in," his answer bore "no relation to reality." He asked his guest on CNN's Reliable Sources, "Why has that not been more made of by the press?" The Post's Dana Milbank, who has established a deserved reputation as the toughest of all the regular White House correspondents, answers, "I think what people basically decided was this is just the President being the President. Occasionally he plays the wrong track and something comes out quite wrong. He is under a great deal of pressure."

There you have it. An American President is said to be "under a great deal of pressure"--unlike, say, Bill Clinton--and so the Washington press corps decide that "people" prefer that he not be held accountable even for his own deceitful words. No wonder that, as Rusbridger notes, the Guardian website is now serving the news needs of 2 million US readers per month, while BBC viewership here is also skyrocketing. These people are saying, "We can't get this kind of thing in America," says Rusbridger. He was here for a conference on war reporting the newspaper organized together with New York magazine and the New School's World Policy Institute. I asked Rusbridger if he happened to witness the famous Bush press conference where White House reporters happily acted as props for what was clearly a Karl Rove propaganda exercise. He said he found it "appalling," actually cringed watching it and wondered "how any information ever gets out at all."
It's not as if the information we need to judge our government is kept from us. The reporters are, for the most part, doing their jobs. But as the Guardian's New York correspondent, Gary Younge, pointed out to the New School audience, "In the political context in America, there weren't that many takers for certain kinds of information." Indeed, you can learn what liars the members of the Bush Administration are on the front page of the Washington Post. But if you say so aloud, be prepared to be smeared as "paranoid" by the paper's editors.

The Guardian's announcement that it's exploring the US market for a possible launch couldn't come at a more propitious moment. Here's hoping they come over and deliver to our media the kick in the arse they have worked so hard to deserve.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030901&s=alterman

BillW read my mind. I am fairly ignorant of domestic politics so if all of you would allow me to pick your brain:

What would it take to get Al Gore to throw his hat into the ring? Dean has the high profile now but does his campaign really have legs? Dean has admitted his popularity is mostly due to his angry young man routine but I am unsure how far that righteous indignation can carry any candidate.

Dean almost seems viable but answering this question may prove educational: If Al decided to run today who would the Democrats back?

Given the Dems must ultimately wrestle with the ability of their chosen one to be elected, I have some thoughts.

Regarding military records (IMO an important perception) Dean is at a disadvantage given Bush actually spent some time in a uniform (before the aircraft carrier incident) whereas Dean never was fitted for one. Dean's aides would be wise to keep him away from tanks and those oversized helmets their commanders wear.

Gephardt has something there with the National Health bill paid for by repealing the tax cuts loathed by the Dems but is this important enough to Dems (let alone the American public) for him to ride at least to the Convention?

Kerry looks like the best choice at this point, Vietnam Vet, Years of experience as a Federal legislator, and rides a big-ass motorcycle. The rest of the field seems merely "also rans".

Bush has the High Ground. He is the incumbent and has all that money in his war chest (This has caused him to think he might again be able to refuse the matching federal election funds and enable him to make his end run around federal election fund restrictions, again).

As it stands now Bush will win the next election barring unforeseen circumstances, like the economy appearing to have tanked. That is the one thing the American people are extremely sensitive to. Foreign affairs are off in the distant mist until untoward conditions produce a "trickle down" effect of the domestic economy. Iraq turning sour may also be on the Democratic wish list but less so than the economy going south.

I personally do not feel betrayed by this administration for the simple reason that I never expected many positive things to come of it. Many say it is too soon to judge events in Iraq but we do have the Afghanistan model to perhaps compare with. I still feel the West has an excellent opportunity to influence the ME nations in a positive way that would make all our lives better. However using the designation of "The West" implies more than U.S. unilateralism, which is only slowly being implemented as we speak. I have High hopes...but I digress.

If the Dems want to win this one badly enough they will immediately work to pick a front-runner and throw all their support, especially financial, behind Al Gore. But Al is a smart man, so what would it take to get him to run?

JM

Al Gore has said repeatedly he is not running. I'm taking him at his word. There is nothing to be gained for Democrats by positing 'what if he runs'.



You need to acquaint yourself with Bush's military record. Start here, and if you need more let me know.



Look closer. You again appear to have judged with insufficient data.

Carol Mosely Braun would make a better President than the current Squatter-in-Chief (of course that's JMO).



Well, I think you're wrong. Imagine that.

Bush's high-water mark relative to votes cast was still over half a million shy of Gore's in 2000. Democrats have gotten many more votes than the Republicans in the last three Presidential elections despite a monetary disadvantage.

The people still hear the truth.

Unless the Republicans can suppress the minority vote in Florida again, or successfully manipulate enough ballots electronically, they will be washed out with the tide in 2004. It doesn't matter how much money Bush spends. The people have a real good sense of the fraud perpetrated upon them by this gang of thugs, and won't be willing to stand for any more of it by the time the election rolls around.



A little history here. In the summer of 1991, the only declared Democratic candidate was...Paul Tsongas.

A Bush coming off a victory in Iraq was President then, too. And seemed much more invincible than his son does now.

These nine candidates, soon to be joined by a Rhodes scholar from Arkansas (another bit of history repeating itself) are eminently more qualified than their adversary. The process of winnowing to even three or four at this point--Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Graham, let's say--is invigorating the party, its message, and its eventual nominee. You seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge that.

This forum is for Progressives. What are you doing here??

JM,

9 Dem candidates do not hurt anything unless they hurt each other - which they really haven't yet. As a matter of fact, they present a louder voice.

I don't think Gore will come out either. There would have to be a huge ground swell that I don't think is gonna occur.

What you have said, in my view, is that it is ok for the Repubs to lie, cheat and be chickenhawks - but the Dems have to be square. It is a fact that Bush's numbers have been going down and for a sitting unPres to be where he is today, it is virtually even - and this is against any Dem

Hi James

Good to see you here! We usually don't agree, but you always have a lot of sensible stuff to say, and its usually pretty independent-minded/non-partisan. Your post sounds realistic enough - alas, I have to say, from my POV.



IMHO, Gore stepping back into the race would be the very worst thing that could happen. He would have the authority and recognition-value to throw all the other candidates into the background, squashing the promising Dean advent and a possible Kerry nomination. They probably wouldnt dare attack him like they attack each other, either, which would threaten to de facto close down the primaries - even if, and there is the crux, many Dems wouldnt exactly be happy with a Gore nomination either.

No matter what his "pro"s were back in 2000, he has one big "con" now - he already tried before, and he lost. Yes, I know, he really did win, kinda - in terms of the popular vote, in any case - except he didn't. (And the NYT-sponsored 2001 journalists' recount indicated that even if the full Florida recount had taken place, Gore still would have lost the state).

Some of us are still angry about what happened back then, bitter, even, and definitely resentful - and justifiably so. But that is not a sentiment shared by the majority of voters, and even if justified, not one that appeals to a great many voters either. Some people like taking revenge - but most people dont like people who like taking revenge - no matter what the cause.

Back in the 1890's, a Democratic presidential candidate already tried the re-run thing (just to throw in my own bit of history, PDiddie). His supporters were adamant; he was combative; he was one hell of a campaigner; and he almost won, the first time round (47 to 51%). The second time, he was just that little much further behind (46 to 52%). The third time round, he was soundly beaten (43 to 52%). His name was Bryan. I don't think anyone after him tried a second run when they were beaten the first time round. No, thats not true. There was Dewey. And Adlai Stevenson. Both were beaten. Twice.

History is history. For better or for worse, most people dont like to look back. And Gore himself would take it all way too seriously, after the humiliation of 2000, and that would add to his notorious lack of an effective sense of humour and relativation. And Gore simply did a bad job in 2000, squandering a victory that should have been so easy to attain - managing to alienate voters both on the left and in the center.

Well, etc.



You seem to have gotten vilified here for this paragraph, but of course - I'm afraid - at the moment it is still the obvious observation to make. Bush is still clearly ahead in the polls - despite the Iraq fiasco. Considering the way in which the US mass media report on the whole matter, Joe Average who only listens with half an ear will not be "shaken awake" about it until casualty rates reach Vietnam-style numbers. And they are not even close, yet. Despite all the fervour with which us lefties try to bolster each other's confidence about future Dem opportunities on threads like these - as long as the economy doesnt get into problems with a more immediate impact than the current ones, Bush will be a hard man to beat.

Here's to hoping he will be beaten, nevertheless ;-).

And your desire for multilateralism in foreign policy is observed with appreciation by this European poster ;-).

I disagree with this. No matter where Bush has been in the past, he has always had the low ground. He has always had to fight for position from a defensive stand point. That is one of the reasons his marks flucate so badly. They realize that he is always fighting a 50/50 electorate no matter where he stands in the polls.

Rove has to work all the time because everything they do is negative, they put pretty names on his "policies', but in a short time everything turns into lies they really are and there has to be another #1 issue to take the place of the recriminations.

You're right, Bill. I sense James may have meant "high ground" in a purely strategic (not so much moral or political sense). Bush does have to fight for every atom of support BUT he has the advantage of money, incumbency and (up until recently) the media. The gradual change in the attitudes of the latter make his boat leaky. Whether Rove is bailing like crazy or has something on board to fix the leak, we don't know yet.

Tartarin, he still has the media - mainstream. I see fighting in the inner circles of media outlets that their neo-cons diss their left wing arm and continually win the fights. The only large media outlet that pushes a left agenda is the NY Times. I'm really a centerist and want a total balanced view, let me make the decisions!

There is a flight to foreign press (especially BBC and The Guardian) for full reporting. The thing that upsets me the most is that the media is not "lying"; they're just not fully reporting everything. BTW, I consider this a bold face lie - whether it be Bush or (for shame) the media!

Point well taken on JM/high ground, it is an angle I hadn't look at! But, I can find no positives for the Bushites, not even one - isn't it sad. Even his comments on the UN bombing in Iraq were bombastic and self serving. What an arrogant egotist!

We definitely shouldn't MisUnderestimate Bush. I heard a commentator once again saying something with which I wholly agree: to underestimate him would be to make a big mistake. His misuse of words is often deliberate, is eaten up and loved by people who resent Eastern academicisms and love a guy who is rich and doesn't play by intellectual rules. Nothing Bush does -- NOTHING -- is ad lib, off hand, or unplanned.

Also, we must not OVERestimate him!

You know Tartarin, we've been here before. I understand what you write, but I don't buy it - completely.

I mean, I agree with "We definitely shouldn't MisUnderestimate Bush." for sure. But I disagree with "Nothing Bush does -- NOTHING -- is ad lib, off hand, or unplanned." and "His misuse of words is often deliberate".

I don't believe he has the intelligence to mastermind word screw ups. When he does make one he revisits it later; but, the guy is stupid - he can't create. Carl Rove creates the persona and orchestrates the situations.

The only thing they instill in Bush (and he is great at this) is staying on message. He does this to a point that shows his lack of depth. But, interviewers are not allowed to go beyond staged requirements - they will not ever get a second chance.

It is sad where we have gone in the Presidental image - from a philanderer to a stupid, egotistical jerk <sigh>

Betcha, Bill... Watch his accent change, depending on who he's talking with.

No way to collect on either side. Snide case 1....Snide case n - only way he knows how to talk

A man does not go as far as Bush has gotten by being a moron; however, let's not fall into the common human error of believing someone is completely good or bad, smart or stupid, savvy or dull. Bush has smarts or abilities in some areas and is (words fail me here) incredibly stupid in others. The most obvious case in point being the Iraqi war. As this mess proceeds, I can not see one point on which Bush has been right or one thing that he said would happen that has worked out. It is the most embarrassing, humiliating, ignominious fiasco in which this country has ever been involved.

Tartarin and BillW, it is my opinion that the media ought to be on Bush like terrorists on a US Baghdad patrol. They beat around the bush, so to speak, pointing out his various criminal acts as it they were mere foibles. I wouldn't exactly call it milk sop coverage, but it's certainly not steak and potatoes.

Hazlitt - he may not be a moron, but he certainly has a lot of empty space upstairs. And yes, he certainly can get that far. Look what happened. The republicans needed a name, and while Poppy may not be a genius, he was respected and regarded as a person. So, Bush got selected, after having been carefully packaged and presented by a professional team, and after the bully Baker had gone to Florida to make sure. And remember how the nation rejoiced, when Uncle Don and Uncle Dick were announced as chief advisors, so the inexperienced little nephew george would have some learning room and time. And how they cultivated that down-home, aw shucks image.

It's sort of like the Frankenstein story, only everybody's a baddie. What riles me is the ever growing evidence that there isn't one there who gives a fig about what happens to the country or its people.

This Iraqi mess may end the whole thing. I just can't see a good way out. And if that happens, will we want to keep the same people who created it in power? I think the same over-estimate - under-estimate thing can be applied to the American people.

<grins>

funny, and right on target, alas.

Bush was ridiculed when he started campaigning. In fact, the ridicule just cumulated as he went on. But he won (or almost won) an election that should have been a shoo-in for Gore, anyway.

He is a very good campaigner, in the sense that every thing that he does that makes us cry out: - oh, how incredibly stupid he is, how can he SAY such a thing - actually appeals to a sizable chunk of "undecided" electorate, thats more struck by the "aw shucks" factor than by the where and how of who said what about niger and uranium. I dont know whether thats actually carefully honed like you say, as well - could well be - but thats how it is, in any case. And the opposition'll just have to take that into account and think of clever strategies to deal with it, instead of just sighing to each other, well, thats just so stupid its bound to fail in the end - cause it might well not.

It is now being said that Schwarzenegger is being handled in precisely the same way as Bush. Arnold is smarter than he is stupid, but he's a tad naive, has fallen in with Schultz and Buffett, and is being used, LOVES being used (as Reagan did), LOVES being surrounded by all these powerful guys. Orrin Hatch is putting foward (or has already?) a resolution to allow the foreign-born to become president. Same opiner who said this believes that Rudy Guliani is being readied for 2008 for a four year term.

I'm on the same side as Hazlitt and Nimh when it comes to Bush's "stupidity." I'm more worried about OUR stupidity if we don't try to understand what's going on, how Bush's appearance of stupidity is being used. Arnold is in the wings...

Well - I guess faith-based was aimed at me. I've got faith.

Of course, when I think of all the people I had faith in....................

Tart - when it comes to Arnold - watch and listen. It is repetition that is frightening. But his ambition is greater than Bush's.

Well - I guess faith-based was aimed at me. I've got faith.

Of course, when I think of all the people I had faith in....................

Tart - when it comes to Arnold - watch and listen. It is repetition that is frightening. But his ambition is greater than Bush's.