Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Posted here Tuesday, October 05, 2004 at 9:05:01 PM     The debate - the main point will be that Edwards won because he was at least as good as Cheney, so the ticket has no glaring weakness. Cheney was tired, and hardly mentioned Bush. But to me it seemed like a manager, remote from operational realities, and a law school grad who has worked up a case with good skill, but also remote from .. what? from any deeper significance. I watched some of Dayshow and Sat Night live after Bush/Kerry and it seemed that there was a presence and awareness there that the candidates lack. The candidates are less real than the comedians. But the whole culture is in denial, and these are their leaders. I do think that Kerry and Edwards can bring more intelligence and energy as a team, with more open discussion and realism. But the inability to legitimate more - such as giving the Palestinians a role in the world, or dealing with a US surrounded by an ever larger world, costs, keeping the country unprepared for what has to happen. No mention of energy, us image in the world, nor, most important, the balance between good living, and living in fear of terror,  keeping the agenda focused on security and fear.  I would be happier if K/E would embrace that theme rather than avoid it. ********

Posted here Tuesday, October 05, 2004 at 4:13:26 PM     It seems to me that the pressure building up on the vice president is intense. We have Paul Bremmer's statement today about troops. We have the Palestine situation. We have the increasing violence in Iraq. We have the jobs report. We have with the withdrawal of Poland. Then there is the quoting from Rumsfeld yesterday about no hard evidence of a connection between Iraq al-Qaeda.   And, WASHINGTON Oct. 5, 2004 - The White House refused to say Tuesday whether the top US civilian official in Iraq after Saddam Hussein's ouster had asked the president for more troops to deal with the rapid descent of postwar Iraq into chaos.   So the debate is framed for  Edwards. Will Cheney just stonewall as mr nice guy ah shucks professional? ********

Posted here Tuesday, October 05, 2004 at 8:47:08 AM     The world is not more messy, but the messiness is more visible. Good signs. People are rethinking, and writing. We have Bremmer this morning, and http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=252914 I am an independent McCainiac who hopes to revive the Bull Moose tradition of Theodore Roosevelt, and I support the Kerry-Edwards agenda. Don't get me wrong -- this Bull Moose is not completely in agreement with the Democratic donkey. But the Bush administration has betrayed the effort to create a new politics of national greatness in the aftermath of 9/11. If John Kerry wins, it remains to be seen whether his administration will be more willing to break with its ideological base than a Bush team that has been slavishly loyal to its corporate paymasters. But there is no remaining shred of doubt that another four years of a Bush presidency would have a toxic effect on American politics. If George W. Bush is re-elected, unlimited corporate power, cynicism, and division will ride high in the saddle. In the past few years, there has been an effort by the neoconservative center-right to forge a new politics of national greatness. Although this new political perspective was never spelled out in specifics, its adherents (including me) envisioned an energetic federal government that would implement a foreign policy advancing American interests and human rights, along with a domestic policy that would promote national service, and an economics focused on benefiting the middle class. Our model was Theodore Roosevelt, the original Bull Moose, who did not flinch from taking on the special interests at home while aggressively promoting American interests abroad. The modern champion of conservatives for national greatness is Sen. John McCain. In the 2000 campaign, he advocated rogue state rollback, reform of government, an economic plan that focused on middle-class tax relief, and national service. He inspired Americans "to enlist in causes greater than their self-interest." Of course, the Republican establishment rallied behind Bush, who used "compassionate conservatism" rhetoric to hide a corporate conservatism agenda. In Bush, the GOP moneyed establishment saw a candidate who served its self-interest, comforting the comfortable and catering to fat-cat contributors -- the new Republican base. ********