Sunday, March 12, 2006

Sunday Madness

The March Hares in the White House are about to launch another sales campaign. From WaPo's Michael A. Fletcher:
President Bush plans to begin a series of speeches next week again explaining the administration's strategy for winning the war in Iraq, as the White House returns to a familiar tactic to allay growing public pessimism about the war that has helped keep the president's approval rating near its historic low…

… The president hopes to give "better depth, understanding and context for how the strategy in Iraq is unfolding," a senior White House official said of the planned speeches. Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other Cabinet members will be making speeches on Iraq in advance of the anniversary of the U.S. invasion.

"Better depth, understanding and context" doubtless means saying "nine eleven" twice as much as before. Fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. No cut and run. Scapegoating and Swift Boating. Total victory.

And the whole cadre of polly cracker cheerleaders echoing the message.

Hit 'em on the left! Hit 'em on the right! Stand up! Stand down! Fight! Fight! Fight!

10 comments:

  1. And don't forget to be with us or against us.

    And don't forget the Poles.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is my observation on our intreped leader:

    Bush used security as a trump card to justify just about every questionable action that his administration has taken. But security and big business have never been in conflict with one another before. With the Dubai World Ports deal, security and big business came into conflict in the public forum for the first time in Bush's presidency. And for the first time, security lost.

    If the Dems can paint this as a definitive example of how the Bush administration's first priority is to big business, and that it even trumps security, then they might have a chance at discrediting Bush "saying 'nine eleven' twice as much as before."

    Of course, that would mean the Dems working together and speaking with one voice. But that's always been the hurdle for the Democrats to overcome. As Will Rogers once said, "I belong to no organized political part. I am a Democrat."

    If the Dems can't pick up either the House or Senate in November, amid all of the Republican scandals in the media right now, I don't think they have much of a chance of recovering as a viable political entity.

    And then it will just be game, set, and match for the Republicans, until the Whigs reconstitute their base.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If the Dems can't get back on track between now and the '08 elections, I think Alan Greenspans comments about the ripeness for a moderate 3d party are going to be borne out. Right now, I think the majority in this country are picking waht they consider the lesser of two evils, and the Dems have bungled things badly enough that many people seemed to think in '04 that this was still the GOP. We'll see how '06 turns out, but I think the vast majority in this country would actively support a moderate party if one became viable. The trick is viability. It's a bit of a chicken and egg issue, because if you don't have a chance you don't get the votes (voters make a mistake in that regard) and if you don't get the votes you don't have a chance. :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sadiq,

    I'm becoming less and less willing to bash the Dems lately. I don't want them turning into a lockstep party like the GOP is.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sadly, Jeff, lockstep may be a necessity in order to overcome the damage done by political moles like Zell Miller, Joe Liebermann and Joe Biden. Of the three, Biden probably has some Democratic instincts in his heart, but he's relied on the Banking Industry's moeny for so long that he just can't quit them.

    The only way we can have truly free elections is with a much shorter electoral season, like they do in civilized countries, a return of the Fairness Doctrine, and with campaigns solely financed by public funds.

    The bribery has become just too blatant and disgraceful.

    ReplyDelete
  6. fbg466:12 PM

    Here's an idea: Dear Leader can just send the video of his "Strategy for Victory" speech at Annapolis the other week instead of actually going anywhere himself.

    He can use the time saved for vacationing at the Ranch.

    This is what happens when a glorified corporate pitch man becomes President: he's all about new ad campaigns and leaves the after - sales service to somebody else.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey...the guy made a carrier landing...he must know his shit!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jeff,

    You won't EVER have to worry about the Dems becoming a lockstep party. It goes against the definition of being liberal. Conservatives can march lockstep because they agree on a fundamental paradigm, the traditional status quo, which is what they are trying to Conserve (it's right there in the name). Liberals, by definition, want to change from the traditional status quo, to evolve from it. Since there are any number of ways in which you can move the country, but only one way (generally) in which you can preserve the traditional status quo, you will always have a plurality of positions among the liberals while you have more or less a singularity of opinion among conservatives.

    But there's a difference between being a lockstep party and voting en masse on certain issues. If the Dems can get back to their middle 20th century roots and choose the one best option to support as a group, rather than vote three different ways on an issue that has four different options, they can effectively leverage their block vote to take control of issues that matter to them as a collective. Or, I should say, they WILL be able to leverage their vote once they control SOMETHING in the legislature.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Middle 20th century roots? Like blocking the civil rights act in the 50s and trying to stop it again in the 60s? That doesn't seem like it would be a wise move ;)

    ReplyDelete
  10. heh... well, we were always the big tent party... one big, white tent....

    Okay, so there are some reprehensible aspects of the history of the Democrats. Touche. The point that I was TRYING to make was not about what social agendae the Democrats were supporting, but rather the way in which they functioned as a collective on the big issues and worked together. Of course, it was Johnson, a Democrat, who handed the South over to the Republicans for the next forty years.... What was it that he did, again?

    ReplyDelete