Bush will get a good bounce

I’m guessing 3 to 5 points. Arnold is giving a sensational speech. Not a word of it is true, but it’s brilliant. And he’s delivering it with dazzling oratory. All the speakers are remaining relentlessly on-message, and the mood in the hall can only be described as euphoric. It’s working.

Bush may win, I’m resigned to that possibility. It’s definitely still a toss-up, but it looks like their strategy of putting forth the moderate faces of the party who believe in many things in direct opposition to their platform is working. Sure it’s misleading and deceptive, but hell, it’s working and Rove knew it would.

It’s as though they are describing a world in another universe. A world where the economy is soaring and prosperity waits “just around the corner.” A world where there’s no Abu Ghraib, no Guantanamo Bay, no incredibly bloody war raging in Iraq. A world where we’re on the verge of winning the war on terror (whatever that is) and where everyone’s safer because a powerless old dictator is now in prison. A world where good old American know-how, can-do attitude and elbow grease will solve all our woes.

Unfortunately, I know how susceptible some Americans can be to this kind of crap, so I have to face reality. As I said, it’s working.

The best we can do is to jam the air waves with our message, reminding people what’s really going on, reminding them that jazzy slogans and manipulative speeches mean little for Americans on the ground, be they fighting militants in Fallujah or scraping for work in Buffalo. Virtually everything shrub has done has been a calamity, from his No Child Left behind canard to his magnificent tax cuts for those who need them least to his dragging us into the most pitifully unnecessary war since Vietnam. But, he never waivers, he stands firm, he gave a good speech after 911 and he can be folksy and adorable.

911. I hope you all watched the convention last night as the party milked the slaughterfest for every ounce of bathos it was worth. It was the entire theme: bush was brave in the wake of the great attack on America. Funny, how to the best of my recollection he was reading My Pet Goat when told of the attack, and sat there squirming like a frightened child. And then, did our feckless leader go to Washington to set an example of courage? No, he flew away, not to be heard of for the entire day. And then, after doing the right thing, the only thing possible — going to war with Afgahnistan — what did he do? He launched a war based on an old feudal grudge and brought the “war on terror” to a grinding and permanent halt. And we are just as vulnerable today, though our personal freedoms have been compromised and the quality of life in general has been drastically reduced.

Okay, I’ll go listen to Laura tell us how great things are now in Afghanistan (never mind that the Taliban are on the rise and the country’s for all intents and purposes has fallen into civil war).

Remember, don’t let the volume decrease. Jam the airwaves. Remind people of the difference between perception and reality. Don’t let them forget that what bush is doing to Kerry now is exactly what he did to McCain in 2000. And remind them that when McCain asked Kerry to pull an ad he deemed offensive, Kerry promptly did so. McCain asked bush to condemn the SBVFT ad, and bush was silent. Which is the better man, the man of greater integrity and conscience, bush or Kerry? Take away the fireworks and the spectacle, and bush is nothing but a fool, a scared and spoiled kid, with the power to destroy life on earth. If he can pack the Supreme Court with his choices, none of us will be safe for a generation to come. People have to get this.

______________

Richard Burger is the author of Behind the Red Door: Sex in China, an exploration of China's sexual revolution and its clash with traditional Chinese values.

The Discussion: 18 Comments

Well put.

However, Kerry must carry the burden. He must elevate the level of his campaign to talk about how Bush and his speaking partners are saying, as you point out, one thing but the reality is another. How to capture that for the media to lock on to is the problem for Kerry.

August 31, 2004 @ 9:18 pm | Comment

I bet if Arnold ran for president people would vote for him just on the novelty value, lets get him the next party nomination. Not that the land of freedom and equality allows foreign born US citizens to run for president. What’s up with that anyway?

August 31, 2004 @ 10:03 pm | Comment

Actually, Sen. Orrin Hatch has proposed a constitutional amendment to change that so that an immigrant that has been in a citizen for 20 years can run. Coincidentally (hah), that’s how long Arnold has been a citizen.

August 31, 2004 @ 10:08 pm | Comment

Oooh. Rise of the machines.

The machines are rising. Heh.

August 31, 2004 @ 10:34 pm | Comment

Peking Duck?? I thought this was a blog site about China. My mistake.

August 31, 2004 @ 10:39 pm | Comment

AGB:

The Constitutional provision was included because, at the time the document was written, there was a well established history of Eurpoean powers installing foreign-born puppets at the head of weaker countries. It was a perfectly rational concern at the time. It is now outdated but, one of the great strengths of the US system is that the Consititution is NOT easily amended.

BTW, Richard, you’re already resorting to the refrain of every disasterous Democratic candidate: “”the American people are stupid and dupes.”?

The race is over, the medal tossing fabulist is toast, and I stand to make a 100% return on my Iowa Presidential Election Options, which will be taxed at the permanantly reduced Bush tax rates.

Ain’t life grand!

September 1, 2004 @ 1:15 am | Comment

Has anybody ever tried to change the consitution, there is no risk of a foreign power putting in a puppet government in todays USA.

Is there still a concern about a foreign born presidents or is it just not worth the paper work to try.

Exactly how America does somebody have to be, would the son of a veteran born out of wedlock in South Korea to a Korean prostitue during the war count, or would it have to be somebody born to two US citizens inside the continental USA.

What about somebody born on an India reserve?

Aside from this, which do you think is the better policy.

To protect America by building a strong defense, pro actice if required, that will destroy the enemy but risks creating more enemies or helping old enemies to recruit members and gain funding from sympathisers, or

To protect America by addressing world issues that could create new enemies and that fuel terrorist recruitment, but having to give ground on certain issues, protecting America by calming potential enemies and the feelings that lead people to join terrorist cells, rather than attacking?

September 1, 2004 @ 4:16 am | Comment

As far as I know there’s never been any urgency to change it. Although there is currently some talk of amending the Consitution, I can’t see the necessary momentum gathering.

To answer your specific questions, the Constitution requires that the President and Vice-President be “natural born citizens”. Looking a the 14th Amendment and 8 USC 1403, a “natural-born citzen” is:

1. Anyone born inside the United States (regardless of parent’s nationality).

2. Any Native American or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe.

3. Anyone born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. at some point in that parent’s lifetime prior to birth of the child.

4. Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national (a “US national” is a person who is considered under the legal protection of the but not a citizen).

5. Anyone born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year.

6. Anyone found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21.

7. Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time).

8. Anyone born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

hypothetical bastard child of a Korean whore and a Yankee GI is eligible to be President under No. 7 above.

September 1, 2004 @ 5:08 am | Comment

Addendum: As would the person born on an Indian reservation, subject to the conditions of Item 2 above.

September 1, 2004 @ 5:10 am | Comment

there is one last chance — the debates.

kerry must insist on open debates — the questions must not be given to the candidates beforehand so that bush can read from his cue cards. kerry must insist on it and keep insisting on it.

bush would be a DISASTER!

September 1, 2004 @ 7:51 am | Comment

Conrad, I never said the American people are stupid. Some are, most aren’t, but they “know” what they see and hear — this is proven by the FACT that so many believe even today that Saddam Hussein was involved in 911. Most of those watch Fox News. They are not being stupid, but unfortunately they are too quick to question what’s being piped into their brains. Even I fell for the WMD argument without doing my due diligence. Live and learn.

September 1, 2004 @ 8:10 am | Comment

Peking Duck?? I thought this was a blog site about China. My mistake.

Car, I never said this blog is about China, although, ifyou look around, you’ll see I write about the subject quite often.

September 1, 2004 @ 8:23 am | Comment

Conrad, you’re ex-military, so I’m sure we’d all love to hear your opinions about the “Purple Heart Band-aids” that certain prominent Republican operatives were distributing yesterday.

September 1, 2004 @ 11:23 am | Comment

Vaara, don’t hold your breath. My friend Conrad (and I mean that, no matter how mean he is to me in his comments) still has to respond to our supplying the smoking gun on bush using family clout to get into the ANG. I don’t blame him — I mean, what can he say except, “Oops”?

September 1, 2004 @ 11:34 am | Comment

Never saw you’re so-called smoking gun Richard. Your blog is fascinating and a great read, but even so, I don’t check every comment thread every day. Please supply it again.

As for the band-aids, they were inappropriate and dumb.

September 1, 2004 @ 9:08 pm | Comment

Thanks Conrad. To hear the smoking gun, just click here. I also wrote it up earlier (without the audio link) here.

September 1, 2004 @ 9:26 pm | Comment

Peking Duck?? I thought this was a blog site about China. My mistake.

Woops. No, this blog is pretty much All Bush All the Time. Richard is a deep-cover Karl Rove operative working day and night to keep W and the Swift Boat Veterans (that insignificant story that no serious journalist will cover) on the front page.

It’s one of the secrets of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy ™.
.

September 2, 2004 @ 12:58 am | Comment

excuse me but do any of you know what a Natural Born Citzien mean?or any web pages Ishould go to?
thank you

January 10, 2005 @ 6:23 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.