Speaking of Dubya and “shared values,” I neglected to post this earlier, so the links are kinda stale now. (Compounding my bad form, I also forgot where I saw them originally.) Nevertheless, much to the chagrin of many pastors and theologians, the Dubya campaign is leaning heavily on churchgoers to join an ecclesiastical voting army this November. “Even Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s ethics and religious liberty commission and a prominent Bush supporter, recoiled at the idea of churches becoming directly involved in a political campaign. ‘I am appalled,’ Land said in a statement. ‘I suspect that this will rub a lot of pastors’ fur the wrong way…It’s one thing for a church member motivated by exhortations to exercise his Christian citizenship to go out and decide to work on the Bush campaign or the Kerry campaign. It’s another, and totally inappropriate for a political campaign, to ask workers who may be church members to provide church member information through…directories.” Will Karl’s Crusade against Kerry-Edwards falter before it’s even begun?
Tag: Election 2004
A word about values, from the 3-DUI Ticket.
In his first riposte against his new Dem adversary, Dubya questions Edwards’s qualifications for the Presidency. Good God, man, we let you take the position (although admittedly it did take some prodding by the Supreme Court.) For the Dems’ part, Kerry had a pretty solid response: “He was right that Dick Cheney was ready to take over on Day One, and did, and he has been ever since, folks.“
Apparently, the Bushies are also keying in on “shared values” as their answer to the threat of Kerry-Edwards. Shared values? Puh-leeze. Playing bait-and-switch on the American people? Wading neck deep in corporate cronyism? Handing the rich tax-cut candy at the expense of everyone else? Those ain’t my values, bub.
Two-Minutes Fear.
Aigh! Attack, attack! No, we don’t know when. No, we don’t know where. No, we’re not raising the threat level. No, we’re not sorry we let Osama slip away so we could dink around Iraq. Just be afraid, and, remember, the terrorists want to “disrupt the democratic process” and make you vote Kerry-Edwards. You have been warned. Good day.
Top of the Food Chain.
Kenny Boy, Your pants, your pants are falling. Ken Lay, former Enron CEO and Bush’s prime corporate sponsor, is indicted on 11 counts of fraud. Says Lay’s lawyer, “Obviously, Andy [Fastow] and his group were not telling the boss that they were stealing from Enron. That’s as obvious as can be . . . It was done by stealth and deceit and of course, in a company as big as Enron, you have to trust someone and obviously trust was placed in the wrong place.” Ok, then explain why Lay dumped $24 million in Enron stock while telling his employees to buy. Throw the book at him, already. (But, by all means, let him speak his mind first.) Update: Dubya can’t handle the truth.
In his mind, he’s gone to Carolina.
The wait is over, and, in a very good decision by the Kerry team, John Edwards joins the Democratic ticket. This seems like a very smart call (although also a bit of a no-brainer…is there a single person in America who would’ve voted for Kerry because Gephardt was veep? Heck, even Nader knew the right choice) Edwards not only balances Kerry nicely (Southerner/son of a mill worker), but should seem an order of magnitude more appealing than the disgruntled and curmudgeonly Big Time in the debates. Plus, his optimism and good humor will be an enormous asset when the real mud starts flying in the fall.
All in all, as I said when he came to Columbia a few months back, Edwards has a great future in the Democratic party and American politics, and it’s wonderful news that he made the ticket (and has become an instant future contender for the Oval Office.) Go team go.
First choice or forced choice?
For their part, the Bushies try to counteract the Edwards pick with a new ad featuring John McCain, which you can watch over at Dubya’s campaign site. Um, is this really the best they could do with a blue chip like McCain? Giving a thousand-yard stare off-camera into the distance, reading from a prepared speech, looking away as Bush simpers on stage, McCain’s tone and body language hardly seems that effusive an endorsement. In fact, I’m surprised he didn’t rattle off his serial number or blink S.O.S during his remarks.
Turning up the heat.
Well, I’m a bit behind on this one, but I finally got out of the apartment to catch Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 yesterday afternoon. And the verdict? Well, it’s undoubtedly an extremely powerful piece of cinema. And, judging from the reactions of the afternoon crowd, it looks as if it might do some real good in crystallizing popular discontent with the Bush administration outside of the blog-world echo chamber. Still, even though I know Moore is playing by the rules set by right-wing freak shows like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, I found myself wishing at times that he had played F911 a little straighter. Simply put, Dubya and his cronies are guilty of so much blatant incompetence and documentable malfeasance that it’s disappointing that Moore feels he has to rely on cheapshots and push-button emotions some of the time.
If you’ve been keeping up with pretty much any lefty blog since 2000 (including this one), the central and most powerful allegations made here — that Dubya and the Neocons played bait-and-switch on the American people in Iraq and used 9/11 as a pretext for all kinds of terrible legislation, while doing pathetically little to minimize the actual threat of terrorism — will not come as a surprise. Still, when the data is laid out before you here like ducks in a row, from the Florida fiasco in 2000 through to the recent stonewalling of the 9/11 commission a few weeks ago, the continued pattern of incompetence and mendacity that has characterized this administration becomes unmistakably clear. As the story unfolds, Moore offers plenty of intriguing footage — Bush’s 7 minutes of Pet Goat superfluousness may perhaps be overemphasized by now, but it’s still out-and-out eerie. Equally damning is footage of Dubya at the ranch a month prior to 9/11, in which he has absolutely no clue what his agenda is for the day and, whatsmore, doesn’t seem to much care (particularly when contrasted with his obvious enthusiasm for armadillos exhibited a few scenes later.)
But while there are plenty of blows landed, I ultimately thought that Fahrenheit 9/11 would have been much more impressive if it had focused more closely on the facts and avoided the more obvious attempts at sentiment. For example, instead of examining in detail the clear civil liberties transgressions occurring at the Gitmo Gulag and elsewhere under the Patriot Act, or noting the discrepancies in its enforcement (no gun checks?) under Attorney General-cum-balladeer John Ashcroft, Moore spends too much time interviewing an aging weightlifter and various Fresno peace activists — all of whom have run afoul of goofy anti-terrorist inquiries — for laughs. Similarly, instead of talking about Dubya’s spiking of the Nunn-Lugar act or his continued cutting of First Responder funding, the film dinks around Western Oregon with two underfunded deputies – as a result, I thought the larger point about Bush’s failure to protect the homeland was lost.
As the film moves overseas, the problems with F911 become more evident. Regarding the war in Afghanistan, Moore talks about a proposed UNOCAL pipeline to the exclusion of virtually anything else, which I think invites charges of shrillness (Exhibit A: The Bonanza riff) and blurs one of the most serious charges against this administration – that it gave up a chance to catch Osama Bin Laden in order to play regime change in Iraq. Speaking of Baghdad, I think Moore would have done better to talk more about missing WMD and lies to the UN and spent less time with Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a deceased US soldier. This last section of the film is undeniably powerful, but it also feels extremely manipulative, particularly as it’s hard to envision very many situations where a mother’s grief wouldn’t be harrowing to behold. (The same goes for the grisly scenes of charred bodies and horrifically wounded Iraqi children.)
Still, what do I know? Perhaps Fahrenheit 9/11 needs these human touches to get its point across to a larger audience, a goal which it so far seems to be accomplishing with great aplomb. The fact is, Michael Moore can undoubtedly be a blowhard with grating populist pretensions, but if we had any semblance of a functioning national media these days, Fahrenheit 9/11 would have been a non-event. In the absence of anything like an independently critical television press, and given the existence of such a well-oiled, well-funded right-wing propaganda machine these days, perhaps somebody out there had to co-opt conservative talk-radio techniques to get the message out. I’m more of a “destroy the ring” than a “use the ring” kinda guy, but, as I said, what do I know? I could write in this space a hundred times over and still never reach an infinitesimal fraction of the people who will see this film and be newly angered by the idiotic and unethical behavior of this administration.
In short, if a picture is worth a 1000 words, this film is worth 10,000 blogs – by stringing so many of the Bush-bashing beads together in such entertaining and moving fashion, Fahrenheit 9/11 should bring the heart of the anti-Dubya critique right to the Heartland. I just wish it had covered its flank a little better by sticking to the cold, hard facts about the national embarrassment of historic proportions that is George W. Bush, rather than indulging every so often in cheap laughs and reflexive sentiment.
Show us the bodies.
In three separate cases, the Supremes invoke the Magna Carta and the Founding Fathers to call out Dubya for the trampling of civil liberties under his watch. In the words of the Post, “the opinions, concurrences and dissents were decisive on this: They represent a nearly unanimous repudiation of the Bush administration’s sweeping claims to power over those captives.” (Nearly unanimous because Clarence Thomas, he of the “high-tech lynching,” saw no problem with the US government holding prisoners indefinitely without cause or access to courts…perhaps he’s trying to get invited to Cheney’s next hunting trip.) It’d have been nice if the Supremes had gone farther and also decided on the Padilla case rather than kicking it back to a lower court, but still, this is a solid showing by the Bush v. Gore gang. As Salon waggishly put it, let freedom reign.
And yet outmaneuvered.
Unfortunately, the diplomatic savvy on display in this surreptitious Iraq transfer hasn’t extended to other world hotspots, as Kaplan notes with North Korea. “By his own careless arrogance,” writes Kaplan, Dubya “has stunningly mishandled this confrontation. He has allowed North Korea—the most rickety spoke on his “axis of evil,” a dangerous regime by any measure — to reach the crest of becoming a nuclear power. He has dismissed numerous opportunities to nip this disaster in the bud. And now he comes up with an old formula that evades the recent shift in the balance.” (The disarmament deal proffered by the Bushies now is insubstantially different from the one suggested by President Clinton a decade ago, the one pooh-poohed by Dubya upon his arrival into the Oval Office.)
He just doesn’t get it.
“Never in the two and a quarter centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted.” A bipartisan group of 26 diplomats and military men call out Dubya Diplomacy for causing irreparable harm to the republic, and the statement is heady stuff. “The Bush Administration has shown that it does not grasp these circumstances of the new era, and is not able to rise to the responsibilities of world leadership in either style or substance. It is time for a change.“