|
I know it sucks. And no, I am not voting for Smirky under any circumstances. I will support the Dem nominee. But I have several pessimistic concerns. To begin with I am disheartened by the Dem candidates slogging it out on each other. There is plenty to criticize Smirky about but it seems to me that the majority of ink is about the Dem's criticism of each other. So Bush skates.
Another problem is the economy. Up to now it has been a "jobless recovery" and a legitimate source of concern for the country. Now there are reports of 50,000 jobs being added each of the last 2 months. I know, I know. If you do the math by next election there will still be a net loss since the robbery of 2000 of over two million jobs. BUT, any good campaign manager will have no trouble pointing to the gains and say look how it's going. And that leads me to... Karl Rove. Although I refer to this administration as the Cheney ventriloquist show it is of course Rove's show. The war is his - remember him telling repugnicant candidates in 2002 to "focus on the war"? it was repugnant to say the least, BUT IT WORKED. Andrew Greeley wrote the other day that Rove will whisper in Smirky's ear in spring to declare victory in Iraq and get out. Since his is the voice that Smirky listens to above all else, if Rove says to do it it will be done. Now the Bush campaign will ironically chant the mantra of James Carville that "it's the economy, stupid". And since Bush learned - though he'd never admit it in a million years - how to run a winning campaign by studying Bill Clinton he will take that mantra and run with it. Sorry, DUers, but it will be persuasive,even with record deficits. Also, we can't be in the position of actually hoping that the war in Iraq drags on as that is morally repugnant no matter what one's political leanings. So if Rove tells Bush to get out and he does and jobs are being restored what are we left with? Plenty, but that's still a problem.
The issues we are left with are vital, important issues that the repugnicants are on the wrong side of: the environment, women's reproductive rights,health care, gay rights, affirmative action, stem cell research, social programs that work well, etc. However, as I said above, these are not the issues that will decide the election. Why? To quote Carville again, "it's the economy, stupid". People vote pocketbook issues. Who will be able to mount an effective argument that the economy is still bad if the US has again the Clinton Triple Crown; low inflation,low interest rates and job growth? OK, he actually hit a Grand Slam because there was a surplus as well.Who would be suicidal enough to try that? Anyone who does in the face of evidence to the contrary is going to come off as someone who actually wants the economy to be lousy and anyone who comes off that way loses. Guaranteed.
As an aside to all this, one analysis I read recently of the partial birth abortion ban said that just by signing it, Bush may get a significant number of the 4 million evangelicals who stayed home in 2000 to come out in 2004. That would be disatrous for us, especially since African American voters may stay home. (By the way, have any of the Dems brought up the issue of reparations?) I also have to say that none of the candidates on the Dem side seem to be firing up the populace as a whole.
So while I am not suggesting not voting in 2004 I am wondering if energy and money (and the other thing Bush learned from Clinton, correctly - is that WHOEVER HAS THE MOST MONEY WINS and it is Smirky who has the most money and it just keeps rolling in) would be better spent on candidates for Governor, State Legislators and US Congress and Senate seats. That way we could keep Smirky in check.
I almost feel the need to apologize for my pessimism. I want nothing more than to see this guy share another historical footnote with his father as re-election losers. Realistically, though, the son is much more politically astute than the father ever was. So let's face it. We're in trouble in 2004.
|