Its Revolution from Below, from the bottom up. The uranium fiasco has squat to do with it, we knew all this months ago, nobody cared.
But in the beauty shops and truck stops and bowling alleys and in my very own trailer park…the parents, spouses, cousins and loved ones various are bitching. They are reading between the lines of letters home, they are getting the news direct from the front lines…and they don’t like it. Johnny ain’t coming home, nor is Janie nor Pablo nor Tyrone.
They dont give a rats about WMD’s, even less about foreign policy. They care that the people they love are in danger for no good reason.
Behold, Mr. Bush, the inexorable subtlety of the laws of karma, that grind slow but grind exceeding fine. Today’s pig is tomorrow’s bacon.
Last week, I was having lunch with my wife in a very good seafood restaurant in a very expensive town to live in (it was actually featured in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy trilogy. At one point in time, Arthur Dent grabbed his waitress and shook her, screaming “Why does this fish taste so damned good?”).
A couple of old (50-60ish) white men were sitting at the table next to us. Their age and their hearing lead to their conversation being quite audible to us.
After a big discussion involving million-dollar land deals, who’s looking to buy into what property and how many hundreds of thousands of dollars they’ll gain from it, and what they plan on buying/traveling to when the money comes in, the talk turned to politics.
“I think our President is in trouble” says one.
“Yeah, I don’t like the way he passed on the responsibility for what he said at all. But all the blame on that CIA guy but still express confidence in him and don’t fire him? I don’t get that at all” responds the other.
“The Bay of Pigs was a fucking disaster, but at least the president stood up and said that it was his fucking disaster.”
etc.
It was about this time that I leaned into my wife and said “If the old rich white guys are starting to be this mad about Bush, he better duck and cover.”
I’d like to see him polling lower than Al Sharpton. Projected to lose Utah to Sharpton if the election were held today. And a sudden influx of Republican hats into the '04 ring.
Hey! I started saying “Usual Suspects” referring to those who look for anything they can to attack Bush on before elucidator ever used the term to refer to Bush defenders.
On this issue, my favorite moment was this afternoon on CNN when the lovely talking head said:
So, you see Bush’s approval rating is actually slightly higher than it was back in March. (I think it was March, could be some other month. Damn this infernal memory!) The margin of error in this poll is 3%.
The kicker is that he was 59% today, and 58% back then and he actually said what the margin for error was. He said it, and then he said Bush was doing better. Grr… They should just display everything with error bars. (His rating is between 56 and 62 percent today. Back to you, John.)
400,000? Dang. Makes me laugh thinking of the arch-Apologista’s wishful thinking post where he stated nobody cared about this issue and it wouls quickly blow away. Well its a month later, and the only thing blowing away is Blair and Bush’s credibility and mainstream support ratings.
Polls low again? Time to wag the dog again, as it worked so well the first time.
Bush not really fooling anyone (except the “pre-fooled”):
Can this be true? Could our dear elucidator, noted for his rhetorical proficiency and gift of gab, have dishonestly appropriated the product of another’s creativity and used it for his own nefarious ends?
Well, “Usual Suspects” is such a unique phrase - never used by anyone, anywhere in the manner that Monster did. Such a shining star of creative rhetoric, resplendant in its perfect encapsulation of the specific nature of leftist scum. Clearly elucidator’s gall knows no limits in plagiarizing and coopting Monster’s concept.
Ah yes. Another European know-nothing who has false impressions of US politics.
Robert Byrd, a very powerful Senator opposed the war quite publicly. Howard Dean, one of the favorites of the Democratic candidates, was quite staunchly opposed to the war.
Please learn something about the US before you go making a fool of yourself.
He’s got a decent shot at the nomination. Whether he wins the election will largely depend on the continuing sage in Iraq. He’s clearly the only candidate pre-positioned to make hay from the continuing string of ‘Another US soldier was killed today…’ reports on the news.
All the other democratic candidates (the serious ones) are caught on the wrong foot on the issue. They’ll have to re-position themselves before they can profit from it.
Maybe. He started out on the fringes because he had no name recognition. Very important in the beginning for fund-raising purposes. The Governor of Vermont just doesn’t get much publicity.
He still isn’t on most people’s radars just yet, mostly because the upcoming elections aren’t. But his poll numbers have been gaining, and it seems like he’s getting more publicity. I believe his poll numbers in New Hampshire are quite high, and he has recently emerged as the Democratic leader in California, which has a huge number of electoral votes. If he can win the New Hampshire primary or come in second, he’ll get a ton of publicity as the campaign unfolds. He’s definitely not a non-runner in the Democratic primary.
Can he beat Bush? Possibly. Especially if the war situation gets worse and the economy doesn’t improve. He’s got a solid record as governor in Vermont and he was in the lead in saying that the US should have gone with the UN in Iraq, so that will especially benefit him if the Administration goes back to the UN for help.
A lot of Republicans think that he’s got no shot against Bush because of his anti-war positions. That might be true, but it might not be true as well. Too early to tell.
I have seen the idea floated that as Bush looks more beatable, Hillary Clinton may be tempted to run against him in 2004. Is this a good idea for Ms. Clinton? For the Democratic Party?
Ooog. The idea makes me sick to my stomach. I don’t think she will because there’s still a strong chance of Bush being re-elected. I don’t think she will chance it, especially since I don’t think her anti-war record would be good enough to use against Bush.
Think 2008. Hopefully we can get Dean in there in 2004 and postpone Clinton’s running until 2012. Or indefinitely. That would be nice.
