Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

May 25, 2008
By: dday

Recount And Recent History... Hi, I'm actually spending the weekend out in New York City for a wedding and am largely off the grid, but I did want to mention one thing before HBO unveiled its cinematic account of the Bush-Gore Florida follies Recount tonight, which is getting excellent reviews.

In my day job, I'm a freelancer in the LA area, and this past week I spent some time in a new office that I hadn't been to in some time. Immediately, I noticed something new gracing the wall; the front page of the Los Angeles Times from the day after the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore and Gore's concession from the race. I don't know how it got there or who put it up, but I'm glad they did, for as an artifact of the state of the world from the eye of the media at the close of the election, it's pretty fascinating.

The subhead from the top headline reads "President-Elect Calls For Reconciliation After Gore Concedes Defeat in Longest Contest in a Century." There was an analysis from Times Washington Bureau Chief Doyle McManus titled "Bush's Vow To Unite Encounters a Great Divide," and the beginning of the story (only the front page was on the wall) talked about how Bush campaigned as a "uniter, not a divider," and how this would now be tested by those angry Democrats, who Bush planned to reconcile with in order to calm the waters. Here's a sample:

Bush sought to send a message of soothing bipartisan conciliation in his first statement as President-elect.

"I am optimistic we can change the tone in Washington, D.C.," Bush said. "I believe things happen for a reason, and I hope the long wait of the last five weeks will heighten a desire to move beyond the bitterness and partisanship of the recent past."

Bush actually invoked Lincoln in that speech, saying that "Our nation must rise above a house divided," and how he was elected to serve one nation and not one party.

There was an analysis by Josh Getlin about how the nation was ripped asunder by this recount battle and scars were still showing and how wonderful it was that the "national shouting match was ending."

And there was an vaguely sourced story about how Gore's lawyers wanted to keep fighting after the Supreme Court decision (they apparently found some glimmers of hope in the opinion), but Gore finally called it to an end after exploring all avenues.

So the prevailing opinion on one of the country's more respected newspapers on this day was, basically, that George Bush was this conciliatory figure, Al Gore was scheming right up until the very last second and even after to overturn the election, and the public was just glad it was all over and now America can get on with the business of healing and bipartisanship.

Let that marinate in your mind, and bathe it in the knowledge of what actually took place over the past eight years.

Of course, this is the rhetorical angle that Bush used outwardly during the recount battle, that the counting was over with and now is the time to "bind up the nation's wounds" and move forward. What's a little shocking is how quickly and directly the major media figures came to the same conclusion. The seeds of how the media treated the Bush Administration over the bulk of his first term are all here, particularly the amplification of the main message coming from Ari Fleischer on any given day. And this was all done for our benefit, in the spirit of ending bitterness and changing tone and overcoming the rancorous partisanship. A time for healing.

Except we all know where that partisanship flowed from. And how it continued from the moment Bush II entered office. I don't know if this is explored in "Recount," but it should be in the background of any story which recreates that time period.

dday 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

proclamations don't make it so - are you vying for more mclame blog-trolling points?

Posted by: on May 25, 2008 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone who still clings to the utterly discredited notion that Republicans are decent human beings and good Americans is too stupid to be allowed out in public alone.

Posted by: Mike on May 25, 2008 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

Brian:

There is no question Gore won not only Florida, but the entire nation in popular votes in 2000. The vote counting was stopped by Katherine Harris, after the GOP used violence (as they always do) in Palm Beach county and other locations to intimidate the canvassing boards. There were at least 5,000 "overvotes" for Gore that were not counted. Do you know what an overvote is? It is where the voter punched a card for Gore and also wrote Gore's name on the ballot. Under Florida law, they should have all been counted. Contrary to the false narratives spread by the filthy Republican liars, there was no magical "discerning" of the voter intent needed. When someone punches and writes in "Gore", it is pretty damn clear who they intended to vote for. Al Gore is the legitimate President of the United States, not Bush - GET OVER IT!!!

TCD

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on May 25, 2008 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

And this was all done for our benefit, in the spirit of ending bitterness and changing tone and overcoming the rancorous partisanship. A time for healing.

Except we all know where that partisanship flowed from. And how it continued from the moment Bush II entered office.

so how did it turn out? i've been continuously drunk since jan 20, 2001, afraid to find out.

your pal,
blake

Posted by: blake on May 25, 2008 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you for reminding me that the press had the same theme then that they have about the primary now - THIS IS GOING ON SO LONG!! - HORROR - WE CAN'T STAND IT - THE NATION (PARTY) CAN'T STAND IT.

I remember all sorts of discussions about deadlines as if we might just as well abandon the nation if we had another week of uncertainty. I'm sure that the caterers who wanted to plan for the inaugural ball were suffering but the rest of us could have put up with it to have gotten the right person.

This year we had calls for Clinton to end our horrible pain; stop scorching the earth, burning the bridges, giving aid to the enemy etc. It all seemed very peaceful to me but then I was in Chicago in '68 so my standards tend to be that everything is fine unless they use tear gas.

Posted by: Bostonian in Brooklyn on May 25, 2008 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

"Stop waving the Constitution in my face, it's just a go--am piece of paper."

God Bush America!

Moronica for morons!

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on May 25, 2008 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

TCD:

How's life in your delusion?

(We'll see how long the knocked-kneed "moderators" allow this one to last). Nice show of guts, dday.

Posted by: Brian on May 25, 2008 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin, you need to move beyond your liberal bitterness over this all ready. the American people gave president Bush a mandate to govern as he saw fit, but he extneded an olive branch to the losers any way. now, in typical fashoin, you're trying to rewrite history. What's next? Removing Regans image from White House photos? oh wait... that doesn't happen until year two of Hilary's first five-year plan. It'll never happen... say hello to Presidnet McCain!

Posted by: egbert on May 25, 2008 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

With the partial recount going on in Florida, the Republicans quickly flew in a small army of brown shirts who staged a small riot outside the recount center in order to threaten and intimidate the election workers. It was common knowledge these were Republican political operatives who received free tickets to fly to Florida, yet the press portrayed them as unpaid local political activists.

Posted by: fafner1 on May 25, 2008 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

I suspect the editors, if confronted with this coverage, would say it holds up pretty well as far as they can see.

Egbert you illiterate veteran-hating nitwit: I know it's useless asking you to sober up enough to use spell-check but at least you could bother to notice who actually wrote the post you're responding to. It's like stupidity is a badge of honor with you or something.

Posted by: DrBB on May 25, 2008 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

Ha! if you think recount 2000 sucked, just wait until recount 2008: The Republicans Strike Again!

The press will soil themselves silly for the Maverick@tm and his bipartisan sidekick, Joe Lieberman. Oh... he told me to F...off! More straight talk! maybe I'll get to go to his BBQ!

And for the sake of the country (i.e. the corporations & their lackeys that run the country) we will have to "get over it" yet again.

Of course, Nancy & Harry & Jello Jay will declare that impeachment is off the table, no matter what happens, and that there is no use investigating the past administration, because we have to look forward....

Its a horrible nightmare, yet it keeps coming back to me.

Posted by: spiny on May 25, 2008 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

fafnter1...I don't think they were brown shirts...although, who knows?...bad taste is timeless. They were probably tasteful Republican shirts in white and blue and pink, probably with Dockers, the uniform of the conservative political geek at play. All those little weenies thought it was a really fun game, sort of like a college Republican shout-down, but on the big stage. These same clowns probably went on to squander dollars and lives in Iraq and to fill the DOJ and other agencies with little, squeeky-voiced commissars. How did we get rolled by such people? I truly hate them.

Posted by: jrw on May 25, 2008 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

When people like Bush say, "I believe things happen for a reason," they are not expressing a faith in causality as, for example, scientists understand it; instead, he is saying God reached down and screwed things up to give him a divine mandate to do whatever he want. And the results of his administration show it.

Posted by: john sherman on May 25, 2008 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

So, is it so that the Republicans, not the Democrats, actually presented the first legal action (to challenge the FL court's upholding of having a recount) and not the Democrats. And the FL Supremes had the legal right, under the State's separation and allocation of powers, to allow the recount against Harris' decision to let the initial results stand. Did I get that about right? The Repubs and their enablers seem determined not to.

BTW, the actress looks better than the real Harris. I still love that SNL skit, was it Molly Shannon playing Harris, Val Kilmer as Jeb Bush (flirting with her of course), and Will Ferrell's George Bush - Harris watches George childishly pawing things over and asks Jeb, "How long have you known your brother was ... different?"

Posted by: Neil B. on May 25, 2008 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of violence: Weren't some Republicans, bloggers, and especially radio bloviators saying there'd be "blood in the streets" if Gore was allowed to "steal" the election from Bush, the country would be "ungovernable" etc.? - and so hypocritical, they certainly wouldn't indulge such pathological fantasies if coming from the other side.

Posted by: Neil B. on May 25, 2008 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

Now is the time to unite to nail the Republicans to the wall.

Posted by: Bob M on May 25, 2008 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

"I believe things happen for a reason." He plays us for dupes, and that's what we are.

Posted by: ferd on May 25, 2008 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

Bush had shown some signs of not being an extreme partisan in his time as governor. There were certainly some reasons to doubt his policies and his honesty about them, but it did not make sense to oppose him in a bitterly partisan way from the very beginning. The most critical time for opposing him was of course in the build-up for the Iraq War, but that's when jingoism bought him the almost unanimous support of the so-called "liberal media".

Posted by: skeptonomist on May 25, 2008 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

Bush had shown some signs of not being an extreme partisan in his time as governor. There were certainly some reasons to doubt his policies and his honesty about them, but it did not make sense to oppose him in a bitterly partisan way from the very beginning. The most critical time for opposing him was of course in the build-up for the Iraq War, but that's when jingoism bought him the almost unanimous support of the so-called "liberal media".

Posted by: skeptonomist on May 25, 2008 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

Recently it was reported that following the Republicans stealing the election in 2000 (and before the January inauguration of Bush and Cheney), a meeting was held between Cheney and some moderate Republicans from Congress, a meeting at which Cheney essentially told the moderate Republicans to "Go F**k themselves" because all the talk of bipartisanship during Bush and Cheney's campaign was just that, all talk, since Bush and Cheney planned on implementing a far-right, radical, conservative (some might say fascist) agenda for America.

The EVIL done by these REPUBLICANS to our nation has far surpassed anything the Republicans did during the Nixon and Reagan years. And the cost to our nation of this REPUBLICAN EVIL will be borne by our nation's children and grand-children for many years to come.

Unending wars. Skyrocketing energy costs. Degradation of our Constitution. Trashing of our civil rights. Complete politicization of our federal government (for solely partisan profit and greed purposes). Unconscionable abuse of our military (and veterans). Tearing down the wall between church and state, unleashing the rabidly righteous evil-angelicals on us all. Insane economic policies that have driven millions of U.S. citizens and their families into poverty. Fascist-like secrecy and destruction of records to hide the crimes of the Bush and Cheney administration. Ad nauseum.

And all the result of Republicans stealing the presidential election in 2000. And to think, if Al Gore had been inaugurated in January 2001 instead of the foul, fascist tag-team of Bush and Cheney, we'd have had at least four (and probably eight) years of peace and prosperity...instead of all this horror unleashed on our democratic society by Bush and Cheney.

Posted by: The Oracle on May 25, 2008 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

Bush, Baker, Cheney, et al. were and are vile, but Gore deserves some blame too.

I remember a NY Times editorial from about a week into the recount that said, in essence, "We have to end this quickly." Gore needed to push back against this, hard, but he never did. He didn't have the guts to go against establishment opinion, or he didn't want the presidency enough to really fight for it.

Asking for a recount in only four of Florida's 67 counties was supposed to look reasonable. Instead, Gore let the GOP paint this as cherry-picking. There were uncounted votes for Gore in Republican counties, too.

Gore was ambivalent about becoming president. Remember his haste to make a concession speech in Nashville on election night? His car turned back from the site of the speech just in time. I wish we'd had a different candidate in 2000.

At least Obama is tougher and smarter than Gore was.

Posted by: Hal on May 25, 2008 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

Everything Bush makes me ill and any seriously entered complaints cause a computer crash--comcast are you listening? I shouted at Lieberman and the crash came down mightily. Bluegirlmissouri/global citizen--where are you--email me

Posted by: consider wisely always on May 25, 2008 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

It was the 2000 election that clued you into the fact that most Establishment journalists were members of the, what you call it, Establishment?

At the risk of sounding like Somersby, the War on Gore didn't open your eyes? How about the Clinton scandals? Going further back, you weren't alerted by the lukewarm interest in Iran/Contra or the BCCI scandal or the Savings and Loan debacle? "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable?" Give me a break.

Posted by: gmoke on May 25, 2008 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINK

It was the 2000 election that clued you into the fact that most Establishment journalists were members of the, what you call it, Establishment?

At the risk of sounding like Somersby, the War on Gore didn't open your eyes? How about the Clinton scandals? Going further back, you weren't alerted by the lukewarm interest in Iran/Contra or the BCCI scandal or the Savings and Loan debacle? "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable?" Give me a break.

Posted by: gmoke on May 25, 2008 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINK

Having watched the movie, it did not go far enough and tried too hard for objectivity that wasn't necessary. It really was a stolen election. Another thing: the reason most of us fought so hard to get the real results (aside from patriotism and the Constitution) was that it was clear G.W. Bush was clearly not up to the job. He was a laughing-stock well before the stolen election. That issue never came up. Further, you can't film such a movie without a montage of the catastrophes which have ensued. All thanks to an illegal and unconstitutional meddling by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has lost all ethical credibility ever since and takes the greatest share of the blame for this fascist Junta and its disasters.

Posted by: Sparko on May 25, 2008 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

In Against the Tide, Lincoln Chafee writes about how he and other moderate Republicans met with Cheney the day after the Supreme Court decision. Chafee says that given all the pre-election talk of unity, they were all shocked when Cheney revealed the Bush Admin's plan to implement hard-right policies, jetison treaties and international law, etc., etc.

Posted by: Dean Booth on May 25, 2008 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

I was talking to someone today and remembered this article from the Onion. Pretty amazing accuracy. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784


Posted by: mark on May 26, 2008 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

Watched Recount... it was quite good. I paid a lot of attention during the actual events (arguing online with some mis/uninformed GOP supporting relatives), but there were a few tidbits I had missed. And it was all put together into a compelling narrative.

It amazes me that Baker not only gave some background interviews for this, but actually read, edited, and generally approved the script! Especially given how badly the GOP operatives come out looking... but that was how it really happened.

There is of course dramatic-license, but the most outlandish seeming events and statements are exactly how they happened. There are reenactments that are easily mistaken for the original footage (and I think a few bits of original footage in there even) and plenty of direct quotes.

Danny Strong (the writer) gave an interview with Politico which sheds a lot of light on how the film was researched and written.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10125.html

BTW: Yes, there are many thousands of ballots in FL from 2000 which were never recounted at all (counties which just retotaled the numbers from the intial counts and never actually re-ran the ballots for the machine count). There were only two (IIRC) counties which actually completed a hand-recount. The GOP line of 'they were counted and recounted and recounted' is complete BS.

PS: Caltech and MIT did an analysis of voting systems. If you are a bit wonkish, give it a read. Sadly, the people who wrote HAVA and are currently running our elections haven't.

2001 report
http://www.votingtechnologyproject.org/2001report.html

They have subsequently done much more work...
Caltech/MIT Voting technology project homepage
http://www.votingtechnologyproject.org/index.html

Posted by: travc on May 26, 2008 at 3:46 AM | PERMALINK

Given the vitriol on the right about 'Gore stealing the election'... I wonder if we would have not ended up with President Liberman (shudder).

I must confess that on 9/11, I distinctly remember thinking the nation and the world really needed Gore as president right now. I remember it so distinctly because it seemed like a very inappropriate thing to have pop into my mind minutes after watching thousands of people die... in retrospect, my subconscious was apparently working very well and just a few steps ahead.

Posted by: travc on May 26, 2008 at 3:54 AM | PERMALINK

Bush actually invoked Lincoln in that speech, saying that "Our nation must rise above a house divided," and how he was elected to serve one nation and not one party.

Yeah, but he'd have read "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women! ...That is best" if they put that in front of him too -- only with conviction.

Anybody who didn't know that by then just wasn't paying attention.

He was a deeply stupid little oil-spiv then, and he's a deeply stupid little oil-spiv now. Some malign Divinity -- or Anthony Kennedy, who often confuses the two -- gave us Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda as a President.

Posted by: on May 26, 2008 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

I've discovered why we turn to religion in our old age - because the human race is so screwed up that we conclude God is the last remaining hope for the answers to our questions.

My last remaining consolation for the ills that have been brought upon this country by these people is that they will have their maker to answer to, one day.

Posted by: Bugboy on May 26, 2008 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

It should be a lesson for the Democrats this time around. The loser has no power to be a "healer" or a "uniter." It is up to the winner to act honorably and provide some reality, in the sense of unifying and conciliatory actions (rather than mere words), to his calls for "unity." Obama should call for seating the Florida delegation and stop the attacks on Clinton for doing so. Bush's lack of concern for the accuracy of the vote count was a clear indicator of how he would govern -- as if the slightly more than half of the electorate who voted for Gore did not count and were not "real" Americans who deserved consideration and representation. In Bush's universe winning, by any means, was everything, and the will of the people was nothing. Obama is showing signs of sharing this attitude -- he appears to think that winning the nomination is everything and HOW he wins doesn't matter. He acts as if the voters who voted for Clinton do not count and do not deserve consideration and representation. And, he doesn't appear to understand how negatively that attitude may affect his chances in the general election.

Given Obama's attitude, the election of 2008 may come down to which candidate -- Obama or McCain -- is the less despised and unpopular, rather than which engenders the most support and enthusiasm.

Posted by: on May 26, 2008 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

I think it like Michael Kinsley said, he never going to "get over it" and why should he, that decisions was the most horrendous, self-serving hateful, undemocratic decision ever rendered by ANY court in the nation, not a court that is suppose to be disciplined, to use law, BUT instead gave the world, gave American a taste of “I want this, FUCK the rest of you”.

I wrote a post in FINDLAW commentary whereby, right after Bush V. Gore, I said what if we had an attack, what IF lots of American died because of this selection? It wouldn’t be the people of this country responsible for Bush and what he does or fails to do but, instead the responsiblity of ONLY five members of a Supreme Court to seat Bush, yet they sit and judge one death penalty case after another, after all they choose a President that just sit there at the ranch, most likely drunk while he ignored the August 6th intelligent briefing?

Bush told the briefing CIA officer that “at least he covered his ass” even though Bush didn't see any reason to cover his own, as Bush was told that bin Laden was determined to attack the US. And Hillary was right when she said her husband WOULD have MOST CERTIANLY listened to such a briefing, would have done something about it. Gore WOULD HAVE DONE something about it too.

SO Five Supreme Court Justices share the burden of murder of 3000 American citizens in WTC, and just like most murders, they don’t care that they share in the disregard for human life by picking a drunk for President.

Telling Americans that they don’t have the right to vote is exactly the same as telling Americans “you’re stupid if you think you’re free”. There are only 5 of them that can make a life and death decision for the rest of us – and rest of us can go suck on it if we don’t like their nasty selfishness.

If Bush is the most hated President in the history, certainly the court is most hated court in history too.

Posted by: Me-again on May 26, 2008 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

dday wrote: "... the rhetorical angle that Bush used outwardly during the recount battle, that the counting was over with and now is the time to ... move forward. What's a little shocking is how quickly and directly the major media figures came to the same conclusion."

It isn't that shocking. Both Bush and the "major media figures" are bought-and-paid-for servants of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. and they were both reading from the same script.

Democrats who fail to understand that the giant corporations who own and control most of America's mass media are an integral part of the same power structure that owns and controls the Republican Party, are doomed to be "shocked" again in 2008 when the mass media's propaganda on behalf of the maverick independent moderate war hero senior statesman uniter-not-divider John McCain, and onslaught of character assassination against the union-controlled, organized-crime-connected, Muslim leftist American-hating terrorist-coddling naive and reckless Barack Hussein Obama, gets the Republicans close enough to steal the third presidential election in a row.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on May 26, 2008 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

"So the prevailing opinion on one of the country's more respected newspapers on this day was"

The press has gotten even more important things VERY very wrong. Obvious things.

Repeating spin that Bush was positioning himself as a "uniter" isn't even in the top 50 dishonest things the press has printed, en masse.

Posted by: flubber on May 26, 2008 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

It's not clear that the Bushies stole the election, but it's clear that they *tried* to steal it--that is, they worked to get it with completely disregard for the question "who actually won?" They may have deserved it on the basis of the votes...but if you and I are in a legal dispute over who owns a book, and I take it from where it is being kept and manage to halt the investigation of the legitimacy of our respective claims, then I have certainly done something wrong, and it might even be called theft.

However that dispute should be settled, it was clear in the recount debacle of 2000 that Bush and company had near total contempt for the democratic process. The Gore team's central argument was: *count every vote.* The Bush team's central argument was: *Give us the f*cking presidency. NOW.*

Something very, very rotten was revealed about America in general and the GOP in particular during that time. Recall that the FL legislature at one point said that, if Gore won, they'd nominate a slate of Bush electors anyway. Think on that for a bit.

And we, good liberals, sat back and watched it all happen. We watched them demand the presidency, declare it a "coup" when Gore refused to simply immediately concede, use violence and threats of violence to get what they wanted. We watched crowds of conservatives demonstrate in FL, and outside the Vice President's residence with their professionally-printed "SoreLoserman" signs, printed up by the GOP. Watched them protest with no counter-protests, no support for the other side--our side.

It was a dark day for American democracy, not so much because an election was stolen, because that isn't clear. It was a dark day because there was a clear WILLINGNESS to steal it that went unopposed by us.

I certainly can't imagine ever "getting over" such a thing.

Posted by: Winston Smith on May 26, 2008 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

"The Gore team's central argument was: *count every vote.* The Bush team's central argument was: *Give us the f*cking presidency. NOW.*

Hmmmm. Now, who does that remind me of...

Posted by: gyrfalcon on May 26, 2008 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Winston,

"It's not clear that the Bushies stole the election..."

It's true that it hasn't been 100% proven they stole it. But the available evidence strongly suggests that in a fair, impartial count, Gore would have prevailed and become president (and no, I'm not talking about including voided ballots like many of the "butterfly ballots" in Palm Beach--I'm only talking about legitimate votes). When a media consortium had every "overvote" in the state examined, Gore won under every vote-counting standard that might have been uniformly imposed on the entire state of Florida. He won whether the so-called "dimpled ballots" were counted or not.

And there's also the matter of illegal absentee ballots. It's clear that although both sides tried to have absentee ballots thrown out that they believed would work against their candidate, the Bush side did this much more effectively. Furthermore, they pressured canvassing boards into accepting many absentee votes of dubious legitimacy. In a fair count, many of these would be thrown out. This would add to the margin Gore would probably already have with the overvotes.

Posted by: Lee on May 26, 2008 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

The key lesson here is to surely look more deeply at the candidate's past behaviour, for information about behaviour in office?

Bush was a front man for various business interests, and as governor a slap-em-on-the-back and -stab-them-in-the-back kinda guy.

Which is exactly what he did with Tom Daschle.

The antecedents aren't promising. We have:

- Obama - a cypher, who has tacked directly towards powerful political interests

- Hilary - a creature of her own team of acolytes, tends to act cut off. Talks a line on liberalism, but does not deliver

- McCain - strident rhetoric, actual actions tend to play to interest groups, last minute compromises eviscerate the point of his acts. Erratic

At a bet, Obama is the best of the lot-- he's carrying the least baggage.

I still think it's McCain by a whisker, though. Reverend Wright and Michelle Obama have reminded America that the candidate is black. And we're going to hear lots about a mafioso property developer next door, and various liberal voting stances.

Posted by: Valuethinker on May 27, 2008 at 2:44 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly