| |
|
Another indication of the marginalization of any difference of opinion around here (The U.S. that is). Not a lot of people reported this with any more but lip service...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html
Now, Gore isn't the most perfect guy either, but he at least brought up some salient points that are, if not only overlooked by this administration, being completely ignored.
My real question is why aren't more Democrats doing this? I mean, sure you could just pull the "speaking out will cost them the election under overwhelming mindless nationalism" card, but that's crap in my opinion. And not just in mine. Here's some comments I culled from an email with a friend of mine. (Thanks John)
"The ammo is right there for the political sniper with a penchant for shaking things up. A CEO president wanting to expand an unsuccessful one-front war to an untenable second front and alienating the allies he will need to forge a lasting post-war solution (whish is in itself untenable) while ignoring the troubles within his own alleged area of expertise - business and economics. His peer group, American CEOs, are in disrepute, the very foundation of US business lexicons, the General Accounting and Auditing Principles, is being questioned, the US economy has lost something over 2M jobs in only 18 months, capital is fleeing the markets faster than you can say "double dip recession", and we're about to enter what could be one of the worst retail Christmases in a decade (hunch on my part). Let's add that Bush's father's foreign policy advisors, dyed-in-the-wool-of-freedom Cold Warriors in the truest sense of the phrase, are all advising against action against an enemy they themselves didn't so much defeat as contain, and any positive karma this Admin could have been gained with the international community it looks to for alliances and support by following Powell's lead in calming the tensions in the Israel/Palestine has been frittered away for reasons almost beyond the pale of comprehension.
And even if they lose, I'd lay good odds and money on the table and decidedly GOP slant to government post-November in both the House and Senate will *guarantee* Bush serves only one term, because frankly, the types of shifts the Republicans would try and bring about in the 2002-2004 timeframe will piss off just enough people to see a solid centrist to left resurgence in the voting blocs *if* the Dems can pull their heads out of their asses and reapply some rebar to their spines. Sure, you lose the immediate battle, but there's a war (at home!) to be won, boys... "
Now, I'm mostly of the opinion of Bill Hick's that they're both puppets attached to the same pupeteer. Hell, I voted for Nader. But at this point, I'd rather take the puppet on the left than the puppet on the right.
So what think you? Does Bush have all opposition evil-eyed into submission? |
|
|
