|
|
||||
|
|
November 04, 2004Dark Days AheadAs promised below, here's the piece I wrote for The Nation magazine in my day-after exhaustion. The editors requested I look ahead, not behind. And I gazed into the dark future and concluded--guess what?--we're in for more of the same. (Didn't a certain presidential candidate warn of us of that?) Here it is. If you've seen it already, please scroll below or cruise through the comments for this and earlier postings. Dark Days Ahead It's another four years--this time with a legitimate win behind him--and the prospects for George W. Bush's second term are grim. He is stronger politically; the Democratic opposition is weaker, especially in the Senate, where the Republicans gained several seats and closed in on a filibuster-proof super-majority. Bush and the GOP demonstrated that they could locate and mobilize their voters. The Democrats--even with big-money efforts (America Coming Together and its ad-buying sister outfit raised and spent more than $200 million)--could not match them. Bush now has more power than he did before the election. He will use it. And he is likely to adopt the game plan that served him well at the start of his first term: Move fast and move hard. To what ends? Bush signaled his intentions before the election: partial privatization of Social Security, tax "reform" and tort "reform." And there is no reason not to take him at his word. On election night, Bush adviser Karen Hughes was talking about Social Security before the counting was done. "Ronald Reagan used his second term to justify nothing and to lay out an agenda for nothing," says Grover Norquist, a leading GOP activist/strategist. "Bush has already started laying out a vision of what he calls 'the ownership society.' It's a coherent worldview." It not only covers partial privatization of Social Security but the expansion of IRAs and health savings accounts. The point, says Norquist, is to wrap a Social Security initiative in a broader package with PR appeal. Norquist also envisions Bush pressing for a business-oriented tax cut before considering tax "reform." (Such a scheme will be billed as simplification, but it could also rejigger the tax code in favor of Bush's preferred beneficiaries: the rich.) And Bush will "shove" tort reform, Norquist says, "up the Democrats' backside." The trend lines seem obvious. Bush can be expected to continue his undeclared war on environmental safeguards, to propose expanding the Patriot Act and to maintain his effective ban on stem-cell research. He has shown no willingness to reconsider decisions that have allowed various security needs--such as those at chemical plants and ports--to go unaddressed. He will further pursue policies that feed the gargantuan deficits and will deny the overwhelming fiscal fiasco. Before the election, his Administration was preparing for severe cuts in social programs. He may not take explicit steps to outlaw abortion. But he won't have to be explicit. It is inconceivable that Bush will not have the opportunity to appoint at least one Supreme Court Justice--William Rehnquist may provide the first vacancy--and he could get the chance to fill up to four openings. A Bush Court would be predisposed toward overturning Roe v. Wade. Presumably it would undermine environmental laws, be hostile to gay rights and put into action the goals of the right-wing "federalist" movement, which hails states' rights and property rights. "On foreign policy, the big question mark," says Norquist, "is, What has the President and the Republican Party learned from Iraq? Did he learn it was a bridge too far and doesn't want to do three more of these? Or will he think, 'We got elected, let's do Egypt'?" Bush, Norquist adds, could end up at odds with conservatives on the "empire front." He observes, "If this is perpetual war to achieve perpetual peace, then it's out of sync with conservative members of Congress and his own base. They don't want a permanent garrison state with high taxes, a draft and a big government." But Bush has committed himself to "staying the course" (whatever it is) in Iraq and also to remaking the Middle East. He has fully embraced the hubris and arrogance of the neocons. Why should Bush change his fundamental national security views when he has escaped punishment for hyping a threat, misleading the country into an unnecessary war and alienating much of the globe? The next four years could be dark ones. It is true that in recent decades second terms have been burdened by scandal (Watergate, Iran/contra, Monicagate). And the pattern could hold. Obstruction of justice in the Joe Wilson leak case? A Bush crony or relative caught profiting improperly in Iraq (Iraqgate)? And second-term administrations have often lost steam, as senior officials depart for high-paying private-sector jobs (while their White House connections are fresh) and are replaced by the B team. But Bush has often defied history: winning (sort of) in 2000 during a time of seeming prosperity and peace, protecting his party's position in Congress in mid-term elections and achieving re-election when the economy was down. History provides little comfort. And certainly the politics will be ugly. The Bush camp has been rewarded for its tactics of distortion and derision. Bush and Dick Cheney appealed to people's fears. And the lesson for them and the Republicans is clear: This worked, let's do more. Who will lead the bloodied and weakened Democrats? Senate majority leader Tom Daschle was forcibly retired in South Dakota. Is there a successor who can do battle in the legislative mud pit and be a public force? Senator Hillary Clinton won't be vying for the job. It is a lousy launch pad for a presidential campaign. She, John Edwards, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark and others--Senator Joe Biden, Senator Evan Bayh, Al Gore, Governor Bill Richardson, Governor Tom Vilsack--will be busy jockeying for tactical advantage in 2008, as the progressive and centrist wings of the Democratic Party resume their ongoing brawl. Was Kerry too liberal? Was he too moderate? This debate has already begun. But it was not just the Kerry campaign that fell short. The party professionals have much to answer for. The organizers did not churn out the necessary Democratic voters. The Dems in charge of Ohio misread the reality on the ground. Karl Rove, Bush's über-strategist, apparently succeeded in luring hordes of social conservatives to the polls in Ohio and elsewhere with anti-gay marriage initiatives. The so-called brains of the Democratic Party had no countervailing strategy. There will be hard and dreadful days ahead for both the
Democrats and the nation. The only good news is that the final
tally--51 to 48 percent--demonstrates that there remains a great
split in America. Praise that divide and prepare for the worst.
Posted by David Corn at 07:13 PM | Comments (42) Coming Soon....I've been decompressing. Haven't looked at the newspapers today. Haven't surfed. Have turned off the television. Instead, I applied for a new passport--just in case. (And that "just in case" is a joke.) And I took the kids to meet a friend and his family at the new National Museum of the American Indian. The displays certainly let you know that this country can make very big mistakes and not realize it--or deal with the consequences (moral and otherwise) of those sins--for years and years. I managed to catch a glimpse of Bush's press conference. (Q: How will you reach out to the other side, Mr. President? A: It's hard work, hard work.) But I made sure not to watch the whole thing. I'll check out the transcript. I couldn't help wondering why he didn't do such a long, open-ended session with reporters in the weeks before the election? It also caused me to ponder becoming a regular at White House press briefings. Should I be the new Helen Thomas? Helen after all, is still there. Let me know what you think. In any event, I'll be posting later today. I've been sitting on some interesting musings from a leading Republican about how GOPers may now feel freer to speak their minds about the mess in Iraq. Stay tuned. And, of course, visit the comments section and share what you're going through--and click on the ads to the right. Posted by David Corn at 04:48 PM | Comments (55) A Time To Heal? A "Mandate" from the People? Don't Buy the PapTwo nations in one state--that is how it seems. So when Dick Cheney today exclaimed that he and George W. Bush have been handed a "mandate," he was once again engaging in blatant distortion. If you asked 100 people whether they wanted a beer that tastes great or one that is less filling and 51 chose the former and 48 went for the latter, no bartender would call that a "mandate" for the tasty brew. Bush and Cheney have done much to divide the body politic. Now they claim a "mandate" and profess a desire to unite the country. I was only able to observe a portion of Bush's speech this afternoon--I was, as the posting below notes, rushing to the warmth and comfort of home--but I did see him address John Kerry supporters and pledge to "work" to "deserve your trust." On CNN, Wolf Blitzer termed Bush's remarks "very gracious," and Judy Woodruff noted they would "go a long way to getting that [healing] under way." And I felt I was--or they were--in an alternative universe. Does history not count? After winning the presidency in 2000 in a bitter and divisive contest, Bush pledged that he would reach out to the other side. He claimed he was a "uniter not a divider." He then did little to bridge the gulf. He appointed John Ashcroft--perhaps the most divisive member of the Senate at the time--attorney general. He forced his tax cuts package through without seeking any compromise with the Democrats. He ripped up the global warming treaty without offering any alternative--in essence telling the rest of the world to go take a hike. He assembled an energy task force that listened to corporate executives but did not hear out environmentalists, and he refused to say who was working with it. After 9/11, he campaigned against Democrats and claimed they did not care about the nation's security. And in the 2004 campaign, he repeatedly lied about Kerry, mischaracterizing his positions, distorting his words, assailing him as weak. And he stood by as his allies launched unsubstantiated attacks on Kerry's military service and character. That is how he won: by mocking Kerry and hurling false charges against him. And now he says he wants to win over Kerry's supporters? It's a little late for that. My totally disillusioned, legal-alien wife just heard this particular Bush soundbite on the television and she angrily exclaimed, "Trust begins with the truth." She then clicked the remote and banished Bush from our presence. And she is right. (I'd be a fool to say anything else.) Bush had his chance. In fact, he had three chances. When he assumed the presidency, he could have made good on his promise. He did not. After 9/11, he had another opportunity, yet after a short interval he was back to the politics of fear, division and accusation. Then in this campaign, he could have endeavored to maintain a serious and somber discourse on the most pressing issues and challenges we face as a nation: the war in Iraq, the threat from al Qaeda and Islamic jihadism, the faltering economy. Instead, he resorted to cheap shots and disinformation (which I have chronicled extensively in items below). So I beg to disagree with my pal Wolf. The time for graciousness is past. It's easy to be a gentleman after succeeding through down-and-dirty means. And, Judy, the words of a speechwriter are cheap. CNN White House correspondent John King reported that, yes, the president does know that the country was divided by this election, but he is "looking forward, not looking back." (Doing so, King informed us, is a "trademark of this president.") But that does not mean that we should. Bush has governed and campaigned in a divisive manner. A few sentences in a victory speech will not alter that. The slate is not wiped clean. Over 1100 Americans and thousands of Iraqis are still dead in Iraq for a war that was launched on the basis of untrue assertions. The tax burden still remains shifted toward the middle class. Bush's undeclared war on environmental protections still continues. He still supports amending the constitution to ban gay marriage. He still has in place a ban on effective stem cell research. He still has done nothing to remedy the gargantuan deficit. Members of the Blue State Nation should not fall for let-bygones-be-bygones pap. Bush's phony vows are worth nothing. There is no mandate, there is no healing. There is a bitter fight over issues that matter greatly to the nation and the world. In his concession speech, Kerry said, "We're America, and America always moves forward." I have long liked Kerry (even though he can be rather frustrating as a politician), and I salute him for putting up a good fight. (There will be plenty of time to criticize his campaign.) But he is wrong on this point. Forward motion--progress, that is--is not guaranteed in America, or anywhere else. It only comes out of effort. A Supreme Court loaded with Bush appointees could quickly undo rights that were achieved over the course of years through hard work and struggle. America's standing in the world could--and probably will--continue to decline. The gap between the nation's well-off and poor has grown. Poverty rates have gone up in recent years. The number of Americans without health care coverage has increased. And there is no telling whether the United States is any safer today due to Bush's war in Iraq and his decisions regarding homeland security. It's arguable that the nation is less safe. The country has not moved forward in the past four years, and it is unlikely to do so in the next four. In fact, the great divide in American politics that pundits often decry is a brake on policies that would take the country in the wrong direction. Bush opponents ought to not feel bad for resisting the can't-we-all-just-get-along urgings of commentator. Bush and Karl Rove declared war on Blue Staters; Blue Staters have the right--and obligation--to defend their land and fight back. Posted by David Corn at 12:01 AM | Comments (201) November 03, 2004Live (Sort Of) From Boston, It's the Day After...and Time To Go HomeIt's 1:30, the day after. Kerry just put off his concession speech a half hour. I am in the media filing center. It is mostly empty. One television is on. Wolf speaks. Most of the press has headed out to cover Kerry's farewell. (He does, though, remain a senator.) I have just filed a piece for The Nation magazine that goes to bed later today. The article looks at what to expect from the second-term. I'll put it up here when it is published. But you know the score: more of the same. There are dark days ahead. And those of us on the losing side of this great divide in America will have to build up our Blue State Nation. Something has to replace Red Sox Nation. It will not be easy. The Dems are in a deep hole. There may be more of them than us (as voters) at this time. I'll have more to say and write on all this later. (Without reviewing the piece below, I stand by my preliminary, four-in-the-morning observations.) Right now I have one thought on my mind: get to the airport, get to my car, drive home, and see the wife and my wonderful daughters. I am lucky to have such consolation. It's not my ass in an unreinforced Humvee in Iraq. I'm not worried about losing childcare or school lunch subsidies for my family. I have a decent (if not great) health care plan. I'm not watching my job go overseas. (It's hard to outsource punditing.) I was able to marry the person I love. I will never need an abortion. You get the picture. Though I do work in a war zone of sorts--my office is on Capitol Hill and I must drive through two checkpoints a day to reach my parking space--others are more likely to pay for Bush's sins than me. But we all live in Bushworld--as do citizens around the globe--and we must bear the consequences of the decision made by those on the other side of our national divide. Fortify yourselves however best you can. (I notice many of this blog's commenters fancy the power of a good, stiff drink. Have one on me.) And I'll be posting again shortly. Now it's time to dash home....And please click on the new Amnesty International ad to the right and let them know you're still engaged and part of the fight. Onward. Posted by David Corn at 01:46 PM | Comments (204) Bush Wins (Or Seems To)--Let the Great American Divide Continue!Below is the "Capital Games" column I posted on www.thenation.com on the election at 4:00 in the morning. If you've seen it already, please scroll down to see other items. BUSH WINS (OR SEEMS TO) By DAVID CORN The electorate almost engaged in a much-needed political correction. It almost undid the asterisk of 2000. Instead, voters legitimized the fellow who gained the White House against the will of the majority and who then pretended he had a mandate and subsequently pushed tax cuts for the well-to-do and launched a war predicated on untrue assertions. So there will be no good-bye to reckless preemptive war, an economic policy based on tax breaks tilted toward the wealthy, a war on environmental regulations, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, excessive secrecy in government, unilateral machismo, the neocon theology of hubris and arrogance, a ban on effective stem cell research, no-bid Halliburton contracts, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, and much more. Did I mention Dick Cheney? Bush lied his way into office and lied his way through his presidency. His reelection campaign was based on derision and disingenuousness; he mischaracterized Kerry and his positions and touted successes that did not exist. And now, it seems, he got away with it. He was not punished for leading the country into a war that was not necessary. He was not booted for having overstated the WMD threat from Iraq. He paid no price for failing to plan adequately for the post-invasion period. Iraq remains his mess. And the United States and the world remains at the mercy of a gang that, no doubt, will feel even more emboldened to pursue their misguided policies. The good news: America is a divided nation. Despite the pundit hand-wringing over this fact, it is a positive thing. Nearly-- nearly--half of the electorate rejected Bush's leadership, his agenda, his priorities, his falsehoods. From Eminem to the chairman of Bank of America to 48 Nobel laureates to gangbangers who joined anti-Bush get-out-the-vote efforts in swing states. Nearly half of the voting public concluded that Bush had caused the deaths of over 1100 American GIs and literally countless Iraqis (maybe 100,000) for no compelling reason. Nearly half saw the emperor buck naked and butt ugly. Nearly half said no to his rash actions and dishonest justifications. Nearly half realized that Bush had misrepresented the war in Iraq as a crucial part of the effort against al Qaeda and Islamic jihadism. Nearly half desired better and more honest leadership. Nearly half knew that Bush has led the country astray. Other good news: Second-term presidents often hit the skids. The last three second- terms were marked by scandal (Watergate, Iran-contra, Monicagate). And as top officials sprint through the revolving door to snag high-paying jobs (while their contacts are fresh), the job of running the government during the second administration often falls to the B Team. In the post-9/11 world, this is not all that reassuring. But the historical trend does suggest that Bush will have trouble enacting his various schemes. Yet--let's be realistic--the Senate results indicate that the GOP will expand its majority in the Senate, which means Bush will have more allies for his wrongheaded missions. More good news; Bush will not be able to hand off his own wreckage--Iraq and the gargantuan deficit--to a new man. But this does not mean he will accept responsibility and deal with it. Bush has the ability to deny and defy reality. And if he cannot see that the trash has piled up, he will not be hauling it to the curb. Okay, no more good news. I can't stand all this good news. Bush has bamboozled and frightened just enough Americans to gain the opportunity to flimflam them for another four years. And the rest of the country--and the globe--will be along for the dangerous ride. As for John Kerry, he and his advisers loed like geniuses early on Election Day, when exit polls showed him ahead in the critical states There will be time--plenty of time--to critique Kerry and his crew and second-guess their various decisions. Had he swatted down the Swift Vets earlier would that have saved him just the right number of votes? Had he voted against granting Bush the authorization to launch an elective war against Iraq anytime Bush damn well pleased, perhaps Kerry would have presented a clearer picture for the electorate and inoculated himself from the trumped-up flip-flop charge. Perhaps. He, too, will have years to ponder all of this. Kerry was no top-gun campaigner. His rhetoric often meandered. More than once he shot himself in the foot with inartful language. But he did vigorously criticize Bush for misleading the country into war and for screwing up (big time!) the planning for the post-invasion period. He called for expanding health care coverage and for dramatic investments in alternative energy. He slammed Bush for ignoring the middle class crisis. He advocated raising the minimum wage and vowed to take on such special interests as the prescription drugs lobby. He excoriated Bush's assault on environmental safeguards and defended abortion rights. And he effectively used the three debates to counter the Bush camp's claim that he was a finger-in-the-wind pol and a weak-kneed opportunist with no convictions. Those encounters hurt Bush. Of those voters who say they decided in the past month, Kerry led 60 to 37 percent. All of this--it almost worked. There was a clear difference between the two candidates. They disagreed on many basic issues. But--perhaps more importantly--they represented vastly different ways of engaging the world. One has adopted an ask-no-questions, nevermind-the- nuances, don't-look-back, tough-guy style of leadership. The other promised to consider and reach out before leaping. One said--practically boasted--that he read no newspapers. The other came across as a man who absorbed much information before rendering a decision. The voters chose the wrong man. But not all is lost. The Red-Blue battle--a war of culture, ideology, politics and psychology--will not end with the final tally in Ohio. The forces of Bushism appear to have triumphed this day. But life--if we are lucky--is long, and history never ends. Let the great divide in America continue. Posted by David Corn at 04:09 AM | Comments (171) Live From Boston, It's Election Day: Part Seven--The End?This site is under construction....Just kidding. Sorry, it's late and I am depressed....The numbers do not look favorable for Kerry. John Edwards just came out and told the folks who have been waiting in Copley Square that the Kerry campaign will make sure that "every vote will count" and that it "will fight for every vote." Then he left--without a goodbye. But the Ohio results are increasingly lousy for Kerry. It appears that Bush will end up with a 150,000 or so lead there. Can there be enough provisional ballots for Kerry to overcome that? New Mexico is trending toward Bush. And there are 1.6 million absentee ballots in Florida, but the gap in that state is 350,000. Can Kerry win almost two-thirds of those absentee ballots? In the national count, Kerry is down 3.5 million, with 90 percent of the vote in. He's on the wrong end of a 51-48 split. (Looks like Ralph Nader for the moment escapes the spoiler charge.) There is much for Kerry to surmount. Color me a pessimist. In the media center, reporters mill about and wonder if any of the Kerry aides will come by to tell us what to do. (Last time Joe Lockhart and Mike McCurry briefed us, they looked not too happy. And when I pointed out the daunting math in Ohio, Lockhart had no real response.) This reminds me of four years ago. I was in Austin, and journalists waited until 4:00 in morning for Bush spinners to appear and say what was--or what was not--going on. We were like school kids without a teacher. When no one showed, we shrugged our shoulders and went home. People are packing now. I've written two versions of an article. But I have not posted either. Joe Lockhart, Mike McCurry, where are you?....Stay tuned. Or, rather, go to sleep. If there is any news tonight, it will likely not be good news. Posted by David Corn at 02:34 AM | Comments (11) Live From Boston, It's Election Day: Part Six--Fear in McAuliffe's EyesAbandon hope? Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe came through the media room a little while back. I thought I saw fear--or worry--in his sharp eyes. Ohio, Ohio, Ohio--that's what he and Michael McCurry keep telling us. As goes Ohio....But right now, Bush is leading in that state--up by nearly 200,000 voters, with 68 percent of the precincts reporting. I just went to the Ohio state website and looked at the county list. There still are some big Democratic counties that have not fully reported, such as Cuyahoga (Cleveland). But there also are a fair number of smaller counties that are trending Republican that have not fully reported. It doesn't look like it will be easy for Kerry to close the gap in Ohio. Possible, but....Oh, shit. Posted by David Corn at 12:23 AM | Comments (34)
|
|
||

















































