Houston Chronicle: "Say what you will, Bush is president until 2008"

[ProgressiveOne]

Excerpt:

Call the man dim, call him corrupt, but call him president until 2008. George W. Bush certainly has vulnerabilities, but he's been smart enough to model himself on a man who pioneered the fine art of political image-making: Andrew Jackson. Democrats, as a result, are doomed.

At first I read this as more neo-con propaganda. After researching the author a bit more, I find he's a dedicated progressive.

Good God, I hate to agree with him, but I have a sinking feeling that James McWIlliams is right.

Link: Say what you will, Bush is president until 2008

[Screaming Lord Byron]

1. Don't worry about an election result that's still a year away.

Today it may look like Bush can win, tomorrow it will look like he's sure to lose. This'll change on pretty much a daily basis as events impact on domestic politics.It's far too early for any of us to predict that Bush will be President until 2008.

[loudnclear]

40. I hate when they say "Bush has been smart enough.." It's not him!!

It's the folks who tell him what to do. Bush is really clueless. Without his handlers and Cheney (the real President) running the show Bush would be a cartoon in his own mind.

[arwalden]

2. Goodbye Cruel World... I'd Rather DIE Than Endure This Again

and I'm sure I'm not alone.

-- Allen

[ulysses]

3. McWilliams is one of the good guys

I don't know that he's necessarily right about *this* election, but he could well be. He's definitely right about this:

The nation has no patience for long-winded justifications. In fact, it is suspicious of them. Until someone figures out that the house of cards the administration has built must be crumbled by a yeoman with a sledgehammer and not a smarty-pants with a book, King George's manifest destiny will be to reign as the favored son of King Andrew.

[forgethell]

6. Problem is

* has the BIG sledgehammer.

[ulysses]

7. so, we continue

to zing little pieces of intelligent thought into the void and never get our own damned hammers? If the wingnuts have an advantage it's because we've allowed them to take it.

[forgethell]

16. allowed?

they just did it. We have been screaming about their policies for a long time, longer than GWB has been in politics. the sad fact is, dumb as we think they are, they continually out-think us, out-fight us, and out-play us on the political battlefield. Why is that?

I don't know the answer, but I have at least a partial theory. We keep getting distracted by the complexity of our thought. Our ideas, with all their nuances, soak up energy that should be used to move our team toward the goalline.

Why are we still fighting election 2000, for instance? OK, it keeps us energized, but mainly energized about how we wuz robbed. That's last year's ball game. Nothing can be done about it. Most Americans don't care about the election. But maybe they do care about *'s policies. We should focus on these.

That's my opinion, anyway. Looking to the past makes us look like whiny losers. Osama was/is an evil man, but he said it as good as anyone. People want to join the good horse, not the bad horse. If we look like winners, we can be winners.

[ulysses]

17. yes, allowed.

Since the mid-eighties, the direction of the DP elite powerbrokers has been one of concession and appeasement. That's why we get outplayed.

[forgethell]

28. What happened in the 80s?

Why did our "leaders" become appeasers? Might have been because Ronald Reagan beata the bejeezus out of us in elections. good, old amiable, dumb, ignorant Ronald Reagan took us to the cleaners on a regular basis. And I think it as because we thought with our hearts instead of our heads. the problem is, I still see us doing a lot of it. Maybe Republicans don't read the latest French philosophers. maybe they don't appreciate art consisting of gay men doing it, beautifully photographed, or the Virgin Mary smeared with dung. (This is not a slam at gays, by the way, just an example of art that Repukes I have known disliked, intensely). Maybe they are not as nuanced as progressives are.

But, they know how to win, and lately it hasn't seemed like we do. As for our leaders, well they ARE part of the establishment, now aren't they?

[ulysses]

33. the DLC happened in the 80s.

Might have been because Ronald Reagan beata the bejeezus out of us in elections. good, old amiable, dumb, ignorant Ronald Reagan took us to the cleaners on a regular basis.

Yup, and we blamed that on liberalism, just like the GOP told us to.

Your artsy stereotype is noted, although I'd like to know where I've said that we should all read Foucault and have Andres Serrano works on our walls.

[INTELBYTES]

38. Good post forgethell

When is our leaders message going to come through? The repukes have us on the defensive and our message is not being projected. Americans don't like the appearance of a waffleing leader.

[SeattleRob]

35. here here....

It's frustrating to see people read one person's column and then freak out. Who cares what this guy says. The election is still off in the distance and Bush has to run on his record. I say... Patience....

[BeFree]

8. Yeoman

That's us! We are the Yeoman in this story. We weild the sledgehammer.

The * house of cards is being smashed every day, right here on DU.

* is toast, it's just a matter of time. He didn't get elected the last time, he won't be re-selected again.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

[ulysses]

13. we not smashing the house of cards here

we're smashing its image. The real deal is in DC, and unless we organize, we're only smashing that image for the benefit of the already-converted.

[BeFree]

18. House of cards?

We nick away at it here, daily. We organize and refute. We educate each other. It is here we begin to weild the sledge.

The real deal is in the hearts and minds of our brothers and sisters. Our job is to organize and educate them, and them alone. Forget about influencing the elites, but concentrate our efforts to those who look longingly to be sheeple. We must turn them from the fenced-in yard and shepherd them toward the open fields where freedom reigns, where the New American Spirit flies free.

[calimary]

36. Here's how to start moving the sheeple: If I may offer this again...

Folks, we need to start creating and spreading some new MEMES. Like Republi-CONS and Republi-CONMEN and Republi-CON-ARTISTS and Republic-CON-JOBS and Cheap-Labor Conservatives and Red-Ink-Republi-CONS and Charge-and-Spend-Republicans.

We need stuff like this to roll off the tongue as easily and frequently and automatically as those schmucks derisively say "the Democrat Party."

They're having a great time because nobody and I mean NOBODY is hitting back. It's BEYOND high time that changed.

We need to slither stuff like this into the national mind-set. REPETITION WORKS!!! Soon, it will spread on its own, but WE have to get it jump-started.

So here are some suggestions:

1) WHEN (not IF, WHEN) you write or email some columnist or reporter or editorial board or whoever, slip one or two of them in. Make this a habit - EVERY TIME. I wrote to one Canadian reporter about an excellent article she'd produced. I made reference to "The Silenced Majority" to describe the many many legions of us critics of this "So-Called Administration" (there's another one) who've been forcibly silenced and marginalized. She picked up on that in her response and said that it was a good one. AHA! Perhaps she'll be likely to use it, herself, then.

2) If ever you get through on somebody's talk show, MAKE DAMNED SURE you repeat one or more of those several times. Further planting seeds and then giving them water and nutrients. Same is true if you email some TV show, on the chance it might get used on the air.

3) Use that terminology with friends and "watercooler" pals at the office. Just casually, BUT RELENTLESSLY!

4) WHEN (not if) you call your congresscritter (TOLL FREE TO CAPITOL HILL: 1 800 839 - 5276 - you KNEW I was gonna sneak that one in again, too, 'eh?), use these when you speak to Democratic office staffers. Encourage them to spread it, too. I started using "when bush lied, people died" or "bush lied and soldiers died" and a couple of 'em remarked specifically on that and said they liked it. WHILE YOU'RE AT IT, encourage them to start using this, too. Encourage them to suggest it to their bosses. Tell them it's the new rage where you live (keep it up enough and it's very likely to be!).

The objective is to plant these as seeds as far and wide as though you were Johnny Appleseed. Do it repeatedly yet casually in conversation and in writing. If enough of us do it, and spread the word, and maybe drop hints to Democrats.com and Buzzflash and some other friendly folk, perhaps takebackthemedia.com and such, it'll start spreading. Folks like Guy James and Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy should be doing this, too. Suggestion needs to get to them as well. The objective here is to influence the national dialogue and the national consciousness and implant - or let's use the lexicon - "embed" this stuff in people's minds so it just starts automatically popping into their heads. Soon enough, the average Joe will start hearing this, and subconsciously connecting the concept of "Charge and Spend" or "republi-CONS" whether he/she wants to or not. It'll just pop in there, the same as the shamelessly-pounded-into-the-ground memes about liberals being so bad.

FOLKS, YOU CAN BET THERE ARE WRITTEN AND EMAILED MARCHING ORDERS AND TALKING POINTS ISSUED FAR AND WIDE BY THE LIKES OF KKKARL ROVE AND RALPH REED AND ROGER AILES AT THE FAUX NETWORK EXHORTING PEOPLE TO DO JUST THAT. YOU CAN BET THAT EVERY TALKING HEAD, EVERY REPUBLI-CON OFFICE STAFFER EVERYWHERE, EVERY RIGHT-WING THINK-TANKER, EVERYBODY EVERYWHERE IN THE BAD-GUY CAMP IS GETTING THESE ADVISORIES. NEWT GINGRICH YEARS AGO ACTUALLY DID IT, ISSUING LISTS OF WORDS TO USE WHEN DESCRIBING DEMS AND REPUBLI-CONS. WE NEED TO DO LIKEWISE, ONLY BETTER AND MORE HONEST.

Don't mean to shout, but then again, actually, YES I DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guys, my dad was very successful as a salesman. He was a specialist in stuff like this, and it worked-worked-worked. I grew up watching this and seeing it work, repeatedly, with my own eyes. PLEASE DO IT!!!!!!

[moosedog]

14. We will overcome unless...

they cheat again and fix the votes. How many of you think that they won't do it again? When you see that muscle man actor in Calif get in and other's that you know were not honestly elected, why would you think things would be different now? We keep trying to put a square into a round hole. We need to acknowledge it and find other ways to conquer.

[BeFree]

19. Another stolen election?

That is the greatest fear. And where did it happen that the biggest offensive against BBV get it's greatest lift? Right here on DU. When Bev Harris began posting here is when the education began. Look where it is today! It will be very difficult for the vote to be stolen this time. And making sure it is a free and fair election is one task that we must become as one in order to succeed.

BBV: Never Forgive, and Never Forget!

[ulysses]

4. more from his review of Conason's new book

The ultimate problem with this damning heap of well-earned calumny is that Conason, as he says, is hitting back. Which, of course, means that liberals got hit first. And as any psychologist will tell you, that’s precisely the trouble. There’s a term for it (a psychologist friend of mine was supposed to check on it and he never got back to me in time–thanks a lot, Jon) and it involves the power of first impressions. Studies have shown that when a person is told a lie under the auspices of it being true, it’s very hard to disabuse him of that notion by virtue of the fact that it was what he heard first. The Republicans have best capitalized on this innate affinity for and power of the first strike, beginning with Gingrich’s "Language, a Key Mechanism of Control," a guide distributed to conservative candidates in the mid-1990s. Today, Karl Rove is in charge of the Republicans’ language control, a project of Orwellian intricacy that has earned him the kudos of Andrew Sullivan, former editor of The New Republic, who assures us that "a rhetorical smoke screen is sometimes necessary." The encouraging news about those psychological experiments is that, barring basic stupidity, we can correct for false first impressions. Conason, whose book throws a barrage of punches alongside Al Franken’s Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them and Jim Hightower’s Thieves in High Places, offers little hope that the nasty tenor of American political discourse will recover a sense of civility. But this collective voice, in all its shrillness, is calling liberals back to the battle. One only hopes the candidates will follow.

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1457

[msanger]

10. I admire him for overcoming his alcholism and family problems

Or somehting to that effect from Clark. Sounds like HE's not waiting to hit back.

[Jackpine Radical]

24. ...the power of first impressions

For anyone who cares, the technical term is the Primacy Effect.

[SheilaT]

5. It is much too soon

to do much more than hope, spread the word to all who will listen about how terrible Bush has been, support our own candidates for all offices, and perhaps have our own exit plan if Bush is "re-elected".

I do know that what's happened since he took office will take years and years to undo.

[ACK]

9. His observations on progressive politics and dems are right on

Listen, you have to be ready to fight for what you believe. You have to have people like us and others like Franken ready to reach out through the media outlets to rip the administration a new one.

You have to be ready to hit first and hard.

Not only that, no one likes a smarty pants. Put the books down and learn from our few victories as of late.

You frame a progressive message in straight-forward populist terms that people understand. You don't have to sell your soul like Zell Miller but you can't run a Dem campaign in VA like Ed Kennedy either. Reclaim the language of debate and talk about the borrow and spend repukes and the giveaways to the rich and promoting small business through initiatives while holding corporate criminals accountable for their actions. Talking about giving hand up not a hand out to the poor. Frame the Repukes as the radicals they are. Refuse the stereotypes. Change the language of the debate.

Where are the victories?

Look at the campaign of the much loved Paul Wellstone and his grassroots organization.

Look at the campaign of a pretty much unknown to front runner like Howard Dean and his usage of new media and technology for fund raising and organization.

Look at the campaign of Mark Warner and how he framed his campaign around images designed to appeal to the people of Virginia not alienate them.

Look at the success that Bill clinton had in his re-election campaign by framing the Republicans as the sinister radicals they are.

These are the kinds of ideas and successes that are not regional or are regional in a transferable way.

We have the blueprint to victory in a nation divided.

Do we have the guts or the organization to use it?

That is the question.

[Karmadillo]

11. Good article. Krugman's comments on revolutionary power and muddled

moderates seem to fit here. We have to stop reacting and start standing up for what we believe. Not an easy thing to do in a world ruled by corporations and their political lackeys, but the longer we wait, the worse things will get.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/libertango/53242.html

<edit>

In fact, there's ample evidence that key elements of the coalition that now runs the country believe that some long-established American political and social institutions should not, in principle, exist....Consider, for example....New Deal programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance, Great Society programs like Medicare....Or consider foreign policy....separation of church and state....The goal would seem to be something like this: a country that basically has no social safety net at home, which relies mainly on military force to enforce its will abroad, in which schools don't teach evolution but do teach religion and — possibly — in which elections are only a formality....

Surely, says the conventional wisdom, we should discount this rhetoric: the goals of the right are more limited than this picture suggests. Or are they?

Back to Kissinger. His description of the baffled response of established powers in the face of a revolutionary challenge works equally well as an account of how the American political and media establishment has responded to the radicalism of the Bush administration over the past two years:...."they find it nearly impossible to take at face value the assertions of the revolutionary power that it means to smash the existing framework"....this passage sent chills down my spine....

There's a pattern...within the Bush administration....which should suggest that the administration itself has radical goals. But in each case the administration has reassured moderates by pretending otherwise — by offering rationales for its policy that don't seem all that radical. And in each case moderates have followed a strategy of appeasement....this is hard for journalists to deal with: they don't want to sound like crazy conspiracy theorists. But there's nothing crazy about ferreting out the real goals of the right wing; on the contrary, it's unrealistic to pretend that there isn't a sort of conspiracy here, albeit one whose organization and goals are pretty much out in the open....

Here's a bit more from Kissinger: "The distinguishing feature of a revolutionary power is not that it feels threatened...but that absolutely nothing can reassure it (Kissinger's emphasis). Only absolute security — the neutralization of the opponent — is considered a sufficient guarantee"....I don't know where the right's agenda stops, but I have learned never to assume that it can be appeased through limited concessions. Pundits who predict moderation on the part of the Bush administration, on any issue, have been consistently wrong...

more...

[kodi]

29. it's an ugly fusion of economic and cultural hegemonists we face

the way back out of this wilderness may make mao's long march look like a cake walk.

[mrgorth]

12. On the contrary

I think the article echoes are criticisms about the dark side of american culture. And yes, it exists and yes, Bush is playing it up. However, this is not 1818 and the populace is more educated now. I think that, rather than a deathnell, this is a call to arms, and, if I read correctly, an endorsement of Gov. Dean or AT LEAST his style.

[mikehiggins]

15. That's why I support Clark

The way I see it, the majority of Americans have yet to "engage" with this election and when they do, the stories about improving economies and Bush's unprecedented successes in Washington are going to carry the day. The Iraq occupation will appear to be winding down, even if voices in the distance complain that our troops will be on the ground in Iraq for the remainder of the decade.

And the President will still be the leader in the "war on terrorism".

Kerry, Gephardt, etc., will be spun to represent the "old politics" that got us into this mess in the first place (and some of that is the truth).

Dean, who is our most likely nominee, will be presented as the testy Governor of a state with a total population smaller than most large cities that was one of the first to push "gay marriage" on its unwilling population, etc., etc. Can we project Dean's accomplishments onto a 300 million person nation? Not likely.

Edwards is a callow youth, and inexperienced in government. A one term Senator who was a trial lawyer and so on.

Dennis, Al and Carol will not even be discussed EXCEPT to point out the radical underpinnings of the Democrats.

So that leaves us with Clark. All of the attacks and criticisms of Clark (from Waco to war criminal) stumble and falter when the guy speaks. It will take one joint appearance on a stage with Bush to show America the difference between faux and authentic. In this world that is as much as you can hope for.

Clark is not perfect, and it is disturbing to see several of his supporters dropping over the edge into hero worship but I've been a toiler in these vineyards for many, many years and to me Clark seems to be the closest thing to Bobby Kennedy we've found since, well, Bobby Kennedy.

And at the very least, from my experience, he is the democratic candidate in the real (as in non-DU) world with the best chance of beating George Bush. Not a good chance, admittedly, but the very best chance among what we have running to accomplish that one very, very, very difficult task: overthrowing a popular incumbent president in the middle of a war.

This could not be harder to do, and I don't see anyone else, including Gore and Hillary, who are in a position right now to do it.

[VOX]

23. Good analysis.

And you are probably correct.

[0rganism]

27. Yup, this is why I'm leaning toward Clark right now

He seems to be the one for whom criticism, even legitimate criticism, most resembles the "smarty-pants big book" stuff that is so ineffective. And he isn't taking any crap from media whores. If he gets the nomination, at the very least we'll have several months in which he calls the corporate press on its lies and pro-conservative bias.

[Bandit]

20. It is all about money ~ They have it we don't

We need a couple more George Soros and Ted Turners to try and save America. Without major big time money help we will have to endure the money masters.

[Octafish]

21. It ain't necessarily so.

First, Bush isn't Andrew Jackson.

Bush is a crook.

We DEMs need to make that plain and say it loud and clear.

BUSH IS A CROOK!

[blm]

22. We need a strong ticket and one that can deal with CROOKS.

Kerry, Edwards, Clark. The ticket is there.

[mrgorth]

26. Why am I doing this?

I like all 3 of the guys you mentioned and will work hard to get them elected. Will you do the same if Dean is on the ticket? "Yes or no governor?"

[Spazito]

25. When I read this, I see a writer seeing the election through the...

eyes of a Texas resident. I have little doubt that, in Texas, that is very much the feeling but TEXAS is not the US, it is one state with a vast majority of Bush supporters. The author may be a dedicated progressive and is right to sound warnings but it should be taken in context, imo.

Just an outsider's opinion, for what it may be worth.

[OKNancy]

31. I was going to write something similar

Except add this:

WHO CARES WHAT SOME PERSON IN HOUSTON SAID!!!!!!!!

It doesn't make it so, or right.

You know, Bill Safire said that Hillary Clinton was going to be indicted back in 1998. I remember that and how Drudge had big headlines saying the same thing.

Think back on all the predictions by our friends and foes that have not come true. Fuck 'um. Our hard work and dedication is going to SHOCK the Republicans!!!

[jenk]

30. this is an endorsement of Dean

Until someone figures out that the house of cards the administration has built must be crumbled by a yeoman with a sledgehammer and not a smarty-pants with a book

that's dean isn't it? :)

[Gloria]

32. I read an article on how Blanco in LA won the election during the last

week or so....one factor was that she spurred women. How? She sent out a 4 page pamphlet which honed in on Jindal's strict, no abortion for anything stance...and the pamphlet said that Jindal didn't care if women died.

Now, that's what I've been saying for years....hell, start saying that the GOP doesn't care if WOMEN DIE. In other words, they are WOMAN KILLERS.

Too nasty?? Not at all, if you consider that they've been calling us "baby killers" for years...They've controlled the language, even to the point of inventing a term, Partial Birth abortion, even when there is no medical terminology to that effect. On abortion and most issues, the GOP just throw language around...and we respond.

So, we have to start throwing language around...proactively, not on defense.

So, now, you don't defend abortion rights, for example...you simply state:
The GOP against choice doesn't care if women die, they are killing women."

Period. End of discussion. No long detailed explanation of when, under what circumstances....just make the damned statement and stick to it and repeat it over and over, until numbskull Americans get it.

[0007]

34. Texas has damn plenty to be pissed at junior...

wouldn't it be a hoot if all those PO'd Enron workers with memory of Phil & Wendy Graham in mind, and the mothers of the Chip program and the Latinos did a number on junior and caused him to lose the State of Texas.

I'd sing the eyes of 'Texas Are Upon You' everyday for a year.

I think that Mr. McWillams is trying to be a smarty pants. He has to have something to write about without pissing off Texas and still keep his job.

[Scott Lee]

37. Bush* - modeling himself after the father of the Dem party!

Old Hickory himself? That's quite funny, considering Andrew Jackson really talked to people instead of throw out edicts from ivory towers and hide behind secret trips and black glass.

What an upside-down world we live in!

[Malva Zebrina]

39. Bush will prevail, no matter how stupid and shallow

and no matter how spurious his conservative fascist claims because he now, effectively, owns the country. The congress has been neutralized with the recent Medicare vote and their piss poor showing to defend it's most vulnerable population. It is done--forked and toasted.

When will he and others like him be defeated?--when the mood and the attitude of the country changes from one of greed, excessive consumuerism , brutal competition to eliminate others from interfering at all costs, orgasmic pleasure in the buying of things that accumulate in a showy display inside and outside of the house, striving to out do and striving to become one of the rich elite who live in gated communities, and other shallow, meaningless, souless excesses are realized for the impediment they are on the lives of those in any given society.

Until the people's expectations and perceptions of life change, the George Bush's of the world will continue on in their fascism and their ability to win.

People want it--they want this shallow, but reassuring return to the father figure and their own perceived security at any cost--they feel protected if they support the fascism of a Bush. They are primed to only see the immediate and not the future--they cannot think past their own lives to that of the future generations. Further, they cannot see why they must be so matured as to think of future generations.

--America has lost it's soul.

[Eric J in MN]

41. one flaw

If it's so difficult to explain what is wrong with Bush's handling of Iraq, then why do polls show more Americans disapprove than approve of Bush's handling of post-war Iraq?