The Root Beer Blog

December 11, 2003

if ((Dean == McGovern) || (Dean != McGovern)) { die("Can't Decide! Abort! Abort!"); } else { print("Yay! I Found Something Else to Write About!"); }

Raul Groom's article on Lieberman, Dean, and the Democratic Party starts off pretty well but goes in a questionable direction, making claims (lots, if you read between the lines) I'd certainly like to believe, but giving very little evidence for many of them. Some select quotes:

"...we've got to stop listening to Holy Joe and his merry band of wimps..."

"Joe Lieberman isn't in it to win it. He really is The Mole."

Worth a read, nonetheless. The article takes the position that Dean is no McGovern.

Not worth a read, but pointed out because I sat through it, is Mort Kondracke's op-ed on current Democrats and their past counterparts. It reveals more of Mort's opinion than any real fact...but that's ok, because that's what op-eds are for. Some choice quotes:

"All Dean's position-switching - on trade, Medicare, defense spending and business regulation - will be replayed endlessly by the Bush campaign."

"Bush has plotted to be Ronald Reagan, stimulating the economy with defense spending and tax cuts, running up big deficits and causing the economy to boom. The latest growth numbers indicate that the plan is working."

I could go on and on about Bush's position switching, but I won't bother with that right now, because it's quite obvious to everyone who's willing to see it, and I will fail to convince anyone who's not willing to see it. I will say it's somewhat disingenuous to claim that Bush's economic strategy, all along, was to let it falter for three years and then recover just in time for reelection. If that's true, it's pretty scary...would you really want to elect a President who sacrifices three years of your well-being for his own political gain?

But that seems like real tinfoil hat territory, even to me...and I'm out there. I honestly believe that the removal of the anti-fraud measure from the $87.5 billion Iraq aid package (see my previous post...we've thought of some now!) was eliminated because Congress knew Halliburton--which today the Pentagon has found to have engaged in unfair pricing at the expense of the American taxpayer--and companies like it, were extremely likely to defraud the American taxpayer. I really believe that Wesley Clark is a Republican plant, their efforts at a one-party system. I really believe that electronic voting machines are a right-wing conspiracy (check out this internal Diebold memo that details plans to gouge Maryland should the state be so foolish as to request a voter-verified audit trail. Sure, you have the right to vote! You just don't have the right to know what we decided your vote was!

So I'm out there. I admit it. But honestly, even I think it's way-out wacko to think that Bush's fiscal plan involved deliberately throwing our economy into recession only to pull it out after a three-year slide. Come on, Kondracke!

I had a coworker recently chide me, saying I must be dismayed that the Dow has hit 10,000. "Why?" I asked, "Isn't bigger better?"

"Well, not if you're a liberal, hoping the economy tanks so you can get rid of Bush!"

I suppose it'd be much easier to get rid of Bush were the economy bad. But really, there's a boatload of reasons to get rid of Bush. I don't rely on the economy, and honestly it could've boomed for four years, I could be making triple what I am, and all my friends could find great jobs, and I'd still want to get rid of him, because it's not just the economy that matters. And furthermore, I find it tough to believe Republicans can say that the eight years of prosperity under Clinton had nothing to do with the White House and everything to do with the diligence of the American worker, but the economy under Bush is a creation totally of his own brilliance. Did every American suddenly become lackadaisical when Bush was elected? My best guess is that the American President, whoever he, she, or it might be at the time, exerts more influence over the economy than the citizenry (mostly by appointments to economic oversight positions). To assert that he's 100% responsible for any economic good news, but only if he's a member of the right party, seems a little crazy.

Jesus, are you still reading this? If you want some decent thoughts on the economy, check out this AlterNet article: Still Waiting for the Trickledown.

Well, we've gone way off topic. The point I originally meant to make was this: I've skimmed at least thirty articles that assert that Dean is the next McGovern, and I've skimmed around the same number that assert that he's not. Few seem to rely on any actual details of McGovern or his campaign, except the end result. Few seem to bother really examining Dean's policies. Or McGovern's, for that matter. So wouldn't the press corps' time be better spent researching, instead of spouting off baseless facts? Besides, who's the better alternative, really? Kucinich seems more McGovern to me. Gephardt? Edwards? Get real!

Dammit! Too much politics! Calm down. View penguins at the Antarctic Photo Library.

Posted by Chris at December 11, 2003 11:36 PM | TrackBack