[lbo-talk] Four more years?

C. G. Estabrook galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
Mon May 3 21:24:54 PDT 2004


Uh, thanks for the incisive analysis ... but you omit the occasion for my anxious reflection, viz., today's campaign speech, which Bush concluded by saying (and repeating) unconditionally, "We've got four more years to win the war on terrorism."

I've looked for the transcript and it doesn't seem to be up yet, but he gave a similar speech (i.e., same pieties in the same language) earlier in the day without the disturbing phrase <www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2538>. I'll be surprised if it's in the transcript -- I think it was a typical slip, owing to the fact that Rove et al. have assured him of his re-election, regardless what the voters say (as in 2000).

But can we be so sure that the other possibility has *never* occurred to his handlers, while Rice is predicting terrorist attacks before the election, and the tame academics interpret Spain as "a portent of what's ahead: a terrorist gang trying to intimidate voters into altering the result of a democratic election" (M. Ignatieff)?

We could write the speech now: "My fellow Americans, I come to you at the gravest moment in our nation's history: the events of the last few days have produced an unprecedented situation for our beloved country ... Just as in the darkest days of the Second World War that great patriot Winston Churchill found it advisable to put off the risks of a national election, so today...," etc.

No, I don't think so, either. But I could be bounded in a nut shell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams... --CGE

On Mon, 3 May 2004, Carrol Cox wrote:


> "C. G. Estabrook" wrote:
> >
> > Do you suppose their fall-back plans include the ultimate October Surprise
> > (as in, "Surprise! You won't have to bother to go to the polls next
> > month...")? --CGE
> >
>
> No.
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list