> (Aside to Jon: Since I've never paid attn to presdinential campaigns
> in the past and can only vaguely remember the issues when I campaigned
> for Jackson, I wonder if you'd elaborate on what you mean by this
> being the worst campaign you've witnessed. I'm shocked at the lies.
> I'm especially puzzled by the weird way the media appears to be
> rooting for Kerry, while covering the 'news' in a way that favors the
> replicants.)
A. We all know, of course, that U.S. presidential elections are basically farces, because the ruling class rules, whoever is elected. However, it's darned nice of them to give us proles a chance to have our say every four years about who we prefer to be screwed by. Usually, in these horse races, some attention is given to actual problems the country is faced with. This time, however, almost all attention is being given to utter non-issues: basically, who is the manlier man, based on what they were alleged to have done 35 years ago. It has gotten to the point where we are seriously discussing the extent to which proportional-font IBM typewriters were used in those days.
[By the way, I would seriously advise you to consider the possibility that these latest documents "proving" Shrub's desertion from the NG are just another Rove trick. It's quite common in the spy game to produce sloppy, easily detectable forgeries and pass them off as though your opponents had "discovered" them. I assume that someone in Rove's shop typed up those documents on their computer, precisely so they would be easily "unmasked."]
Meanwhile, the planet is dying, not to speak of quite a few of its human inhabitants. I thought the Reagan campaigns were silly enough, with old Mr. GE flashing the twinkle in his eye and assuring us that it was Morning in America, but at least his opponents in those days were trying to call attention to some important subjects. In 2004, as witness today's NY Times article, the Kerry camp is dead in the water, with or without a swift boat, flailing around and wondering what to do.
B. Sure the news media are rooting for Kerry (with notable exceptions, of course, such as Fox), because, like most intelligent Americans, they are scared crapless about the prospect of four more Shrub years. I am even beginning to see a few hints that they are beginning to rethink their famous commitment to "objectivity," i.e., he says/she says transmitting of even the most ridiculous statements by campaigns, government officials, and Snoopy the hound-dog, without bothering to inform their readers and viewers and listeners that these statements have no basis whatsoever in reality. This is apparently due to their having very rueful second thoughts about wholesaling all that Swift Boat nonsense to the public.
So we are seeing some timid efforts by some news media to inject mini-doses of reality into this nightmare. But it's way too little, too late for this year. Perhaps this will bear some fruit in the second Bush term, so that at least some "journalists" will grow some balls (what's the equivalent for female journalists? -- don't mean to leave them out).
C. Meanwhile, a certain ex-consumer-advocate is getting ready to ensure that second Bush term, if the electoral college returns are close. I know, it wasn't fair to blame the first Bush term on him. Let's just say that he makes a stunningly winning combination when paired with Democratic campaigns that don't have a clue about what they're doing.
I like Chuck's comparison of this campaign to "Groundhog Day." I'm eagerly anticipating the coming of Nov. 3.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________________________ It isn’t that we believe in God, or don’t believe in God, or have suspended judgment about God, or consider that the God of theism is an inadequate symbol of our ultimate concern; it is just that we wish we didn’t have to have a view about God. It isn’t that we know that “God” is a cognitively meaningless expression, or that it has its role in a language-game other than fact-stating, or whatever. We just regret the fact that the word is used so much.
— Richard Rorty