No Rush

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, a naval base that should have been somewhat on guard given the uneasiness of the world situation in December of 1941, it was thought that they had awakened a sleeping giant.

Nearly sixty years later the same analogy was applied to what occurred when Islamist extremists crashed planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  The giant was asleep again.  This nap was inexplicable because this same group of people had been killing Americans or attempting to do so for years.

Many assume that the sleeping giant is the American military.  It is not.  That slumbering behemoths has always been the American people.  Our military doesn't get to do much unless they have a reasonable amount of the will of the American people behind them.

Sadly enough, we hit the snooze button shortly after our last wake up call on September 11, 2001.  Yes we awoke.  We were shocked.  We were angry.  We mourned the losses suffered and rallied behind the President of the United States. 

Then, we rolled over and went back to sleep.

I have never trusted George W. Bush.  Not even when he grabbed a bullhorn atop a pile of rubble for his most famous photo-op.  President Bush and the people he surrounds himself with are part of the problem.  They have never had a solution, they only compound and aggravate existing situations.

They started by using the September 11 attacks as an excuse to execute a plan of action that had been sitting in Paul Wolfowitz's briefcase since the first Bush Administration.  They misled the American people into believing that the invasion of Iraq was a response to the attacks of September 11th.  Most Americans believed them.  Colin Powell, because of his credibility, was dispatched to the United Nations to lie to the rest of the world about the urgency of the suggested mission.  The world rolled its eyes at what they were told by Powell and the much maligned UN was further criticized here in America because they were foreigners.  Hey, it wasn't their buildings that got crashed into!

Once the invasion started, there was no turning back.  Even people who did not believe the Bush Administration's story about the necessity of invading Iraq, now know that pulling out now would leave Iraq in such a mess that it would become a hotbed for terrorist.  Not that it was before the invasion, but those arguments are rendered moot because "it's too late, we're already there."

President Bush enjoyed approval ratings that were through the roof.  After all, he was a "War President."  This approval promoted in him and his team an arrogance that has led to a litany of bad moves and displays of indifference toward the welfare of this country and its citizens.

Invading Iraq and maintaining it is very expensive, yet, the Bush Administration is not doing much to pay for their actions abroad.  They have not raised taxes nor cut spending.  The giant sleeps easier with money in his pockets.  I remember when the standard attack on Democrats was that they were tax and spend liberals.  I don't see much difference between that and a tax and spend conservative.

The Patriot Act was passed.  First, because it had a very marketable name.  Second, because no one who voted for it read it.  This was a necessary act to enable our government to peer into every aspect of the life of anyone it deemed an enemy of the state.  Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, so there.  That was the administration's response to anyone who questioned the invasiveness of the Patriot Act.  At least that was the administration's public response.  Who knows what revenge the Patriot Act allowed.  After all, to be against the Patriot Act would mean you were unPatriotic.

The invasion went so very well that it ended sooner than expected.  So now it was time to be greeted as liberators as the people of Iraq greeted the American Troops by throwing flowers at them.  This was how we were told, by the officials who sold us the  idea, that they would be greeted by the Iraqi people.  A report prepared by the Bush Administration's own State Department that warned of looting and lawlessness and the chaos that often follows when a government is overthrown was ignored by the President and the people who actually make the decisions in the administration. 

Because the Iraq situation was the definition of what this administration was all about, anyone who questioned the reality of the thought process was an enemy of the state.  Toward that end, the administration outed Valerie Plame, a CIA Operative, whose husband, Joe Wilson, publicly disputed a claim that was critical toward the administration's case for invading Iraq.

TheAdministration's friend, Ken Lay, and his company Enron, committed a gigantic hoax that shook people from Houston to Washington to Wall Street to California.  First, they screwed with California's power to the point that the rolling blackouts were used as the impetus for the recall election of Democratic Governor Grey Davis.  The company continually lied about how well it was doing and the biggest firms on Wall Street and the largest banks in the country believed the company with no proof.  What brought Enron down was the simplest of questions:  What does Enron do to make money? 

Back to the "war."  The world was outraged when pictures surfaced of the abuse being heaped on Iraqui prisoners at Abu Gahrib prison.  American soldiers took pictures of each other teasing and humiliating prisoners.  It was a disgrace to be sure.  It was also in violation of accepted international standards for treatment of prisoners of war.  The Bush Administration's response was to say that these prisoners were not technically prisoners of war.  This was from the "War" President.  To believe that higher ups in the Defense Department did not know of or approve of these actions is to be in denial.  Invading an Arab country that had never attacked this country was bad enough.  Nothing screams "attack us again" like abusing Arab prisoners in the humiliating way that our troops did.  Enlisted personnel were tried and convicted after the excuse making did not wash.

Hurricane Katrina is a microcosm of the Bush Administration.  Indifference.  Ineptitude.  Excuses.  Finally, finger pointing.  FEMA was incredibly weakened when the Bush Administration decided to place it under the umbrella of the new Homeland Security Department.  The government even took funding from efforts to bolster hurricane preparation in Louisiana.  Everyone in America knew this hurricane was coming.  Everyone knew it was going to be a category four or five hurricane.  It was also public knowledge that it was heading for New Orleans.  Surprisingly a category five hurricane hit New Orleans dead on.  The richest government in the world stood and watched thousands of its citizens get devastated and hundreds die and did as close to nothing as possible.  When it did make an effort, the attempt was half assed.  They then did what they do best, they blamed someone else.  This was a local government responsibility.  That line became the Republican Party talking point.  A massive storm is about to wipe out an American city and the those kick ass cowboys that make up the Bush Administration tell us it's not their job.  The President that was sold in 2004 as the guy to lead us in these dangerous times leads a government that can't evacuate or prepare a city with almost a week's notice.  He put a cronie in as FEMA chief.  Michael Brown was a Bush buddy and Bush thought so little of the importance of federal emergency response that he put an unqualified friend in charge.

Most recently we have discovered that in conducting the "War on Terror" the President has deemed it necessary to approve of wiretapping without warrants.  It is important to understand that it is possible to go ahead and wiretap and get the warrant after the fact.  Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was brought before the Senate Judiciary Committee which was holding a hearing on the wiretap issue.  Committee Chairman Arlen Specter did not deem it necessary to swear Gonzales in so the Attorney General wasn't under oath.  Not that mattered since he wouldn't answer questions anyway.  Everything was to sensitive to talk about. 

Finally, President Asleep at the Switch apparently didin't realize that there would be a problem if a company from Dubai was in charge of watching our ports.  He has threatened to veto the law Congress has threatened to send his way banning the deal that would permit a company from the United Arab Emirates from overseeing American ports.  Apparently, the President is now politically correct feeling it would be wrong to profile in such an instance. 

As a Republican this all pains me.  Finally, the GOP has control of the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives and essentially, the Supreme Court.  Look at what has been done with a Republican run government.  Spending is out of control.  We have alienated most of the world.  We are spending money on a fight we started unnecessarily and are not handling well.  African Americans, especially poor ones, have all but officially been told they are of no importance to this government.  This country cannot defend itself from a hurricane let alone another terrorist attack.  After six years of one party rule America is weaker, poorer, dumber and uglier than ever.

This list of grievances only represents what I could come up with off the top of my head.  Dick Cheney's accidental shooting of a hunting companion doesn't qualify as an affront to the country as it only directly affected one man.  However, his response, that of a child who broke Mom's lamp while playing in the house, was typical.  These are the people that attacked Bill Clinton for being irresponsible.  Hypocrisy is a reflex for these guys.

What makes America truly great is that we have the ability to correct our problems.  We can rid ourselves of George W. Bush and his kind.  That is still possible.  Mr. Bush cannot run for reelection and we must do our best to ensure that no one like him sees the inside of our government again.

Wake up you sleeping giant!  There are Barbarians at our gates.  Let's let them out.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

It is ironic that national political conventions are often said to be an attempt to attract new members to their respective parties.  I cannot think of a bigger turnoff to politics than watching the two major parties attempt to be compelling without being revealing.  Ask an elementary school student what he or she would do if elected to the office of President of the United States of America and you get more interesting and in depth answers than those provided at either party's convention.  I may be a bit cynnical, but here's what I saw this year:

July in Boston.  The Democrats gave us the same convention they give us every four years.  Great speeches and ideas from people who aren't the nominee.  Anything said of or by the nominee was defensive, responses to the picture the Republicans have already painted.

Barak Obama gave a great speech and it was obvious why he was chosen to speak during prime time.  He has been anointed the future of the party that has no present.

Bill Clinton made me long for the days when President's spoke in full sentences and expressed themselves intelligently.  His speech was well crafted and delivered with confidence and style.  It also had something that Clinton usually lacks:  brevity.  It was a great convention speech that supported the nominee, drew actual contrasts between the two parties and took credit for anything good that occurred between 1993 and 2001.  I could envision Clinton passing John Kerry off stage after the speech telling him, "That's how it's done, stupid."

Al Sharpton was allowed to speak at the convention and really, wasn't that the only reason he ran at all?  He had no money and he only got a handful more votes than I did. He likes speaking and running for president lets one do that.  Sharpton gave a great fiery speech that hit on the importance of the black vote and the struggle that was put forth so that something called the black vote could even exist.

But, like I said, Democrats always give you some great speeches.  What else did we get from the Democrats in Boston? 

For one, John Kerry was in Viet Nam.  Did you know that?  Of course you did.  Yet, the Democrats felt compelled to tell us that at every possible turn.  He earned medals.  Got it.  He served with honor and distinction.  I hear ya'.  He is a war hero.  I know!  They shoved John Kerry's Viet Nam experience so far down the my throat, I was ready make my own Swiftboaters for Truth ad. 

And when the Democrats weren't waving the old war in my face, they were waving the new war in my face.  When we weren't hearing about how brave John Kerry served in Viet Nam, we were hearing about how dumb George W. Bush had mishandled Iraq.  Really?  Isn't that the same George W. Bush who John Kerry authorized to invade Iraq?

That's why we heard so much about Kerry's Viet Nam record, because his record on the current war is not as impressive.  Kerry said in a Rolling Stone interview that he voted to authorize the use of force, but he didn't know that Bush would f*** it up.  He didn't know Bush would f*** it up?  George W. Bush f***'s everything up.  If anyone should know that, it's a Democrat.  So John Kerry is saying he put faith in George W. Bush.  Can any Democrat trust a man with that kind of judgment to be President?

And isn't that the pattern of John Kerry's war record both then and now?  Support the effort and then protest it.  Fight in Viet Nam and then protest the war.  Support the Bush Administration's desire to invade Iraq and then protest it.  The Republicans didn't have to paint John Kerry as indecisive, they just had to point a camera at him.

As far as his speech and that of his running mate, John "Golden Boy" Edwards; there wasn't a whole lot of there there.  They were poorly delivered and lacking in anything that would generate a genuine response.  I actually nodded off during Kerry's speech and thought I was dreaming as he morphed into Michael Dukakis.  To be honest, I had inadvertently switched to C-SPAN2 which was, in fact, showing the Dukakis speech from 1988.

A month the later the Republicans came to New York.  They came not to apologize for underfunding the city's portion of the Homeland Security budget, but to reassure them that that money was not needed because George W. Bush is the greatest President ever.

 The first night,the GOP rolled out the guys they resent:  the popular moderates.  John McCain gave a speech reminding the party faithful that our enemies are the ones who blew up the World Trade Center, not the Democrats.  His speech was serious and then supportive of the President. 

Rudy Giuliani is well respected and should be.  However, his speech was all over the place.  And if he was giving this speech to placate the red meat conservatives because he might run in 2008; he might very well have bored away the moderates he most connects with.  I don't think the Mayor missed a topic, he may have even covered Geometry in there somewhere.

On Tuesday, we got Arnold Shwarzenegger.  His accent is no longer a stumbling block.  He looks great and he spoke warmly of his love for America as an immigrant.  It was a speech he has given before, but one that presented a sentiment not often associated with a prominent Republican governor.

Wednesday came, without warning.  I think Wednesday's subtitle might have been:  Enough of this sissy sh*t, we want blood! 

When Zell Miller, the Senior Senator from Georgia and a Democrat,  got up to speak, it was hard to know exactly what to expect.  Undiluted anger was not really anywhere near what I expected.  It was probably seen as a coup for the Republicans to get a Democrat to deliver their keynote address and speak out against his own party's nominee.  The problem with coups is that they are often messy and have unpredictable results.  Miller looked so mad that his words were meaningless.  He sounded like a ranting old southerner, which it turned out, he was.  And I'm not sure, but at the end of his speech I thought I heard him say, "...now let's go burn his house down!"  

I think Dick Cheney is evil.  You can't look at him throughout the convention and convince me otherwise.  He's not the wild kind of evil, he's that scary, powerful kind.  He looked as if he were saying, "Enough of this pep rally, I've got a government to run."  He did what the Vice President is supposed to do, although most Vice Presidents have inflections in their voices.  He took a few jabs at his opponents and praised the President.

George W. Bush gave us a laundry list of things he wants to get done.  It sounded eerily similar to the list he gave four years ago only he's added nation building to his to-do list.  Just like their Democratic counterparts, the Republican nominees delivered boring speeches in an unimpressive way.

So what was the difference?  The Republicans did a better job.  Why?  The Democrats spent their four days and nights telling us about a war hero from thirty years ago.  They told us the current President is not fit to be reelected.  Then they presented another wealthy, lifeless, poll surfer into the limelight as their best.  I didn't hear any convincing argument made as to why John Kerry would make a good President, only that George W. Bush ought not to be reelected.

The Republicans were given a blank canvas.  And they painted a very ugly picture of the Democratic nominee.  He is indecisive.  In a time when a lot of people hate this country and are willing to do us harm, is there anything worse than an uncertain hand steering the ship of state?  Again, it's not so much about how great a job George W. Bush has done,  it's the fear of putting John Kerry in a position to make decisions.  By the way the Republicans honor his service to our country.

Aside from watching the speakers at the conventions, I also tried to watch the delegates.  They are the ones who frighten me the most.  These are hardcore believers in whatever the party tells them.  Am I supposed to respect people who take every sentence as an applause line?  Does chanting "Hope is on the way" or "Four more years" take some sort of special skill?  Do either add anything to educating the American public?

I'm sure they believe they are taking part in an important part of the democratic process.  They are.  They scare people away from the process.  Think about it.  There were people who were hardcore Bob Dole supporters in 1996.  There were people who were passionate about Michael Dukakis in 1988.  Michael Dukakis wasn't even passionate about Michael Dukakis.  How can you have a rational comversation with a person who is absolute in his beliefs as soon as he's told what they are? 

But rest easy.  I've heard hope is on the way in four more years.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

As we prepare for another weekend showdown between the Boston Red Sox and their hated rivals the New York Yankees, I realize how appropriate it is that the Democrats are holding their convention in Boston, while the Republicans are holding theirs in New York.

In the world of the long standing rivalry the Democrats surely are the Boston Red Sox of politics.  Oh sure, they've won a little more often, but those victories seem to be more of an abberation than an expected pattern.  The Democrats are the party of almost there.  When they come up short there are excuses and talk of moral victories.

In the other dugout is the Republican Party, the New York Yankees of modern politics.  Victory at all costs.  Losing is unacceptable and is greeted with wholesale changes.  Winning is not celebrated, it is expected.  Both the GOP and the Yankees embrace tradition, because it has treated both of them well.

In their early hey day, the Red Sox had Babe Ruth, the foundation on which the modern game of baseball is built.  But they lost him before he achieved his greatness and Babe Ruth will always be remembered as a Yankee.  Today's Yankees play in the "House That Ruth Built."  The Red Sox play in the House That Ruth Left.

Likewise, in their early hey day, the Democrats had Ronald Reagan.  The Gipper's first political hero was FDR.  Reagan is the foundation on which modern politics is built.  But the Democrats lost Reagan before he achieved his greatness and Ronald Reagan will always be remembered as a Republican.

The Red Sox hierarchy deride the Yankees for having too much money, therefore having an unfair advantage.  The truth is the Red Sox have too much money too, they just don't have as much as the Yankees and don't spend it as wisely.  Similarly, the Democrats continually complain about the ungodly amount of money the Republicans have access to, often indicating the GOP is the party of the rich.  The truth is the Democrats also have access to ungodly amounts of money, they just don't seem comfortable about being the other party of the rich.

 In their most recent off season, high stakes contest, the two baseball teams were competing for the services of Alex Rodriguez.  A-Rod is arguably considered the best player in the game and is inarguably the highest paid player in the game.  The Red Sox went after him first.  In traditional Red Sox fashion, they almost gave it their all.  They had agreed to a trade, but part of that agreement would require A-Rod to re-structure his hefty contract to make him more affordable.  The deal was struck dead when the Players Association ruled that A-Rod could not agree to re-structure his contract.  So the Red Sox were, as usual, close but no cigar.

The Yankees, seeing what it was going to take to get A-Rod, did what it took to get A-Rod.  No contract re-structuring was needed.  The Yankees were going to pay the player.  They didn't really need him.  I think they just couldn't resist teaching the Red Sox a lesson.  It was the middle of the winter and the Yankees had beaten the Red Sox again.

That's the difference.  Boston fans and Democrats take the moral highground of noble lost causes.  Fighting the good, honest fight is a reward unto itself.  Yankee fans and the Republicans don't care what it takes, victory is all that matters.  And don't mistake the New Englanders as pure.  They and the Democrats most assuredly are not.  The Red Sox, like the Yankees, have high priced talent.  The Democrats, like the Republicans, do whatever they can to raise as much money as they can. 

The lesson for both is that if the loser wants to win, he must be willing to do whatever it takes.  Two of the last three Democrats to win the White House were Bill Clinton and  Lyndon Johnson.  They wanted to win.  They didn't care how.  They didn't need to qualify victory.  The Red Sox and the Democrats need to stop pretending to have distaste for the Yankees and the Republicans.  They are jealous and weak. 

Lacking the will to do what it takes to win is a tradition for the Red Sox and Democrats.  They are almost doing what it takes.  It is hard to listen to them complain about their contempt for their more victorious opponents when they both are pale imitations of that which they deride.  The Dem Sox are playing the same game as the team that consistently beats them, they just aren't as good at it.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this