[lit-ideas] Re: with or without Bush
- From: "Stan Spiegel" <writeforu2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 01:03:10 -0400
Eric says: "If everything is "Bush," then we can't really complain
about "Bush" because there's nothing but "Bush" out there, and hence nothing
to
which we can compare "Bush." It's "Bushes" all the way down."
S.S. says: "If" is a mighty big word. It covers a multitude of sins. And
Eric, with your "if," you seem to be trying to exonerate our fearless leader
of all his sins: his lying, his taking from the poor and giving to the rich,
his lying, his support for big big industry against the public interest, his
lying, his successful attempts at calling those who disagree with him
anti-American, his lying, etc.
And talk about hyperbole: you've done a good job of sparing the guy any
accountability .who's brought America to its lowest point in our history.
Created the biggest deficit. Sucked all the oxygen out of the Federal
Treasury. Hurt more of the poorest of the poor than Herbert Hoover. Cut
Veterans benefits in the name of supporting our troops. Claims to leave no
child behind by cutting school lunches for the poor. Claims our environment
is better off because of the freedom he's given big corporate polluters.
Says the elderly are better off with his prescription drug "benefit" now
that Medicare is forbidden to negotiate for lower drug prices.
Next thing you'll do is call him "an idealist" like David Brooks in
describing what he did in Iraq. Instead of calling Bush a moron, it makes
more sense to call him an oxymoron.
Stan Spiegel
Portland, Maine
----- Original Message -----
From: <Scribe1865@xxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 12:28 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: with or without Bush
> In a message dated 8/2/2004 11:30:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> mccreery@xxxxxxx writes:
> It could be, of course, that this whole argument is misconceived, since
the
> mere presence or absence of one or another president is supposed to have
some
> magical effect.
>
>
> In some cases, I don't think we can contend that outcomes would be
different
> if Gore were President, because many of the constraints on tactics were
> external. We probably didn't want to start pouring massive forces into the
Pakistani
> tribal area because we feared that Mushareff would be overthrown,
pro-Taliban
> factions would try to gain control of the Pak nuke forces, and that would
> cause us to intervene in Pakistan in a particularly terrible way.
>
> This isn't the Eisenhower Presidency either, but a far less powerful
> presidency, its executive powers reigned in and severely checked. For
example, I doubt
> older-generation presidents would have had the trouble about their
mistresses
> that Clinton did. Eisenhower would have silenced Kenneth Starr. Andrew
> Jackson would probably have shot Starr himself.
>
> While I agree (as Kerry said at the Convention) that it would be good to
have
> a national leader who believed in science, I also think that the election
> year has everyone drowning in metonymy.
>
> By this metonymy, "Bush" has come to mean, not Dubya's particular
directives
> or policies, but everything that happens. "Bush" becomes our scruples
about
> the Pakis. "Bush" becomes FBI bureaucrats covering their butts. "Bush" is
the
> PhD sweeping Walmart floors. "Bush" is the tacky, anti-intellectual,
> antipopulist fill-in-the-blank.
>
> That can't be right. If everything is "Bush," then we can't really
complain
> about "Bush" because there's nothing but "Bush" out there, and hence
nothing to
> which we can compare "Bush." It's "Bushes" all the way down.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
