Munro Williams
New member
This was deleted from Free Republic due to the hysteria it generated. Read it fairly before condemning it, as it's the most cogent assessment of how things are I've read.
More Hard Reality
Robert L. Kocher
Ladies and gentlemen, let's take a look at the record and history of this situation.
George Bush has a spotty history. He looks good when viewed superficially. In fact, he has done very little of any seriousness in his lifetime. His existence has consisted of coasting through life on the basis of family name and contacts.
It was also that way with his father, who continued in the path set and enabled by grandfather Bush. George W. was brought into an oil business as a figurehead and did none too well at it. He was saved by purchase of the oil company by outsiders who kept him on as a nearly non-functional figurehead.
Last year he apparently made $18,000,000 from the sale of an athletic team. But where did the original money come from? It was largely the result of payment for his serving in figurehead positions for being a Bush. It was the result of cushy positions and privilege. Bush has never used hard minded grit to build anything starting at the bottom.
The Texas governborship is another cushy illusion. The previous governor, Ann Richards, was a former drunk with a course mouth who sounded as if she still had a load on. Her raucous iconoclasm held immediate attention and amusement, and may have originally gotten her elected, but was not the type of thing that wears well over time. She was not a strong candidate for reelection.
Texas is a state where many people are of similar mind. To become governor of that state requires little more than to drift along with that mindset while showing easy-going affability and personal appeal. Texas has its own distinct culture that is distant from national issues. Indeed, the Texas mind is two steps away from secession from the Union. One does not need the capability of arguing the nuances of Marxism versus free enterprise with the likes of Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Bella Abzug, Teddy Kennedy, or leading figures in the national media to become governor of Texas. It's a position of ease, with little contention to face, where one merely presides over continuation of the machinery of the status quo. It requires none of the intellectual or tempermental capabilities needed for present national leadership.
In short, all manner of things have come to George Bush without effort as people have sought him out to bestow them upon him merely because his name was Bush. He had but to pick and choose. That he has chosen among those unearned gifts and positions has given him the illusion of success.
Gorge Bush was sought out and offered a presidential candidacy on the same basis as he has been offfered everything else. It was an acceptable gift. My observation at the time was that he was prepared to coast into the presidency on the primary basis of pleasantness and family background that had served him in the past. It became obvious that he lacked the serious development of mind or ideological depth necessary to define national issues or defend himself or defend the Republic. He was out of his depth, rootless, and lost. It was beyond remedy of cramming sessions.
In the Republican primary debate one Tuesday last spring both Bush and McCain believed they were clever in drowning out Alan Keyes when he called for substance during the debate. It was a short term win for Bush, but a long term loss for the country. Bush won. He thought.
Bush had media support for doing it. The only person who was a threat to the leftist media, and the left, was Alan Keyes. If Keyes attained a threshold of visibility, he would become a major force the left would not be able to subdue, and they knew it. The left would lose control of American politics and they knew it. Keyes was put out of commission under the guise of giving the country an electable voice of moderation, Bush.
Bush went into the presidential campaign with a 14 to 16 point lead in the polls supported by people desperate to vote against the Clintons and Gores. He had but to keep half of it to win a landslide.
As he had done in the primary, he dodged seriousness and focused on trivia. This gave people nothing of content and no alternative to vote for, along with serious reason for mistrust and disgust. The initial overwhelming support for Bush began to disintegrate at a rate of about one and one half percent per week as Bush became a contentless semi-imitation of Gore, who was playing a similar game with the people. It lost Bush the election in the third lowest percentage turnout of eligible voters in an American campaign in history.
Make no mistake about it, George Bush lost the election regardless of the electoral count. Several critical Republican senate seats were lost. In non-presidential election years public turnout is low. In presidential years turnout is higher and senate and congressional seats ride on presidential candidate's coattails. People who go to the polls to vote for president,l also vote for senators and representatives.
Bush's soon to be arch rival, if he manages to take office, Hillary Clinton, was elected without opposition from Bush, and with lame opposition by Lazio. Bush lost catastrophically.
Many try to argue Bush's loss is an artifact of vote fraud. While the electoral vote system in this unusual case produces a condition where the theft of 25 votes in a state is crucial, the Bush loss was not an election day fraud phenomena. The most reliable polls showed Bush's poll leads continually deteriorating, while Bush supporters steamed at the accurate Zogby poll which showed Bush in serious trouble.
The reason there are manipulations attempting to qualify or disqualify 25 votes tp determine whether Bush takes office in the face of total popular vote loss is because too many people thought Bush's antics weren't worth going to the voting booths for. People didn't think it was worth while to show up at the polls to vote for Bush. They stayed home.
The problem wasn't vote fraud. The problem wasn't media bias, although it existed. Bush's ionane performance in the debates was enough to kill him. Had he taken Keyes' plea for substance seriously, Bush might have won the election. If Bush's evasiveness and ineptitude had been a planned tactic to avoid issue land mines during the campaign, it would have been an insult to the American people. But there is no indication that such was not a matter of the boy's being that stupid and undeveloped rather than a campaign ploy. Sometimes it's hard to discern the difference. At some point the practical consequence of that difference eventually becomes inconsequential.
The initial massively overwhelming support for Bush was built upon the hope of serious confrontation and incisive refutation of the Hillary, Bill, Gore political axis. As Bush's evasiveness and compromise precluded any such prospect, Bush's prospective support felt betrayed, and hence shortly disappeared. People who were tired of the radical left awoke to find they had no one to champion their cause. This left us with what we have today, a man who alienated his initial overwhelming support, who is now desperately attempting to enter office through manipulating the intricacies of the electoral college. I frankly have little sympathy for Bush in this.
Bush began with overwhelming support, which he needed and would have put him in office, betrayed that support by moving left to get votes he didn't need and at best could only hope to share with Al Gore by compromising principles and generally making an ass of himself. This seems to be one of two repetitive patterns in Republican politics. The second pattern is to draw the absurd conclusion that this somehow proves conservatism can't win and therefore the process must be repeated with a more pronounced compromise to the left in the next election.
Bush and his minions have done a great disservice to America. For my part, I want to see Bush banished back to Texas. I don't want to see or hear him for the remainder of either of our lives. If Gore becomes president as a result, so be it. It's time to stand up like men, quit whining, take responsibility for actions, and admit Bush et al. sabotaged certain victory and worked to produce that result. You deserve what you earn in this life. That is what you have earned. Fight it and you will earn Hillary as president in 2004.
The next candidate who is to be a serious alternative to the radical left must be a teacher who confronts and defines issues, and who confronts and and defines alternatives to liberalism. Bush seems to lack that capacity, to lack motivation, and to lack the temperament to do so.
Wanting to become president, or other people's wish that one might become an alternative to the radical left is not sufficient to entitle one to be president.
[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited November 15, 2000).]
More Hard Reality
Robert L. Kocher
Ladies and gentlemen, let's take a look at the record and history of this situation.
George Bush has a spotty history. He looks good when viewed superficially. In fact, he has done very little of any seriousness in his lifetime. His existence has consisted of coasting through life on the basis of family name and contacts.
It was also that way with his father, who continued in the path set and enabled by grandfather Bush. George W. was brought into an oil business as a figurehead and did none too well at it. He was saved by purchase of the oil company by outsiders who kept him on as a nearly non-functional figurehead.
Last year he apparently made $18,000,000 from the sale of an athletic team. But where did the original money come from? It was largely the result of payment for his serving in figurehead positions for being a Bush. It was the result of cushy positions and privilege. Bush has never used hard minded grit to build anything starting at the bottom.
The Texas governborship is another cushy illusion. The previous governor, Ann Richards, was a former drunk with a course mouth who sounded as if she still had a load on. Her raucous iconoclasm held immediate attention and amusement, and may have originally gotten her elected, but was not the type of thing that wears well over time. She was not a strong candidate for reelection.
Texas is a state where many people are of similar mind. To become governor of that state requires little more than to drift along with that mindset while showing easy-going affability and personal appeal. Texas has its own distinct culture that is distant from national issues. Indeed, the Texas mind is two steps away from secession from the Union. One does not need the capability of arguing the nuances of Marxism versus free enterprise with the likes of Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Bella Abzug, Teddy Kennedy, or leading figures in the national media to become governor of Texas. It's a position of ease, with little contention to face, where one merely presides over continuation of the machinery of the status quo. It requires none of the intellectual or tempermental capabilities needed for present national leadership.
In short, all manner of things have come to George Bush without effort as people have sought him out to bestow them upon him merely because his name was Bush. He had but to pick and choose. That he has chosen among those unearned gifts and positions has given him the illusion of success.
Gorge Bush was sought out and offered a presidential candidacy on the same basis as he has been offfered everything else. It was an acceptable gift. My observation at the time was that he was prepared to coast into the presidency on the primary basis of pleasantness and family background that had served him in the past. It became obvious that he lacked the serious development of mind or ideological depth necessary to define national issues or defend himself or defend the Republic. He was out of his depth, rootless, and lost. It was beyond remedy of cramming sessions.
In the Republican primary debate one Tuesday last spring both Bush and McCain believed they were clever in drowning out Alan Keyes when he called for substance during the debate. It was a short term win for Bush, but a long term loss for the country. Bush won. He thought.
Bush had media support for doing it. The only person who was a threat to the leftist media, and the left, was Alan Keyes. If Keyes attained a threshold of visibility, he would become a major force the left would not be able to subdue, and they knew it. The left would lose control of American politics and they knew it. Keyes was put out of commission under the guise of giving the country an electable voice of moderation, Bush.
Bush went into the presidential campaign with a 14 to 16 point lead in the polls supported by people desperate to vote against the Clintons and Gores. He had but to keep half of it to win a landslide.
As he had done in the primary, he dodged seriousness and focused on trivia. This gave people nothing of content and no alternative to vote for, along with serious reason for mistrust and disgust. The initial overwhelming support for Bush began to disintegrate at a rate of about one and one half percent per week as Bush became a contentless semi-imitation of Gore, who was playing a similar game with the people. It lost Bush the election in the third lowest percentage turnout of eligible voters in an American campaign in history.
Make no mistake about it, George Bush lost the election regardless of the electoral count. Several critical Republican senate seats were lost. In non-presidential election years public turnout is low. In presidential years turnout is higher and senate and congressional seats ride on presidential candidate's coattails. People who go to the polls to vote for president,l also vote for senators and representatives.
Bush's soon to be arch rival, if he manages to take office, Hillary Clinton, was elected without opposition from Bush, and with lame opposition by Lazio. Bush lost catastrophically.
Many try to argue Bush's loss is an artifact of vote fraud. While the electoral vote system in this unusual case produces a condition where the theft of 25 votes in a state is crucial, the Bush loss was not an election day fraud phenomena. The most reliable polls showed Bush's poll leads continually deteriorating, while Bush supporters steamed at the accurate Zogby poll which showed Bush in serious trouble.
The reason there are manipulations attempting to qualify or disqualify 25 votes tp determine whether Bush takes office in the face of total popular vote loss is because too many people thought Bush's antics weren't worth going to the voting booths for. People didn't think it was worth while to show up at the polls to vote for Bush. They stayed home.
The problem wasn't vote fraud. The problem wasn't media bias, although it existed. Bush's ionane performance in the debates was enough to kill him. Had he taken Keyes' plea for substance seriously, Bush might have won the election. If Bush's evasiveness and ineptitude had been a planned tactic to avoid issue land mines during the campaign, it would have been an insult to the American people. But there is no indication that such was not a matter of the boy's being that stupid and undeveloped rather than a campaign ploy. Sometimes it's hard to discern the difference. At some point the practical consequence of that difference eventually becomes inconsequential.
The initial massively overwhelming support for Bush was built upon the hope of serious confrontation and incisive refutation of the Hillary, Bill, Gore political axis. As Bush's evasiveness and compromise precluded any such prospect, Bush's prospective support felt betrayed, and hence shortly disappeared. People who were tired of the radical left awoke to find they had no one to champion their cause. This left us with what we have today, a man who alienated his initial overwhelming support, who is now desperately attempting to enter office through manipulating the intricacies of the electoral college. I frankly have little sympathy for Bush in this.
Bush began with overwhelming support, which he needed and would have put him in office, betrayed that support by moving left to get votes he didn't need and at best could only hope to share with Al Gore by compromising principles and generally making an ass of himself. This seems to be one of two repetitive patterns in Republican politics. The second pattern is to draw the absurd conclusion that this somehow proves conservatism can't win and therefore the process must be repeated with a more pronounced compromise to the left in the next election.
Bush and his minions have done a great disservice to America. For my part, I want to see Bush banished back to Texas. I don't want to see or hear him for the remainder of either of our lives. If Gore becomes president as a result, so be it. It's time to stand up like men, quit whining, take responsibility for actions, and admit Bush et al. sabotaged certain victory and worked to produce that result. You deserve what you earn in this life. That is what you have earned. Fight it and you will earn Hillary as president in 2004.
The next candidate who is to be a serious alternative to the radical left must be a teacher who confronts and defines issues, and who confronts and and defines alternatives to liberalism. Bush seems to lack that capacity, to lack motivation, and to lack the temperament to do so.
Wanting to become president, or other people's wish that one might become an alternative to the radical left is not sufficient to entitle one to be president.
[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited November 15, 2000).]
