Buzz Words
November 06, 2004
On November 1st we posted the following:
A second Bush term, especially one born from a contested, possibly suspicious election, is likely to result in massive domestic strife. Bush will see re-election as a concrete mandate for further aggression. His policies will continue to push sense and decency past all credulity. His followers will continue to see his lack of reflection and inability to admit mistakes as signs of his conviction and decisive leadership. The backlash will make the 60s look like a picnic. The Bush Cartel is perfectly capable of implementing a police state and all attendant forms of control. Some would say we're already there but I don't think we've seen anything yet.
That's just a bunch of alarmist gibberish. We sincerely apologize.
We should have told you not to bother voting at all and to RUN FOR THE FUCKING HILLS!
At his first press conference following re-election, Bush had the following exchange with a reporter:
REPORTER: Mr. President -- thank you. As you look at your second term, how much is the war in Iraq going to cost? Do you intend to send more troops or bring troops home? And in the Middle East, more broadly, do you agree with [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair that revitalizing the Middle East peace process is the single most pressing political issue facing the world?
BUSH: Now that I've got the will of the people at my back, I'm going to start enforcing the one-question rule. That was three questions [laughter].
Heh heh. What a card. Next question.
REPORTER: Thank you, Mr. President. How will you go about bringing people together? Will you seek a consensus candidate for the Supreme Court if there's an opening? Will you bring some Democrats into your Cabinet?
BUSH: Again, he violated the one-question rule right off the bat. Obviously, you didn't listen to the will of the people.
No laughter. At least none was noted on the official White House transcript. I certianly wasn't laughing when I watched it. Why? Because Bush looked irritated with the reporter. I can imagine past Presidents joking around this way, but invoking "the Will of the People" to suppress discussion? What next, posing for his official portrait with his hand tucked inside his jacket lapel?
"But the country is better off when we have a vigorous and free press covering our elections," the President said just moments before dictating to the members of our free press that the Will of the People precludes more than one question.
This wouldn't be worrying were it not for the insistence that Bush has been given a "mandate." A mandate is formal, something with clearly defined terms. A ballot initiative, where the exact nature of the proposal is known and understood by everyone voting on it and the voters decide on that particular issue alone, is a mandate. Calling Bush's re-election a mandate of the people is the equivalent of a superior officer handing a soldier his or her orders and saying, "There you go, signed and certified. Just fill in at the bottom there what it is we're ordering you to do."
This is echoing all over the place. I haven't heard the President himself use it, yet, but he said as much when he stated:
"I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. I'll reach out to anyone who shares our goals."
Is this what Riverside County Superior Court Judge Christian F. Thierbach had in mind when he stated that the election showed that many people in his community would expect sentencing that reflects high moral standards? Granted, the case involved unseemly practices but since when does the result of a Presidential election dictate sentencing guidelines?
It's likely we can expect much more of this. In Texas yesterday the Board of Education approved new health textbooks after pressuring the publishers to change wording about marriage.
On Thursday, a board member said that proposed new books ran counter to a Texas law banning the recognition of gay civil unions because the texts used terms like "married partners" instead of "husband and wife."One board member, Mary Helen Berlanga, a Democrat, asked the panel to approve the books without the changes, but her proposal was rejected on a 10-to-4 vote.
"We're not supposed to make changes at somebody's whim," Ms. Berlanga said. "It's a political agenda, and we're not here to follow a political agenda."
Another board member, Terri Leo, a Republican, said she was pleased with the publishers' changes. She had led the effort to get the publishers to change the texts, objecting to what she called "asexual stealth phrases" like "individuals who marry."
"Marriage has been defined in Texas, so it should also be defined in our health textbooks that we use as marriage between a man and a woman," Ms. Leo said.
Unfortunately, a spokesman for one of the publishers involved thought making the requested changes "was a reasonable thing to do." The other publisher did not respond to questions. Both companies are probably far more worried about being locked out of the Texas market. The state is the second largest buyer of textbooks, according to the AP, which filed the initial report.
One change that both publishers were able to avoid making is the following passage that Ms. Leo proposed for the teacher's edition of the textbook:
"Opinions vary on why homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals as a group are more prone to self-destructive behaviors like depression, illegal drug use and suicide." (ibid)
I'm sure the residents of Fallujah this morning would prefer a President with those sorts of problems as opposed to one who is a lying megalomanical mass murderer. You heard about Fallujah, right? Like the American heartland it's swimming in red. Blood red.
Comments: