medicineman
New Member
Welcome to Washington Spectator OnlineHow did they get away with ELECTIONS (PART II)
The GOP Playbook: How to Steal the Vote
By Mark Crispin Miller | October 15, 2006 (page 1/3)
rom the start, George W. Bush has pointedly refused to ask that we make any national sacrifice to help us win the "war on terror." Soon after 9/11 he urged us not to curb our appetites in any way, although to do so would have made much sense, and makes sense now. After all, it's oil, in part, that U.S. troops are fighting for, and oil that indirectly pays for all the guns and bombs now blowing those troops, and countless others, to shreds. The patriotic thing would therefore be to lessen our national dependency on fossil fuels, by driving less (or not at all), and turning off the air conditioners, by buying fewer disposables, and otherwise deferring to the greater good. Bush, however, will have none of that, asserting that the best thing we can do to help win this war is just go shopping.
Yet in one respect it's not exactly right to say that our president has asked nothing of us. Since 9/11, Bush has made astonishing demands on all his fellow citizens, asking us to swallow more baloney than the U.S. government has ever fed the people of this country. He and his team have asked us to believe that 9/11 came as a complete surprise, that Saddam Hussein was part of it, and that Iraq would soon be lobbing atom bombs, poison gas, and lethal pathogens at Tel Aviv and Disney World. They also asked us to believe that the Iraqi people would bestrew our troops with flowers, then that the "mission" had been "accomplished," then that those friendly natives had been overrun by "foreign terrorists" intent on wrecking the "democracy" that we were there to build. And now Bush asks us to believe that things aren't half as bad in Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan), as they appear, and that his team can win this war.
That most Americans do not believe a word of it, and therefore will not vote Republican, attests to the diffusive power of truth, which in this country still resonates despite the efforts of both government and media to bury it. Bush's big lies have prevailed not just because his regime has so doggedly promoted them. For too long, those howlers also had the benefit of a compliant press that simply echoed them.
But the truth about Iraq could not be spun away as more and more Americans encountered it, traumatically, in their own lives, and as the word spread ever further through the Internet and other unofficial channels—an arduous process of enlightenment that the press has only recently begun to help along. (The Democrats have mostly sat there mute.) And so the White House's claims about Iraq—and about 9/11, Afghanistan, Katrina, the economy, the public schools, the global climate and the GOP's respect for "family values"—strike millions of Americans as utter hooey.
TERRORISM AND TURNOUT—Of all the crackpot views pervading BushCo's faith-based universe, there's one that still pervades the real world, too: the myth of the two T's. "Terrorism and turnout," as the New York Times puts it, "were the 'two t's' that have been credited with GOP dominance in the last three [sic] elections." And as they'd swept BushCo to victory twice before, so will the two T's shortly benefit the GOP again—or so Karl Rove allegedly believes. This year, AP reported recently, "the White House will reprise the two T's of its successful campaign strategy since 2002: terrorism and turnout." In other words, the Bush Republicans expect to win again through (a) fear itself, aroused by the eternal aftershock of 9/11; and (b) by mobilizing the expansive legions of their Christianist supporters. That sounds plausible—until you think about it. There's no evidence that either terrorism or the Christian right decided the 2004 election. A Pew poll published on November 11 of that year found that the terror threat had driven only 9 percent of the electorate. There were no sudden multitudes of "NASCAR dads" and "security moms" supporting Bush in 2004—and there was no electoral tsunami of right-wing evangelism either
HOME
Other Options
Article Archive
Subscription Information
About the Spectator
Contact Us
The GOP Playbook: How to Steal the Vote
By Mark Crispin Miller | October 15, 2006 (page 2/3)
For all the big talk by the leaders of the Christian right, Bush was not re-elected by the faithful, as there were nowhere near enough of them to pull it off. Nationwide, there were 4 million evangelicals who hadn't voted for Bush/Cheney in 2000, and Karl Rove wooed them. Even if he got them all, however, that triumph would not explain the miracle of Bush's picking up 11 million more votes than he'd allegedly won against Al Gore.
Bush's evangelical advantage was further diminished by the heavy national turnout on Election Day: 60.7 percent, the highest in thirty-six years (and it was no doubt even higher, as there were thousands of reports of Democrats who couldn't vote because their names had somehow vanished from the rolls).
A CREDIBLE PRETEXT—In short, Bush/Cheney was not swept to re-election by a national surge of theocratic zeal. And yet Bush's most fanatical supporters were essential to his "victory," which they enabled by providing a persuasive-sounding rationale for it. Because there was, and is, no reasonable explanation for that win, it was efficiently explained away as having been effected by the non-existent multitude of True Believers. Providentially, their votes came pouring forth late on Election Day, especially in Ohio—a propaganda line without a shred of evidence to back it up. (The late-day turnout in Ohio's rural districts was, in fact, quite light.) And yet that notion soon became gospel, as the media, and the Democrats, mechanically echoed the mere say-so of the Bush team and the Christianists themselves.
For the subversion of democracy, some such convincing rationale is just as crucial as computers, ballot "spoilage," Jim Crow laws and party goons—and the regime now needs a sturdy pretext more than ever, as the Republicans have reached new lows in popular esteem. Thus the two T's are now all-important; and, to complicate Karl Rove's project even further, only one of them remains as feasible as both appeared to be in 2004. Since then Bush's Christian-right support has been eroded by the war and the economy, BushCo's accommodationist stance on immigration, the party's failure to stamp out abortion, same-sex marriage and "obscenity," and, not least, the low farce of Foleygate.
"Terrorism" is now the one and only argument whereby the ravaged GOP might arguably validate their next amazing win. This explains why Rove has had the White House stick so closely to the "terrorism" script, even though the White House has itself conceded that this script is not so credible: Bush admits that there's no evidence of links between Al Qaeda, 9/11 and Saddam Hussein—and yet he continues yawping at the links between them, most startlingly in his anniversary speech a few weeks ago on September 11.
That oration kindled broad astonishment at the psychotic fixity of its key thesis: i.e., that U.S. troops are in Iraq to halt the spread of global terror (and not themselves a major stimulus thereto, as Bush's own intel establishment has bluntly noted). That line has been disdained not only by the media but also by the GOP's top pundits and Congressional candidates, more and more of whom, the New York Times reported on September 3, "are disregarding Mr. Rove's advice." That Rove won't give it up attests to its essential function as pre-propaganda: Bush et al. shout of "terrorism" not because they think it will win votes. They don't care whether people vote for them or not. Rather, they've been hammering at "terrorism" in the hope that it will fly as a convincing reason why the GOP retained its grip on Congress, even though the party has no mass support. The strategy reflects, in part, on the immense credulity (and, to some extent, complicity) of the political establishment, which cannot, will not, does not want to see that this regime has never even been elected. Such terror-obsessed pre-propaganda also tragically portends an imminent "surprise" deployed, before Election Day, to make Bush's empty, crazy argument seem suddenly believable. Whether it's a second 9/11, or a huge "defensive" strike against Iran, or a paralyzing combination of the two, a move like that would serve to make the recent Bush/Cheney line on "terror" sound prophetic rather than insane.
The GOP Playbook: How to Steal the Vote
By Mark Crispin Miller | October 15, 2006 (page 1/3)
Yet in one respect it's not exactly right to say that our president has asked nothing of us. Since 9/11, Bush has made astonishing demands on all his fellow citizens, asking us to swallow more baloney than the U.S. government has ever fed the people of this country. He and his team have asked us to believe that 9/11 came as a complete surprise, that Saddam Hussein was part of it, and that Iraq would soon be lobbing atom bombs, poison gas, and lethal pathogens at Tel Aviv and Disney World. They also asked us to believe that the Iraqi people would bestrew our troops with flowers, then that the "mission" had been "accomplished," then that those friendly natives had been overrun by "foreign terrorists" intent on wrecking the "democracy" that we were there to build. And now Bush asks us to believe that things aren't half as bad in Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan), as they appear, and that his team can win this war.
That most Americans do not believe a word of it, and therefore will not vote Republican, attests to the diffusive power of truth, which in this country still resonates despite the efforts of both government and media to bury it. Bush's big lies have prevailed not just because his regime has so doggedly promoted them. For too long, those howlers also had the benefit of a compliant press that simply echoed them.
But the truth about Iraq could not be spun away as more and more Americans encountered it, traumatically, in their own lives, and as the word spread ever further through the Internet and other unofficial channels—an arduous process of enlightenment that the press has only recently begun to help along. (The Democrats have mostly sat there mute.) And so the White House's claims about Iraq—and about 9/11, Afghanistan, Katrina, the economy, the public schools, the global climate and the GOP's respect for "family values"—strike millions of Americans as utter hooey.
TERRORISM AND TURNOUT—Of all the crackpot views pervading BushCo's faith-based universe, there's one that still pervades the real world, too: the myth of the two T's. "Terrorism and turnout," as the New York Times puts it, "were the 'two t's' that have been credited with GOP dominance in the last three [sic] elections." And as they'd swept BushCo to victory twice before, so will the two T's shortly benefit the GOP again—or so Karl Rove allegedly believes. This year, AP reported recently, "the White House will reprise the two T's of its successful campaign strategy since 2002: terrorism and turnout." In other words, the Bush Republicans expect to win again through (a) fear itself, aroused by the eternal aftershock of 9/11; and (b) by mobilizing the expansive legions of their Christianist supporters. That sounds plausible—until you think about it. There's no evidence that either terrorism or the Christian right decided the 2004 election. A Pew poll published on November 11 of that year found that the terror threat had driven only 9 percent of the electorate. There were no sudden multitudes of "NASCAR dads" and "security moms" supporting Bush in 2004—and there was no electoral tsunami of right-wing evangelism either
The GOP Playbook: How to Steal the Vote By Mark Crispin Miller | October 15, 2006 (page 2/3)
For all the big talk by the leaders of the Christian right, Bush was not re-elected by the faithful, as there were nowhere near enough of them to pull it off. Nationwide, there were 4 million evangelicals who hadn't voted for Bush/Cheney in 2000, and Karl Rove wooed them. Even if he got them all, however, that triumph would not explain the miracle of Bush's picking up 11 million more votes than he'd allegedly won against Al Gore.
Bush's evangelical advantage was further diminished by the heavy national turnout on Election Day: 60.7 percent, the highest in thirty-six years (and it was no doubt even higher, as there were thousands of reports of Democrats who couldn't vote because their names had somehow vanished from the rolls).
A CREDIBLE PRETEXT—In short, Bush/Cheney was not swept to re-election by a national surge of theocratic zeal. And yet Bush's most fanatical supporters were essential to his "victory," which they enabled by providing a persuasive-sounding rationale for it. Because there was, and is, no reasonable explanation for that win, it was efficiently explained away as having been effected by the non-existent multitude of True Believers. Providentially, their votes came pouring forth late on Election Day, especially in Ohio—a propaganda line without a shred of evidence to back it up. (The late-day turnout in Ohio's rural districts was, in fact, quite light.) And yet that notion soon became gospel, as the media, and the Democrats, mechanically echoed the mere say-so of the Bush team and the Christianists themselves.
For the subversion of democracy, some such convincing rationale is just as crucial as computers, ballot "spoilage," Jim Crow laws and party goons—and the regime now needs a sturdy pretext more than ever, as the Republicans have reached new lows in popular esteem. Thus the two T's are now all-important; and, to complicate Karl Rove's project even further, only one of them remains as feasible as both appeared to be in 2004. Since then Bush's Christian-right support has been eroded by the war and the economy, BushCo's accommodationist stance on immigration, the party's failure to stamp out abortion, same-sex marriage and "obscenity," and, not least, the low farce of Foleygate.
"Terrorism" is now the one and only argument whereby the ravaged GOP might arguably validate their next amazing win. This explains why Rove has had the White House stick so closely to the "terrorism" script, even though the White House has itself conceded that this script is not so credible: Bush admits that there's no evidence of links between Al Qaeda, 9/11 and Saddam Hussein—and yet he continues yawping at the links between them, most startlingly in his anniversary speech a few weeks ago on September 11.
That oration kindled broad astonishment at the psychotic fixity of its key thesis: i.e., that U.S. troops are in Iraq to halt the spread of global terror (and not themselves a major stimulus thereto, as Bush's own intel establishment has bluntly noted). That line has been disdained not only by the media but also by the GOP's top pundits and Congressional candidates, more and more of whom, the New York Times reported on September 3, "are disregarding Mr. Rove's advice." That Rove won't give it up attests to its essential function as pre-propaganda: Bush et al. shout of "terrorism" not because they think it will win votes. They don't care whether people vote for them or not. Rather, they've been hammering at "terrorism" in the hope that it will fly as a convincing reason why the GOP retained its grip on Congress, even though the party has no mass support. The strategy reflects, in part, on the immense credulity (and, to some extent, complicity) of the political establishment, which cannot, will not, does not want to see that this regime has never even been elected. Such terror-obsessed pre-propaganda also tragically portends an imminent "surprise" deployed, before Election Day, to make Bush's empty, crazy argument seem suddenly believable. Whether it's a second 9/11, or a huge "defensive" strike against Iran, or a paralyzing combination of the two, a move like that would serve to make the recent Bush/Cheney line on "terror" sound prophetic rather than insane.
