|
that has happened in this country in a lo-o-ong time.
However, I have to disagree with the sentences about Bush '04 supporters.
"The level of devotion among Obama's supporters rivals what Bush had with his flock in 2004. The left-wing blogosphere is MUCH more powerful than what you see on the right this cycle and it reminds us of the advantage Bush had in '04."
These statements are very inaccurate and out of focus. For instance, the Democratic Party grass roots blew the Bushites away in new voter registration in 2004, nearly 60/40. When Rove was asked, just after the election, how they overcame this, he replied, "Our invisible get-out-the-vote campaign in the churches." But there is no evidence--zero, zilch--that this "invisible" GOTV effort even existed, let alone overcame such a lopsided Democratic grass roots victory in the voter registration drive. And, of course, the corporate media did no follow up questions (like, what evidence do you base that on?).
My point: Voter "devotion" to Bush was largely an illusion--comprised of bullshit from Rove and lapdog corporate media repeating of his bullshit, and both things underpinned by Bushite corporate electronic vote tallying with "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code and virtually no audit/recount controls (--a wholly non-transparent vote counting system fast-tracked into place during the 2002-2004 period, with a $3.9 billion electronic voting boondoggle from the Anthrax Congress). What were all those new voters flocking to the Democratic Party FOR? To show their "devotion" to Bush? They were flocking to the Democratic Party in a passionate effort to "throw the bums out"! That's what really happened. Most of the news voters, most of the independent voters, and most of the former Nader voters all voted for Kerry/Edwards. Where did Bush/Cheney's majority come from? And anybody familiar with Kerry/Edwards rallies vs. Bush/Cheney rallies in that campaign knows that most of the devotion, passion and commitment was on the Democratic side.
I won't go into the full case for a stolen election, but I think we have to be very careful about accepting a Bush/Cheney '04 win as fact--for one thing, because conditions were so non-transparent that nobody can say anything about the vote count with 100% certainty. But more than this, when you overlay Bush liars and corporate news monopoly liars, creating the narrative for what was, very likely, a stolen election, you realize how iffy it is to draw any political or strategic conclusions from that event, except this: We MUST restore transparent vote counting.
Did Kerry blow the election by not reacting soon enough to the "swift-boating"? If the election was stolen from him--and there is very strong evidence that it was--then the answer is no. What really happened is that the American people didn't believe that attack on his medals, and were offended by it. The American people resisted the propaganda!
And there is much evidence that the American people have been resisting the Bushite propaganda all along. For instance, in Feb. '03, just before the invasion of Iraq, FIFTY SIX PERCENT of the American people opposed that war (NYT poll; other polls 54-55%). Most of us don't know this because it was back-paged. And it was nowhere reflected in the totally pro-war corporate news coverage. But it's true. And were they any less enamoured of this war a year later, during the 2004 election? No! They were heading toward the whopping, unprecedented SEVENTY PERCENT anti-war majority of today.
So, we must be very wary of drawing conclusions from the impressions we get from corporate news monopolies--and we must not base our strategy on their false narratives.
There is no similarity between Bush voters in '04 and today's Obama supporters. Obama's support is REAL. Bush's support was largely manufactured--by the corporate news monopolies giving a BIG TRUMPET to a rightwing minority, way out of proportion to their numbers, with the great likelihood that Diebold, ES&S and brethren puffed up their numbers in the vote count, and reversed a Kerry victory.
Bush/Cheney DID draw votes. That is undeniable. But, if the evidence of a stolen election is correct--and I believe it is--they actually received only about 45% or so of the votes (that is, less than 25% of the general public--voters and non-voters--the correct number for the rightwing minority). Were some of them "devoted"? Yes. Were most of them (except for the super-rich and defense contractors) stupid (voting against their own interests)? Yup. Are Obama supporters stupid? Nope. They are rallying against unjust war, against corporate rule, against the looting of our treasury, against vast crime in government, against unfairness and poverty, against "free trade," in their own interest and in the interest of most people. They may be somewhat stupid in thinking that Obama can or will do anything about the ravaging of our country by the Corporate Rulers. But they are not stupid in the issues that move them, and in the reasons for their support of this candidate, whom they see as anti-establishment, and of whom they will demand change and reform, if they manage to elect him. Bush/Cheney support, by 2004, was trumped up; it was mostly puffery. Obama's support is not. It is genuine. And it is representative of the majority--on all issues, from Social Security and women's rights to torture and war. All issue and approval polls over the last four years show vast disapproval by the American people of every Bush policy, foreign and domestic--way up in the 60% to 70% range.
I'm not sure what's responsible for the 50/50 numbers, right now, on McBush vs. either Democrat. But I suspect that it's a combo of the distracting nature of the Obama-Clinton fight, the low approval rating for the Democratic Congress (worse than Bush!), and word-of-mouth not yet having caught up with McBush's policies. If and when word-of-mouth does catch up with McBush, he doesn't stand a chance (except via Diebold et al). His policies are way, way out of sync with the majority of Americans. And I frankly don't see how they can steal this election for McBush without a revolution. The backlash against Corporate Rule would be ferocious. Things are boiling, really and truly. And they started boiling way back in 2004, with most Americans already furious at that 25% rightwing minority ruling the government and the public airwaves. They came out in droves, in 2006, to try to fix things. Money and Diebold and "Blue Dog" Democrats thwarted them again. And if that happens in 2008, there is going to be hell to pay--because Obama supporters represent the frustrated, thwarted, angry, determined, peace-minded, justice-minded, progressive American majority, who want a President and a Congress who are accountable to the people.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
