Common Sense

Common Sense. A pair of words that have such arguable meanings. Unlike most word pairs, the ideas and concepts that they represent are often undefended assumption. What is common sense to one person is foolhardy to another. To finalize an argument by an appeal to common sense is to usually loose the argument. What is unique about this word pair is that although it can be a subjective indefinite, it can be exampled and turned into an objective definite. On a web site devoted to extracting ornery details, common sense often becomes an objective definite.

While many appeals to common sense have been made over the last year’s political cycle, most have been of the type which define the word pair in terms of the subjective and indefinite. Campaign statements by both parties have appealed subjectively to their supporters. This has allowed partisans of both political parties to appear to be agreeing to something obvious. It has usually been the case that their common sense appeals have little factual evidence which would allow their statements to approach objectivity or definitiveness. What in the world is the undecided voter to do?

Unfortunately our republic now finds itself captive to a campaign process which results in lowered expectations. It is not a fall from some Golden or Silver Political Age. It is rather a change in the tools that are available to voters which would allow them to collectively apply an objective understanding to the political process. Consider this small point, aside from his supporters, does anyone else really believe that Senator Kerry has firm values? Or for that matter, other than Senator Kerry’s supporters, does anyone else really believe that President Bush has values so firm that they are completely inflexible?

How can an electorate, less than two weeks away from an election, find itself in a position of believing one candidate to be virtuous for not being firm, while his opponent is unvirtuous for being firm? And it is not just a problem that afflicts Senator Kerry’s supporters. Bush supporters firmly believe that he is an excellent administrator surrounded by wise consul. Yet, at the same time they cannot recognize that some of his top advisors could be cookie cutter copies of each other as far as ideology is concerned? If the rules of common sense appeal are to become objective, we must recognize that at this late stage in the electoral process our collective common sense appeal for either candidate is largely subjective.

Electing a person to office based almost exclusively on subjective opinion is ultimately foolhardy. It is exactly what we are preparing to do. We have seen arguments by Democrat and Republican leaders and campaigners that make the photo op, sound byte, and style as being the key factors to the ultimate electability of their candidates. Substance is horridly lacking in these key factors. Any attempt by any agent to ascertain the concrete and objective has either failed to elicit a response from the various campaigners, or resulted in such a weak objective fact that it is easy for the electorate to dismiss the fact as unimportant.

Consider for a moment what the campaign issues have been so far. War on Terror fought with military generalists vs War on Terror fought by military specialists and legal prosecution. The best interest rates and highest home ownership in sixty years vs. worst job losses and highest consumer debt ever. Homeland Security Agency creation and Patriot Act vs. anarchy on our borders and civil liberties in jeopardy. United Nations multilateral diplomacy and conditional Security Council responses vs. Unilateral enforcement of United Nations endorsements and Oil for Food scandals. Historic elections in Afghanistan vs. Taliban resurgence. We could go on. The point is that on all of the issues as they have developed, we still have yet to be able to compare objectively what the plans or intents of the candidates are.

For example both candidates intend to send more troops if required, continue carrot and stick diplomacy to get legal custody of suspected terrorists, and support the troops with whatever they need and bring them home only after a stable democracy comes into existence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ok so they both agree on that. Furthermore they both agree that multilateral approaches to the rebuilding of both countries is important. In the case of Afghanistan both candidates want more from our allies. In the case of Iraq, one candidate has commitments from thirty countries for billions in aid and development packages, the other says that is not enough. 

The sad fact is that neither candidate has put down, even in broad brush strokes, any objective statement of how our military occupation will end. In fact what both candidates have endorsed is nothing more than the plan that existed before either country was invaded. Bush has not come up with anything new and Kerry has not come up with any alternative. Yet both parties proudly proclaim that their candidate has the only common sense solution to this issue. Logic dictates that since both have claimed the same policy as being their own, yet claimed their opponent’s policy to be impossibly flawed, that the policy is indeed flawed and neither has any answer to the problem. That would be the objective conclusion. Instead we have both sides declaring that its common sense that their candidate has the only workable solution.  Certainly this issue of political policy planning by the candidates lives in the same realm as a certain emperor who wears the finest in invisible clothes.

The sad fact is that every possible issue of substance has been avoided by both candidates. Saddam was either a threat or a revenge target. Kerry either did nothing for 20 years, or was a statesman leader to be envied. Kerry was either a self describe war criminal or an ardent protester against American policy. Bush was an AWOL drunkard or a decent officer who far exceeded his service time commitment.  Do we as an electorate even recognize that we have focused on such trivial issues that, even if they do have some objectivity, they still focus on items that ultimately result in subjective choices that are removed from factual consideration of executive official policy potentials?

Both candidates love taking slivers of data from government reports out of context. Kerry touts the fact that the economy has lost 3 million jobs.  Bush touts  his adding of 1.3 million private sector jobs. Both men are absolutely correct. Both are also absolutely wrong because they are simply parroting data out of context. We have lost 3 million jobs in the private sector however, we have added over 1.3 million private sector jobs as well as additional government jobs to leave a net loss of just over 500,000 jobs. But even that is misleading, because most of the newly created jobs are not considered since they are the result of small business. What is even worse is that many of the reported jobs that have been created are the indirect result of government contract spending. Kerry is factually wrong in trying to imply that the economy is a wasteland of lost jobs. Bush is factually wrong in trying to imply that the economy is a vibrant oven of job creation. Objective review would be that we are down 500,000 jobs, that many jobs are somehow related to increased government spending, that many uncounted jobs have been created, and that the economy is facing a drain on growth that is directly attributable to the economic influences of a war time economy. 

That would be common sense. We have an economy which is inaccurately measured but demonstrably effected by war time constraints. Where have the questions been that address this issue? We have unemployment rates even lower than those of the Clinton Administration. Interest rates lower than the Eisenhower administration. Actual real wage growth of 2% a year. Home ownership, including minority home ownership is at record levels. In a non war time economic environment such factors would add up to a staggeringly healthy economy. In reality, our economy is neither as crippled as Kerry claims, nor as stellar as Bush claims. Regardless of your political views, objectivity should easily guide you to the conclusion that neither candidate has offered any solution to the problem. Kerry would increase spending and raise taxes, Bush would maintain tax cuts and raise spending. It sounds more like party planks than solid ideas.

When it comes to the above policy issues, as stated in this commentary, many readers will declare them to be simplistic distillations. I agree that they are, but only because neither candidate has attempted to challenge himself with any degree of objective disclosure in regard to how he identifies, defines and proposes solutions to the nation’s problems and aspirations. After spending months going over Senator Kerry’s web site and its lack of any such objective disclosure and also investigating President Bush’s actual record and its probable future developments, I have come to the conclusion that neither candidate expects objective common sense from the electorate.

Common sense. Or rather a complete lack of objective reality. Am I to believe that Senator Kerry can raise taxes, increase spending by over a trillion dollars for four years and also bring the several trillion dollar debt we already have back to a balanced budget? President Ford may have had WIN and price controls, and President Reagan may have had Supply Side Economics and Voodoo on their side, but compared to Senator Kerry’s economic plan at least they had some common sense objectivity behind them. Ford’s plan was to control consumer consumption via price controls and producer side regulation under the assumption that if consumers paid a consistent price and producers were shielded from inflation effects then the post Vietnam War economy crash could be controlled. Reagan’s plan was if you drastically restructured the tax tables and let investors invest in growth, then the net revenues returned to the federal government would offset the reduction of taxable liability. In both cases their plans were sound enough to work, and did work, in spite of both economic plans being effected by other factors. In Ford’s case there was no way he could have countered the looming OPEC crisis or his own election defeat. Reagan’s economic plan worked exactly as advertised, but he then added a military spending buildup which offset the revenue gains.

But look back on the economic plans both put into place. They stated what they were, why they expected it to work, and how implementing the solution they proposed would solve the economic problems. In either reality or theory, Senator Kerry’s plan could never work, that is why he has avoided hard numbers backed by hard details in any of his speeches to date. If you want to attempt to find any specifics and you take the Senator’s challenge to look at his plans on his web page, you will find quickly that there are no details just promised outlays for all of us. Should we be suspect?

So does this mean President Bush has an economic plan? Like Kerry, go to his campaign site or even his official presidential site and you will soon find that his promises are as vapid as the ones on his competitors web site.  President Bush’s plan seems to be historically unprecedented low inflation, interest rates and unemployment and predictions of job growth that have so far lagged significantly behind promised levels. Are we to somehow expect that if Bush continues to maintain current economic indicators at the current levels that he too can increase spending and maintain lower taxes while generating aggressive job growth and cut the deficit? Common sense objectivity would indicate that his plan is as flawed as his challengers. 

The point to this is that whether it is economic, military, education, geopolitic, or environmental policy, neither candidate has offered anything of substance that would allow objective judgment. We cannot definitively say either candidate would enact anything specifically. It is also completely our own fault.  At no time in this election cycle has there been any groundswell of interest by the electorate demanding exact details and specific policy explanation.

Instead we have situations such as Bush deciding to plan to have two more brigades deployed to Iraq, but we don’t know any specifics. Kerry counters by saying he would flood the Iraqi theater with 50,000 additional troops, but we don’t know the specifics in his plan either. Why has no one asked Senator Kerry exactly how he plans to suddenly have 50,000 troops available? Would it be a redeployment like President Bush’s plan, or does he plan on volunteer enlistments, a draft, or even, mercenary soldiers to somehow reach 50,000 new pairs of boots on the ground? Who knows? We have been so absorbed in the spin mastery of both political parties, that no one has though to ask the obvious of Kerry... “Where are the 50,000 troops going to come from?” Instead the Republicans harp the cord that Bush already has the exact amount requested by his commanders, but that Bush will send two more brigades. Why has no one asked the common sense question... “If your commanders have all the troops they need, why then are you preparing to send in more?”  We haven’t asked it because we have been more focused on the Democrats harping on the cord that a large round number increase is needed to counteract the failings of Bush’s deployment.

Common sense, based on objectivity would demand that we ask how in the world both candidates even defined the problem at all. Instead we have two candidates who share what amounts to the exact same policy. Bush states Kyoto is bad science but we will continue to enforce our current federal environmental laws. Kerry states Kyoto is dead and that we aren’t enforcing our environmental laws aggressively enough. Did either of them ever even look at the environment to see what the possible problems are and then define policy solutions? In the case of the environment, it appears that neither man has even given much thought at all to the possibility that a problem exists beyond the possible need for sound bytes concerning global warming or timber harvesting. President Bush arranged for funding of alternative fuels, specifically hydrogen fuel cell development. Kerry concurs and states he will fund it even more. So both men are committed to funding hydrogen fuel cell development? Why? Is this an important program? Is there some reason why both men believe this to be a solution to a problem? What problem is this even expected to solve? Objectively all we can determine is that both men will continue funding research into hydrogen fuel cell alternatives. Where is the difference between them?

If there is any thought behind the support of nearly any item that passes as political policy goals of these two candidates,  you would be hard pressed to find it to be based on specifics and facts.  Exactly how can we be expected to determine the differences between the candidates if neither has provided details of their policy goals. Senator Kerry lays claim to being the champion of the poor and unionized, while Bush claims the businessmen and patriots. Is that any basis for deciding who the next president should be? 

Have we been provided the specifics which would allow objectivity? Surely we have been given snippets of fact and detail in the speeches and interviews. But no where, even when candidates declare that they are making major policy speeches, have they come out and explained what the policy problem is, how they individually define it, and how their policy would solve the problem.  How in the world is a candidate solving a problem when all he states is subjective. For example Senator Kerry has stated he would fully fund the Pell Grants that went unfilled last year.  

Listening to this claim, we are left with the subjective common sense perception that Senator Kerry will fully support Pell Grants. Makes sense doesn’t it? But consider the fact that there is a disproportionate number of qualified students who would get a Pell Grant if they would just fill out the complicated paperwork. The College Board found that the biggest problem with the entire government student aid program is the shear complication involved in applying for it. Fifty percent of those students who are qualified for federal student aid do not receive aid simply because they forego the complicated application process. Although Congress allocated increased funds, the funds went unclaimed. Could these be the same unfilled grants Senator Kerry was referring to? Did they go unfilled because they were not funded, or because students and parents simply did not have the patience or time to invest in the paperwork which leads to the grants? Could the real problem be the process by which the funds are disbursed, rather than there being no funds to disburse? Neither media nor ordinary citizen has even thought to point out the real nature of the problem and demand a better, and more objective policy statement from Senator Kerry. Even his opponent has yet to question him on this particular issue, because if he did question it he might have to explain why he has yet to come up with a solution to the paperwork involved with college aid. In the early 1990’s it took almost 14 months for my Pell Grant process to complete, I doubt the process has streamlined in the last 10 years. Although Pell Grants are fully funded by Congress, many grants are not made due to paperwork requirements. Has either candidate answered the simple question that the reason grants go unfulfilled is not because of funding? 

The common sense we have been left with through the election process is almost exclusively subjective. The candidates have adopted a practice of making subjective platitudes. Both promise solutions, but fail to disclose the basis for those solutions. The Republicans have curiously turned this fact into an argument against Senator Kerry by claiming he is a flip-flopper. What they have actually identified is that Kerry is good with making subjective and flexible promises which are nonspecific in nature. Politically astute, this strategy lets Kerry craft a subjective appeal to common sense concerning his policy plans without having to ever objectively state or even define his policy plans. The Republicans recognizing the fact that Kerry has no specifics that can be countered with objective fact, have enabled themselves to challenge Kerry’s plans by simply pointing out the obvious. Kerry’s policy plans can mean multiple things at multiple times because he has used no objective fact to back up his policy plans. They call it flip-flopping. The sad fact is that the Republicans are suffering from the same exact disease, but the Democrats have yet to realize it.

Republican policy plans have been almost as equally devoid of objective fact as Kerry’s are. The slight difference is that President Bush has almost four years of policy in place. You can investigate Bush’s past performance. However, the election is about the next four years. When questioned about policy for the next four years, President Bush either restates what he has done already, or makes subjective policy promises of the same type as Kerry. To the partisan supporters of either candidate the blind acceptance of subjective policy plan promises is  common sense. Even when both candidates have identical policy plans, both sides supporters are amazed that the challenging side doesn’t recognize the common sense of the  candidate. How could a Bush supporter not support Kerry’s common sense plans? How could Kerry’s supporters not recognize Bush’s common sense?

The answer is that while the supporters are not willing to objectively investigate their own candidates positions, they will apply an objective investigation to the opponents. In effect both presidential candidates’ supporters have pointed out that the arguments and promises made by the opposing side are not common sense based on objectivity. This has lead to the ongoing problem this election cycle of a candidate dismissing his opponent’s policy plans by pointing out that the plans have no detailed support, and then the candidate presents his policy plan without any detailed support.  For example senator Kerry declares that the tax cuts under Bush are unaffordable and that Kerry will fix the problem by rolling back the tax cut. He repeatedly and proudly claims that only people making $200,000 a year would be affected by this repeal. Bush counters by stating that he would maintain the tax cut to ensure the health of the economy. 

All the claims concerning the tax issue are simply subjective sound byte platitudes. IRS figures indicate that if Kerry did rollback the tax cut to the previous threshold a lot of people would be paying a lot more in taxes. If you are single and make $146,751 a year, Married filing separately and making $89,326 a year or married filing jointly making $178,651 a year, under the Kerry rollback you would be paying more in taxes in 2005. Kerry has repeatedly stated that his rollback would only affect those earning $200,000 a year and has offered no other details or plans other than simply rolling back the tax threshold to its previous level. Objective common sense indicates in this case that a lot more people would be effected by Kerry’s plans in addition to those making $200,000 a year. How does President Bush challenge this plan of Senator Kerry? He makes an equally blanket statement that he will maintain the tax cut because it is good for the economy. Has anyone provided data that proves this to be true? More important, why has neither candidate challenged their opponent with objective details which indicate flaws in their opponent’s plans? Why is the media not acting as our watchdog and forcing either candidate to answer the blatant objective flaws their plans contain?

If it is so repeatedly easy to dissect the policy plans of either candidate, why has our media or even the general electorate not questioned the subjective natures of what the candidates present? It is a combination of two things. First, neither candidate can afford to alienate core supporters by fully defining their policy plans. Second, neither candidate wants to risk being perceived by the general electorate as a technocrat. 

If President Bush came out with a fully defined ecological policy, and included specific program funding, defined problems, specific solutions, and defined goals he would surely run afoul of some of his core business supporters. By being specific, not only would he be expected by the general electorate to be accountable, but he would also be vulnerable to detailed analysis by his supporters and opponents. If Senator Kerry had facts and figures embedded in his policy goals, and his campaign policy speeches were filled with CBO, GBO and think tank derived theory and estimates, exactly how many people would care to listen to a speech which amounts to the equivalent of a college symposium on a particular policy plan? Knowing the churlish hostility of much of the general public towards anything that smacks of academia, why would any candidate risk being declared the successor to college professor Woodrow Wilson? Complex language and theory will bore your supporters to tears. Simply and repeatedly stating “My opponent is a bad choice, so vote for me.” is a lot easier on both the voter’s intellect and attention span.

With so few days left to go in the campaign cycle, very little has been defined between the two major candidates. The only real differences are what each candidate supports in relation to abortion, stem cell research, rolling back the Bush tax cut and same sex marriage. Considering that we are a nation involved in a war, and have only a mediocre economy, the defined differences between the two candidates are almost exclusively trivial. The fact that they have yet to really define the remaining differences between them should leave us trembling in fear. Bush is for tort reforms, and so is Kerry. What is the difference between them? The same goes for appealing to the United Nations in regard to multilateral engagement. Does anyone truly think John Kerry would ignore a terrorist attack, or Bush would invade a country because of a family grudge? Common sense tells us neither would be the case, yet if we were to trust the partisan definitions of the two candidates, Kerry acting only with United Nations authorization, and Bush unilaterally leading us against nations hostile to his family is the only defining substance between their two policy plans. Without any real substance to their political arguments, we have been left with scant objective definition of who they are, and have bought wholesale the subjective policy plans they have passed off to the media and voters as common sense.

We have a campaign of subjective common sense. Who is to blame? Firstly, we must blame ourselves because collectively we have placed style, appearance, and sound bytes above objective questioning and qualification. But given the fact that as a whole, our education in civics and government political processes and functions has dropped sharply in the last twenty years, we can hardly be surprised that for the most part we are collectively too poorly educated to aggressively and to accurately ascertain the merits of candidates seeking political office. We could also blame the mass media, but again their collective performance is a function of our lack of civic and political process education.

Simply put, it is remarkably unprofitable to offer exacting analysis, penetrating investigation, and uncompromising challenging of political candidates. Newspapers have diminished in number and have faced flat or declining readership, surviving by reducing hard news coverage and adding content intended to entertain the reader rather than inform. Radio has adopted the call in talk show hosted entertainment format. Partisan in nature and relying heavily on the entertainment value of the host personalities the content tends to appeal to specific demographics deemed important by advertisers, and is usually subjective rather than objective. In a sense listeners to such shows, whether it is a liberal or conservative host, already have determined their own political views and are listening more for the entertainment value of the show rather than gaining objective information concerning the candidates. Local television coverage of even regional political issues is scant unless its during an election cycle. Even with local PBS stations broadcasting national programs concerned with politics, local political programing is usually limited to a few televised candidate debates. Coupling the relatively weak market penetration of PBS broadcasts, and the limited actual coverage of political candidates the local television coverage of candidates is appallingly low.

Cable television coverage of candidates is not much better than other outlets. While most cable channels do occasionally have some form of political coverage, it is often contextually related to the overall programing style of the channel. Flashy post production, youth oriented “Choose or Loose” programing on MTV is informative but hardly meets the criteria of being exacting, penetrating  and uncompromising challenging as it reviews candidates and their policy plans. What cable has been exceptional at accomplishing is creating what amounts to a hourly news cycle. Particularly with the news and business channels, the need for programing has resulted in the hunger for new or updated trends when it comes to political candidates. 

In this type of environment, candidates seldom receive concentrated coverage. Instead of interviewing candidates directly or even simply telecasting their campaign appearances, the candidates are presented by proxy. Party functionaries, editorialists, and pollsters are the main form of contact that a viewer has with either candidate. Each news segment consists of a news reader asking questions that wind up in eliciting a response that consists of that day’s political party talking points. Because of the need to repeatedly update the news cycle, the news reader never risks challenging the candidate's representatives out of the fear that if they are challenged too strongly they might not return for another session of talking point exposure.

The result is that we as an electorate, get compelling discussions as to who is more likely to support a candidate. Is the NASCAR fan more likely to support Bush, or do black voters support Kerry. These types of softball interview questioning provide nothing of substance. Yet each cable news outlet does nothing to change their processes, and instead presents the parade of talking heads as if it were a valid tool for helping to define candidates and their policy plans. If it was a valid tool, the electorate would have an impressive pool of objective information concerning the candidates. Since we have such a scant representation of objective differences placed into evidence concerning the candidates, it has become apparent that constant coverage of the candidates by cable news outlets to fill the hourly news cycle is just as failed as other media forms.

Network news coverage is even less viable. Out of a half hour of slotted broadcast time, just over twenty minutes is available for reporting. Most coverage nightly consists of brief reports lasting two minutes or less and one or two expanded segments. With such brief length of time available, only superficial coverage is provided. In a sense, what the cable news outlets attempt to cover in an hour of telecasting, the network news broadcasters condense into thirty minutes. Like their cable competitors, substance and objective details are painfully absent. Add to this the apparent editorial bias of ABC and CBS, and it is little wonder that the resultant newscasts are viewed skeptically by many who watch the evening broadcasts.

Of course there is always the unfiltered outlet represented by CSPAN. Devoid of editorial content, but with a schedule dependent on the whims of congressional and senatorial sessions, coverage of campaign appearances is fragmented at best. A speech could be in progress and be preempted in mid sentence. Judging from he Neilson ratings CSPAN’s ultimate impact is almost infinitesimally small. It could be argued that in the case of CSPAN, most of its viewers are likely to be some of the best informed voters, but unlike the majority of viewers watching the rest of the broadcast spectrum, it is only the hard core political observers who are likely to expose themselves to CSPAN’s coverage.

The most hyped media source, the Internet, lends itself to some of the most and least intelligent coverage of candidates. Regardless of how objective or subjective internet coverage is the content is so widely dispersed that consolidation of objective data requires skillful manipulation of the various data sources. Frankly, the level of skill required is beyond the level of many people. To use the Internet effectively requires a steep learning curve that includes understanding basic technology, understanding how to use filtering tools, and finally actual access to the Internet. Hard as it is to believe, our society still has a huge segment of the population that has no Internet access and a large percentage that does have access has only the most novice ability to use the Internet. Even if good objective information exists, the likelihood that Internet users will find the information is low. While the idea of the Internet fundamentally changing how voters judge candidates has been theorized, it is still a voting resource that depends on future maturation.

Is it fundamentally the fault of the American electorate that we have allowed subjectivity to determine common sense. Our failing to demand objectivity from the candidates is a strong condemnation against our abilities to exercise our civic duty responsibly. However the ultimate responsibly for the lack of objective and definitive understanding of the candidates rests with the candidates themselves. And of the two candidates, the one that bears the most responsibility for this situation is John Kerry.

Since wrapping up the nomination Kerry has at no time endeavored to reveal what his policy goals are, how they are different in details from his opponent, what the defined goals of his policy are, and exposed himself to objective investigation by supporting his policy plans with fully developed objective content. At no time has he challenged his opponent to fulfill the same lacking endeavor. Since he is the challenger, it is his responsibility to demonstrate effectively exactly what is different between himself and the President. As a challenger seeking change, he must define his planned policies to such an extent that they are detailed and supported. That would allow the electorate to judge the merits Senator Kerry has. Unfortunately all he has done is repeat subjective statements about his abilities. 

Are there differences between the two candidates? Yes, and it does not take too much effort to discover them. However, since his challenger has focused on the subjective, and the president has been able to avoid objective comparisons between the two, the differences that have been made apparent to the electorate tend to deal with trivialities. Can the electorate make decisions based on the few objective differences that have been made clear, for example Bush is against and Kerry is for abortion? For some voters that is enough of an issue to decide how they will vote. But, if the majority of the electorate are awaiting laundry lists of objective policy goals and plans from the candidates, counting on the candidates to supply such objective details is an exercise in futility.

So before you go out and vote, consider your common sense. Is your common sense the result of the subjective claims and counter claims of the candidates? Are you one of the lucky voters who focuses on a single issue which makes  the need to investigate other issues pointless? Or are you one of the voters wise enough to look for the objective and definite before exercising your common sense?  

Leia Mais…

Remarks by Al Gore

Tell you what, I'll give you my interpretation by Sunday. I just culled his comments and when you state clearly that you condemn the President of the United States and point blank accuse him to have denied the rule of law, a attempted to frustrate accountability on any level and seek geopolitical domination; that his cabinet is full of criminals; and that the President has ordered a series of atrocities to be carried out by the military; and then dictate that his administration is so dishonest that its only recourse is resignation, you are clearly advocating sedition by calling for his removal, and treason because he has the view that the military has been hijacked and should repudiate the administration.

Yes I'd say that a former VP accusing a sitting President of:

" deep dishonor, being a dishonest President, ignoring the role of Congress and the courts, radically destroy the foreign policy consensus, failure of our overall policy, has made war on America's checks and balances, are less safe because of his policies, has created more anger and righteous indignation against us as Americans than any leader of our country in the 228 years of our existence as a nation, that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place, war plan was incompetent, ...Rumsfeld, consequences of these official crimes, should apologize to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions, owes an apology to the U.S. Army for cavalierly sending them into harm's way, accountable for the worst strategic and military miscalculations and mistakes in the history of the United States of America,"etc.

Gore has crossed a line from being a retired senior statesman to one advocating that the government's executive branch is criminal, and needs to be removed by formal resignation, and who is giving aid an comfort to our enemies by advocating a policy shift where the USA only acts on multilateral efforts and apologizes to the world for defending her interests.

Pretty much a slam dunk by his own mouth.

Leia Mais…

Alternative History

Author's website

September 1, 1864

Mr. Lincoln, you promised victory over our enemies, but as the recent attack on our capital itself by General Early proves, isn’t it more accurate to say you cannot even protect us from assault in our own homes? Can you right now guarantee that we will not see another surprise attack on Washington?

Mr. President, we are now in the fourth year of what clearly has become a quagmire with no end in sight. Opposition to your conduct of the war is growing by the day. Do you attribute this present mess to your own failure to communicate?

Mr. Lincoln, will you please respond to charges that you used the attack on Fort Sumner as cover to wage a preplanned war to punish the South?

Mr. Lincoln, please. Almost every day now we hear of our soldiers being killed with little progress in either Virginia or Georgia. Can you tell us why General Sherman seems unwilling or unable to take Atlanta? And was it, in fact, a mistake to send General Sherman deep into the South, when the greater enemy, General Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia, are still undefeated in near sight of our capital? If we cannot pacify Virginia, why in God’s name are we in Georgia? Isn’t Sherman diverting attention from the real enemy near our capital?

Mr. President, when exactly was the last time you visited a war hospital and have you spent any time recently at any of our national cemeteries?

With all due respect, Mr. President, may I ask why and how after months of searching and constant patrols, no one can find, much less capture Nathan Bedford Forrest, who as a result has become a folk hero to millions?

Mr. President, why after years of occupation are there still killings and assassinations in Missouri and Kentucky? Were not these areas supposed to have been pacified long ago?

Mr. Lincoln, would you please respond to General McClellan’s charges at the recent Chicago convention that with the establishment of the Emancipation Proclamation you misled this nation in the reasons you gave for this war. Is it not true, Mr. President, that you assured Americans that you have started this war to preserve the Union and protect federal property in the South? Yet now you claim that in fact our sons are dying to free slaves and provide equality to the Negro? What was the real reason, Mr. Lincoln, that you cooked up this war and got us into this mess, and why did you not tell us the full story when the shooting started?

Mr. Lincoln, are you aware of a small cabal of abolitionists in your War Department who in secret planned this disaster to further their own hidden support for the Negro and hoodwinked you into starting this war of northern aggression?

Given the illustrious war record of General McClellan and your own murky past as a soldier, isn’t it wiser for the American people to turn over their armies to someone with some real experience with war?

Mr. President, Sir, do you not think it is high time now to apologize for this summer’s slaughter in Virginia, and the thousands of poor innocent boys who were butchered there due to the ignorance and incompetence of your generals, about whose shortcomings you most surely knew? Can we at least have from you an “I’m sorry” to all the kin of the poor dead?

Mr. Lincoln: We have now seen a long train of failure. And after the removal of Generals McDowell, Hooker, Pope, and a score of others, isn’t it clear that you have no clear idea how to defeat the enemy, much less the proper person to lead us out of this present and mostly unnecessary mess?

Isn’t it also true Mr. President, that in light of the recent draft riots and attrition in the field, we have too few troops at the front? Why are we not committing another 40,500 soldiers now to ensure that we never see again anything like these recent weeks of constant Confederate aggression?

Rumors are flying, Mr. President, of general unhappiness in your cabinet, and of statements by Mr. Stanton and others that you are simply not qualified either in temperament or character to finish the war—and especially that you were obsessed with freeing the slaves and starting this war when the southern states wished only to leave in peace and posed no direct threat to the security of the United States? Why is it, Mr. President, that so many of your ex-friends and subordinates now speak so poorly about you?

Now that this war clearly has failed to reunite the Union and that you, Sir, will not be reelected as President of the United States, can you at last admit where you were in error and to the mistakes that led us to our present defeat?

Mr. Lincoln, do you not think it was naïve to assume that Northerners could impose by force Yankee-style democracy and culture on the traditional society of the South? Isn’t this arrogance on our part to think we can force others to be like us?

What is it about you, Mr. Lincoln, that leads your opponents to such vitriol and invective, to such a degree that you appear as an ape in cartoons and a scoundrel and nave almost daily in public essays and opinion-pieces? And why do the Europeans especially seem to hate you, so much so that England threatens to intervene on the side of our enemies?

Now that it is clear that neither General Grant can take Richmond nor General Sherman Atlanta, have you thought of stopping the war and bringing our boys back home? When will you resign Mr. President?

Gentlemen of the Press. I have ordered General Sherman to take Atlanta. And when he succeeds, I think all your questions shall be answered.

Leia Mais…

Alternative History

Gregg Easterbrook
Easterblogg
The New Republic
April 9, 2004


AN ALTERNATIVE HISTORY: washington, april 9, 2004. A hush fell over the city as George W. Bush today became the first president of the United States ever to be removed from office by impeachment. Meeting late into the night, the Senate unanimously voted to convict Bush following a trial on his bill of impeachment from the House. 

Moments after being sworn in as the 44th president, Dick Cheney said that disgraced former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice would be turned over to the Hague for trial in the International Court of Justice as a war criminal. Cheney said Washington would "firmly resist" international demands that Bush be extradited for prosecution as well. 

On August 7, 2001, Bush had ordered the United States military to stage an all-out attack on alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Thousands of U.S. special forces units parachuted into this neutral country, while air strikes targeted the Afghan government and its supporting military. Pentagon units seized abandoned Soviet air bases throughout Afghanistan, while establishing support bases in nearby nations such as Uzbekistan. Simultaneously, FBI agents throughout the United States staged raids in which dozens of men accused of terrorism were taken prisoner. 

Reaction was swift and furious. Florida Senator Bob Graham said Bush had "brought shame to the United States with his paranoid delusions about so-called terror networks." British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused the United States of "an inexcusable act of conquest in plain violation of international law." White House chief counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke immediately resigned in protest of "a disgusting exercise in over-kill." 

When dozens of U.S. soldiers were slain in gun battles with fighters in the Afghan mountains, public opinion polls showed the nation overwhelmingly opposed to Bush's action. Political leaders of both parties called on Bush to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan immediately. "We are supposed to believe that attacking people in caves in some place called Tora Bora is worth the life of even one single U.S. soldier?" former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey asked. 

When an off-target U.S. bomb killed scores of Afghan civilians who had taken refuge in a mosque, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar announced a global boycott of American products. The United Nations General Assembly voted to condemn the United States, and Washington was forced into the humiliating position of vetoing a Security Council resolution declaring America guilty of "criminal acts of aggression." 

Bush justified his attack on Afghanistan, and the detention of 19 men of Arab descent who had entered the country legally, on grounds of intelligence reports suggesting an imminent, devastating attack on the United States. But no such attack ever occurred, leading to widespread ridicule of Bush's claims. Speaking before a special commission created by Congress to investigate Bush's anti-terrorism actions, former national security adviser Rice shocked and horrified listeners when she admitted, "We had no actionable warnings of any specific threat, just good reason to believe something really bad was about to happen." 

The president fired Rice immediately after her admission, but this did little to quell public anger regarding the war in Afghanistan. When it was revealed that U.S. special forces were also carrying out attacks against suspected terrorist bases in Indonesia and Pakistan, fury against the United States became universal, with even Israel condemning American action as "totally unjustified." 

Speaking briefly to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before a helicopter carried him out of Washington as the first-ever president removed by impeachment, Bush seemed bitter. "I was given bad advice," he insisted. "My advisers told me that unless we took decisive action, thousands of innocent Americans might die. Obviously I should not have listened." 

Announcing his candidacy for the 2004 Republican presidential nomination, Senator John McCain said today that "George W. Bush was very foolish and naïve; he didn't realize he was being pushed into this needless conflict by oil interests that wanted to seize Afghanistan to run a pipeline across it." McCain spoke at a campaign rally at the World Trade Center in New York City.

An even better alternate reality would be a Gore administration. Judging from his last few speeches where he is shouting like a madman..I consider myself lucky that he did not win. If you can become so wrapped up in politics that you can't control your temper in public, what are you like behind closed doors when dealing with terrorists.

Leia Mais…

Why Bush's Fiscal Plan Can Work

A

It may not make intuitive sense, however it has been the only methodology employed by modern nation states which has resulted in economic up turns. Cut taxes to get the rich investing in new private jobs. Raise government spending as a way to provide impetus to the private sector to provide goods and services to the government instead of idle workers and full warehouses. The one component missing is that you have to control the cash supply while you do this or inflation/deflation makes it pointless.

Leia Mais…