A post this morning on one of my favorite blogs, Powerline, led me to this site .
I first took the 9 Question quickie and like Hindrocket I came up as a Saddam Hussien knock-off. Finding this less than acceptable, I went back and took the 18 Question version. This time I saw this:
I decided to quit while I was not a murderous has-been.
Saturday, December 27, 2003
Soros Part 5
Speaking slowly so even the dullest among us can understand, Soros explains the history of terrorism and allows that while it is annoying, it certainly is nothing to get overly excited about. He calmly assures us that "The most powerful country on earth cannot afford to be consumed by fear. Moreover, by allowing terrorism to become our principal preoccupation, we are playing into the terrorists' hands. They are setting our priorities."
Somehow I never would have supposed that the REAL objective behind 9/11 was to undermine the Talaban and Saddam Hussein. Osama Bin Laden must indeed be pleased to see his plans play out so brilliantly on the world stage.
Finally, Soros lays out his support for a "cooperative effort to improve the world by engaging in preventive actions of a constructive character. The United States is uniquely positioned to lead the effort. We cannot just do anything we want, as the Iraqi situation demonstrates, but nothing much can be done in the way of international cooperation without the leadership-or at least the participation-of the United States."
So the United States is "uniquely positioned" to "lead the effort" to rid the world of evil, but we need the permission of everyone else in order to act. In other words, the United Nations.
Of particuler interest is that here Soros endorses "preventive actions", meaning that he agrees with George W. Bush that pre-emptive measures must be taken.
It is fascinating to realize that even a liberal flack like Soros apparently knows that the UN is for all intents and purposes, dead. Otherwise why dress it up in new clothes and pretend it is a "third way" to approach international disagreements?
Lastly I must point out that Soros to the end is detached from reality. "We cannot just do anything we want, as the Iraqi situation demonstrates". While it is true that "we cannot just do anything we want" this is in no way demonstrated by the "Iraqi situation".
This piece was a disappointment to me. I had hoped that Soros would have something new to add to the opposition discourse. Instead I found a well written (I wonder which liberal wordmeister ghosted it for him?) but intellectually bankrupt rehashing of standard Democratic Party bromides.
If this is Soros' best shot, George W. Bush can rest easy. George Soros is no Ross Perot.
Speaking slowly so even the dullest among us can understand, Soros explains the history of terrorism and allows that while it is annoying, it certainly is nothing to get overly excited about. He calmly assures us that "The most powerful country on earth cannot afford to be consumed by fear. Moreover, by allowing terrorism to become our principal preoccupation, we are playing into the terrorists' hands. They are setting our priorities."
Somehow I never would have supposed that the REAL objective behind 9/11 was to undermine the Talaban and Saddam Hussein. Osama Bin Laden must indeed be pleased to see his plans play out so brilliantly on the world stage.
Finally, Soros lays out his support for a "cooperative effort to improve the world by engaging in preventive actions of a constructive character. The United States is uniquely positioned to lead the effort. We cannot just do anything we want, as the Iraqi situation demonstrates, but nothing much can be done in the way of international cooperation without the leadership-or at least the participation-of the United States."
So the United States is "uniquely positioned" to "lead the effort" to rid the world of evil, but we need the permission of everyone else in order to act. In other words, the United Nations.
Of particuler interest is that here Soros endorses "preventive actions", meaning that he agrees with George W. Bush that pre-emptive measures must be taken.
It is fascinating to realize that even a liberal flack like Soros apparently knows that the UN is for all intents and purposes, dead. Otherwise why dress it up in new clothes and pretend it is a "third way" to approach international disagreements?
Lastly I must point out that Soros to the end is detached from reality. "We cannot just do anything we want, as the Iraqi situation demonstrates". While it is true that "we cannot just do anything we want" this is in no way demonstrated by the "Iraqi situation".
This piece was a disappointment to me. I had hoped that Soros would have something new to add to the opposition discourse. Instead I found a well written (I wonder which liberal wordmeister ghosted it for him?) but intellectually bankrupt rehashing of standard Democratic Party bromides.
If this is Soros' best shot, George W. Bush can rest easy. George Soros is no Ross Perot.
The (Weak) Liberal Mind
I remember back in the late '70's how the Democrats tried to paint Ronald Reagan as some gunslinging cowboy who would engulf us in war on his second day in office.
Happily, the American people saw through the foolishness and twice elected Reagan as President. I thought of RR when I read this piece by Richard Reeves.
Reeves is drenched in his own drool as he hyper-ventilates about George W. Bush. To Reeves, GWB is an awful person and worse President, who has done nothing but chase off our allies and further entrench our enemies.
What is remarkable about Reeves' words are the utter lack of ANY and ALL context. Reeves just makes up this and that and then bashes President Bush for it. For instance Reeves says "The president is a bold, decisive and overconfident crusader, a self-righteous leader, a dangerous man. He changed the rules, ignoring the post-World War II history of alliances, multilateral institutions and containment." What facts does Reeves use here? If you answered "None" you would be close. He got "bold, decisive" right and nothing else.
How has Bush ignored "post-World War II history of alliances, multilateral institutions and containment" ?
We have the help of numerous allies in Iraq. Japan, Britain, Spain, Poland, and Australia to name five off the top of my head. So that is Reeves' Lie #1.
We repeatedly tried to utilize the ultimate "multilateral institution", the United Nations, going through the laborious process for twelve years and umpteen "resolutions". So that is Reeves' Lie #2.
We appealed to Saddam Hussein over and over to do the right thing. We put him under a decade long embargo, chased him back inside his own borders, used no-fly zones etc, to "contain" him. None of it worked. That is Reeves' Lie #3.
One paragraph, three lies.
Liberals like Reeves have no respect for truth. Their only concern is attacking those with whom they have political differences. Reeves dislikes the use of the American Military, therefore he lies and obfuscates, pretending that George W. Bush is some satanic combination of Nero and Napoleon.
I remember back in the late '70's how the Democrats tried to paint Ronald Reagan as some gunslinging cowboy who would engulf us in war on his second day in office.
Happily, the American people saw through the foolishness and twice elected Reagan as President. I thought of RR when I read this piece by Richard Reeves.
Reeves is drenched in his own drool as he hyper-ventilates about George W. Bush. To Reeves, GWB is an awful person and worse President, who has done nothing but chase off our allies and further entrench our enemies.
What is remarkable about Reeves' words are the utter lack of ANY and ALL context. Reeves just makes up this and that and then bashes President Bush for it. For instance Reeves says "The president is a bold, decisive and overconfident crusader, a self-righteous leader, a dangerous man. He changed the rules, ignoring the post-World War II history of alliances, multilateral institutions and containment." What facts does Reeves use here? If you answered "None" you would be close. He got "bold, decisive" right and nothing else.
How has Bush ignored "post-World War II history of alliances, multilateral institutions and containment" ?
We have the help of numerous allies in Iraq. Japan, Britain, Spain, Poland, and Australia to name five off the top of my head. So that is Reeves' Lie #1.
We repeatedly tried to utilize the ultimate "multilateral institution", the United Nations, going through the laborious process for twelve years and umpteen "resolutions". So that is Reeves' Lie #2.
We appealed to Saddam Hussein over and over to do the right thing. We put him under a decade long embargo, chased him back inside his own borders, used no-fly zones etc, to "contain" him. None of it worked. That is Reeves' Lie #3.
One paragraph, three lies.
Liberals like Reeves have no respect for truth. Their only concern is attacking those with whom they have political differences. Reeves dislikes the use of the American Military, therefore he lies and obfuscates, pretending that George W. Bush is some satanic combination of Nero and Napoleon.
Friday, December 26, 2003
Soros Part 4
Next Soros frets about our Iraqi operations because, "there are more places than ever before where we might have legitimate need to project that power. North Korea is openly building nuclear weapons, and Iran is clandestinely doing so" .
So the real problem is that Bush should have invaded North Korea and Iran? But how much support could we expect from the UN on THOSE invasions? Along about here, Soros essentially leaves behind all attempts to be coherent and reveals himself to be (SURPRISE!) a common everyday Liberal Democrat. Therefore, anything Bush does is wrong, and anything he doesn't do is right.
Soros tells the reader that the war on terrorism is going badly and that in fact war is no way to end terrorism. "Police work" is what is needed. 9/11 should have been treated as a criminal act and implores us to "Imagine for a moment that September 11 had been treated as a crime. We would not have invaded Iraq, and we would not have our military struggling to perform police work and getting shot at."
He fails to mention some other likely results of sending Joe Friday chasing after Bin Laden and friends. Things like ever increasing terror attacks on U.S. soil and militant Islam busting a collective gut laughing at the stupid Americans and their "police work".
"Military action requires an identifiable target, preferably a state. As a result the war on terrorism has been directed primarily against states harboring terrorists. Yet terrorists are by definition non-state actors, even if they are often sponsored by states."
This is of course absurd. Terrorists by definition seek to create terror. States can do this just as well, and often better, than "non-state actors"
Trying to follow Soros' reasoning is an exercise in futility that leads to general frustration and frequent outbreaks of the heebeejeebees. Basically the Soros tenet is as follows:
We shouldn't wage war against terrorists, because a war requires an opposing state, and terrorists CAN'T be opposing states, and even though they can be SPONSORED by opposing states who presumably you COULD wage war against, you still shouldn't wage war to fight terrorists because war requires an opposing state and terrorists and so forth.
Tomorrow the conclusion......
Next Soros frets about our Iraqi operations because, "there are more places than ever before where we might have legitimate need to project that power. North Korea is openly building nuclear weapons, and Iran is clandestinely doing so" .
So the real problem is that Bush should have invaded North Korea and Iran? But how much support could we expect from the UN on THOSE invasions? Along about here, Soros essentially leaves behind all attempts to be coherent and reveals himself to be (SURPRISE!) a common everyday Liberal Democrat. Therefore, anything Bush does is wrong, and anything he doesn't do is right.
Soros tells the reader that the war on terrorism is going badly and that in fact war is no way to end terrorism. "Police work" is what is needed. 9/11 should have been treated as a criminal act and implores us to "Imagine for a moment that September 11 had been treated as a crime. We would not have invaded Iraq, and we would not have our military struggling to perform police work and getting shot at."
He fails to mention some other likely results of sending Joe Friday chasing after Bin Laden and friends. Things like ever increasing terror attacks on U.S. soil and militant Islam busting a collective gut laughing at the stupid Americans and their "police work".
"Military action requires an identifiable target, preferably a state. As a result the war on terrorism has been directed primarily against states harboring terrorists. Yet terrorists are by definition non-state actors, even if they are often sponsored by states."
This is of course absurd. Terrorists by definition seek to create terror. States can do this just as well, and often better, than "non-state actors"
Trying to follow Soros' reasoning is an exercise in futility that leads to general frustration and frequent outbreaks of the heebeejeebees. Basically the Soros tenet is as follows:
We shouldn't wage war against terrorists, because a war requires an opposing state, and terrorists CAN'T be opposing states, and even though they can be SPONSORED by opposing states who presumably you COULD wage war against, you still shouldn't wage war to fight terrorists because war requires an opposing state and terrorists and so forth.
Tomorrow the conclusion......
Wednesday, December 24, 2003
Contemptible Judges
In recent days, two more egregious examples of liberal judicial law making. First, the ruling regarding snowmobiles in Yellowstone and now this one dealing with the Clean Air Act.
When liberals lose elections they don’t lick their wounds and try to figure out what went wrong. Instead they go to court where it is beyond easy to find a judge or three willing to stand the Constitution on its ear.
We have elected officials to make these policy decisions. Judges need to be taught to keep their damn opinion out of their opinions.
In recent days, two more egregious examples of liberal judicial law making. First, the ruling regarding snowmobiles in Yellowstone and now this one dealing with the Clean Air Act.
When liberals lose elections they don’t lick their wounds and try to figure out what went wrong. Instead they go to court where it is beyond easy to find a judge or three willing to stand the Constitution on its ear.
We have elected officials to make these policy decisions. Judges need to be taught to keep their damn opinion out of their opinions.
SOROS PART 3
Soros continues: “ The invasion of Iraq was the first practical application of the Bush doctrine, and it has turned out to be counterproductive. A chasm has opened between America and the rest of the world.”
As proof of this assertion Soros states:
“The United Nations promptly endorsed punitive U.S. action against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. A little more than a year later the United States could not secure a UN resolution to endorse the invasion of Iraq.”
He goes on the mention elections in Germany and South Korea, but boiled down to the nut, his point is that when the U.S. and the UN disagree, the U.S. is wrong.
Next Soros launches into a boring and unsuccessful attempt to relate economic “bubbles” to current events. He confidently says, “The quest for American supremacy qualifies as a bubble. The dominant position the United States occupies in the world is the element of reality that is being distorted. The proposition that the United States will be better off if it uses its position to impose its values and interests everywhere is the misconception. It is exactly by not abusing its power that America attained its current position.”
Here again you will notice important disconnects between sentences. Under Soros’ magical touch, America’s “dominant position” morphs into America “abusing its power”.
Soros asks “Where are we in this boom-bust process? The deteriorating situation in Iraq is either the moment of truth or a test that, if it is successfully overcome, will only reinforce the trend.”
This is neatly put. Under The Rules According to Soros, if Iraq blows up in George Bush’s face, he deserved it. If instead the Iraqi occupation works out fine, then it only leads us further into the quagmire. From atop Mount Soros the oracle has spoken: George Bush can never be right, only temporarily lucky.
Soros never shies away from stating opinion as fact. “Whatever the justification for removing Saddam Hussein, there can be no doubt that we invaded Iraq on false pretenses.” Like Ross Perot, Soros lives in a world where his conclusions equal truth.
But now Soros completely runs off the tracks of reality by asserting that “The gap between the Administration's expectations and the actual state of affairs could not be wider. It is difficult to think of a recent military operation that has gone so wrong.”
Where does this man get his information? James Carville and The New York Times?
To Be Continued....
Soros continues: “ The invasion of Iraq was the first practical application of the Bush doctrine, and it has turned out to be counterproductive. A chasm has opened between America and the rest of the world.”
As proof of this assertion Soros states:
“The United Nations promptly endorsed punitive U.S. action against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. A little more than a year later the United States could not secure a UN resolution to endorse the invasion of Iraq.”
He goes on the mention elections in Germany and South Korea, but boiled down to the nut, his point is that when the U.S. and the UN disagree, the U.S. is wrong.
Next Soros launches into a boring and unsuccessful attempt to relate economic “bubbles” to current events. He confidently says, “The quest for American supremacy qualifies as a bubble. The dominant position the United States occupies in the world is the element of reality that is being distorted. The proposition that the United States will be better off if it uses its position to impose its values and interests everywhere is the misconception. It is exactly by not abusing its power that America attained its current position.”
Here again you will notice important disconnects between sentences. Under Soros’ magical touch, America’s “dominant position” morphs into America “abusing its power”.
Soros asks “Where are we in this boom-bust process? The deteriorating situation in Iraq is either the moment of truth or a test that, if it is successfully overcome, will only reinforce the trend.”
This is neatly put. Under The Rules According to Soros, if Iraq blows up in George Bush’s face, he deserved it. If instead the Iraqi occupation works out fine, then it only leads us further into the quagmire. From atop Mount Soros the oracle has spoken: George Bush can never be right, only temporarily lucky.
Soros never shies away from stating opinion as fact. “Whatever the justification for removing Saddam Hussein, there can be no doubt that we invaded Iraq on false pretenses.” Like Ross Perot, Soros lives in a world where his conclusions equal truth.
But now Soros completely runs off the tracks of reality by asserting that “The gap between the Administration's expectations and the actual state of affairs could not be wider. It is difficult to think of a recent military operation that has gone so wrong.”
Where does this man get his information? James Carville and The New York Times?
To Be Continued....
Friday, December 19, 2003
Support for war grows:
Robert Kagan has an interesting article in today's WaPo. Interesting mainly because it is titled "Divided on the War? Not Really" !
The major media does not usually tell tales on itself, and the company line has been to talk up the negative. Kagan acknowledges as much when he points out that "According to CNN's polls this year, only once has support for the Iraq war fallen as low as 50 percent, despite the steady stream of relatively bad news." Kagan even takes a sly but gentle jab at a certain liberal author and his lying book.
In any case, he lays out a strong case that support for the Iraqi "War" has been steady and widespread. With that support hovering in the range of sixty percent it becomes increasingly likely that "Howard Dean for President" will be a total disaster for the Democratic Party in '04.
Robert Kagan has an interesting article in today's WaPo. Interesting mainly because it is titled "Divided on the War? Not Really" !
The major media does not usually tell tales on itself, and the company line has been to talk up the negative. Kagan acknowledges as much when he points out that "According to CNN's polls this year, only once has support for the Iraq war fallen as low as 50 percent, despite the steady stream of relatively bad news." Kagan even takes a sly but gentle jab at a certain liberal author and his lying book.
In any case, he lays out a strong case that support for the Iraqi "War" has been steady and widespread. With that support hovering in the range of sixty percent it becomes increasingly likely that "Howard Dean for President" will be a total disaster for the Democratic Party in '04.
No Mas:
Libyan strongman Moammar Kaddaffi (I prefer this spelling) has announced he will allow international inspectors, and will turn over all WMD.
While this is a good sign, it apparently comes about after what AP calls "secret negotiations with the United States and Britain". One hopes that Kaddaffi got no concessions in return that would militate against common sense.
It is likely that seeing Saddam Hussein's recent oral check up raised the scales from Kaddaffi's eyes and made his decision much easier.
Libyan strongman Moammar Kaddaffi (I prefer this spelling) has announced he will allow international inspectors, and will turn over all WMD.
While this is a good sign, it apparently comes about after what AP calls "secret negotiations with the United States and Britain". One hopes that Kaddaffi got no concessions in return that would militate against common sense.
It is likely that seeing Saddam Hussein's recent oral check up raised the scales from Kaddaffi's eyes and made his decision much easier.
Soros Part 2:
Continuing his efforts, Soros again misstates the position of the Bush Administration:
“The Bush doctrine….is built on two pillars: the United States will do everything in its power to maintain its unquestioned military supremacy; and the United States arrogates the right to pre-emptive action.
In effect, the doctrine establishes two classes of sovereignty: the sovereignty of the United States, which takes precedence over international treaties and obligations; and the sovereignty of all other states, which is subject to the will of the United States.”
You will notice that the principles stated in the first paragraph bear no resemblance to the principles stated in the second paragraph. This happens because Soros states the “Bush doctrine” accurately, then immediately restates it by twisting it beyond recognition, and then pretends they are one and the same.
George W. Bush has NEVER so much as hinted that the actions the United States has taken in response to 9/11, are not available to any other country so attacked. If, for instance, Paris was bombed tomorrow, my bet is that President Bush would be more of a Franco Hawk than Jacque Chirac.
Mr. Bush has made it plain: We were attacked and we will do all in out power to keep it from happening again. Period.
But facts have no meaning for Mr. Soros as he builds the following strawman:
“President Bush says, as he does frequently, that freedom will prevail, he means that America will prevail. In a free and open society, people are supposed to decide for themselves what they mean by freedom and democracy, and not simply follow America's lead. The contradiction is especially apparent in the case of Iraq, and the occupation of Iraq has brought the issue home. We came as liberators, bringing freedom and democracy, but that is not how we are perceived by a large part of the population.”
Setting aside the issue of how the United States is perceived by the Iraqi people, the truth is that we invaded Iraq out of a desire to avoid another 9/11, not as “liberators, bringing freedom and democracy “ to the Iraqis. Certainly many of us are hopeful that we will leave Iraq a more free and better place, but no one should ever doubt that our primary reason was to make the United States a safer place.
To Be Continued....
Continuing his efforts, Soros again misstates the position of the Bush Administration:
“The Bush doctrine….is built on two pillars: the United States will do everything in its power to maintain its unquestioned military supremacy; and the United States arrogates the right to pre-emptive action.
In effect, the doctrine establishes two classes of sovereignty: the sovereignty of the United States, which takes precedence over international treaties and obligations; and the sovereignty of all other states, which is subject to the will of the United States.”
You will notice that the principles stated in the first paragraph bear no resemblance to the principles stated in the second paragraph. This happens because Soros states the “Bush doctrine” accurately, then immediately restates it by twisting it beyond recognition, and then pretends they are one and the same.
George W. Bush has NEVER so much as hinted that the actions the United States has taken in response to 9/11, are not available to any other country so attacked. If, for instance, Paris was bombed tomorrow, my bet is that President Bush would be more of a Franco Hawk than Jacque Chirac.
Mr. Bush has made it plain: We were attacked and we will do all in out power to keep it from happening again. Period.
But facts have no meaning for Mr. Soros as he builds the following strawman:
“President Bush says, as he does frequently, that freedom will prevail, he means that America will prevail. In a free and open society, people are supposed to decide for themselves what they mean by freedom and democracy, and not simply follow America's lead. The contradiction is especially apparent in the case of Iraq, and the occupation of Iraq has brought the issue home. We came as liberators, bringing freedom and democracy, but that is not how we are perceived by a large part of the population.”
Setting aside the issue of how the United States is perceived by the Iraqi people, the truth is that we invaded Iraq out of a desire to avoid another 9/11, not as “liberators, bringing freedom and democracy “ to the Iraqis. Certainly many of us are hopeful that we will leave Iraq a more free and better place, but no one should ever doubt that our primary reason was to make the United States a safer place.
To Be Continued....
Deconstructing Soros
Soros begins his polemic in the December Atlantic Monthly entitled “The Bubble of American Supremacy”, by stating that while September 11, 2001 “changed the course of history” it only did so because President Bush “responded to it the way he did”. He asks plaintively “How could a single event, even one involving 3,000 civilian casualties, have such a far-reaching effect?”.
Soros is apparently blind to the fact that the same argument could be used regarding December 7, 1941. By the same token, if your neighbor poisons your dog, you could choose to ignore the act, and thus avoid further unpleasantness such as filling out police reports.
Soros posits that underlying the president’s response to 9/11 are principles that “can be summed up as follows: International relations are relations of power, not law; power prevails and law legitimizes what prevails.”
If anyone can point me to the speech or interview where Bush enunciated these “principles” I would be in their debt.
Attacking what he calls “The supremacist ideology of the Bush Administration” Soros cites “the very first sentence of the September 2002 National Security Strategy” : "The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise."
Soros responds: “The assumptions behind this statement are false on two counts. First, there is no single sustainable model for national success.”
Really? One wonders which other models have worked or are working in Mr. Soros’ estimation. Remember that the “single sustainable model” is not specifically referring to American Style, or even Western Style, government models, but to “freedom, democracy, and free enterprise."
Doros rambles father into the thicket of confusion: “Second, the American model, which has indeed been successful, is not available to others, because our success depends greatly on our dominant position at the center of the global capitalist system, and we are not willing to yield it.”
Got that? America is the most successful not because of our system but because we are the best. Or, in other words, the economic egg laid the systemic chicken.
To Be Continued...
Soros begins his polemic in the December Atlantic Monthly entitled “The Bubble of American Supremacy”, by stating that while September 11, 2001 “changed the course of history” it only did so because President Bush “responded to it the way he did”. He asks plaintively “How could a single event, even one involving 3,000 civilian casualties, have such a far-reaching effect?”.
Soros is apparently blind to the fact that the same argument could be used regarding December 7, 1941. By the same token, if your neighbor poisons your dog, you could choose to ignore the act, and thus avoid further unpleasantness such as filling out police reports.
Soros posits that underlying the president’s response to 9/11 are principles that “can be summed up as follows: International relations are relations of power, not law; power prevails and law legitimizes what prevails.”
If anyone can point me to the speech or interview where Bush enunciated these “principles” I would be in their debt.
Attacking what he calls “The supremacist ideology of the Bush Administration” Soros cites “the very first sentence of the September 2002 National Security Strategy” : "The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise."
Soros responds: “The assumptions behind this statement are false on two counts. First, there is no single sustainable model for national success.”
Really? One wonders which other models have worked or are working in Mr. Soros’ estimation. Remember that the “single sustainable model” is not specifically referring to American Style, or even Western Style, government models, but to “freedom, democracy, and free enterprise."
Doros rambles father into the thicket of confusion: “Second, the American model, which has indeed been successful, is not available to others, because our success depends greatly on our dominant position at the center of the global capitalist system, and we are not willing to yield it.”
Got that? America is the most successful not because of our system but because we are the best. Or, in other words, the economic egg laid the systemic chicken.
To Be Continued...
Rich Guys and Presidential Politics
George Soros recently announced that he would be spending at least several millions of his fortune to rid the country and the world of George W. Bush. Soros has a long piece in the December Atlantic Monthly that deserves a long look. Before I begin my deconstruction however, a look back at another billionaire who crossed the American political stage.
Rich men who decide to spend huge amounts of money on politics are interesting animals, and sometimes they kick up enough dust to change history. For instance I have always held that Ross Perot was primarily responsible for electing Bill Clinton. Politics is a much-misunderstood game in which years of plodding sameness can be replaced by radical change in the blink of an eye.
In 1992 George H. W. Bush (it’s a heck of a note when you have to go to a FOURTH initial to distinguish between two people) was on cruise control toward a second term. Bill Clinton was in danger of becoming a joke. In the polls Bush had a large lead and the election seemed secure.
Enter Ross Perot. Overnight the dynamic changed, but most people failed to realize WHO was now in trouble. In the early weeks of the three-way campaign, pundits focused on Clinton’s poor poll numbers. There was talk that Clinton might fail to get 25% of the vote required for “major party” status.
What the pundits almost totally ignored was the fact that now President Bush was polling BELOW 50%. There was a monumental shift in public attitudes. Where over 50% of the voters had been prepared to vote for Bush, now over 50% were psychologically open to voting for someone other than the President.
A break of this type is much like a marriage where one or both spouses have begun to wonder if maybe divorce is the answer. Like Humpty Dumpty, Bush’s electoral prospects would not be put together again. When Perot went weird and then dropped out just prior to Clinton’s nomination, the “swing voters” could either go back to their stodgy ex (Bush) or run off with the handsome ner-do-well from down the street (Clinton).
The result was an explosion of support for Bill Clinton that Bush never recovered from, and when Perot re-entered the race it effectively cemented the president’s fate. It was well known that Perot disliked George H. W. Bush, and he could take great satisfaction in knowing that he was responsible for the president’s defeat.
The Perot and Soros stories have little in common beyond the fact that both were rich men who were willing to spend millions to beat a Bush. Perot was someone who represented a “third way” in American politics. Loony as some of his ideas were, he was joined by millions of Americans who had grown frustrated with the choice between Republicans and the Democrats.
Now comes Soros.
I had heard of him but had no notion of his politics until he announced a five million-dollar donation to a group dedicated to defeating George W. Bush in 2004. Now, as an advance peek at a book scheduled for release next month, the Atlantic Monthly has published a Soros “essay” that gives us a clear view into the man’s mind.
Next: Deconstructing Soros
George Soros recently announced that he would be spending at least several millions of his fortune to rid the country and the world of George W. Bush. Soros has a long piece in the December Atlantic Monthly that deserves a long look. Before I begin my deconstruction however, a look back at another billionaire who crossed the American political stage.
Rich men who decide to spend huge amounts of money on politics are interesting animals, and sometimes they kick up enough dust to change history. For instance I have always held that Ross Perot was primarily responsible for electing Bill Clinton. Politics is a much-misunderstood game in which years of plodding sameness can be replaced by radical change in the blink of an eye.
In 1992 George H. W. Bush (it’s a heck of a note when you have to go to a FOURTH initial to distinguish between two people) was on cruise control toward a second term. Bill Clinton was in danger of becoming a joke. In the polls Bush had a large lead and the election seemed secure.
Enter Ross Perot. Overnight the dynamic changed, but most people failed to realize WHO was now in trouble. In the early weeks of the three-way campaign, pundits focused on Clinton’s poor poll numbers. There was talk that Clinton might fail to get 25% of the vote required for “major party” status.
What the pundits almost totally ignored was the fact that now President Bush was polling BELOW 50%. There was a monumental shift in public attitudes. Where over 50% of the voters had been prepared to vote for Bush, now over 50% were psychologically open to voting for someone other than the President.
A break of this type is much like a marriage where one or both spouses have begun to wonder if maybe divorce is the answer. Like Humpty Dumpty, Bush’s electoral prospects would not be put together again. When Perot went weird and then dropped out just prior to Clinton’s nomination, the “swing voters” could either go back to their stodgy ex (Bush) or run off with the handsome ner-do-well from down the street (Clinton).
The result was an explosion of support for Bill Clinton that Bush never recovered from, and when Perot re-entered the race it effectively cemented the president’s fate. It was well known that Perot disliked George H. W. Bush, and he could take great satisfaction in knowing that he was responsible for the president’s defeat.
The Perot and Soros stories have little in common beyond the fact that both were rich men who were willing to spend millions to beat a Bush. Perot was someone who represented a “third way” in American politics. Loony as some of his ideas were, he was joined by millions of Americans who had grown frustrated with the choice between Republicans and the Democrats.
Now comes Soros.
I had heard of him but had no notion of his politics until he announced a five million-dollar donation to a group dedicated to defeating George W. Bush in 2004. Now, as an advance peek at a book scheduled for release next month, the Atlantic Monthly has published a Soros “essay” that gives us a clear view into the man’s mind.
Next: Deconstructing Soros
Thursday, December 18, 2003
The disintegration of the Democratic Party continues. With the exception of Gephardt and Lieberman, none of the Dems running for president seem to have any mooring to reality.
Howard Dean lurches from one angry snip to another and seems to mainly be preoccupied with "Being Howard".
Poor John Kerry. He has served all those years in the Senate, being a good little liberal, yet has been treated like a red-headed step-child in the run up to Iowa and New Hampshire. His stump speeches are taking on a bitter tone, as he sees himself eclipsed by even the joke candidates.
With the good economic news continuing, it is difficult to see Bush losing in 2004.
Howard Dean lurches from one angry snip to another and seems to mainly be preoccupied with "Being Howard".
Poor John Kerry. He has served all those years in the Senate, being a good little liberal, yet has been treated like a red-headed step-child in the run up to Iowa and New Hampshire. His stump speeches are taking on a bitter tone, as he sees himself eclipsed by even the joke candidates.
With the good economic news continuing, it is difficult to see Bush losing in 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)