...Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged the nation not to succumb to “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” But that was then.read more | digg story
Today, many of the men who hope to be the next president — including all of the candidates with a significant chance of receiving the Republican nomination — have made unreasoning, unjustified terror the centerpiece of their campaigns.
Consider, for a moment, the implications of the fact that Rudy Giuliani is taking foreign policy advice from Norman Podhoretz, who wants us to start bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.”
Mr. Podhoretz, in short, is engaging in what my relatives call crazy talk. Yet he is being treated with respect by the front-runner for the G.O.P. nomination. And Mr. Podhoretz’s rants are, if anything, saner than some of what we’ve been hearing from some of Mr. Giuliani’s rivals.
Most Americans have now regained their balance. But the Republican base, which lapped up the administration’s rhetoric about the axis of evil and the war on terror, remains infected by the fear the Bushies stirred up...
Only Ron Paul stands a chance of winning against the Democrats this time around, and he's rapidly being shown the door by the core of the Republican party, who don't want to hear that their fears are baseless.
This is shaping up like all of the other Presidential elections that I've witnessed. I don't know why anyone pays attention to this stuff anymore. The throwing of the election by one party or the other, by offering up a candidate that only the core of the party would ever vote for (gun-controlling Mondale, socialist snoopy Dukakis, dead fish Dole, wooden Gore, lying Kerry) and with third party candidates excluded from real participation; they essentially hand the election to the other major party. With the exceptions of the elections of 1980 and 1996, there was never any question in my mind who was going to win.
[...and I really don't want to hear about irregularities in the statistical ties that have dominated the 21st century elections. I'm well aware of the problems, they just aren't relevant to the candidates chosen by the dominant parties, and the purposes behind their choice]
In all the other elections it seemed clear to me that the "opposition party" had chosen a candidate that was guaranteed to loose. It's not as hard as you might imagine, to do this. The average Joe wants to vote for a winner (don't ask me why that is, but I've talked to enough people, and seen enough data to know this is true) and the primaries can be reasonably easy to manipulate by excluding unwanted candidates and orchestrating media exposure (as was done to last elections Democrat favorite) so as to show your 'favored' candidate as winning early enough to start the landslide.
This is clearly shaping up to be a 'handover' election (no matter what Ol' Joey, the Republican mouthpiece has to say about it) which is why the Democrat candidates feel secure enough to tell us all about their expensive and invasive social programs in advance (programs that the Republican front runners strangely feel the urge to parrot, albeit to a lesser extent) so that the election, when it occurs, will be a mandate for handing health care (and possibly control of the internet) over to the federal government.
Beauty pageants disguised as good government (election is just a popularity contest, after all) It might be more interesting if the candidates weren't so old and wrinkly.
... And if the designated winner wasn't transparently obvious.