do we get hung out to dry?
So far the media has attacked Edwards at his populist base arguing that his $400 haircut and philanthropy really isn’t what the people should want in a presnit. (Far better we should have Cheney’s sock puppet?)
Even though Wa Po’s series is fascinating and gives us new glimpses into that subterranean world of Cheney it leaves us even more puzzled at Bush and how much of a non-entity is he and has he been. Talks of getting Cheney to quit are “quaint” but given this crowd’s tenacity doesn’t look like a great possibility. I was and still am, surprised that Rummy left. That must have been a fluke!
(more:)
So is Cheney part of the administration or really just an insurgent force taking over the government?
The only two bright spots I see are the story about Lugar finally having enough:
Lugar urges Bush to change course soon in Iraq
and stories about Bloomberg giving us a Perot factor in the election. (Russ Limbaugh claims Bloomberg is Perot on Steroids! And Russ should know his drugs!) I believe that Perot actually allowed Clinton to win and the same could happen if Bloomberg runs because, lets face it, the repubs candidates all have a eeewww factor. Much has been made of the fact that Fred Thompson’s wives still LIKE him! But really!
But where does that leave us? As of right now Cheney and the evangelicals are crucifying our constitution. And there doesn’t seem to be any medic in sight! The media seems to have more to do with the dems nomination than seems natural or proper. Obviously Edwards is not the CORPORATE candidate! Will we, as dems, be able to separate out the crap from the real deal?
we have had some great documentaries. Bill Moyers, Michael Moore and now James Carrol (as reviewed at the Orange place:
Constantine’s Sword )
And great comedy and wit as exemplified by Jon Stewart and Colbert Report. So at least the creative juices have been flowing along with the shit streaming downhill to us!
The best comedy and wit since the Nixon administration, which probably is a meaningful coincidence.
Well, you remember what the fella said:
I thought a post election study had shown Perot took equally from Clinton-Bush I votes and proved to be a wash.
but my reading of it is this – we are so evenly split in this country that only a eyelash will win between two parties only. Perot really did excite both groups because he was so damn logical and he had the slides to prove it. But what I saw was that Clinton would have lost had Perot not been in the game. There are other folks smarter than me for sure at the math game, but looking at the results made me thank my stars that Perot was running as well. Nobody really thought he was pulling a great deal from the dems either. Unlike Nader who was view as a poison right from the gitgo.