Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 3, 2004
Osama Who?

The medias reflections of Bush´s acceptance speech (Transcript, Video) is quite cold. They mostly agree that Bush had some points on national security, but the echo on his domestic proposels is full of question marks. A press review:

New York Times
Bush Outlines Plan for a 2nd Term and Attacks Kerry’s Record

After four days in which speaker after speaker attacked Mr. Kerry’s credibility, credentials and even his patriotism, and focused almost entirely on national security, Mr. Bush expanded his appeal with a discussion of domestic policy.

… most of the proposals, on issues like affordable housing and community college job training, were relatively modest and not of a scale likely to redefine the presidential race. His package lacked the freshness and sweep of the agenda he ran in 2000, presumably in part because the growing federal budget deficit constrained him from proposing big new programs

The president made no mention of the foreign figure who arguably most influenced his first term in the White House: Osama bin Laden, the yet-to-be-captured leader of Al Qaeda.

Mr. Bush’s speech drew as ecstatic a reaction as he has found while campaigning, and for long moments, he stood and gazed at the cheering crowd, smiling just slightly.

Analysis: Bold Strokes, Few Details

Mr. Bush spoke confidently but saved his passion for national security issues, and sounded a tone of defiance at critics of his decision to invade Iraq…

Mr. Bush devoted the first half of his speech to domestic policy. But his biggest ideas were not really new, and he left the daunting details of the agenda items…

Washington Post
Bush Promises ‘a Safer World’

… a lofty speech casting his reelection as crucial to the spread of democracy across the world and to the security of Americans at home.

Bush’s address combined many passages from his usual stump speech, familiar slogans such as “compassionate conservative” from his 2000 campaign, and mocking, dismissive jabs at Kerry.

The speech continued the efforts of other convention speakers … to conflate the war in Iraq, which is generally unpopular, with the war on terrorism, for which Bush still receives strong marks.

Analysis: Domestic Questions Remain

… an acceptance speech long on ambitions but far shorter on the ways or the means to accomplish them.

What the domestic agenda lacked was both a sense of priorities that has been the hallmark of his political style and the passion that animated the second half of his speech, when he turned to foreign policy.

Nowhere did he confront directly … the loss of jobs during his presidency and uneven economic recovery that casts a shadow over his hopes for reelection.

Bush’s desire to reform Social Security collides with his call to make permanent his tax cuts, and outside budget experts say it is unrealistic to expect to do both without further enlarging the deficit.

… few doubt his willingness to act and act aggressively in the face of terrorist threats. But after nearly four years in office, questions remain about his passion or commitment to the economy or domestic policy.

USA Today
Analysis: 2nd term staked on war on terrorism

his prime-time address made clear that the heart of his administration for the next four years would be the battle against al-Qaeda and the search for safety from those who would do Americans harm. On this issue he will claim a second term, or lose it.

Knight Ridder
Bush casts himself as strong leader

Delivering a message of fear and hope, President Bush presented himself to America Thursday night as a wartime leader who can guide the nation through dangerous times.

The speech excerpts released by the White House didn’t include any reference to Iraq, jobs or Osama bin Laden.

MSNBC
Bush promises: ‘Nothing will hold us back’

Bush made no mention of a plan to raise the money to pay for any of those proposals, much less pay down the record budget deficits that have been created since he took office. Instead, he referred anyone wanting more details to his Web site.

Not until almost two-thirds of the way through his address did Bush turn to the war on terrorism, the cornerstone of his re-election campaign. And even then, al-Qaida — the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11 attacks, which continues to launch terrorist strikes in the Arab world and elsewhere — was noted lightly, almost as if in passing.

He did not mention Osama bin Laden — the al-Qaida leader whom U.S. forces have not apprehended three years after his strike on America — at all.

Josh Marshall
Talking Points

I thought the president tonight was better than his speech. And what I mean by that is that he seemed confident, assured, and at ease — all the qualities that he should have conveyed and embodied. But the speech itself, while good, seemed like less than it could have been.

Andrew Sulivan
A SUPERB SPEECH

It was the second best speech I have ever heard George W. Bush give – intelligently packaged, deftly structured, strong and yet also revealing of the president’s obviously big heart.

They presented a moderate face, while proposing the most hard-right platform ever put forward by a GOP convention. They smeared and slimed Kerry – last night with disgusting attacks on his sincerity, patriotism and integrity. And yet they managed to seem positive after tonight. That’s no easy feat. But they pulled it off. Some of this, I have to say, was Orwellian. When your convention pushes so many different messages, and is united with screaming chants of “U.S.A.”, and built around what was becoming almost a cult of the Great Leader, skeptical conservatives have reason to raise an eyebrow or two.

The chutzpah is amazing. At this point, however, it isn’t just chutzpah. It’s deception. To propose all this knowing full well that we cannot even begin to afford it is irresponsible in the deepest degree. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats now is that the Bush Republicans believe in Big Insolvent Government and the Kerry Democrats believe in Big Solvent Government.

On CNN´s website readers give Bush a C+ for this speech PUNDITS SCORECARD.

I think it was worse, a C-, and the speech left three major attack points open. Bad execution in Iraq , irresponsible budget policy and the economic downturn are open wounds. Kerry will have to rub salt into theses.

Comments

Bush as CEO by Juan Cole should be put in a 30 second spot. A CEO with such accomplishments would not be reelected.

Posted by: b | Sep 3 2004 8:59 utc | 1

re. “security” and other dorkish compulsions: somehow the rightwing punks keep mentioning WMD in all their speeches.
i just keep wondering when they will raid the HQ of idsoftware in mesquite, tx and confiscate all those surplus BFG9000’s. the answer is probably the same why they are pussyfooting around north-korea: once you HAVE those fuckin’ WMDs you got their RESPECT !
*** hunting trolls with a chainsaw since 1994

Posted by: name | Sep 3 2004 9:52 utc | 2

@Name:
Awesome Ass-Kicking Weaponry, Name. Everyone needs the SSM XL for distance work; The Wild Fire would work well close in.

Posted by: NoName | Sep 3 2004 12:58 utc | 3

@B:
Thanks for posting the speech reviews. I can’t even bear watching that piece of crap on TV.

Posted by: NoName | Sep 3 2004 13:03 utc | 4

“Where buildings fell, a great nation rose.” How chilling is that? Combined w/ the iconography (including the “W” signs), idealism and racism, it just fueled the parallels to the Nazi’s, am I wrong? Much of what Bush said has already been outlined in his other speechs, esp the one to the AEI last year, and throughout the history of this nation. “Advancing the frontiers of freedom”/free-market capitalism by leveling the playing field and installing “democracy” in the middle east are not new, even though they try to give Wolfowitz credit for the idea as they write their own history. “The Middle East’s ideology of hate”, the savages “fear freedom” and it’s up to the US to bring them freedom (meaning free-market capitalism) because it’s not only honorable, it delivered from God. Why aren’t these people in straightjackets? And now Bush feels confident enough to skip over his earlier ambiguity from the 2003 SOTUS speech and now out and out say that AQ members have been “killed” in mass and gets rousing applause. The killer has been re-nominated. Let’s have no more rhetoric that the people who support him or US policy are innocents.

Posted by: b real | Sep 3 2004 14:02 utc | 5

The false dichotomy between Bush and Kerry is spoon fed to the US public to keep them busy. Much like a boxing match. Rah rah, etc.
…Get people out to spit at ‘liberals’ and wave the flag. Arrest a few demonstraters who do awful thing like paint slogans on pavements or parade with fake coffins, get everyone riled up about that. Spread innunendo, rumors, horrid accusations, false or not, it doesn’t matter at all. Anything will do. Discuss Vietnam instead of Iraq. Analyse people’s underwear, too cool, why not? (crummy example..)
Try to get people even more polarised, that way they will ignore the real issues.
It works.
How can (many) Americans believe that their futures, their lives, their jobs which they need to eat, the future of their children or of their country, rests on choosing one or the other weak, paid for, corrupt, totally compromised figureheads who on top of it all are so evidently either subnormal psychotics or subservient to a foreign power, or both?
How did that happen?

Posted by: Blackie | Sep 3 2004 19:28 utc | 6

The best “analysis” sofar is on Slate by William Saletan:
Back to the Future – What Bush would do if he were president.

For $2.4 trillion, guess what word—other than “a,” “and,” and “the”—occurs most frequently in the acceptance speech George W. Bush delivered tonight.
The word is “will.” It appears 76 times. This was a speech all about what Bush will do, and what will happen, if he becomes president.

Posted by: b | Sep 3 2004 20:02 utc | 7

@Blackie
How did that happen?
Favorism of simplicity, in a different words, interlectual laziness.
When traveling in the States I was always amazed how people did like the simplicity of everything and it was easy to fall for it myself. No interlectual challenge, except maybe the antic habit of writing checks. Not everywhere and everybody of course, but the majority likes everything to be easy – “just don´t make me think about myself”.
Maybe the last century which was hard on most of the world population was just to easy for the US people.
Just a thought – I will have to think more about this. Thanks for the question!

Posted by: b | Sep 3 2004 20:14 utc | 8

Blackie you might look at it as a setup of sorts, one that has been in place moving along erratically for a hundred years or more. A long term sedative has been administered to reduce the pain and resistance. And now it is time for the kill.
Messy job but somebody has to do it.{;>)

Posted by: tin hat rapt | Sep 3 2004 21:13 utc | 9

At the same time, some of the most impressive thinkers of our time come from the US. The intellectual elite of the US – sciences, humanities, you name it – is truly second to none. However, Bushco seem to have managed to make use of a latent anti-intellectualism in the US and to marginalize the intellectuals or to bribe or intimidate them into submission.
And I share Blackie’s sense of wonder. It gives me the creeps to see the current leaders/political elite of the US and to think that they have got enough conventional weapons to make the world a hell of a place for all others, and enough WMD, particularly nukes, to kill us all and destroy the world several times over. Too much power for anybody anyway. (And I think it is not a good omen at all that Hollywood has prepared us for diverse absolute catastrophes over the last years – made them thinkable, so to speak.) If the US should morally, ideologically, politically or in any other way really go down the drain, we may get a taste of what the cold war postponed. My apocalyptic three minutes for today.

Posted by: teuton | Sep 3 2004 21:24 utc | 10

It’s the philosophical home of pragmatism. Like Bernhard says, it’s essentially intellectual laziness. Concentration of wealth and power (read exploitation and corruption) requires a veil of ignorance and apathy to cover what really goes on. Similar to how you don’t really want to see how sausage is made.
However, I really do think that narcissism plays a central role in not being able to honestly look in the mirror. The truth is too painful, and not profitable, thus it is ignored and avoided at all costs. So the tv functions as our mirror as we choose to live vicariously and abstractly through a filtered reality. We are a warrior nation, and being programmed to remain that way. Always have been in this country, from well before day one when this land was taken through vicious wars.
So now those of us who don’t engage in battle sit back and let the corporations pick our candidates, generate and promote the war for the presidency because we understand that this is what this country is about. Our business, political and game metaphors are from war. Our techonological advancement is stimulated through war. Our sports are mock simulations of war. Our entertainment is overwhelmingly saturated with war and violence. And our cultural icons are typically war-like — gangsters, war heroes, secret agents, thugs… Even when it’s a fake war preznit who likes to dress up, play w/ looted pistols and order very real executions, genocide and death upon those who stand in our way, it’s pragmatism for the privileged to feel that it’s someone else’s problem. After all, being indoctrinated into a society which preaches the idea that this is a cruel world and only the strong survive, there is a strong imperative to align oneself w/ the tyrant. The war preznit’s handlers have built up a cult of personality around him for those who seek a messiah and those weakened by letting others do their thinking for them; gullible commoners who only want to live their lives as simply and selfishly as they please.
Fundamentally, we are weak. Intellectually, spiritually, psychically, and, judging by the ever increasing girths observed at outdoor festivals, zoos, shopping centers, and concerts, even physically. Again, we cannot handle the truth. Nor responsibility. Pragmatism replaced Puritanism because we didn’t like how that ended.
Damn. Catharsis. Sorry for the bleakness there. Hopefully the more than half-a-million marchers in NYC in addition to all the other demonstrations over the week will act as a catalyst to change. Since the leaders have shown their not interested in leading, it’s up to the people to lead. And pragmatism won’t cut it in that struggle… I’m going to take off for a week of kayaking in the mountains now to clear my head. Thanks for the forum, b.

Posted by: b real | Sep 3 2004 21:47 utc | 11

b real: Pragmatism replaced Puritanism because we didn’t like how that ended.
Interesting. I haven’t seen the death of Puritanism … perhaps a mutation of it, but not its death. I see rather pragmatism dancing with Puritanism. And perhaps it’s been that way all along anyway.

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Sep 3 2004 23:25 utc | 12

Re:Pragmatism(Realism) and Puritanism Dancing.
Doubt if it would be a satisfying evening for either of them.
Just a Guess. Entertaining to think about though.
Here’s an interesting love story.
Check it out. It’s Friday night.
LINK

Posted by: Fred Astair | Sep 4 2004 1:21 utc | 13

Right on, Kate Storm! The philosophy of C. S. Peirce, our first and foremost “pragmatist”–which term (and the fate of which term at the hands of William James) made him so uneasy that he took to calling himself a “pragmaticist”–is quite precisely a derivative of Calvinism, and quite precisely not a derivative of any other Christian strain of thought (and Peirce, of course, insists again and again on his debts to theology). This fact is huge, and it has to be taken seriously by anyone who hopes to locate our particular backwater in the greater landscape of twentieth century thought.

Posted by: alabama | Sep 4 2004 2:45 utc | 14

Don’t ya think name was referring to all those newborn theologians Bakker, Fallwell, Robertson, Swaggart, and of course little Gerorgy Porgy who melds the perversion of both together?

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 4 2004 6:31 utc | 15

Fred Astair,
You know I’ve never thought a lot about Earl Long, except what I learned about after the fact (Me, Grasshopper, born in ’52). Reading that link I got a connection though. Didn’t Paul Newman make a film about the Long-Blaze affair? I don’t remember seeing it, but it’s the first thing that comes up for me in a funky free association sort of way.
Along with Alabama I find the the Calvinist-Pragmatist Tango fascinating. 😉

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Sep 4 2004 9:43 utc | 16

@Alabama and Kate Storm and Anna Missed:
I was using the terms pragmatism and realism as they are used in 21st century thought and speech by reasonably intelligent persons; I was using the term puritanism in the same way. I’m not much into philosopy or theology, and didn’t realize I had run into such a conversation. Sorry.
And Anna, if heaven were populated with the likes of those you cited, I think I would rather be playing cards with Earl and Blaze somewhere else.
Thank God I believe in reincarnation.

Posted by: Fred Astair | Sep 5 2004 0:48 utc | 17

just caught the last few minutes on MSNBC of
a very convincing and uplifting segment on john
kerry. picture with nixon,bucanhan(?) saying
nixon if alive would respect john today for getting where he is. and that he was still working
for a peace with veitmanm with bill clinton signing something so all those years,still working. amazing. don’t know if they showed it
earlier but i hope so not to many up at 3am.the
fight has begun.

Posted by: onzaga | Sep 6 2004 9:09 utc | 18

Thanks Kate_Storm & alabama for the clarification. Still trying to figure out what exactly is going on, though I wasn’t figuring that pragmatism is entirely dead, per se. My understanding of the basic tenet of Puritanism is that our fate is determined in advance and we spend our lives trying to figure out if we’re gonna be sweating or chillin’ after we push up daisies. In this regard, I see that the philosophy of “whatever works” has superceded such a fatalistic vision of ourselves since it is something we can directly control. The metaphor of the dance is certainly a good one, and I guess I had better pay more attention to the steps involved while forming my own interpretation. Thanks.

Posted by: b real | Sep 13 2004 16:35 utc | 19