Asking for the Sword – Moon of Alabama

October 6, 2004

Asking for the Sword

by koreyel

Josh Marshall writes something that I absolutely agree with:

I don’t usually think much of the sort of comment that I’m about to make. But there was a moment during this ‘philosophical’ phase of Cheney’s performance when I couldn’t help but think: ‘I just don’t know if this guy’s heart is really in it. I’m not sure they really want to win.’ He was listless. It was like Cheney checked out of the debate about a half hour before Edwards did.

That very moment happened for me too. It was just a fleeting feeling… yet strong enough that it rose to consciousness.

Essentially I thought: These guys know they have failed. And that very knowledge is dragging them down. Somewhere deep inside they know they should lose this election.

A strange psychodynamics is upsetting the guts of the republican party machine these days. The parts are misfiring. There is a listlessness and a emptiness to their arguments, and a rancor between various pistons.

Every creature, every machine, every society has to maintain some sort of integrity. A failure to do so leads to mechanical failure, exhaustion, and collapse.

Arguably, the wheels are coming off the republican party because they know the wheels deserve to come off. They really have bollixed up the planet in short order, and have no idea how to fix things. Trying to pretend they do is just making them sicker in their centers.

If Kerry can follow up on Friday with an acute performance… I think he can win it.

Posted by b on October 6, 2004 at 09:33 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Who is awesome?
it’s funny, laugh!

Posted by: MarcinGomulka | Oct 6 2004 13:32 utc | 1

I see the same thing, and attribute it to the bureaucratic shoot-out between the neo-cons and everyone else–who’ve been firing away at each other at least since the elections of 2002. Bush and Cheney have been helpless to stop it, and helpless is exactly how they look in these debates. Winning the election certainly won’t change things, because, win or lose, they have the prospect of the Plame affair and other such pleasantries stretching out before them for the next few years. Bremer’s broadside was hardly an accident, and Rumsfeld’s maneuvers are downright bizarre. I think lots of Bush’s nominal supporters are working hard to wrap up his term of service.

Posted by: alabama | Oct 6 2004 14:10 utc | 2

Not that I think that Cheney or Bush plan on giving up the stolen office (they haven’t followed any laws or rules in anything else they’ve done…why start now) but didn’t the transformation take place when Edwards stroked Cheney’s soft white underbelly (somewhere below that heart that still hasn’t been allowed to die and under the fat flourescent tie, evoking the sacrifices of the Iraqi’s putting their necks on the line everyday to fight the terrorists) by complimenting him on the showing of affection for his daughter. Cheney’s body language during that period was interesting, as he shifted in his seat and took off his Penguin mask. At first I was thinking ‘oh man, Cheney’s going to take advantage of his opponent making him look human and score some points now, that Machivellian maestro of so much death and destruction'(he bragged twice last night about capturing or killing thousands) but then it occured to me that just maybe it did touch a selfish nerve in the guy. From that point the tone of the exchanges dramatically changed from the pointed back-n-forths and I was almost lulled to sleep by the end, daydreaming about Cheney’s earlier stmt that El Salvador is better 20 years down the road b/c we held free elections there…

Posted by: b real | Oct 6 2004 14:38 utc | 3

Bush now live on CNN. Looks different now. As if they gave him some testosteron shot or something.

Posted by: MarcinGomulka | Oct 6 2004 14:52 utc | 4

Perhaps their time is up. They got the war they wanted, and are well into destruction of the economy. The hidden reptiles could now let Kerry run the show for awhile and smooth out some of the discontent.
With bushco they have taken a giant step toward that gnarled goal, whatever it is, and recovery cannot be quick or easy. Kerry and Edwards have both declared that they will stay the course, kill more Iraqis. For the time being that is enough to grant them leave to assume the presidency.
Easier too as bushco has irrevocably blown its cover. Lets watch and see, in the event of a Kerry win, how our beloved media curls and stretches to adapt. Some of those lies may have to be reconfigured.

Posted by: rapt | Oct 6 2004 15:24 utc | 5

I’ve wondered, as have others, whether either party really wants to win this election. I think it can be argued that both parties stand to gain in the long-term by losing in the short-term, though for different reasons.

Posted by: æ | Oct 6 2004 15:30 utc | 6

Sheesh. Four weeks is an eternity in politics. Repubs have a big hat from within which many surprising things can be pulled.

Posted by: slothrop | Oct 6 2004 15:41 utc | 7

I saw that transformation in Cheney at that precise moment as well. I am still wondering how exactly to interpret it. At the time, during the debate, I felt as if Edwards just took the steam right out of him by connecting with him on a human level that took Cheney utterly by surprise. As if he got Cheney to lose his motivation for bashing Edwards because he suddenly connected with Edwards as a person, on a human level — they had similar backgrounds — something really got to Cheney at that moment. And he seemed deflated for much of the rest of the debate. However this read of events does not fit with what happened just at the end. Did anyone else notice that Cheney deliberately thanked only the moderator and NOT his opponent? And that he levelled another insult by not standing to shake Edwards’ hand when Edwards was standing with his hand outstretched? I read that as a deliberate insult, but I could be wrong. So what exactly was the meaning of that emotional transformation that took place in Cheney when Edwards talked about his daughter? Was he angry at Edwards for “breaking the rules” and being so open about it? I’d love to hear other’s views on this.
This moment was somewhat comparable to the moment in the presidential debate when Kerry mentioned what Bush Sr had written about why we should not invade Iraq. It’s an interesting debate technique — rattle the other person by getting them where they are most personally vulnerable in their own emotional psyche. Does anyone else think this was totally deliberate by Edwards? I thought Edwards was brilliant in that moment, the way he spoke in an almost intimate, very human way.

Posted by: Bea | Oct 6 2004 16:01 utc | 8

For the record, I am more and more convinced that Kerry will win in a landslide of unexpected proportions, and it will be seen as a moment of national catharsis (“what have we been thinking in the past few years?”). I feel that more and more people are realising how utterly un-American the current administration is (or more precisely, how it revels only in the nasty side of the American psyche).
I could not watch the debates, and the comments in the European press are fairly neutral, but it does feel like Bush/Cheney have their hard core of supporters and nothing much else, and that the strong attention given to this election by more and more people will result in an overwhelmingly pro-Kerry higher turnout.
Maybe it is wishful thinking, maybe it is hope that real democracy should not and cannot lead to such a fuckup (any other outcome of the vote), maybe it is fear that any other outcome would leave the US in a very bad position to deal with the inevitable crisis/reckoning which beckons, both on the economic side (high oil and gas prices, inflation, higher interest rates, house bubble bursting, dollar slide, consumer slump and ultimately a nasty recession) and on the world stage (exit from Iraq, dealing with Iran and NK, Russia turning cold again, and all the tensions around oil and energy). Whatever, I am on the record…
And another thing – the US media is also in for a massive “day of reckoning” in my scenario.

Posted by: Jérôme | Oct 6 2004 16:07 utc | 9

interesting comments all around – I fear that even if Kerry/Edwards wins the election, the republicans will plan an attach on US soil to discredit the democrats.
Paranoid? Hardly. There is loads of evidence out there that the Republicans, at the very least, knew 9/11 was going to happen.
It may be too late for this country. Not to sound too pessimistic, but even if we win the election, the Republican machine will go into full drive mode to get their power back.

Posted by: chaelman | Oct 6 2004 17:07 utc | 10

sorry – should be “attack.”

Posted by: chaelman | Oct 6 2004 17:08 utc | 11

For the record, I am more and more convinced that Kerry will win in a landslide of unexpected proportions,
Jerome,
look at the video.
He is not a beaten man.
I watched the debates. Bush is weak at answering questions (creative thinking). He is good at loudly reading the script and bathing in applause.
He can’t stand up to criticism, but is good at preaching his “strong and hopeful message”.

Posted by: MarcinGomulka | Oct 6 2004 17:57 utc | 12

jérôme
i wished i shared your optimism in relation to the american elections – this band seem so criminal – deeply criminal – moreso than nixon – that i do not think they will yeild. i hope it is possible for them to be defeated elctorally & actually but i am not holding my breath
hope you & yr family are well & getting better
avec amité et force
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 6 2004 18:53 utc | 13

looking for the sword ? won’t have to look very far away, his base is already swinging: Your Economy Stinks ! – found the link at atrios place.
and those who are *NOT* his base do also have an opinion, check BetaVote and vote if you have not already done so, and pass the voice.

Posted by: name | Oct 6 2004 19:42 utc | 14

I think the Dems are correctly and successfully playing the debate language fully to their own advantage. Policy distillations into a word or two are nothing but frisbees for spinsters to throw back and forth to each other until they disappear — No the real language here is for the the people who still might think Saddam had weapons/was behind WTC etc, those who watch Dan Rather once a week at dinner, shop at Wall Mart now because there is no where else, who now are beginning to see that the elevator they now are on, only goes down. Yes, these people love to be mesmerised by religion and patriotism (its about all they got) but by the same token, they can above all that, read body language as well as any policy wonk can — maybe even better. And on this front alone, Bush/Cheney look confused, tired, and irritable — unable to allign body with the meaning of their rhetoric. In simple terms, they have squandered their bragging rights, and it shows — they are spent (and unsatisfied).

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 6 2004 19:51 utc | 15

All those lies are hard work.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Oct 6 2004 20:15 utc | 16

@Cloned Poster
Yeah, I’ll say! Hard work for the brain cells keeping track of what they said, when, to whom, and where! Funny how when you lie so egregiously you tend to find that particularly hard work. Fortunately for us we live in the Google age. From now on hopefully politicians won’t be able to get away with whoppers like these. Although Cheney will no doubt still try.

Posted by: Bea | Oct 6 2004 20:30 utc | 17

Bea
Isn’t the internet great for those that use it, be they of whatever political hue they come from.
However, I find that the more the internet pervades amongst the users that use it, the more the bought media endorse the rulling politicians.
I’m a BBC listener (radio only) and the BBC spin on the WMD report today is shambolic, Gilligan and Dyke were vindicated………… but “Saddam had intentions to produce WMD” is the headline.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Oct 6 2004 20:41 utc | 18

cloned poster
i too
continually amazed at the sheer gall of the bbc
in the way they ‘present’ bad news
when you pare down ‘intention’ – all it means is that in a couple of interviews saïd said this & saïd said that & he was either a low levell scientist or politcal hack – i think in the legal world they call it hearsay
but the bbc like its brother-in-crime murdoch turn hearsay into headlines
hang them all from london bridge
or off to the tower
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 6 2004 20:55 utc | 19

Don’t know if I should say this; but the new (post Hutton) DG of the BBC is Michael Grade, who could apply for an Israeli passport as can the pitiful head of the Tories (opposition?).
Here’s an interesting Turkish newsource (it has English enabling).
http://www.iha.com.tr/bin/directory.dll/pf?QW4FJ

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Oct 6 2004 21:11 utc | 20

I’m sorry to be a downer at the moment but I can’t for the life of me understand why we should care which one of the two lying crooks wins the election. No that’s not quite true I loath the Bush bandwagon with a passion too and it would feel good at a raw human level to see that mob get their comeuppance.
The thing is though although my heart tells me that, my head tells me that in the unlikely event Bush loses; this mob of grasping charlatans will be back. Losing will in fact give him legitimacy. If he lost an election as an incumbent he can’t be an election thief and a loss will create a an undercurrent of sympathy for the man within the electorate. With time even Nixon got rehabilitated by the media. So I feel a loss would guarantee a Jeb Bush tilt in ’08. By that time the true hypocrisy of John Kerry will be there for all to see. His team falls way behind BushCo on media management, he’s no Bill Clinton so he won’t get caught dipping his wick but he will get caught in some sleazy business arrangement or somesuch and will quickly become a lame duck.
On the other hand if Bush wins Kerry and all the rest of the “lets follow in the repug’s footsteps” pseudo-demos will be blown, then maybe, just maybe, there will be a reasonable candidate when the inevitable happens.
As ppl have alluded above, there is no way that BushCo can make it through their term before it hits the fan bigtime. I wouldn’t even give em 12 months. The coming winter in the US is going to be critical with gas prices through the roof and an economy down the toilet. A re-election is the best chance of seeing that mob dragged off in manacles screaming; something that won’t happen under Kerry no matter what dirt about BushCo comes out. Kerry would be worried that ppl would see him as being vindictive. I want revenge and closure for the ppl of Iraq, the torture victims in Bagram and the Palestinians to name just a few. That way maybe the option of fooling most of the people for enough time to get elected will become unpopular.

Posted by: Debs in ’04 | Oct 6 2004 21:50 utc | 21

Debs
I have to agree. Matthew Parris (sp?) wrote an excellent argument along the same lines over a year ago in the Times.
Corporate America is calling the shots and they’ll make Bush look like an impecile (the truth) quicker than you can say whatever if Kerry buys the bribe, which he has.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Oct 6 2004 22:03 utc | 22

I like that CP. “buys the bribe” ha ha a good one. Kerry’s the fall-back man. He’ll carry em thru the tough times when bushco has lost all credibility. But he will stay on the warpath, that’s the main thing.

Posted by: rapt | Oct 6 2004 23:12 utc | 23

@Debs, I see the logic of your somewhat Schadenfreudisch approach, but there’s great danger in it.
The danger is that when the fecal matter hits the air-moving apparatus, you’re assuming the People will rise up in anger, the scales will fall from their eyes and they will tar and feather the liars and thieves who piloted the nation onto the rocks. But a quick survey of various historical crashes suggests that the People may respond in any number of nonlinear, nonrational ways.
A clever leadership will be able to find someone else to blame — anyone, preferably Foreigners, but unbelievers or girly-men will do. They will say that the US economy was undermined from within by Saudi financiers or inscrutable Chinese bankers, that the moral character of the nation was undermined not by Cheney/BushCo’s endless lying and stealing but by gays, lesbians, atheists, and kids in black bandannas who don’t like transnat corporations. They’ll say — hell, they’re already saying — that environmentalists are the real wreckers of the US economy, a buncha subversives out to destroy your livelihood and unemploy your kids, make the US less competitive, etc. They may even, in desperation, blame the Jews — what the heck, it’s worked before.
What I mean is that a humilating defeat and crash resulting from stupidity, greed, and madness at the highest level may not get blamed on the right people. It’s very likely to get blamed on the wrong people — a designated set of fall guys and scapegoats marketed with the full power of the hypnotic mass media — and usher in a real madhouse of persecution, witch hunting and intellectual/political cannibalism, before any kind of sanity returns. This is what I fear from another 4 years of the Bush Mafia. I don’t doubt that their incompetence will result in a crash — I’m practically walking around in a defensive crouch already, waiting for the sound of breaking glass — but I doubt that the crash will result in catharsis, truth and reconciliation.

Posted by: DeAnander | Oct 6 2004 23:14 utc | 24

I heard that Allawi gave a speech yesterday (this morning?) in Iraq that was not even close to the speech he gave here, but I can’t find anything on it. Anyone got a link?

Posted by: onzaga | Oct 7 2004 0:05 utc | 25

Bea, I liked your post upthread about Cheney losing his edge. I too think this shift occurred near the middle of the debate, definitely when Edwards expressed empathy for Mary Cheney and her relationship with her father. I think you are right about him connecting on a human level and it altered the dynamic. I found it a little bit sad. I think Cheney’s descision to not thank Sen. Edwards and to make a point not to stand for the final handshake was pure meat for those in the repub. base who recognized/noticed it for the snub that it was.
One thing I did notice that I haven’t seen brought up at all today is Cheney’s strategy where he seemed to save his harshest criticisms and outright falsehoods for those rebuttal periods where Edwards would not be given an immediate opportunity to repond. Sneaky, but totally in character.

Posted by: Voodoo | Oct 7 2004 0:11 utc | 26

@onzaga
Article on Allawi:
NY Times on Allawi
Excellent post by Helena Cobban on this and related issues:
Outbreak of Global Candor

Posted by: Bea | Oct 7 2004 0:34 utc | 27

@rgiap
When I first came across your posts at Billmon’s, I misread your tag as ‘rememberingGAP’ – as in a gap in our memories of ourselves, our history, our humanity, our civilization.
I soon realized my error, but I still say your name that way to myself.
******************************************
A word of hope, spoken by a wise and passionate contientious objector:
“Nature herself never makes a thing without planting its congenial enemy beside it. Or within it.”
Frank Lloyd Wright

Posted by: Pat | Oct 7 2004 1:21 utc | 28

Well, the post above should be on the Open Thread. Small matter.

Posted by: Pat | Oct 7 2004 1:26 utc | 29

Thanks Bea.

Posted by: onzaga | Oct 7 2004 2:35 utc | 30

In today’s news:
“Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters while visiting Grenada the U.S. does not doubt Sharon’s commitment to the road map.
“A senior State Department official in Washington also said the administration was very satisfied with clarifications of Weisglass’ comments made by the Prime Minister’s bureau.”
Pathetic. And to think I used to believe Powell was a man of principle and integrity.

Posted by: Bea | Oct 8 2004 5:03 utc | 31

Cheney’s El Salvador – Crimes in Freedom’s Name
The most relevant fact that the Vice President omits here is that the 75,000 people were killed not by the guerillas, but by the government that Cheney was supporting and its paramilitary death squads. The second most relevant fact is that the 1984 elections were widely recognized as a farce, with a long line of genuine opposition candidates already having been killed off and with the U.S. spending $10 million to manipulate the outcome. That this is the model for exporting democracy says a lot about what the neoconservatives have in store for us.
US Military Aid to Latin America Grows
Washington is encouraging Latin American militaries to encroach on what should be the jurisdiction of civilians
Blurring the Lines: Trends in U.S. military programs with Latin America [pdf copy of report]
Pepe Escobar on Saturday’s Afghanistan election,
Hand it to the warlords
The main theme of this election won’t be reported: it’s called voter intimidation.
and Christian Parenti reporting from Afghanistan on Democracy Now this morning related that many Afghani’s are tired of the chaos and just want to end the terror. Which is how the US brought about the 1990 election of Violetta Chomorro in Nicaragua.

Posted by: b real | Oct 8 2004 16:57 utc | 32

…and since there’s another “debate” tonite:

A Bush adviser said the president hopes to change the dynamics of the race with more biting attacks on Kerry’s record and trustworthiness and on what Bush charges is Kerry’s reluctance to use U.S. military force to defeat terrorism. The strategy is aimed at stoking public fears about terrorism, raising new concerns about Kerry’s ability to protect Americans and reinforcing Bush’s image as the steady anti-terrorism candidate, aides said.

Posted by: b real | Oct 8 2004 17:53 utc | 33

Back to Main