Hersh: “Democrats are going to lose the elections ..”

October 11, 2007

… or how the Republicans will win the presidential election …

Seymour Hersh talks (video) with his magazine’s editor-in-chief, David Remnick, at the New Yorker Festival.

A part of the talk is about Iraq and the presidential election. I transcribed this leaving out Hersh’s usual rambling and jumping around the various topics.

Some 80% into the video and in relation to Iraq Remnick asks:

Have you seen a Democrat make a reasonable argument about what to do?

Hersh:

I think the Democrats are going to lose the elections if they don’t wake up. And I’ll tell you why [..]

The Democrats push is: We have got to reduce by next year. We want the numbers to start reducing.

Bush’s option is next summer: To come in with a real low number. What he’s saying: "Coming under 100,000 troops. We can cut another 50,000 because we are winning the war." [..]

Let me tell you what they are talking about on the inside [..] which is: Surprising the Democrats by coming with a big low number.

This is how they keep the Republicans at the war: "We are coming with a low number – maybe even 70-80,000. We need the war in the next summer and you can campaign on it. And you can kill the Democrats on it because they are all up there in the lala and talking about getting some troops out."

This guy will come in and slash the numbers of troops. This is assuming that we can stand up enough Iraqi military units. [..] They think maybe they can do it. [..] Stand up the Iraqi units, concede the South, only worry about the central part, keep doing the ethnic cleansing, stabilize it enough: "We can cut troops an awful lot and say we are winning."

Why not?

Yes, why not? I’ve been thinking about this for a few hours now and believe it is doable.

What is your opinion?
Could this work?
How could the Dems defend against it?

Posted by b on October 11, 2007 at 17:50 UTC | Permalink

Comments

The last two elections were stolen. Hillary will be the Democrat candidate. She will loose.
The war in Iraq will go on, nothing will change. There will be withdrawals and new surges. There will be troops coming home, and others going out. There will be new plans – paying war lords, or rehabilitating the Sunnis, or training yet more police, all of which are being done now…. Bombing will continue apace. The Embassy will finally be opened. The seas will be guarded so the black gold comes thru. The puppet Gvmt. will move to London as Iraq is really not a stunning place (say, being facetious) and they will continue to squabble like paid corporate lackeys, or under mafia bosses, do. All of them will collaborate to kill Iraqis. The whole lot of them will moan about the Palestinian problem and road maps and terrorism and on and on.
The ‘Arabs’ and the Europeans will continue to turn a blind eye and mutter about evil Saddam and Binny for the public, while angling for slices of the oil pie, and maintaining collaboration with the US (NATO, Saudi etc. subservience, etc.)
That’s the black vision.

Posted by: Tangerine | Oct 11 2007 18:31 utc | 1

The precondition of such a plan would be iranian consent

Posted by: peter hofmann | Oct 11 2007 18:40 utc | 2

I think they (the republicans) could pull this off – and I hope they do. Because any large scale reduction in troops would A) make the continued offensive actions (by the U.S.) much more problematic while, B) making them more vulnerable to counter attack which could, C) easily accelerate into a less than dignified total withdrawal. Sort of the position that the Brits are in right now, without the big time U.S. backup from Kuwait and South of Baghdad, and without the advantage of simply flying out a few thousand troops from one airbase. And on top of that, this will presumably be happening about the same time the Anbar Awakening thing will have achieved enough momentum (should it continue) to become a serious threat to the UIA government – Sadr is not making kissy face with Hakim in no rediscovered love loss, nor the rumors of Iranian MANPADS entering Iraq just a rumor – all of which makes for a conflation of bad bad news beaming out of Baghdad. Right before the election. So, bring it on.

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 11 2007 19:17 utc | 3

The problem with this idea, of reducing to 70-80,000 as a political coup, is that it loses the war, and I doubt if it could be pulled back from. The US in Baghdad will go in the direction of the Brits in Basra, increasingly powerless and unable to influence events, even if they have made agreements with Sunni tribes. It’s all very nice carrying out decisive acts in the war for political reasons at home, but there are consequences on the ground. It is true that everybody in Iraq is very tired now, but this would be a major change in the war, in the potential of the US to achieve its aims.

Posted by: Alex | Oct 11 2007 21:25 utc | 4

Of course the ‘pukes can pull it off.
So you, perhaps, are saying the Dems should consider inoculating themselves against such a thing. Perhaps, an, “all out by elections”?

Posted by: IntelVet | Oct 11 2007 21:25 utc | 5

I think that, as you say b, the US is ceding Southern Iraq in order to avoid coming up entirely empty-handed (or worse) from this adventure. Perhaps this is the true “Korean” model.
It has decided to settle for de-facto partition, and trade direct control of the oil lands for an ongoing defensible military footprint. They let the oil fields in the South split off and go under Shia/Iranian control, in return for Iran and the “national” government allowing them to keep their “enduring” bases – so long as these are actually located in the Sunni areas. The bases are safer – because no-one is allowed within a 30km perimeter without vetting, and all sorties are by air. This does allow a dramatic reduction in headcount without the attrition involved with trying to hold the same amount of ground. This ‘citadel’ model is reminiscent of the Crusades…
Now that the US have the alternate supply line through Jordan they can play the Sunni aganst the Shia; bombing them in turn. The Sunni’s (and possibly Kurds) may agree to cede bases in return for security guarantees. The increasing pressure on the Kurds from Turkey may be intended to encourage their understanding of the value of this ‘protection’.
Iran gets most of what it wants – while a Shia controlled Iraq would be ideal, a broken Iraq means far better security for itself and its Shia clients than did a US/Baathist Iraq. Iran will have effective control of much of the Iraqi oil, and much expanded influence and control in the Middle East generally.
The offset is that the US obtains the freedom to go on building an “Okinawa” in the Middle East – their province in all but name – which acts as a counterweight to Iran threatening Saudi but without the imposition of having to occupy Saudi itself. One issue will be whether Shia Iraq (with the help of Iran) seeks to effectively deny the US access to air space over Southern Iraq and Baghdad. One wonders about the provenance for Baghdad, but a walled city (perhaps a template for Jerusalem?) seems the most likely outcome.
The flies in the ointment are the nationalists (ie. Sadr) whom Iran will undertake to control; and the jihadists (ie. AQ) whom Saudi presumably will pull back into line or re-direct back into Central Asia and Chechnya with the US’ blessing.
As far as the Democrats go, they had their chance to make a difference and didn’t do so. Nothing else could have so effectively demonstrated their inability to govern as ceding them control of the very instruments Republicans used so effectively to pillage the nation and have them sit on their hands.
Hillary will be left looking stupid and behind the game, perhaps the objective of AIPAC in dictating her platform. They probably really do prefer the neocons.
We can call this model the “See how much better you feel when I stop hitting your hand with this hammer?” strategy.

Posted by: PeeDee | Oct 11 2007 21:38 utc | 6

Which American political party wins in ’08 concerns me less every day. The American empire grows more fragile, and enjoys fewer choices in domestic or foreign affairs. The assets and wealth of the empire are in a very few hands, and so are its options. The public is hardly going to be allowed to know the shots, or call the shots. Which party gets to exercise America’s vastly narrowed options is hardly where the focus of the discussion needs to be.
The announced Presidential candidates do not stray far enough from Business As Usual to impress me — any more than having a full choice of colors for my strait jacket would thrill me. Gore entering the race at some point would expand the genuine choices available to the populace, but it can get him killed just as easily. That happens in America, and he knows it.
The Balkinizing of the Middle East’s oil crescent is the program, and any hiatus in the project to allow for domestic electoral victory is temporary. Iran needs to be dismembered next, and Syria/Lebanon needs to be rendered incapable of acting as a Russian proxy, or acting against de facto Israeli expansion up to the Litani River.
Whether the owners of America call the hit on Iran before the ’08 election or afterward is being discussed avidly in Washington, no doubt. It’s the next hot project.
Hitting Iran (in righteous self defense of our sacred troops) could keep the American populace sufficiently in war fever to crank out a decade or more of crisis capitalism before even America becomes Balkinized into warring economic regions.
Or did you think ‘this thing of ours’ is still an up and coming concern?

Posted by: Antifa | Oct 12 2007 0:07 utc | 7

For anyone who doesn’t live in amerika, the demopublicans losing the next election is a positive, long term and it probably is for anyone living in amerika too, if they think hard about it.
However it won’t happen. All the democratic front-runners have made it plain that they won’t ‘rock the boat’ should they win the presidential raffle, which in turn means that the heavy corporate hitters won’t be resisting their election too hard.
Of course the asshole Faux News types will, but that will help the dems more than hinder them, as it will make people feel that they are part of achieving something good for their nation when they go against the rabid types who pushed the BushCo regime onto them.
Trouble is that in reality nothing much will change with a dem win in 08. The horror in Iraq will continue, amerikans will continue to spend the highest % of GDP on healthcare for the smallest number of sick people – those with full coverage, and worst of all the recreation of amerika’s slave based economy will continue. It made amerika great once and the elites imagine that it can again.
For the division of the workforce into legal – who receive a few minimum benefits for the disproportionately high taxes they pay, and – illegal who also pay those taxes and charges, but who have little or no entitlement to any government service, is slavery.
Any sign of gettin uppity and the slave is “sent back where he she came from”.
Highly regulated slavery where the role of Simon Legree is filled by an immigrazie agent or the local law enforcement rather than a plantation foreman.
Now I’m sure the dems have made all the correct noises to organised labor to ensure that big chunks of the labour market remain protected from undercutting by the slaves, but going on the last effort by Clinton/Gore they will be determined not to upset the big service industry corporations who profit from the migrants’ sub-living wage rates.
As for Iraq, well we already know nothing will happen there. And let’s not forget that the ethnic cleansing of New Orleans is a predominantly dem project, a marriage made in hell between the rethugs with the federal program dollars and the demopublicans with the control of building permits.
Gotta get rid of the old slaves to make way for the new ones, whose culture and society isn’t too many generations past it’s destruction. That way a higher proportion of the work units will have sufficient residual ‘orderliness’ to be profitable and non-disruptive slaves.
“We know enough now to squeeze a few more generations outta them before their replacement integer reaches critical.”, the elites joke at their blast proof barrier enclosed annual talk fests.
Don’t be fooled by the farce. The 08 election will seem as though it is a contest, but it isn’t – the assholes own both sides and know that if the discontented citizens feel that they have ‘won one against the rub’ the chances are they will accept all sort of shit which they wouldn’t otherwise.
When the ‘proles’ become so pissed of at Hilary Obama, that the dems are off the agenda for at least another 8 years, the elites will hit the Jackpot. The next rethug prez elected after the brief dem sojourn will make dubya appear like a rabid pinko in comparison. The repression he visits upon the peeps will be awful. Made worse by the fact that any opportunity to prevent his reign was demolished a couple of elections back.
Y’know this whole business of not being allowed to vote if you’ve been convicted of a felony, even if you did your time, is yet to be properly optimized.
I gather that most of the ‘crimes’ in the compendium of new offences against the state introduced by the patriot act are felonies. You can be a misdemeanor terrarist.
A lawyer prepared to go a step beyond Gonzales could have a field day.
Write an opinion that anyone who had read a certain book or books has actively supported terrorism, and, has therefore committed a felony.
A felony that because of it’s relatively minor nature would not under normal circumstances entail more than an automatic conviction without punishment. Of course the conviction must be recorded to ‘keep track of the criminal’.
The next sub rosa legal opinion, opines that being known to have borrowed a terrorist book from a public library, is sufficient evidence to determine the book has been read by the person who owns the library card. Obviously the First amendment prevents those books in question from being banned, so they will remain on library shelves and be available for loan, but all who to borrow then will be breaking the law. Unknowingly of course.
Then electoral authorities need only provide the lists of names to party scrutineers, who can then challenge anyone with a similar name to one on the list. Natch those whose demeanor ‘isn’t appropriate’. And then any election is in the bag.
This would take the denial of franchise past african-amerikans to anyone whose vote appears ‘dodgy’.
No one can challenge any of it cause the catch-all patriot act with it’s emphasis on secrecy could easily be twisted to the point where someone judged to have committed a felony by reading a book, has no entitlement to be informed of their conviction.
“Jeez these traitors should be grateful we aren’t frying them for their treason, yet still they whine”
Now I’m sure that legal eagles can tear holes in that specific proposal. They may be correct that the law cannot be twisted in that exact way. However we know that it can be bent in some fashion suitable for oppressing left leaning voters, because it already has. They were unwhite therefore most whiteys will have ‘moved on’.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 12 2007 0:51 utc | 8

I don’t think I can agree with Hersh’s notion that the republicans can upset the electoral surge that the democrats will ride into office. No. The poor showing of the republican hopefuls is key to the script of an America that rights itself.
The field of republican hopefuls is, for the most part, the weakest field of candidates ever seen. And as for a “Reagan reprise” in the suit that Fred Thompson wears, forget it. I thought it was telling, that on ABC TV corporate news, they did an open hit on Thompson, by re-playing some of the Nixon tapes, where Nixon several times tells an aide how stupid the senator is. Nixon’s only concession is to say “good” when told that Thompson (then serving on the Watergate committee) is a good republican–“friendly,” as the aide describes him.
The republicans are toast in the coming election. This is because–as inept and venal as the democrats have proven to be–they have been able to capitalize on the connection between Iraq and “the culture of corruption”. Democrats are corrupt too; but it has been impressed on the American mind, that the republicans are a dark green and yellow, vile, erupting pustule of corruption—darker, denser, and more virulent than anything anyone can recall. The White House especially.
I think a democratic White House is a done deal. No one with a servicable intellect has forgotten the shame of a drowned New Orleans. And Americans are much too cynical about any jiggering around of the troop levels. The sham would be too obvious.
If you have ever seen those old black-and white Silent Movies, the appropriate image is the one of “Little Nell” tied to the railroad tracks. America is melodrama, if you haven’t noticed. Her hero will arrive in the nick of time. to untie her and pull her free. This is for effect, and to head off an ugly rebellion that is shaking in the political grassroots.
I think the Hillary Clinton candidacy is something the corporate world can live with. She will try to repair the civic damage of the Bush years while simultaneously holding on to America’s empire, a doomed mission from the outset. The republicans don’t stand a chance against the avatar of America’s “fundamental goodness” and the Hollywood Ending. The latest issue of The Economist magazine has for its cover photo a smiling idyllic Hillary and Bill Clinton, walking hand in hand down a city street, with the inevitable title, “The Comeback Kids”.
Roll credits.

Posted by: Copeland | Oct 12 2007 4:32 utc | 9

I agree with Copeland, no way anything in Iraq is coming up roses – no matter who or how resistance is co-opted or paid off or rearranged in a bid to make things LOOK good. Things there will not resolve until the interlocutor and their lawyers, guns, and money are out of the equation. The Petreaus hearings, focusing as they were on tactical minutia rigged to show some progress (editing out all the stampeding elephants, the spiraling deaths, refugees, contractor abuse, brain drain, and etc) has failed to move the American public an iota. Except for the screaming banshee fascist quarter percent, everyone else has found the republican administration not believable if not detestable. And much of that loathing springs from having at one point been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and now feel betrayed and made a fool of. At this point, if Iraq magically turned into a peaceful garden paradise, I don’t think most people would believe it. What the democrats, and particularly the republicans don’t seem to get is that most people have given up on the business as usual narrative. This is the reason the republican candidates look so pathetic, parroting the same old fear mongering, I’m the new Reagan, swiftboat hogwash. No, I think they’re finished. But the amazing and most telling thing is that they seem genuinely incapable of another narrative. Even as they stand in the midst of their party exploding into such oblivion that the MSM even portrays them as idiots, they keep on marching over the cliff. Perhaps or not, their base must demand they behave that way, as some kind of display of manliness or resolve or something or the fuck other. They have been SEEN and REJECTED. And the democrats are well on their way to doing the same. And when THAT erupts into a big majority status, things could get really interesting.

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 12 2007 5:51 utc | 10

perhaps the most interesting shift in the electoral balance, but one thats very rarely discussed is that GWB won about 60% of the White vote in 2004. This shift can acccurately be characterized as Nixons “Southern Strategy” going national.
there is a real interest group in there thats been well condiionedd to respond to coded signals & stimuli, mostly from the Repubs, but the Democrats get in the game every now & then.
the Democrats also understand that they are doomed if they do not improve their share of the White vote. Not simply from a numbers standpoint, but because further deteororation probably results in re-alignment (driven by more by sentiment than core issues) that could take generations to reverse. This circumstance is key to understanding where todays Democrats are coming from.
hence, no matter how bad things may look for the Republicans, there is an established & increasingly instituitionalized sentiment working in their favor. In practical terms, we can see the impact already. Theres mountains of evidence that the Repubs get away with a lot more than the Democrats can.
and in the near future, it may no longer be inconceivable for a “moderate” Republican to win up to 65% of the White vote.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Oct 12 2007 6:45 utc | 11

This is prob. irrelevant. Gore can run away w/it discussing Patriarchal Destruction of the Planet, called global warming or whatever. They’ll prob. give him Nobel Prize today, precisely to provide him a platform for changing the channel from this ridiculous war fixation.

Posted by: jj | Oct 12 2007 8:50 utc | 12

I think a democratic White House is a done deal.
What Could Possibly Go Right…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 12 2007 8:53 utc | 13

his nobel was announced moments ago. not on wires yet.

Posted by: jj | Oct 12 2007 9:01 utc | 14

I have thought since March that Romney would be the next Pres, hair helmet and all. After originally writing him off as too liberal to be nominated, I changed my mind when Ann Coulter endorsed him and Grover Norquist nearly did in the same week in March. These people are propped up by big right wing John Birch type money, so they are weather vanes for that constituency who usually get what they want in Republican circles. Romney is also a member of one of the wealthiest 500 families in the US, so he’s really one of them while the others can only pander and posture. Then Romney out raised front runner Guiliani in the 1st quarter of 07 by about 21 to 9 mil when Romney was 2 – 5% in the national polls. In April, there followed a 2 hour Frontline (liberal PBS, no less) special on none other than Mormons with Romney and his family values featured and the conclusion that Mormons were now mainstream Christianity. (I’d like to hear Dobson or Robertson sell that one.) Now we have Dobson’s “Christian” organization gearing up to oppose Guiliani’s candidacy because he’s too liberal. What gives the story away is that there is no mention of Christian opposition to Romney by Dobson despite the Mormon’s very different eschatology and the fact that Mitt at least once held most of the same positions Guiliani did publicly (Who knows what the hell Romney actually believes?). What really happened, I think, is that the real power players let Guiliani run out front for a while to draw flack away from their guy. But there’s no way they want a candidate with 3 marriages, numerous affairs, as well as film footage of him marching in gay pride parades with his mistress and dressing in drag while smooching Donald Trump; they know what they’d do to Dems with that history and they don’t want that flank left unprotected. But that won’t be the public issue, of course; all objections will be based on principle. Now that McCain has tanked and the big guns are aimed at Guiliani, the only mild suspense left for me in this one is how much disruption the Republican Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, can cause.
As for the election itself, caging lists, bogus vote fraud cases and long lines at Dem infested polling places will suppress Dem votes while the usual Swift Boat smears and phony personal “stories” (earth tones, flip-flops and wind surfing, expensive haircuts, irritating cackles, etc) will drive the MSM narrative against the Dem candidate. If Hersh’s prediction comes true, that will seal the deal.
We’re all just spectators here watching from the nosebleed seats while the ruling class feuds play themselves out. But because they can’t get back either house of Congress, the radical right wing side needs to keep the WH away from the moderate right wing side. So for loyal, naive Dems, it’s Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football all over again. Sorry Bill, you won’t be First Laddie. As to what this could mean for the world and the country, see Antifa’s post above.
There cannot possibly be a change until rank and file Dems bolt their party and join with those disaffected Republicans (and they DO exist) to form a large, third constituency that is not controlled by DLC or RNC money. And even if that unlikely event did happen, it may well be too late.

Posted by: lg | Oct 12 2007 14:43 utc | 15

Antifa and Debs say, it doesn’t matter much who wins the next election.
True enough: Iraq. etc. will grind on. and on. and on. Foreign policy won’t change and if anything Hillary is more beholden to Aipac than Bush (today.) Team red and team blue will agitate in the media, as usual.
Nevertheless, there are stakes, both on the elite pol side and people side. First, for the democratic ideal, subverted; the role of the media, etc. – not that any consequent challenges will arise. Second, not in party terms but in ppl terms, one Mafia boss, one bought person, is not another. And that is terribly hard to judge, and not attempted really.
The Dems will not win the election. Hillary, who will be the designated candidate, will loose. (Obama is a light weight idiot dabbling in he knows not what.) Why?
As a candidate, she is a woman, she is a Clinton, she has a past, and endless horrible hair-dos. She has compromised Dem values no end. Etc.
But the main point is that she is not part of the inner group that runs the US today. She is an outsider, and supposed to remain such, and in fact that leads to whatever success she does have, as oppo candidates are needed. To posture, to figure. The fact that she is woman (etc) is advantageous, as it will serve to explain her failure. So let her run… and run…why she bothers I don’t understand. Well Gore and Kerry did as well, right? Once you get up in there you have to collaborate. It pays in dollars, mansions, kudos, respect.

Posted by: Tangerine | Oct 12 2007 14:48 utc | 16

Well, Iraq is the 800-pound gorilla in the room, but it’s certainly not the only one. We could be in a full-tilt financial crisis by the 2008 elections. We could be at war with Iran. A partial withdrawal in Iraq, after military strikes against Iran, could result in Iran attacking our remaining troops in Iraq. We could, God help us, suffer another major terrorist strike within the U.S. Lots of other stuff could happen that could impact the effect of troop withdrawal.
Plus, as long as Uncle Dick is in charge, I don’t think they’d try that. Hersh seems to think otherwise.

Posted by: Sacanagem | Oct 12 2007 14:55 utc | 17

If the Republicans manage to reduce troop levels more than the Democrats, what would be the point of electing Democrats? All I care about are results.

Posted by: Audrey Marx | Oct 12 2007 21:42 utc | 18

If the Republicans manage to reduce troop levels more than the Democrats, what would be the point of electing Democrats? All I care about are results.
That’s exactly the strategy Hersh describes. Seems likely to get some votes …

Posted by: b | Oct 13 2007 7:16 utc | 19

I’m with Copeland on this. It’s not enough to elect another Republican president, especially given the candidates actually on offer. It probably would help hold onto a few more Senate seats. If there are still 120,000 troops in Iraq next Labor Day, Dems have a real shot at getting to 60.
Also I wonder what Grand Vizier Cheney thinks of this plan. Would it make airstrikes against Iran easier or harder?

Posted by: Nell | Oct 13 2007 20:14 utc | 20

[If the Republicans manage to reduce troop levels more than the Democrats, what would be the point of electing Democrats? All I care about are results.
That’s exactly the strategy Hersh describes. Seems likely to get some votes …]
I really hope they come to believe this. Because once the withdrawal begins in earnest, it will take on a life (or death) of its own and snowball into into something like the brits are left with – sitting vulnerable and holed up in some isolated base in an ocean of hate. Being totally irrelevant.

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 13 2007 21:34 utc | 21

Lately I have been thinking that Cheney/Bush launch their assault on Iran sometime between mid September to mid October 2008, quite possibly nuclear. This of course totally disrupts the elections, making rethug wins far more likely. And should the dems appear to be winning in spite of this, I will not be at all surprised if the vote is thwarted or even canceled – after all, as we have seen this year, the presidential election is the only one that really matters, democratic majorities in both houses of congress have been only able to fully fund GW’s war, authorize warrantless surveillance of everybody including US citizens, and condemn MoveOn.org. I mean, if/when the r’s steal the presidency again and install Guliani, who is going to stop them? Congress? The courts? The media? The already frightened citizens? Of course there will be an outcry from a few concerned activists but you do not need a tin-foil chapeau to know Homeland Security has plans in place to deal with folks like that. IMHO the only real force that would have any chance of stopping yet another coup de etat in this country would be a mass uprising of a majority of the citizenry and guys, that just ain’t gonna happen. Of course, if the economy should tank in a Great Depression manner as has been predicted for some years now, all bets are off. However, we’ve been hearing this stuff for a number of years w/nothing happening on a grand scale, and somehow, even if it does, I think the rethugs will steer even that to their advantage…
What was the Ron Suskind quote from early in the deciderer’s administration? Oh yeah –

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality–judiciously, as you will–we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

(From an article in The Nation by Eric Alterman where I clipped the above) –

For those who didn’t like it, another Bush adviser explained, “Let me clue you in. We don’t care. You see, you’re outnumbered two to one by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don’t read The New York Times or the Washington Post or the LA Times.”

Posted by: darms | Oct 14 2007 10:43 utc | 22

Of course, if the economy should tank in a Great Depression manner as has been predicted for some years now, all bets are off.
When those waves of ARM’s reset and millions are bankrupt, maxed out and stop shopping, what then?
Can even the Dems come to the rescue? OR SA or China?

Posted by: Hamburger | Oct 14 2007 12:46 utc | 23

Back to Main