[Peace-discuss] A Question about the Puppet

[C. G. Estabrook]

I think it's an indication of how scared the White House is that they're
going to lose the election.  They're trying to energize their ideological
"base" because they know their economic policy is hated by the populace
and their war policy has fallen apart.  (Not that they won't try for a war
bounce by staging an October Surprise.)  The Democrats are waiting in the
wings with, admittedly, essentially the same policies -- both parties
serve the same corporate masters -- but with the appearance of an
alternative.

"But there is some difference between them -- I don't think a very great
difference, just as there is very little range within the corporate-run
political spectrum altogether.  But there is some difference, and in a
system of tremendous power, small difference can translate into large
effects.  So those small differences do matter ...  The people around Bush
happen to be an unusually fanatical, extreme, arrogant and incompetent
group, and they're very dangerous.  But it's a small group, and they
barely hold political power.  And they're frightening people, including
the traditional conservatives, because they're such extreme, radical,
nationalist fanatics.  And Kerry doesn't come from that background, he
leans more towards the normal center.  But they're very dangerous.  I
think that with another four-year mandate, they might do not only severe,
but maybe irremediable damage to the world." (Noam Chomsky) --CGE


On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Paul King wrote:

> Bush has announced that he is in favor of passing an ammendment to the
> U.S. constitution that would ban gay marriages. Albeit, he has
> conceded that civil unions could be legalized by states, but
> nevertheless...
> 
> Given that national policy is determined by corporations within the of
> oil, energy, military and banking industries:
> 
> Why do these lobbies allow him to pursue such fringe interests? Are
> they placating him? Is it merely to draw media attention away from his
> record on jobs, healthcare and foreign policy? I would think that this
> is a dangerous diversion. Surely another issue could have served this
> function better. Is this a bit of self-determination that remains in
> the executive branch? Or are the lobbies exhibiting a lack of
> coordination here?
> 
> I never knew that a population could be ruled by such idiots.
> 
> ..:: paul
> 
> 
> ________________________________