 |
| |||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||||
|
This Week with The Chicowitz: |
[Last week: "Why We/They Hate Bush"?]
| Each week our Boomer-in-Charge, Hershel Chicowitz, has something to say about life, society, or what's going on... from the perspective of a baby boomer. This is what's on his mind the week of November 1: |
|
| WARNING: This essay is rated P - for Political content. Some material may be too intense for some readers. Discretion is advised. If you are not up for a serious discussion on the issues of the day, there are over 300 other pages at BBHQ with nothing but fun and nostalgia; please wander around elsewhere at BBHQ. Our recommended alternative essay this week is "Cell Phones & Other Crimes and Misdemeanors." |
The offer is still open, and we've upped the ante..... Find a Bush Lie -- Collect $500!!
| "Aside from winning, what is behind all this? And why is it so nasty? In the end, of course, it is all about power. And yes, Republicans want power just ike the Democrats do. But this time it is different. Very different. This time, it is about hate." |
|
(We have a post election update, reflecting on the results and shedding
light on the future. The link there is near the end of this essay.) Monday morning:
How do you top that?
 Let me get down to brass tacks. John Kerry knows that the president is not responsible for however many tons of explosives might be "missing" in Iraq. John Kerry knows that George Bush is not responsible for the loss of jobs from 2001-2003. And for sure, John Edwards knows that, if he wins, people like Christopher Reeve are not "going to get out that wheelchair and walk again." John Kerry has said that health care should be a "right," but he knows he can never deliver on that implied promise. (What he means by that is that you will have a right to rationed health care.) John Kerry has said that he will "stop at nothing to kill or capture Osama bin Laden." But John Kerry knows that there is nothing more he can do to find Osama bin Laden than George Bush has done. So, what do all of these wild claims mean on January 20 under a Kerry presidency? Absolutely nothing. That is all just cheap pandering. During the campaign, John Kerry has repeatedly said, "I will stop at nothing in catching the terrorists." Of course, he said that in response to the valid claims that he is not tough enough to fight the war on terror. Now, how did people possible get that notion? Well it might be because he said, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." As he said in the first debate, he believes that fighting the war on terror is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation." And regarding the use of force to protect the country, he said, "You have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more pro-active, more sensitive war on terror." - John Kerry, August 8, 2004. How do you fight a more sensitive war? What evidence do we have to indicate that what John Kerry believes is so? Would it be his many votes in the Senate against the weapons that won the cold war? Would it be his votes in the Senate after the terrorist attack of 9/11/01 to reduce CIA funding? would it be his failure to show up for 70% of Senate Intelligence Committee meetings the year after the terrorist attack of 9/11/01? Would it be his actions as a soldier in Vietnam, where his primary goal appeared to be getting out as fast as he could? Or would it be because he BELIEVES he can? When asked in 1994 under what circumstances he could justify U.S. casualties in the Balkan conflict, Senator Kerry answered: "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no." A "more effective war on terror? Where is the evidence to back this up? Aside from winning, what is behind all this? And why is it so nasty?
Regaining Lost (and Deserved) Power Last week I focused on why we/they hate George Bush. I divided the Bush haters into two categories, identifying the first one as the common Democrats... the impressionable Democrats across the country. I provided evidence that their hate was not deep, and was based on silly things: that smirk, that he lied - which he did not, that he attacked Kerry's war record - which he did not. Where does all this hate come from? Well, it comes from the other category of bush haters, the Democratic leadership. And unlike the masses, they really hate George Bush. They really do. Al Gore hates Bush because he really believes that he should be president... not necessarily that he won the election, but that he should be president; and George Bush prevented him from being president. Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Terry McAuliffe hates Bush because the Bush family has threatened his job and all the perks that go with it. In 2002, he predicted "Jeb in '02, George in '04. Well, if he loses on both counts, he will lose his high profile, high status job - a job he feels is his Clinton-given right. Democratic leader Tom Daschle hates Bush because he believes (with good reason) that George Bush has kept him from being Senate Majority Leader. As senior spokesman for the Senate, Teddy Kennedy hates George Bush. The senior Massachusetts senator stabbed the president in the back after George Bush gave him everything he wanted in the education bill. Senator Kennedy accused the president of telling "lie after lie after lie." But Senator Kennedy knows that the president did not lie. It is hate, pure hate that drives Senator Kennedy. And why does Senator Kennedy hate the president? Because George Bush, and the mandate he brought with him in 2000 and 2002, shot the air out of the balloon in which the senator was riding during his final years in the Senate. He closed the door on hopes for the majority position Kennedy had held for most of his career in the Senate and had desperately hoped for in his twilight years. Senator Kennedy believes that that, like most things he possesses, is a Kennedy birth-right. But now, to the heart of the matter: In the end, of course, it is all about power. And yes, Republicans want power just like the Democrats do. But this time it is different; very different. This time, the driving force behind the quest for power is hate. For most of the careers of most legislators in Washington, the Democrats have had control of at least two of the three elected bodies of the federal government, the Senate, the House, and the presidency. For 14 years (1961 to 1969, 1977 to 1981 and 1993 to 1995), they controlled all three. They had never been completely shut out. Never. And when they lost the Senate in 2002 and found they had nothing, they went nuts! After having a piece of the pie for so long, they thought, like health care, it was a right. They have always considered themselves to be superior to the Republicans -- thus the baseless claim that Ronald Reagan and George Bush are dumb. So it is simply not right that they should be completely shut out of leadership power. So, they did what any three year-old would do: they threw a temper tantrum. In an unprecedented maneuver, they blocked the president's nominations of federal court judges. They packed spending bills with tons of useless pork before they would accept them, and generally used every technique in the Senate rule book to clog the wheels of government. And when it came time to re-arrange the seats of power, they went all out. DNC Chairman McAuliffe front-loaded the primary process to select a candidate quickly, in order to avoid an airing of all candidates. That that action limited the choice of party members did not matter. This was not about choice; it was about revenge. It was about power, deserved power. John Kerry vowed to the party leadership that he would do whatever it took to win. The Democrats wanted a fighter, and they got one. The nasty campaign we have all had to endure all year is a national temper tantrum staged by jealous, childish, desperate Democrats.
The Democratic Strategy But the sudden rise of John Kerry is not what they expected. The Democrats knew that John Kerry could not win on the issues; no liberal can win a national election running on the issues. So they stoked the flames of the darkest emotions of the party faithful. They focused on hate. They called the president a coward; they called him brain-dead; they said he was unpatriotic; they called his administration a "band of brown-shirted thugs." They said he betrayed the country. They supported an organization that compared the president to Hitler; and, of course, they played the race card. This was not a spontaneous reaction to events. The nastiness is all part of the Democratic strategy -- a strategy whose key component is hate.
And in his stump speech Sunday evening, why, you'd never know he had been in the Senate for the past fifth of a century. Imagine a man being elected president of the United States without a single significant accomplishment in his entire professional career. So... they focused on hate. John Kerry repeatedly made charges against the president; and yet, failed to provide any evidence that he can do better -- only that he has "a plan"; only that he can do better. Better? Nearly two million jobs have been created in this country in the last two years. Interest rates are at near record low levels. There has been significant increase in the GDP for 11 quarters in a row. Unemployment is the same as it was in 1996 when Bill Clinton won re-election. Home ownership is at the highest level in our country's history. And yet John Kerry derides the economy under George Bush, implying that the president is responsible for the recession that began in the Clinton administration and the hit the economy took after the terrorist attack.
So, What Will Kerry Do? About all we know from John Kerry is that he says he will do better. We know that John Kerry will work to raise the minimum wage. That will cost jobs. We know that John Kerry will raise taxes. That will cost jobs. And we know that John Kerry will outsource the war on terror to some as yet unidentified foreign alliance. That will cost lives.
Count on John Kerry to make the U.S. look smaller in the eyes of the
world. As Brendan Miniter wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Monday:
"It has been his persistent belief for more than 30 years that American
military power is not a force for good. Rather he believes that by
fighting for the freedom of the South Vietnamese people and for liberty
in Iraq today, America has surrendered its moral authority. That's what
he argued upon returning from Vietnam, and it is the message of his
campaign today when calls Iraq the 'wrong war at the wrong time' and
chides America for having gone it 'alone.'... Mr. Kerry loves this
country, but what's at stake in this election is whether we will continue
to confront terrorism with liberty or conclude that freedom isn't
universal after all.
The Chicowitz Predicts It's another tradition.... I just love traditions.
Come back Wednesday; I promise a post-mortem.
|
Exploring My Roots: A Chicowitz History
Membership details here.
Terrific boomer memorabilia!!
Remember this?
|
Wednesday morning:
Whew! What a night, huh? Whodda' thunk it? (Obviously, not I.)
My update is here. No matter which side of the spectrum you are on, you can find comfort in my post-mortem analysis.
|
|
|
|
Hershel will have something else to say on November 8: mark your
calendar 
to
remind you to come back to BBHQ every Monday.
Did you miss last week's essay, "Why We/They Hate Bush"? You can still read it here.
We're open to offerings from visitors to BBHQ. If you have something to say of interest to boomers, write it as well as you can in 800 - 1,000 words, and send it to us. We can't guarantee we'll publish it, but we'll surely consider it.
If you like what we're doing here at BBHQ, please help us by buying stuff through our link to Amazon.com:
| The BBHQ Album of the Month is "Old Friends Live on Stage (Deluxe Edition) (2 CD/1 DVD)," by Simon & Garfunkel. If you were fortunate enough to see them in concert last year, I do not have to sell you. The concert was terrific! This album collection includes 55 songs, plus their new recording, "Citizen of the Planet," and one of the songs sung by the Everly Brothers during the concert. The DVD was recorded during their concert in Madison Square Garden in 2003. For any S&G fan, this is a must have! But then, you knew that already, didn't you? |
 |
|
The BBHQ Book of the Month is
"Vinyl Highway," by
Dee Dee Phelps. You remember her as Dee Dee, of Dick and Dee Dee.
Together, they took a decade long ride on the rock and roll roller
coaster. It was a heck of a ride! Dick Clark, Quincy Jones, the Beach
Boys, Glenn Campbell, Dionne Warwick, Bobby Vinton... Dick and Dee Dee
rubbed shoulders with all of them. This is her "behind the scenes" story.
It's pretty cool.
|
 | ||
 
|
|   |
Copyright © 2004-2008, Baby Boomer HeadQuarters - WWW.BBHQ.COM - All rights reserved.
My first prediction is that I will live to regret this. But.... it's a
tradition.
