Wednesday, January 21, 2004
Well?
Democrats are currently concerned with choosing their presidential nominee, and wondering whether he will beat Bush. Some are also (understandably) concerned with making sure that all votes are properly counted when the election comes.
But should they be worried about something more fundamental? Should they be worried that, having lost the election, George Bush will not step down from the presidency?
Some very powerful people paid a lot of money to make Bush the president in 2000, and had no qualms about resorting to highly questionable -- not to say undemocratic -- tactics to get it for him when the votes didn't. Why would they shy away from taking things to another level if it happens again?
Bush himself, in last night's State of the Union address, said this:
Bush's refusing to step down may sound unthinkable, but it's certainly no stretch to imagine such an act well within the capabilities of Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney. Indeed, many of the steps these men have taken since Bush took office set the table very nicely for it.
It's also likely not beyond military minds like that of Generals G. Jerry "My God is Real and Yours Isn't" Boykin, and Tommy "One More Attack and the People will Support a Military Coup" Franks. How many more in uniform are there like Jerry and Tommy, we wonder?
The question remaining, we suppose, is: how many members of the media would have no problem with it either? They are, after all, the people's eyes and ears to power.
Perhaps the question to pose to our media gatekeepers is this: If George Bush lost the election but refused to step down citing national security concerns, would you support it?
But should they be worried about something more fundamental? Should they be worried that, having lost the election, George Bush will not step down from the presidency?
Some very powerful people paid a lot of money to make Bush the president in 2000, and had no qualms about resorting to highly questionable -- not to say undemocratic -- tactics to get it for him when the votes didn't. Why would they shy away from taking things to another level if it happens again?
Bush himself, in last night's State of the Union address, said this:
"...now we face a choice. We can go forward with confidence and resolve or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us."Taken on its face it's a purely political statement, made to set the terms of debate on Iraq, and distinguish Bush from how he hopes to characterize his opponents. But it's not hard to see how such a position could be extended as a matter of "national security", particularly from the man who, in his previous speech to the nation, strongly suggested that Americans disagreeing with his policies were aiding terrorists.
Bush's refusing to step down may sound unthinkable, but it's certainly no stretch to imagine such an act well within the capabilities of Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney. Indeed, many of the steps these men have taken since Bush took office set the table very nicely for it.
It's also likely not beyond military minds like that of Generals G. Jerry "My God is Real and Yours Isn't" Boykin, and Tommy "One More Attack and the People will Support a Military Coup" Franks. How many more in uniform are there like Jerry and Tommy, we wonder?
The question remaining, we suppose, is: how many members of the media would have no problem with it either? They are, after all, the people's eyes and ears to power.
Perhaps the question to pose to our media gatekeepers is this: If George Bush lost the election but refused to step down citing national security concerns, would you support it?
