MORE WINDS THAN KATRINA AND RITA ARE BLOWING
>
My pal Johnny sent me some anecdotal evidence that the winds of change they are blowing. It was a story in KOS about a high school teacher from a red part of Florida. "For years all I ever heard," wrote the teacher, "were the typical right wing talking points from the kids, like how the liberals were cowards, 'flip flop, flip flop,' liberals hate America, and even some of the girls would talk about how cute they thought Duhbya was. During the last election it was unbearable. Just so you know I don't encourage or solicit any of these comments but if I'm asked about my political persuasion I tell them I'm a war disabled liberal Democrat. This school year has been very, very different. Kids are talking about how dumb Bush is and how much they hate him. The reason I'm calling this an indicator because children will normally parrot what they hear their parents say, so because of this I believe there is a real shift in this country away from conservatism. Just my $.02. [Update] I was asked by a group of students if I would be interested in sponsoring a 'Young Progressives' club for our school. I'm putting out some feelers to see just how much interest is there."
About 8 years ago I met a Depeche Mode fanatic. Never assume because someone likes good music (or good books or has a sense of taste in any field) that they have any political sense. (I still remember how dismayed I was when I was a student in NY hitch-hiking down to Texas-- on my way to Mexico-- to find that sme people with long hair who smoked dope and listened to The Dead and Big Brother were also reactionaries, racists and war-mongers.) Anyway, the Depeche Mode fanatic-- we'll call him D-- turned out to be a died-in-the-wool Republican. Coming from le petit bourgeoisie in Bumfuck, Illinois, I never had any reason to believe he was particularly racist or bigoted. He was always just a greed-and-selfishness Republican. I hadn't heard from him in years and yesterday he just popped up with an Instant Message about a Sex Pistols book he was reading that mentioned me. I asked him if he is still a Bush supporter and he hesitated and seemed to indicate that he's not too thrilled about the way things have gone in the past 5 years. I asked him if I could interview him for the blog and he readily agreed. I'm guessing he either likes abuse or wants to show his wife how famous he is.
DWT: How old are you?
D: 27
DWT: where were you born?
D: normal, IL
DWT: what is your occupation?
D: looking for employment
DWT: what field?
D: accounting
DWT: how do you support yourself?
D: investments
DWT: right... you have well-off parents, right?
D: separate investments
DWT: from money you made from your lemonade stand?
D: yeah..business is big with the heat
DWT: how long have you lived in Dallas?
D: 2.5 years
DWT: How old were you when you realized you were a Republican?
D: 11
DWT: what were the first manifestations of your Republicanism after 11?
D: environment grew up in. white collared territory
DWT: Why did you decide to vote for Bush in 2000 and in 2004?
D: less government. more incentive for investment. less taxes. pro business.
DWT: In your opinion, how has Bush measured up to the expectations you just listed above?
D: business wise, less restrictions...taxation on dividends, etc. I think the is pro investment. with the natural disasters..more government which is fine...it is necessary and ok. economy is not the best...but hey...I think it is cyclical...if your their at the right time...the president reaps the benefits
DWT: Do you think his policies are more pro-business than Clinton's?
D: not necessarily...Clinton created NAFTA...look where the jobs went!
DWT: So you still support Bush?
D: socially democratic...financially republican. like many
DWT: so if you could vote again tomorrow, knowing what you know now, would you vote for Gore or Bush?
D: bush...gore is like a robot...a president should have charisma...i feel like i could have a beer with bush...with gore...very stiff....very scripted
DWT: Kerry or Bush?
D: kerry I like. but healthcare for everyone...who is going to pay for it. i view democrats as more government. bigger government. i do not like that. i want to make more of my own decisions.
DWT: Can you explain what he means when he talks about "the noble cause" in Iraq and can you tell me why more young Republicans like you-- from "white collar backgrounds"; isn't that how you put it?-- aren't enlisting?
D: the noble cause is democracy for Iraqis and to rid the terror. I think taking care of the What If's....is good...saddam tortured people.....
the army is not for everyone. I see your view. I am in school taking care of business
DWT: like Cheney did when he avoided Vietnam?
D: what about Clinton
DWT: he opposed the war
D: did he avoid it also?
DWT: you and cheney support it-- as long as some poor working class people fight it. Clinton avoided it too (me too)
D: i think to rid terror..you have to go to their turf....keep them on the run
DWT: when are you going?
D: in school....
DWT: you can always postpone school and come back after you've rid the world of terror
D: terror will never go away
DWT: certainly not the way Bush is encouraging it
D: you prospered from capitalism...less taxes...on income...
DWT: there was NO terror in Iraq (an authoritarian police state) until Bush took over
DWT: yes, capitalism is great. I'm very entrepreneurial
D: no terror...what about saddam torturing people
DWT: What about Rusmfield torturing people?
D: you're like me...pro financial republican..and socially democratic. welcome to the club
DWT: Unfettered capitalism leads to economic fascism (corporatism) which is a nitemare
D: you worked for a corporation for a long time
DWT: and now I teach business at Stanford, USC, Dartmouth and McGill. I'm a professor
D: can i take a course?
DWT: and corporatism is as bad a system as you can come up with.
So D still hasn't learned any lessons from 5 years of Bush. He's still mindlessly pushing the Limbaughesque/O'Liely propaganda he hears on the radio and Fox, still blaming Clinton, still deluding himself into thinking a plutocrat and son-of-a-bitch like Bush would have a beer with him. He thinks "less restrictions" on business means he has more choices because he sees himself as a potential exploiter in the future, rather than as a consumer who will be eating tainted meat, breathing toxic air and drinking polluted water. And, even if he isn't brilliant, he's not particularly retarded and he still harkens back to equating "terror" with Iraq-- just like the Right Wing Noise Machine has taught him to. The school teacher sees the winds of changes blowing in a northern Florida high school. I just ran across part of the 36-38% of Americans who still support Bush in a graduate school in Dallas. Come 2006, it looks like we'll be ready for a national mandate. Let's hope Diebold isn't doing the counting again.
posted by DownWithTyranny @ 2:52 PM
1 comments
|
Reddit
1 Comments:
Bashing by elite group should worry Bush
September 22, 2005
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
ASPEN, Colo. -- For two full days, President Bush was bashed. He was taken to task on his handling of stem cell research, population control, the Iraq war and, especially, Hurricane Katrina. The critics were no left-wing bloggers. They were rich, mainly Republican and presumably Bush voters in the last two presidential elections.
The Bush-bashing occurred last weekend at the annual Aspen conference sponsored by the New York investment firm Forstmann Little & Co. More than 200 invited guests, mostly prestigious, arrived Thursday (many by private aircraft) and stayed until Sunday for more than golf, hikes and gourmet meals. They faithfully attended the discussions presided over by PBS' Charlie Rose on such serious subjects as ''global poverty and human rights'' and ''the 'new' world economy.'' The connecting link was hostility to Bush.
''All discussions are off the record,'' admonished the conference's printed schedule. Consequently, I will refrain from specifically quoting panelists and audience members. But the admonition says nothing about personal conversations outside the sessions. Nor do I feel inhibited in quoting myself. Even if I am violating the spirit of secrecy rules, revealing criticism of Bush by this elite group, and the paucity of defense for him, is valuable in reflecting the president's parlous political condition.
The Forstmann Little Aspen Weekend is made possible by the generosity of Theodore J. Forstmann, a supporter of supply-side economics and contributor to the Republican Party. Invited guests are drawn from government, diplomacy, politics, the arts, entertainment and journalism.
I was surprised that the program indicated the first panel, on stem cell research, consisted solely of scientists hostile to the Bush administration's position. In the absence of any disagreement, I took the floor to suggest there are scientists and bioethicists with dissenting views and that it was not productive to demean opposing views as based on ''religious dogma.'' The response was peeved criticism of my intervention and certainly no support.
I do not see myself as a defender of the Bush presidency, and I am sure the White House does not regard me as such. But as a member of the second panel consisting of journalists, I felt constrained to argue against implications that Hurricane Katrina should cause Bush to rediscover race and poverty. My comments again generated more criticism from the audience and obvious exasperation by Rose. After the closing dinner Saturday night, the moderator made clear he was displeased by my conduct.
After the first two panels, I feared I was the odd man out in accepting Teddy Forstmann's invitation. But during a break, one of the president's closest friends -- who had remained silent -- thanked me profusely for my comments. That set a pattern. Throughout the next two days, men and women who were mute publicly thanked me privately for speaking up. When I said nothing during one panel discussion, some people asked me why I was silent.
Longtime participants in Forstmann Little conferences (this was my first and, after this column, probably my last) told me they had not experienced such hostility against a Republican president at previous events. Yet, they were sure a majority of the guests had voted for Bush.
This analysis was reported to me over lunch by a financier who regularly attends these events. When he said he shared my sentiments, I asked why he did not express them publicly at a session. He replied that he did not feel able to articulate what he felt. Critics of the president who are vocal and supporters who are reticent comprise a massive communications failure.
U.S. News & World Report disclosed this week, with apparent disdain, that presidential adviser Karl Rove took time off from the Katrina relief effort to be at Aspen. He was needed as a counterweight. I settled in for serious fireworks, expecting Bush-bashers to assault his alter ego at the conference's final session. However, direct confrontation with a senior aide must have been more difficult than a remote attack on the president. It would be a shame if Rove returned to Washington without informing Bush how erstwhile friends have turned against him.Bashing by elite group should worry Bush
September 22, 2005
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
ASPEN, Colo. -- For two full days, President Bush was bashed. He was taken to task on his handling of stem cell research, population control, the Iraq war and, especially, Hurricane Katrina. The critics were no left-wing bloggers. They were rich, mainly Republican and presumably Bush voters in the last two presidential elections.
The Bush-bashing occurred last weekend at the annual Aspen conference sponsored by the New York investment firm Forstmann Little & Co. More than 200 invited guests, mostly prestigious, arrived Thursday (many by private aircraft) and stayed until Sunday for more than golf, hikes and gourmet meals. They faithfully attended the discussions presided over by PBS' Charlie Rose on such serious subjects as ''global poverty and human rights'' and ''the 'new' world economy.'' The connecting link was hostility to Bush.
''All discussions are off the record,'' admonished the conference's printed schedule. Consequently, I will refrain from specifically quoting panelists and audience members. But the admonition says nothing about personal conversations outside the sessions. Nor do I feel inhibited in quoting myself. Even if I am violating the spirit of secrecy rules, revealing criticism of Bush by this elite group, and the paucity of defense for him, is valuable in reflecting the president's parlous political condition.
The Forstmann Little Aspen Weekend is made possible by the generosity of Theodore J. Forstmann, a supporter of supply-side economics and contributor to the Republican Party. Invited guests are drawn from government, diplomacy, politics, the arts, entertainment and journalism.
I was surprised that the program indicated the first panel, on stem cell research, consisted solely of scientists hostile to the Bush administration's position. In the absence of any disagreement, I took the floor to suggest there are scientists and bioethicists with dissenting views and that it was not productive to demean opposing views as based on ''religious dogma.'' The response was peeved criticism of my intervention and certainly no support.
I do not see myself as a defender of the Bush presidency, and I am sure the White House does not regard me as such. But as a member of the second panel consisting of journalists, I felt constrained to argue against implications that Hurricane Katrina should cause Bush to rediscover race and poverty. My comments again generated more criticism from the audience and obvious exasperation by Rose. After the closing dinner Saturday night, the moderator made clear he was displeased by my conduct.
After the first two panels, I feared I was the odd man out in accepting Teddy Forstmann's invitation. But during a break, one of the president's closest friends -- who had remained silent -- thanked me profusely for my comments. That set a pattern. Throughout the next two days, men and women who were mute publicly thanked me privately for speaking up. When I said nothing during one panel discussion, some people asked me why I was silent.
Longtime participants in Forstmann Little conferences (this was my first and, after this column, probably my last) told me they had not experienced such hostility against a Republican president at previous events. Yet, they were sure a majority of the guests had voted for Bush.
This analysis was reported to me over lunch by a financier who regularly attends these events. When he said he shared my sentiments, I asked why he did not express them publicly at a session. He replied that he did not feel able to articulate what he felt. Critics of the president who are vocal and supporters who are reticent comprise a massive communications failure.
U.S. News & World Report disclosed this week, with apparent disdain, that presidential adviser Karl Rove took time off from the Katrina relief effort to be at Aspen. He was needed as a counterweight. I settled in for serious fireworks, expecting Bush-bashers to assault his alter ego at the conference's final session. However, direct confrontation with a senior aide must have been more difficult than a remote attack on the president. It would be a shame if Rove returned to Washington without informing Bush how erstwhile friends have turned against him.
Post a Comment
<< Home