OR: Are We on the Verge of a Revolution?
Published on October 4, 2004 By CrispE In Politics
The first debate was very interesting to watch but there was something that I saw the first time that took several days of pondering to understand. Why was Bush so fidgetty, perhaps squirmy is the word in the first 22 minutes? What was going on that made him so out of touch with what he was supposed to be doing (i.e. grabbing the initiative) that allowed Kerry to beat him so soundly?

Now we know from 9/11 that Mr. Bush is not one to get overly emotional about crisis situations. We saw him deliver some of his finest moments as President after that horrible event. We watched in admiration when he so eloquently spoke of 9/11 in his State of the Union address in 2002. But was that the same George W. Bush who showed up in Florida last Thursday night and turned an 11 point lead in the polls into a dead heat?

If you watch those 22 minutes on videotape please note that W's body language is agitated, his shoulders hunched up and his face is mysteriously askew not just during questions to him but most of the time, period. But isn't he is a man who is confident about what he believes? Say what you want about W, he is certain about what he is doing. The problem is, he is a man who doesn't want to be at a debate in the first place.

Now, you may ask why that would be true? The first possibility is that W is worried about something not related to the debates and that he is distracted. This might happen, for example, if he thought there was an assassin in the crowd or if some possible terrorist action was occuring that he thought he should be looking into but couldn't discuss. There were no assassins, of course, nor terrorist events that might have distracted him as far as we know.

The second possibility is that Mr. Bush believes he should not have to debate at all. If you look closely at the tape, W is not more or less upset during the first 1/3 of the debate but rather acts as if it is an affront to him as President to have to debate in the first place. W sees his Presidency as a mission to bring democracy to the world, bring on the American Century with the United States calling the shots (for the good of all) and he brooks no interference by anyone. If you "rile" him, he will retaliate and he never backs down nor admits errors.

The Prime Minister of Canada (John Chretien) called W a "buffoon" in early 2003 and Canada still can't get the border openned up to Canadian beef even though the BSE threat passed long ago. When the Premier of Alberta (where much of the beef is raised) came to Washington in the summer of 2003 he was sent to the undersecretary of the undersecretary of Agriculture and dismissed without any proper hearing by the Bush administration.

Here lies the problem. This man thinks he knows what's best for all of us and like the medieval king and queen who ruled by divine right as God's political representative on Earth, W thinks he knows and lives the will of God. A debate in that case would make him very uneasy because asking W to debate is like asking Jesus Christ to tapdance at a Yom Kippur service!

This is troubling and disturbing that anyone could think so much of themself and so little of the American electorate that they would find the election itself a nuisance but that may well be the case. Bush simply finds the process demeaning to himself and his mission.

So what would he do if he lost the election? What kind of surprise might we get then?

Comments
on Oct 04, 2004
I think you're reaching.
on Oct 04, 2004
What Really Made Bush Lose the Debate


The Secret Service accidentally tuned Bush's earpiece to the Howard Stern show!!



- GX
on Oct 04, 2004
Draginol:

"Reaching" suggests that the thought is not outside of the realm of possibility.

Consider how different the U.S. is now from 9/11. We are on a constant state of alert, the country is deeply divided over the future and economically we are much weaker than 4 years ago.

This is no longer our parents' country. Revolution occurs in situations like this where "power" is grabbed by those who believe they know best. It rarely is true and we have a history of politics that gives us hope but many of the seeds of other revolutions in other places can be seen here.
on Oct 04, 2004
Grim Xiozan:

More likely Al Franken, but same idea. Hehehe.
on Oct 04, 2004
"I think you're reaching."


"Think" is being diplomatic...

"This is no longer our parents' country."


Nope, it isn't. The Soviet Union is gone. Unemployment is lower. Saddam Husein is gone. Crime is lower. The Stock Market is nicely above 10k. The list goes on and on.

Granted, the Canadians don't like us, but hey, I'll take such dire facts in stride...

on Oct 05, 2004
Bakerstreet:

The Soviet Union is gone. But we are pissing off Russia everyday with our support of terrorist organizations in Chechnya and elsewhere.

Unemployment is lower? You got to be kidding me. Many times in the 50's and 60's it approached 2%, not the 5.5% Counted and 5% not counted that we have today.

Saddam Hussein is gone, but Osama Bin Laden, General Omar (head of the Taliban), and Al Zawahiri are much more dangerous!

Crime is lower, but that occured over half a dozen Presidents of both parties.

The stock market is nicely over 10,000. Yeah.....a whole nice 100 points and 1500 lower than it was in 2001.

The list does go on....

Healthcare threatens to overwhelm the American ability to pay for it.

Social Security is an absolute trainwreck.

We had to nationalize the railroads and have never been able to make it private.

and this list goes on and on even longer!

But don't worry about the Canadians, they WERE our number 1 trading partner and supporter before Bush. Now?
on Oct 05, 2004
I agree completely! Great article.
on Oct 05, 2004
"Some people say I walk with too much of a swagger...well, in Texas, that's just called having Halliburton and Enron all up in your ass."

--George Bush
on Oct 05, 2004
Myrrander:

It's interesting to me that no one takes any of Bush's and Cheney's connections seriously. If you were going to declare martial law and supplant the political system it certainly would take business to back it.

You might look at a situation like this:

Kerry wins the election.

A terrorist attack occurs

Bush states that we can't have orderly change of government because the threat of another attack is imminent.

Bush declares martial law to continue until such time as the threat abates.

The threat NEVER abates.

on Oct 05, 2004
It could possibly happen. However, even during the Civil War, Lincoln was able to hold elections, and during that time he wasn't sure of being re-elected. I think this precedent will hold a lot of water for the current administration. I can disagree with a lot about George Bush, but I just can't go so far as to say that he would short-circuit the Constitution just because he lost an election. I can't be that paranoid.
on Oct 05, 2004
Myrrander:

I agree it is not a high probability also. Many things would have to happen and the American people would have to stand by and watch it go down. But, in a country that divides along so ABB, ABK it increases the possibility. You will note in the thread here that neocons aren't coming out of the woodwork to call it outrageous.

What does that tell you?
on Oct 05, 2004
It tells me that most likely they think it's a moot point, something not likely to happen, so they're just not paying attention to it. On the other hand, they may be tracking our IP addresses because WE'RE ON TO THEM! I enjoyed your original post, keep up the good work!
on Oct 05, 2004
You might look at a situation like this:

Kerry wins the election.

A terrorist attack occurs

Bush states that we can't have orderly change of government because the threat of another attack is imminent.

Bush declares martial law to continue until such time as the threat abates.

The threat NEVER abates.


If this were to happen there would be an overthrowing of the government because it would seem that Bush is behind this attack.
on Oct 05, 2004
landen81:

Historically it's interesting to note that political power and tradition is so tied to the "expected." No one ever expects revolution which is why when it occurs it is very difficult to stop. Some examples include Hitler in Germany, Napolean in France, Stalin in Russia and Cromwell in England. None of the political systems were the same as the U.S. but the countries were in a state of turmoil, poor economically and very divided.

Remember, I'm not saying that a revolution WILL occur, just that it could.