Well, maybe not exactly "popular." But one reader did write me recently and ask "what happened to the Weekly Screed?" And when I started answering her, I realized that a few things have been simmering in here and maybe it's time for another brain dump after all. And, since the last "Screed" was issued on the eve of the Democratic National Convention, then issuing another on the eve of the Republican's impending "look how moderate we can pretend to be" media circus seems consistent, if not exactly prolific.
I have a suggestion: Once this Nuremburg-by-the-Hudson thing is over, let's have the election the following week, and get it over with. I say we wait a week for the talking heads to repeat themselve a million times, and then let's pull the levers, poke the chads, touch the screens, saute' the butterflies, and get on with the recounts and the Supreme Court decision. Hell, let's let the Olympic Gymnastic judges decide who the next president should be. They've got as good a chance of getting it right as the electoral college .
I think we We know what John Kerry stands for -- putting the other half-a-cerebrum back in the oval office. We certainly know what GeorgeBush stands for -- like my bumper sticker says, "more war, more polution, more lies." We even know what Ralph Nader stands for, since everything he's got to say is pretty much a retread of what he said last time around (much of which I agree with, but that's beside the point). So, unless somebody's got something new to add to the cacophony, I say let's end it here.
I don't know about you, but I heard all I want to hear about Kerry dodging bullets while Bush dodged the draft months ago. So let me be plain about this: I really do not care how either of these jokers served or did not serve their country during the Vietnam era. What concerns me is simply what George Bush has done over the past 3-1/2 years, and my despair over whether the Republic can survive another for years of such gross, reckless incompetence (not to mention the rest of the planet).
Back in the first of these Screeds, back when I thought maybe Wes Clark was the most suitable candidate the Democrats were contemplating (in the words of Bill Maher,"in a time of war, you make your best warrior the chief.") I said that any time an incumbent is running for re-election, the first question should be, "Has the current administration proved sufficiently trustworthy to have earned another four years in office?" There's really no need to rehash the litany of Bush's failures here, but for the record, let's review a couple of highlights. We're talking about a Chief Executive who has
1) has bankrupted the nation's treasury and spread the money around in $600 "vote for me" bribes (cleverly disguised as tax cuts),
2) started an unjustifiable, unprovoked -- and now protracted -- war that has produced thousands of casualties and done little if nothing to alleviate the threats to our security the "regime change" was supposed to produce.
Those two points alone are enough damage for any four year term; Bush hardly needs a second term to demonstrate his true potential. So it's not hard conclude that the answer to the fundamental question has to be "no." Once we've arrived at that conclusion, then we're pretty much left to accept whatever viable alternative the process of elimination leaves us with. The unifying sentiment we so often hear is "Anybody But Bush," and it would appear that is precisely what the system has given us.