Showdown At The Tempe Corral
[With apologies to Sir Walter Scott.]
Oh! young Dubya Bush is come out of the west,
Through all the Lone Star State his spin was the best;
And with his connections mere votes he could shun.
Though second in ballots, the Court said he won.
So saved from his sin, and so former a lush,
There never was Prez like the young Dubya Bush.
He paused not for U.N. and stopped not for Pope,
He bombed the Euphrates and made leftists mope,
But ere he wore flight suit to his third debate
The people were misled, the hero came late:
For a tosser of medals and spewer of mush
Was seducing the voters from young Dubya Bush.
Yet so boldly he entered the ASU hall,
Past liberals, and leftists, and pundits, and all,
That the rich Ketchup Consort did quiver and twitch.
Then spoke up Bob Schieffer, his hand on the switch.
“Oh! the polls show you losing”, his voice it did gush,
“Is this your last hurrah, young President Bush?”
“You sought to unseat me, with counterfeit proof
Of something you all knew was really the truth.
You might have done damage, but reached much too far,
And if I’m not able to shake off that scar,
Well, I may start a radio talk show like Rush.
Many folk would call into ex-President Bush.”
He smiled when John said “You sent jobs overseas.”
He grinned when John mentioned “increased PCBs”.
And “unfunded mandates” made George laugh out loud,
Till whispers of “drunk!” did begin in the crowd.
Smelling blood, JFK made a last strident push,
Shouting “You are a failure, young President Bush!”
As pundits were drooling upon George’s loss,
Sure now he could never spin gold from his dross,
He spoke to the viewers, looked straight in their eyes,
And then he announced — The October Surprise.
Cross the stage his sneer meant “Shove that up your tush”.
Election was certain for young Dubya Bush.
[The fibreglass white knight was by Graham Ibbeson.]
October 8th, 2004 at 8:54 am
Your ode to the Boy Prince
filled me with glee
till the October surprise;
Oh what could that be?
Osama’s head, sliced off at the neck?
Unemployment down, with gas prices in check?
Cheney converted to the Gospel of Truth?
Real vote totals from a Diebold booth?
Judith Miller indicted to prove she’s no shill?
Please tell me, what surprise should cause me to thrill.
A ceasefire with Sadr, who killed all our boys?
Fresh Abu Ghraib videos? Beheadings? Collateral kills?
I feel pity for freepers and dittohead wankers
who reach past sanity like Stepford gangplankers
shredding their dignity on crooks and deceivers.
Martyring their cred like true believers.
Hoping beyond hope for an October surprise
that still might save them from the tsunami of lies.
Why do they worry so? Do they forget?
One red alert can save their asses yet.
October 8th, 2004 at 10:43 am
You are a Poetic Goddess of the Blogsphere (a term skippy did not coin)!
October 8th, 2004 at 4:29 pm
“like Stepford gangplankers”? Backwards reels the mind over the legions of possibilities in that phrase!! I want the movie rights!!
October 25th, 2004 at 9:49 am
New York Times: October 11, 2004
“Voting Our Conscience, Not Our Religion”
By MARK W. ROCHE
Dean of College of Arts and Letters
University of Notre Dame
South Bend, Indiana USA
For more than a century, from the wave of immigrants in the 19th century
to the election of the first Catholic president (John F Kennedy) in 1960,
American Catholics have overwhelmingly identified with the Democratic Party.
In the past few decades, however, that allegiance has largely faded.
Now Catholics are prototypical “swing voters”.
In the year 2000 general election, they split almost evenly between
Al Gore and George W. Bush, and recent polls show Mr. Bush ahead of
Senator John Kerry, himself a Catholic, among white Catholics.
There are compelling reasons - cultural, socioeconomic and political-
for this shift.
But, if Catholic voters honestly examine the issues of consequence
in this election, they may find themselves returning to their
Democratic roots in 2004.
Both political parties appeal to Catholics in different ways.
The Republican Party opposes abortion and the destruction of blastocysts
for stem-cell research, both positions in accord with Catholic doctrine.
Also, Republican support of various faith-based initiatives,
including school vouchers, tends to resonate with Catholic voters.
Members of the Democratic Party, meanwhile, are more likely to criticize
the handling of the war in Iraq, to oppose capital punishment and
to support universal heath care, environmental stewardship,
a just welfare state and more equitable taxes.
These stances are also in harmony with Catholic teachings,
even if they may be less popular among individual Catholics.
When values come into conflict, it is useful to develop principles
that help place those values in a hierarchy.
One reasonable principle is that issues of life and death are
more important than other issues.
This seems to be the strategy of some Catholic and church leaders,
who directly or indirectly support the Republican Party because of its
unambiguous critique of abortion.
Indeed, many Catholics seem to think that if they are truly religious,
they must cast their ballots for Republicans.
This position has two problems.
First, abortion is not the only life-and-death issue in this election.
While the Republicans line up with the Catholic stance on abortion and
stem-cell research, the Democrats are closer to the Catholic position
on the death penalty, universal health care and environmental protection.
More important, given the most distinctive issue of the current election,
Catholics who support President Bush must reckon with the Catholic
doctrine of “just war.”
This doctrine stipulates that a war is just only if all possible alternative
strategies have been pursued to their ultimate conclusion.
In addition, the war must be conducted in accordance with moral
principles (for example, the avoidance of unnecessary civilian casualties
and the treatment of prisoners with dignity).
Thirdly, the war must lead to a more moral state of affairs than existed
before it began.
While Mr. Kerry, like many other Democrats, voted for giving the president
the authority to use force in Iraq, if required, he has also since objected
to the way the peace in Iraq was not planned, and to how the war
was eventually prosecuted.
Politics is the art of the possible.
During the eight years of the Reagan presidency, a republican administration,
the number of legal abortions increased by more than 5 percent.
During the eight years of the Clinton presidency, a democratic administration,
the number of legal abortions dropped by 36 percent.
The overall abortion rate (calculated as the number of abortions
per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44) was more or
less stable during the Reagan years, but during the Clinton presidency
the overall abortion rate dropped by 11 percent.
There are many reasons for this shift.
Yet surely the traditional Democratic concern with the social safety
net makes it easier for pregnant women to make responsible
decisions and for young life to flourish.
Among the most economically disadvantaged, abortion rates have
always been high and today still remain among the highest.
The world’s lowest abortion rates are in Belgium and the Netherlands,
where abortion is legal but where the welfare state is strong.
Latin America, where almost all abortions are illegal, has one
of the highest rates in the world.
None of this is to argue that abortion should be acceptable.
History will judge our society’s support of abortion in much the same way
we view earlier generations’ support of torture and slavery.
It will be universally condemned.
The moral condemnation of abortion, however, need not lead to the
conclusion that criminal prosecution is the best way to limit the
number of abortions.
Those who view abortion as the most significant issue in this campaign
may well want to supplement their abstract desire for moral rectitude
with a more realistic focus on how best to ensure that fewer abortions take place.
In many ways, Catholic voters’ growing political independence has led to a
profusion of moral dilemmas.
Catholic voters often feel they must abandon one good for the sake of another.
But, while they may be dismayed at John Kerry’s position on abortion
and stem-cell research, they should be no less troubled by George W.
Bush’s stance on the death penalty, health care, the environment and
just war.
Given the recent history of higher rates of abortion with republicans
in the White House, along with the tradition of democratic support
for equitable taxes and greater integration into the world community,
more Catholics may want to reaffirm their tradition of allegiance
to the Democratic Party in 2004.
Mark W. Roche