Before attending a rally to hear US Vice President Dick Cheney, citizens in New Mexico were required to sign a political loyalty oath approved by the Republican national committee.
"I, [full name] ... do herby [sic] endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States," the form said. "In signing the above endorsement you are consenting to use and release [sic] of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser of President Bush."
President George W. Bush is campaigning at events billed as "Ask President Bush." Only supporters are allowed in. Talking points are distributed to questioners. In Traverse City, Michigan, a 55-year-old social studies teacher who wore a Kerry sticker had her ticket torn up at the door.
"How can anyone in the US deny someone entry?" she asked. "Isn't this a democracy?"
At every rally, Bush repeats the same speech, touting a "vibrant economy" and his leadership in a war where "you cannot show weakness." He introduces local entrepreneurs who praise his tax cuts (more than 1 million jobs have been lost in his term). Then Bush calls on questioners. More than one-fifth of them profess their evangelical faith or denounce gay marriage.
In Niceville, Florida, one said: "This is the very first time that I have felt that God was in the White House."
"Thank you," Bush replied.
Another: "Mr. President, as a child, how can I help you get votes?"
In Albuquerque, he was told: "It's an honor every day when I get to pray for you as president."
And this one: "Thank God we finally have a commander-in-chief."
Others repeat attack lines on Senator John Kerry's military record, to which Bush responds with an oblique but encouraging "Thanks."
Bush's overriding strategy is to bolster his credentials as a decisive military figure and to impugn his opponent's manhood. In his latest TV commercial, he says: "We cannot hesitate, we cannot yield, we must do everything in our power to bring an enemy to justice before they hurt us again."
But, according to the Washington Post, in the last two years Bush has uttered the elusive Osama bin Laden's name only 10 times, and "on six of those occasions it was because he was asked a direct question ... Not once during that period has he talked about bin Laden at any length, or said anything substantive."
At "Ask President Bush" events, he mentions Sept. 11 only to raise the threat of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
Cheney sneered at Kerry for even using the word "sensitive" with respect to counterterrorism. Not one war was "won by being sensitive," Cheney mocked.
Kerry, in fact, had called for fighting "a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."
Cheney's distortion is calculated to attempt to portray Kerry as somehow effeminate.
At the same time, a Republican front group of Vietnam veterans financed by a major Bush contributor is running an ad campaign claiming Kerry's account of his military record is false. But not one of these veterans served with him on his boat.
During the Vietnam war, Bush famously used his father's connections to get a posting as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard because it was filled with the sons of privilege. After refusing to submit to a routine drug test, he was suspended and never flew again. He got himself transferred to the Alabama National Guard, but didn't turn up for his tour of duty. Since then, he has withheld his full military records.
Now he encourages smears that a genuine war hero has lied about his service and is a coward. But this is more than a case of projection. The more profound issue is not who served in Vietnam and who dodged. It is whether the president is a sovereign.
Since the birth of the US party system, presidential candidates have gone directly to the sovereign people to make their case. After the Democratic convention, Kerry traveled from New England to the northwest doing just that. Not one of the hundreds of thousands who attended his open-air rallies had to pledge allegiance to him, and he encountered organized Bush hecklers as part of the price. At his rallies Bush is a pseudo-populist. But these controlled environments reflect his deeper view of the presidency as sovereign, preempting democracy.
Floundering in the polls, without a strategy for Iraq, unwilling to say the name bin Laden, he is secure in the knowledge that the cheering multitudes have been selected. "Ask President Bush" has crystallized the underlying issue, framed succinctly by the greatest American poet of democracy, Walt Whitman, who wrote: "The President is there in the White House for you, it is not you who are here for him."
Sidney Blumenthal is a former advisor to former US president Bill Clinton and Washington bureau chief of salon.com.
The bird flu outbreak at US dairy farms keeps finding alarming new ways to surprise scientists. Last week, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) confirmed that H5N1 is spreading not just from birds to herds, but among cows. Meanwhile, media reports say that an unknown number of cows are asymptomatic. Although the risk to humans is still low, it is clear that far more work needs to be done to get a handle on the reach of the virus and how it is being transmitted. That would require the USDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to get
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
Former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) used to push for reforms to protect Taiwan by adopting the “three noes” policy as well as “Taiwanization.” Later, then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) wished to save the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) by pushing for the party’s “localization,” hoping to compete with homegrown political parties as a pro-Taiwan KMT. However, the present-day members of the KMT do not know what they are talking about, and do not heed the two former presidents’ words, so the party has suffered a third consecutive defeat in the January presidential election. Soon after gaining power with the help of the KMT’s