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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past