Leftist Ted Rall suggests in his latest column that Howard Dean should just be crowned already.
TED RALL GONE WILD!
I like Ted Rall. He's probably even further to the left than I am (which is saying a lot), he's talented (he's both a cartoonist and a columnist) and he's cute, at least in his publicity shot (above). (I didn't think that I have a type, but Rall and Matt Gonzalez have me reconsidering...)
Anyway, Rall has balls. He speaks up. Because he cares about the downward spiral in which the Bush regime is taking the United States (and the rest of the world with it), he's a patriot.
But he seems to exist in a vacuum. Does he get much feedback (that he pays attention to)? Does he allow people to challenge him? Or does he ignore criticisms, even if they are thoughtful and well-intentioned?
I wonder, because every once in a while he writes a column that is miles to the left of me. But maybe you can't really call it "left"; maybe it's just a bit nuts.
In one of his nuttiest -- er, most leftist -- columns, titled, "Authoritarians Gone Wild: Whether, Not Who, Is the Question About the 2004 Election," from July 8, Rall suggested that the Bush regime might cancel altogether the 2004 presidential election, using its Holy War on Terrorism as an excuse. Excerpts from that column -- which is conspicuously missing from the archives of his columns linked from his Web site (see for yourself; the July 8 column has mysteriously vanished) but which you can read in full here -- are as follows:
He has canceled elections in Iraq. He will probably cancel them in Afghanistan. Will George W. Bush put the kibosh on elections in the United States next year?
Frightened by Bush's rapidly accruing personal power and the Democrats' inability and/or unwillingness to stand up to him, panicked lefties worry that he might use the "war on terrorism" as an excuse to declare a state of emergency, suspend civil liberties and jail political opponents....
To these people, whether or not the 2004 elections actually take place as scheduled is the ultimate test for American democracy. At Guantanamo Bay the United States is converting a concentration camp into a death camp where inmates will be executed without due process or legal representation. [Editor's note: To my knowledge, no one has been executed at Guantanamo Bay...] Never before in history has a U.S. president contemplated the denaturalization of native-born citizens -- thus far even people executed for treason have died as Americans -- but Bush has drafted legislation that would allow him to strip anyone he calls an "enemy combatant" of their citizenship and have them deported. By any objective standard he has already gone way too far, but for many it would take the cancellation or delay of the elections to confirm that we are trading in our wounded democracy for a fascist state.
Lincoln considered suspending the 1864 election because of the Civil War, but ultimately tabled the idea. To date nothing has ever prevented an American presidential election from being held on time.
It's easy to come up with a scenario in which canceling the 2004 election could be made to appear reasonable. Imagine that, a few weeks before Election Day, "dirty bombs" detonate simultaneously in New York and Washington. Government, media and political institutions and personnel lie ruined in smoking rubble and ash; hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered. The economy, already teetering on the precipice, is shoved into depression. How could we conduct elections under such conditions?
Republicans have already floated the don't-change-horses-in-midstream argument. After Democratic presidential [candidate] Sen. John Kerry criticized Bush recently, GOP National Committee Chairman Mark Racicot took him to task not for his specific remarks, but rather for "daring to suggest the replacement of America's commander in chief at a time when America is at war." The White House Web site's "frequently asked questions" section indicates that the "war" is expected to continue well beyond 2004: "...This broad-based and sustained effort will continue until terrorism is rooted out. The situation is similar to the Cold War, when continuous pressure from many nations caused Communism to collapse from within. We will press the fight as long as it takes."
The Cold War lasted 46 years; does Bush intend to remain in office that long?...
Bush may be the kind of guy who sees 99 percent odds as 2 percent short of a sure thing, but I bet he'll look at his $200 million campaign war chest and decide to let the people decide. He'll surely want to win legitimately in 2004 -- albeit for the first time. Though they're capable of anything, Bush's people probably know that Americans wouldn't stand for two putsches in four years. Still, you have to hand it to him: The fact that Democrats are terrified of ending up imprisoned by an American Reich is the ultimate tribute to Bush's artful bullying -- and sad confirmation of the impotence of his would-be, should-be opponents.
It's not until the end of his sensationalistic column that Rall acknowledges that the chances of the Bush regime canceling Election 2004 are actually quite slim.
I remembered this column of Rall's, even though it appeared months ago, because it's one of the looniest he's written.
Still, he makes some good points in the column, the take-home message of which, in his own words, is that "it would take the cancellation or delay of the elections to confirm that we are trading in our wounded democracy for a fascist state."
So, to my surprise, in his latest column, titled, "Cancel the Primaries: Time for Democrats to Rally Around Dean," Rall suggests, as the title suggests that he suggests, that we dispense with the Democratic primaries and just nominate already his pick, Howard Dean. (He endorsed Dean in his Nov. 25 column, stating that "Howard Dean has the best chance to beat Bush," but then failing to make a convincing case for that assertion. Deanies like Howard Dean viscerally, not logically, so it's difficult for them to construct logical arguments regarding his electability.)
Excerpts from "Cancel the Primaries":
Barring some unforeseeable misstep, Gov. Howard Dean will be the Democratic nominee.... Dean is the only contender with the cash, charisma and cajones to expel Generalissimo El Busho from the White House -- but he needs a unified party to pull it off.
Bush spent $100 million to beat John McCain in the 2000 GOP primaries.... Thanks to a unified Republican Party, Bush is running unopposed this time -- and saving his projected $170 million war chest for a barrage of TV spots between September and November.
"Even if Dean, the former Vermont governor, is able to match Bush dollar for dollar, he would start the general election far behind the president," reports The Christian Science Monitor. "Bush is hoarding his cash until it is clear who the Democratic nominee will be, while Dean, who has raised more than $25 million so far, has to spend furiously just to win the nomination."
Unless he doesn't.
What if the other Democratic candidates came together at a joint press conference to announce that they were dropping out of the race to endorse Dean? If nothing else, cash-starved states would love it -- the average primary costs taxpayers $7 million. More to the point, it would save Dean roughly $75 million -- enough to close the money gap with Bush....
The outcome of the Democratic primaries is now a foregone conclusion. Why should Dean and his fellow Democrats waste more than $100 million between them -- some estimates rise as high as $150 million -- to beat each other up over relatively minor differences of policy and tone? The DNC ought to read the business pages. Ours is an age of monopoly and amalgamation. Bigger wins over better except when better happens to also be big. Divided Democrats can't beat unified Republicans.
Rumor has it that Ralph Nader, whom I respect deeply as a man of integrity and intelligence and for whom I voted in 1996 and 2000, is mulling over another run. Nader should take a pass this time. Just this once, let's pull the left together. We can go back to tearing each other apart in December '04. I promise.
Once again, Rall makes points with which I agree. I, too, hope that Nader (for whom I, like Rall, voted in 2000) sits out 2004. That canceling the primaries would save the states and the nine Democratic presidential contenders millions of dollars is a point with which I cannot disagree. It would be nice if some of the nine Democratic contenders -- those who clearly can't win the nomination -- would drop out of the race, so that the Democratic debates could be real debates instead of something like "The Hollywood Squares," in which each participant doesn't get in much. However, it is the candidates' right to stick it out to the bitter end if they so choose.
But I disagree that Dean can beat Bush -- the national polls don't bear out the assertion that he can -- and I strongly oppose Rall's idea of coronating Dean the way "President" Bush was coronated because, Rall says, "The outcome of the Democratic primaries is now a foregone conclusion." (Under Rall's own "logic," why couldn't the Bush regime argue at some point that "the outcome of the 2004 presidential election is now a foregone conclusion" and that scrapping it would save millions of dollars?)
Dean needs to earn the nomination, not be handed it on a silver platter. He needs to go through the process, like everyone else, even if his victory appears inevitable. He'll have a tough time getting my wholehearted support even if he wins the Democratic presidential nomination fairly and squarely; if he doesn't at least get the nomination the old-fashioned way -- by earning it -- then he won't have my support at all, and I'm sure that I speak for millions of others.
It's called democracy, and yes, democracy costs millions of dollars to administer. But it's worth it, because the alternative to democratically elected leaders is people like George W. Bush, who don't feel the need to win the most number of votes to take office.
And, as a wise columnist once wrote, "it would take the cancellation or delay of the elections to confirm that we are trading in our wounded democracy for a fascist state."
7:28:26 PM 
|
