Washington File

Money is not the problem! Money is just a symptom too! If money was the problem, then money would be the reason why the problem exists. Right? Money would be the one and only answer to all the questions which plague us. And so money would not raise even one more question!

But that ain't the case! If money is the ultimate reason, then why have I always wondered:

Why and how can so many, so-called, freedom-loving, hyper-independant, exremely well-armed, well-fed people be bought?

Lack of, or bad education, you say?

Where were their parents? I mean their freedom-loving, hyper-independant, exremely well-armed, well-fed parents?

Is ignorance and apathy a natural American cultural trait? Then why is America the only nation on Earth to have ever been to the Moon - 6 TIMES!!!?

It's more than just money! The Americans all know that money talks! ALL OF THEM!

So why do all these so-called, freedom-loving, hyper-independant, exremely well-armed, well-fed, been-to-the-Moon-6-times-people ALLOW money to talk for them, when they can see that money-politics is DESTROYING their country?

Oh, and um, why are we letting money talk for us in Canada? I thought we weren't like Americans! Isn't that one of our most favourite ways of defining ourselves?

No, money ain't the problem. This is going to sound totally corny, but: Look within, and look around.

OOPS! I forgot, this dicussion is about politics! The answer lies with someone else! Right? That's what we need, right? Someone to lead us! Someone who will make us rich!

Like him! And his friends!

Hey R.B. Glennie:

glad you too have an opinion. one of the aspects of these places is to express and learn.
thanks

@Jerry

Perhaps when the Democrats have been in charge for more than a year, we can start criticising their flaws. Give them time to screw up first, ok? :)

While there is plenty of time before the election, this is likely going to be a problem for the Republicans. Right now they're suffering from the same thing the Dems were before, lack of focus. As long as this group can't pick their "champion", voters will have to decide based on their own info, instead of looking to the group for guidance. This will split the vote enough that whichever Dem candidate gets the nomination will get in.

If the group manager to eat some humble pie and allow a Rep candidate with *some* ideological flaws, then they'll have a better chance of mobilising the flock to get behind said candidate.

After 13 years controlling the congress and 7 years in the white house. There are a lot to talk about the conservatives. When Mr. Bush came to Washington; he promised to clean up Washington and the White House !! He promissed to be humble dealing with the other countries !! The congress had a contract with the Americans. Let us discuss these matters so there will be no broken promises in the future from both sides.

Why is someone considered a strong leader only if they aspouse a hard ideoplogy, whether left or right, and force it down the throats of the populace but a moderate who tries to find consensus is considered weak and a poll watcher.

I would argue that true moderates display more leadership qualities than ideologs cause their task of trying to bring people together in such a diverse society as N. America is much harder.

Now on the topic at hand, the Christian right, to me, is just as insane as any Islamic fanatic, they all share the same fanatical traits and opinions. They are a potent force, however the real power rests with the super rich, the plutocracy if you will.

Every major social force in our times, globalisation, the rise of corporations etc. is to the benefit of the plutocracy and to the detriment of the masses. Elections are a mere formality because all parties are funded by the same sources, all politicians are indebted to the same people.

They control the media, the politicians, the corporations, and they control the leadership of the christian right. There is a lot of money in convincing granny to donate her month's pension to the church, but nowhere near what the elite can give.

As several people have said, the conservatives pay lip service to the religious right to get elected but forget those promises once in office. Given that this cycle has been repeated over and over why is it that the religious right's leaders still support a party that has betrayed them so many time before...MONEY!!!

Wow! Somebody really needs to pay attention, and maybe rethink a statement.
C'mon, you really think Canada is to the Right of the U.S.
I have a real hard time swallowing that one. Canada is what you could call, North America's Socialist experiment. What your seeing is a backlash to over Governing, over taxing, and immunity to responsibility. It's a failed social experiment.
Refusing to accept socialism, does'nt mean we have gone to the far side of the spectrum, although to some it may seem that way. A fair assesment would be, Canadians outside of the Ivory Towers may be slowly reverting back to the Left of Centre.
It would be nice if we could cross the forbidden aisle and reduce the size of Government though. Maybe a few more stingings from the Left might be enough to push us to the Middle and we can work from there.

Henry, just for a change of pace, why don't you switch fire from the Rebublicans, whom you love to hate, to Nancy Pelosi John Murtha and company. After all the Dems are now in charge of Congress. Surely you can find something negative in such a vast and easy target. You have all but convinced your readers that Bush is the devil and Christians are fascists,(not that it took much convincing) so surpise us with a little fair play and evenhandedness.

Ah! Equality! What a concept! And that is all it is, Chris. Equality is a human concept, which works, is right, but is often misinterpreted, and is therfore mistakenly refered to when trying to defend one's failings, or patheticly, one's lack of talent. Equality: Let the feild be level! Let us be given the same chances! The same dignity! The same rights! The same social safety net! After that, let us all give our best! And may the best person win! And be given that which they have earned! And then, let us strive again to be our best, regardless of whether we out on top! There is dignity and worth in a job done to one's best ability! I am not afraid of such conditions! I don't think they are unfair! If you disagree, please explain! My proof: When I was a boy, there were flea markets where my parents could buy my older brother a pair of old skates which could later be handed down to me. And there were free, out-door rinks, and volunteer coaches, and so on... My point: I had the same chances as Gretsky or anyone else who made it to the NHL. And yet, I did not. See what I mean? For me to complain that an unfairnes has occured because I never made it to the NHL is ludicrous, don't you think? Just like it is ludicrous for anyone to heap vitrol on George W Bush, and not on Hu, nor Putin, nor Assad, nor any other world leader whose hands are dripping in blood! They are all in the same position: At the top! Their people are their responsibility! And so too are good relations with the other nations of the World. Right? But when the president of America does not do right by his people, and hurts other people in the World, he is condemned. And yet, when a dictator keeps his people in long-term starvation, and threatens his neighbors with nukes, he is considered a man to be reasoned with! That's not fair! Equality cannot exist without fairness. If you disagree, please explain! Equality! What a concept! Problem is, it only works when it is EQUALY applied!

Chris Hedges' book "American Fascists" affords a bone-chilling picture of just what the "Christian Right" really wants. Hedges explains with potent examples that Dominionism is a real, insidious danger and a complete perversion of Christianity. If Pat Robertson's comment about "taking out" Chavez (August 22, 2005) isn't a clear indication that these people are incapable of using power responsibly, what is? Let's hope these rapture/apocalypse lunatics don't win again in 2008. After 7 years of this insanity, it's hard to remember what the old, reasonable America used to look like.

The problem with the U.S. electoral system is that it doesn't work. It's been hijacked by money. The economic elites who control the big financial houses, the military industrial complex and the media also control both political parties to a substantial degree. If you're not supported by big money, and the only press you get is bad press, you have a tough row to hoe. The religous right is only one of three elements of American society that is exploited to support the status quo socioeconomic regime. Jingoistic nationalists/tough on terror/crime is a second, and the third element is those who believe the Washington Consensus economic/foreign policy sophistry spouted by propaganda mills like the American Enterprise Institute.
All three of these themes, nationalism, religion, and neoliberal economic ideology are encouraged as part of what's been termed 'the engineering of consent'. Political leaders, obeying their moneyed kingmakers, consider the religous right as a means to an end. Joe Churchgoer should eventually realize that the social, economic, and foreign policies being increasingly, and more violently imposed not just on Americans, but all over the world end up resulting in terribly injustices, exploitations.

Jeff Wilson makes a great point. To expand on it I would offer this.
First off, reality is we are not all equal. Some are going to blow their lid ,but the fantasy that we are, is totally unrealistic. Some are smarter, faster, stronger, more attractive, wealthier, etc. This is where the problem lies. Whether it be jealousy, lack of confidence, a feeling of being deprived or whatever drives this nonsense, I do not claim to know.
The fact is the U.S. is a Superpower, an easy target for this type of thing. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If they do something, they are under constant critisism. If they do nothing, the same is bestowed upon them.
If your a wealthy person in your city and you donate to the community, your labelled as buying status or friends or power. If you don't donate, your called a cheap SOB.
If your a boss, and you make rules to follow, and make changes to better the company, your a jerk, but if you don't, then it's said you do nothing all day but sit on your rear.
Oil companies are out to kill us, the rich don't care about the poor, car companies owe us a lifetime job, whatever the expectation or the fear, I doubt it will ever change.
If the passivists have their way, however it may. I'm sure they would then realize it would be much better to have the U.S. as a Superpower than the other options out there, regardless of which party was in power.
Only then will the U.S. be relieved from their unrelenting and unappreciative lashings.
Until then, we'll be stuck with the same people whining about the same thing. One positive is, we might actually find a few patriots in the process.

I can see a situation developing in which Canada is socially and politically to the right of the USA, and frustrated American fascists are coming here to revel. And preach.

The problem (which other anglo countries seem to share) is the adherence to an over-simplified and unnatural "left vs. right" axis of choice. In the US, both the Republicans and Democrats are trying to hold together alliances of groups that may often have nothing much in common. Who says those who believe in laissez-fair economics want anything to do with the "Christian Right"? Who says the social conservatives want to cut loose the poor, or undermine the UN? Who says those who are anti-crime/pro-cop are always favorable to the gun lobby, or are tax-cutters? Yet, all of these have been Republican positions at some point. They stick with each other out of poltical habit. The assumption they can only ever have a 2-party system is what forces this unnatural marriage of positions into one (inconsistent) political movement. (And the Democrats' "American left" just as fractured.) Example: Pat Buchanan - a consistent social conservative, but the Republican party has no place for a man who also says corporations are too powerful and free trade is a bad idea. Having only 2 parties along one axis of political choice is what limits them all. Still, I have a feeling the US christian right will find someone soon to carry their banner in the republican race (perhaps Jeb Bush?).

McCain can "rush to the altar" all he wants. He can say stupid things too. Even if he gets the Republican presidential nomination, he will not be the next president. The Republican's only hope is Giuliani (He turned New York City around for the LONG-TERM better. REALLY!). But I don't think he'll win in '08 either. There is way too much uselessly spent blood on Republican hands for Americans to give the Republicans the White House for another 4 years! That being said, if the Democrats try to repeat the same: all-spout, do-nothing style leadership like president Clinton (and Chretien, and Martin, for that matter!!) in what are going to be very trying, solution-demanding times ahead, then we may very well see Mr. Giuliano in the White House in 2012. Americans are historicaly known take a step back, to reassess their decissions, if it isn't working. But history also teaches us that Americans never allow themselves to be stomped on! Never! If the Democrats want to keep the White House for more than 4 years, they will to have to find someone who will be, in the eyes of America, FAIR, BUT FIRM - to America to the World! Who in America can fit that bill? Mr Champ, do you see anyone, anyone at all that can be the kind of president that America (and, some would say: the World) needs right now? Anyone? If not, perhaps you could start writing articles that begin to explain how such a remarkable country like America, with so much promise, began to be lead by such unfit presidents. Maybe then, we Canadians will do what we have always done: Learn from America's mistakes, and so prevent them. You don't have to bite off the head of the snake in the first article. I'd just like someone to start - cuz there is a most pressing need for an answer! Voter apathy is only a symptom! The question is: Why do political parties choose the unfit as their candidates to lead their country which they claim to love so much? How? Dig, Mr. Champ, dig!

Well, hang on a sec. "Republican candidates do not appear to be rushing to the altar" of the Christian Right, yet "[a]lmost every Republican in the race has come a-wooin,' including McCain"?

McCain has shown signs of willingness to betray the few principles he didn't abandon in 2004 by stumping for Bush. His current claims to have been prescient about problems in Iraq are interesting compared to his post hoc cheerleading for the invasion in 2004. Think we'll see the media stomp him for "flip-flopping"? Not on your life.

How about his claims to stand up for science education in the past, followed now by his trip to the "Discovery Institute" to polish the anti-science creationist crowd? His sudden 180 on abortion?

1999: "In the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

10 days ago: "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."

On Donald Rumsfeld, in 2006: "He deserves Americans' respect and gratitude for his many years of public service."

2007: "Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."

And so forth. Yet somehow those darned liberals will be the opportunistic flip-floppers, while Straight-Talk John gets a free pass on his attempts to pander to the hardest-core right wingers. Yuck.

So the "fascist theocracy" influences secular political outcomes does it? Why, I'm shocked. Shocked and appalled, in fact. But really, what else is new? We've watched the rise of christian fundamentalism for a long time now, years upon years, in fact. Christian leaders such as Falwell and Jones lead huge masses of voters who hang on their every word. It's possible a few of their flock would vote their own way in an election but I imagine the majority would probably toe the line. It really is appalling to watch as otherwise normal looking people fall on their knees, or go into convulsions, weep and scream and make absolute fools of themselves on evangelical TV shows, but it's all there in living colour. The exact same cult of personality that tyrants, dictators and religious frauds have all depended upon to achieve their own dominance over the masses is all right there in front of our eyes. We deride Muslems fanatics when we're guilty of the same type of mindless fanaticism. Frank Zappa once warned about the growing power of the "fascist theocracy" in the US and how it would drive the future course of events by capturing the political process. So far as I can see he was dead right on. there hasn't been anything in recent years to suggest that saner minds will prevail either, so be afraid. Be very afraid.

"Secondary Virginity" - I like that. Crazy spending in the social department? Gee, why would Bush want to do that when he could spend crazily in the war department?

Fascinating!

Religious zealots in America can't find a political leader! And even if they could, he'd lose!

Meanwhile, in the Middle East and North Africa, religious zealots have absolutely no trouble at all finding political leaders! And they pick winners too!

Fascinating, don't you think?

If a secular, moderate politician from a secular, moderate political party becomes the next president of the United States of America, and then acts accordingly, will the sustained, vitriolic, world-wide criticizm now being leveled at the US administration precisely becuase of its zealously religious, aggresive ways, be swung about to be leveled at all the other, zealously religious, aggressive adminstrations and influential political parties still in the world?

Somehow, I doubt it. Excuses from the world's other leaders for their excesses always seem to fly with the world's critical. But never the excuses from the President of the USA. It's like we actualy do expect more from an American leader in terms of mind-set and resulting actions, than we do from leaders of other nationalities. Haven't you ever had that feeling?

Why is this? I thought we were all equal.

With any luck, this "secretive christian conclave" will never have a candidate for presidency of the the United States wooing them ever again. These people represent so much that is wrong with modern America it is terrifying that they are even classified as "conservative" because that only lends legitimacy to what amounts to an intolerant cult.

Running a nation (and especially the single world superpower) is not something that should ever include pandering to illogical, irrational, fanatical groups bent on twisting domestic and international policy toward their particular brand of religious belief. The very idea that we could have a nuclear armed and obviously agressive religious state on our hands is supposedly why we are now hearing so much about the "threat from Iran". Moving that scenario into an American context is mind blowingly dangerous and truly disgusting when compared to the principles upon which the nation is founded.

Thankfully, it appears that the short sighted and often ignorant hard right/evangelical policies of the last few years under W may be coming to an end for now. I just hope that the next president has to sense to see the christian right as exactly what they are. Radical, unreasonable people who represent a bleak future and in the end, a significant danger to the world.

The Christian right in the U.S. has a "right to its rites," -- and its opinions on issues like abortion and gay marriage. But it should not be a player in mainstream electoral politics. What is it about the separation of church and state that it doesn't understand?

In western democracies, citizens have a right to practice their own religious beliefs. In my view, an individual's religious beliefs may colour his/her actions at the ballot box but I am against religious organizations participating in the electoral process.

The interest of Bush the younger & elder, Reagan and any other American conservative in the so-called Christian Right is today, and always was, about collecting enough votes to get into office...

Once this was accomplished, so-called "evangelical" politicians promptly forgot about every promise they made to the so-called Chrstian Right: abortion, not banned; homosexuality, not banned; school prayer, not reinstituted (except for when this involves Muslim prayers); the Pledge of Allegiance, not reinstituted; women, not forced back into the kitchen; pornography, more freedly available than ever... the list goes on and on...

and by the way, Mr. Steven Van, the so-called Christian Right was very divided as to suppport "Invasions" such as the Iraqi War. One prominent Christian preacher, who used to spend his time outside funeral parlours during services for AIDS victims, bearing placards reading "God hates f*gs", now spends his time insulting and harassing families of the fallen from Afghanistan and Iraq...

Please educate yourself before you expose your prejudices to the rest of us...

thanks
R.B. Glennie

i think conservatives that supported Bush have finally discovered that campaigning isn't governing. The USA has to endure some very difficult times under Bush's leadership, some of these by their own design and choosing. others were the normal unforseen challenges that land in the lap of administrations of any political stripe. they have underperformed at every turn, including on the files on which they campaigned and won support from the christian right. pandering to the middle is the only thing left for this lame duck president to keep his approval ratings high enough to maintain at least the image of leadership credibility. his only problem was he campaigned on such a platform of extremities that the mainstream doesn't want him to do anything but a 180 on almost all of the policies that got him in office. representing all americans as their president is proving a much more daunting task than he ever thought. representing a small, but very powerfully vocal percentage of the electorate was much easier for the Bush 2 administration and frankly, it suits his presidential style a lot more than pretending to represent the whole country in the last throes of his presidency.

the king-making party just may not happen...the question now is, will there be an election in 2008 if Bush goes into Iran? He may change the US Constitution to keep himself in power indefinitely until the end of hostilities, but that probably wouldn't be too difficult considering the skill he used to pull the wool over most American media and voters to illegally invade Iraq.

The are no traditional hard right candidates developing for the 2008 US Presidential election because the conservative base has been fragmented by the excesses and overreaching of the Bush administration. Just as Bush has driven foreign opinion of the United States to a new low, he has also robbed the right wing of legitimacy. The conservative base is now at about 20% of the electorate, not far from the same percentage the "Christian right" draws. There is substantial overlap of the two groups.

The 2008 election probably will result in the election of a moderate, since there are also no strongly left wing candidates.

All one has to do is look at the disaterous results that the Right Wing(Bush) and its base of Christian Right Wing have brought onto the world by their funding of Invasions that have destroyed so many lives.
People don't want to go down that path anymore. It has misled them and caused too many divisions amoung society and left too many people to suffer in despair around the world. Its all part of that big Oil and God stuff.

Maybe thats why the U.S. has moved towards the Democrats .. and for good reason.
here in Canada, we are facing a very disturbing future under the Conservative Government with its ideology and politicizing of the judiciary and the cuts to programs that allow for Equality and Freedoms.

Society cannot stay stuck in such a death wish under Right Wing ideologies.

Our instinct to survive pulls us away from those destructive pathways. We need to move forward and evolve and let go of and put to rest historical pratices like that of the Bush /Harper agendas.

Hey Henry,
Great topic. I have to agree with you on the "long memory" comment. Some posters seem to have very short ones when it comes to recalling the other Presidents and Prime Ministers.
Getting on to the topic, in my opinion with so many potential votes lying on the left side of the fence and down the middle of the isle, a solid Conservative, I would suspect will be very hard to find this time around. The party, I think is being way too cautious. They always seem to forget what wins them elections. Getting back to their core beliefs and their Base.
Some have accused me of being a Bush defender, but he is far from my hero. I like to think I promote reality instead. Bush won by selling to the base, but then went crazy on spending in the social department, he disappoints many on immigration, and the most disappointing is his expansion of Government. He is Right Wing on many other issues, but all in all Bush has abandoned his base and slid towards the centre.
Of course to the Liberal/Democrat crowd he is still viewed as a Right Wing Neo-Con but that is not the view of a true Conservative. To the Conservative crowd he has been a huge letdown.
The Conservatives need to find a back to basics, stand up, inspiring figure who does not govern by influence or poles. A true leader that will stick to his/her base and core values. A tall order, I know. If they can do that, this person will aquire the full backing of their party and the ones who want to vote for Conservative leadership. Until then I'm afraid the U.S. will be stuck with a Moderate, or what I like to call, a fence sitter. A person who waits to see what the polls say, makes a kneejerk decision, and then calls it leadership. This type of Government lacks vision and leadership. You simply cannot Govern by skewed polls in either direction.
In closing I think we can all agree that it's either going to be a Left leaning Moderate or a Right leaning Moderate this time around. Sad but true. A dismal term