Tuesday, January 07, 2003

Thank you Public Citizen for contributing, you have certainly made BMA more readworthy in your post. Some food for thought;

Yeah, Compassionate Conservativism is a just a marketing thing. Instead of ridiculing or making fun of the homeless the way Reagan did, Bush II the Sequel says the right things (Remember his speech at Notre Dame in May 2001 about giving the poor more opportunity or take a look at the most statement he made in the latest issue of US News & World Report) but it does pretty much the same thing as previous GOP administrations have done. One need only look at Slate's article by William Saletan on the Bush II's most recent attempt to rename something in order to change it's appeal (estate tax good - death tax bad). He's even trying to use the elderly as a reason to cut taxes on divideds paid by stock. What, now all the elderly are the ones who need help? Of course not, but the cut in divideds taxes will give money back to people who need it the least. Reminds me of my whole patagonian toothfish vs. chilean sea bass blog entry back on November. Sometimes a good name is all you need to fool the masses.

My expectations are less than zero with this administration, and yet they still manage to underwhelm me. What do you expect from the "Mayberry Michiavellis"?

As far as funding for family planning all I can say is that despite your disgust, Rove knows what he's doing. He knows that by cutting funding for World Family Planning he appeases the Religious Right, being that they are the GOP's solid base, while ruffling as few feathers at home, preventing an all out galvanizination of even the most casual NOW empathiser. As far as your "only consolation" of losing the "all important white suburban woman voter goodbye in the next election", I hate to say it but for all the women that belong in this category probably won't change their vote based on this information. As for the population at large, most people who know about this issue probably care greatly about it too - those who voted against Bush in 2000 will vote against Bush in 2004 - those who voted in favor of Bush 2000 will continue to do the same for 2004. As for the rest of the casual voter at large, they won't be affected by this because they either don't know about what you're talking about, don't care or both.

All of this brings up a good point that I have frequently thought about but have yet to come to any kind of real conclusion about. You realize that all the people that blog and discuss politics as passionately as you, myself and others (political spectrum they come from being irrelevant) are not the average citizen. My mom, the people I work with, those are the majority of voters out there. The average American is easliy agravated by US politics and looks at the big picture, not if women in Mozambique are able to get birth control. If we were the typical voter, the conflict in Florida would have been between Gore and Nader, not Gore and Bush. I do my best not to be too egocentric, but don't always do a very good job.

Argh! There's not enough time to say everything I wanted to damnit! It's too late, and my girlfriend will be pissed I'm not home yet. I'll continue this later. But again I am so glad you posted, please continue to rant and rave here. Your post has generated more food for thought than I had hoped for. Hasta la Manana.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home