I haven’t written on here in a while, but figured I’d break back into it…
Taking the focus off of the gubernatorial race for a minute, let’s take a second to reflect on the political implications of North Korea’s recent nuclear testing. Granted, this is a major concern for the world community, and has dire implications for stability in the far east. I don’t think anyone disputes that. BUT, what kind of implications does it have for the mid-term elections in November? I’m interested in peoples’ thoughts. Here are some things to consider.
This situation gives the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans the opportunity to do two things:
1. Allows them to flex muscle and prove that they don’t take any flack from rogue nations that seek to defy the will of the United States. It basically gives Reps the opportunity to do what they proclaim to do best, and that is to protect the United States.
2. It ALSO is an opportunity to show how this administration can garner unilateral support against nuclear testing in North Korea. This means that the Bush administration can lay claim to imposing harsh consequences on Pyongyang, and having nearly the entire world community on its side. Bush and Reps can say “Look at us…we can do the right thing AND cooperate with our neighbors from across the sea!”
Now I don’t mean to politicize such a volatile situation. It extends far past politics. But, I’m curious about peoples’ thoughts in this whole situation. Is this situation something that will help the Republicans in the next month or not? Can the Dems use this situation to their advantage?
The timing of this is bad for Bush in one respect: the Democrats in Congress are, for a change, energized and vocal. With Bush’s approval in the 30’s, he’s not getting a free ride like he did when he got us into Iraq. And voters won’t automatically take his side — at least one of the recent polls showed more faith in Democrats than in Republicans across the board, including fighting terrorism.
<
p>
Also, I think this does give Bush an opportunity to slightly improve his image, but it’s less of an opportunity for members of Congress. Maybe it revives the Republicans’ fundraising somewhat.
<
p> – Dan
Who knows, more pyrite may be there!
<
p>
EVENTS HAPPEN IN THE WORLD WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTIONS.
<
p>
Say it before bedtime…
I think there are a couple of ways this gets viewed by voters that are not favorable for Bush or the Republicans, both fueled by disatisfaction with the Iraq war.
<
p>
First, there is the idea that while the US was preoccupied with overthrowing a government in Iraq which we now know had now WMD (and apparently no program to develop WMD’s), we allowed a dictator with known nuclear ambitions develop a nuclear program with little real protest. Now, the US is stretched so thin and wary of fighting, therefore limiting our ability to react to these tests. So, essentially, we focused on the wrong guy (be it for oil, to finish what Bush I started, whatever). A variation of this argument also can be applied to Iran (that we became so preoccupied with Iraq, we didn’t look at the ramifications and essentially created the conditions to allow Iran to step up as a major problem for the US).
<
p>
Second, there are a lot of similarities between North Korea and Iraq (or at least what we were told about Iraq) and yet the response is different (and Bush has admitted as much). Both are countries run by dictators who have shown little regard for the well being of their people and do not act according to traditonal international norms. North Korea might have nuclear weapons and Iraq supposedly had WMD’s. Both pose a menace to neighbors who are allies of the US (Israel/Saudi Arabia/Kuwait and Japan/South Korea). Both have expressed strong anti-American sentiments. However, with the Iraq situation, the US paid lip service to international diplomatic efforts and then with minimal international support invaded Iraq with the express purpose of regime change. In North Korea, Bush has repeatedly ad nauseum that the US will not invade and that the only possible scenario is diplomatic efforts. In fact, the US isn’t really willing to hold bilateral talks but is seeking the continuation of the six party talks. Bush claims that each situation is different and therein lies the different US response to these situations, but he really doesn’t point out exactly how the situations are different and why those differences would require the different responses.
<
p>
I could be wrong, but I believe given fatigue over the Iraq situation and the worsening situation in Afghanistan, as well as a growing feeling that maybe the US isn’t safer under Bush, but in fact his policies have increased the danger to US citizens, that focusing on a new threat to our security won’t be the usual boon it is to republicans.
“If you could go back in time, to the moment of the Cuban Missle Crisis, would you replace JFK with George W. Bush, or any one of today’s Republicans?”
<
p>
Repeat relentlessly until Election Day.
Most of the participants here can understand the use of the hypothetical, analogies, irony, etc. I don’t think that anyone should dumb down what they say here, just because the only tools some chickens–t posters have are ridicule and intimidation.
<
p>
And when Americans finally take back their country, you can bet our time travel project won’t be as ridiculous — or as ridiculously expensive — as the “Star Wars” missle defense system.