Had an interesting discussion with my boss about "Memogate" today....

Some background: I'm a cook, and I work at a restaurant in Chicago. My boss (the chef) is an American Indian who is definitely not as liberal as I am, but hates the Conservative Movement....I guess you'd say he's kind of a fencesitter; he chided me on the DemocraticUnderground sticker on my bike in the spirit of "bipartisanship" and can't stand it when I go off too much on republicans. At the moment he's reading "What's the Matter with Kansas?" but is planning on buying Sean Hannity's new one for "balance." (I know, I know...anyway!)

Anyway, so he brings up the Dan Rather story today. He says that the memos were obvious forgeries and that it was stupid for CBS to run with the story.


I told him that Rather was set up by Rove and Roger Stone and that Rather was given "questionable" memos to discredit the media and prevent further investigations into Bush's past.

He looked at me kind of strangely and said, "If that's true, that's one of the most brilliant political maneuvers anyone has ever made."

I was taken aback. I told him, "you know, that's what's wrong with how Americans and conservatives in particular approach politics. It's not a game. It shouldn't just be about 'winning.' After all, these aren't pieces on a chessboard, these are people's lives we're talking about. To think of elections as games where the more cunning and devious player wins is ultimately destructive."

"Bullshit!" he says. "That's why the Democrats keep losing. They don't have the same cutthroat attitude that the republicans do."

"No. The Democrats keep losing because the system is rigged."

There was silence, and the subject was changed.

Still, this idea that politics is some game, like Monopoly or Stratego, is very disturbing. It's what you do AFTER you win or lose that determines the worth of the players, not the winning of the contest itself. The side which uses their newfound power to do the most good for the greatest amount of people should be the side that comes out looking the best.

But maybe this IS the right approach; the trouble is that in viewing the political stage as a giant checkerboard and not considering the human ramifications, one runs the risk of losing one's ideals.

Having said that, I DO agree that it's time the Dems started fighting, using all the power in their arsenal, because this election is for all the marbles.

Anyhow, that's what happened at work today. Hows about you?

when I was really little. "Son, fighting is a strange thing. Just make sure that when you fight, it's really worth it, AND YOU FIGHT TO WIN."

I just hope we don't get too fixated on the fight itself and lose sight of why we're fighting: because we're the good guys.

n/t

Nice guys finish last. You don't have to be nice to be good.

And when he said the D's keep losing, you should have told him that Al Gore received more votes than Bush. That is not losing.

My boss is kind of prone to anger. And I don't want to really piss him off....

But I think he does realize the truth behind "the system is rigged." He knows about 2000. He just is obsessed with maintaining the apprearance of magnanimity at the expense of truth and justice, like far too many Americans. (And like me, I guess, who won't debate too heavily because he wants to keep his job!)

That not only is the game rigged, but Republicans put party over country? Isn't a true patriot the one who doesn't want the "win" at any cost if it will harm the nation? You could cite the Republican senators who are speaking out against Bush now as an example of "magnanimity" in thinking of the nation's good rather than their party's (or Bush's).

When I first started working there, he wouldn't get into political discussions out of ignorance, but since picking up "What's the Matter with Kansas?" he's starting to come around, slowly.

this attitude is in corporation too....this is why it is not a democracy anymore - it is corporate owned...

this is why so many countries are against imperialism.

imperialism does not care about people - only cares about bottom line

Not only is it a game, but it's a game that has nothing to do with governing. Being good at this game is totally unrelated to being good at actually governing -- actually, if it is related, it's related inversely, since the substance of this game is manipulation, deception and propaganda.

Being adept at winning elections doesn't make one an adequate servant of the people; winning elections through manipulation and underhanded dealing like Nixon and Rove.....I mean, what's the difference between these guys and, say, Saddam Hussein, who claimed 100% of the vote in his last "election?" They're using the same tactics: fear, manipulation, and craven bloviating*.



(*: After poring through some Regnery titles at the bookstore, I've realized that this is the conservative author's favorite word: "bloviating.")

our side has been unaware of the true nature of the attacks for too long.
We do need to fight hard, but I don't think we need to resort to the "low cunning" tactics of Rove. I don't actually think this ploy was that brilliant, he and others have used it before.
If this is the end of the story then I do think CBS was sloppy, or worse.
You don't have to be brilliant when the "game" is rigged for you. Especially when you have a huge industry cheerleading for your side and calling you brilliant.
Our side has the best weapon available: truth. All we have to do is tell the truth about these people every chance we get to everyone we know. They are common thugs and looters, and we've got the history and data to prove it.
All we have to do is quote their own words to people who've never heard them. That's why F/911 was so effective. And there are plenty more movies/books/web sites where that came from.
Sounds like you're doing a good job, keep up the good work!

Kerry was smart in not calling Burkett back; if the right somehow makes it seem that Kerry was complicit in the creation of the memo story, we'll know they're lying.

Actually, there's a simpler test to tell whether a wing-nut is lying; it's called the "lips" test.

Democrats have been living in their idealized world of "fair play politics" for too long. That was the reason for the 2002 mid-term trouncing democrats got from the reThugs. Democrats had better start to respond in kind and with more intensity else democrats will be run out of the country completely. Didn't the she-man "Ann Coulter" hint that the reThugs want to do that?

I remember Phil Gramm's comment too, about hunting down the last American Democrats with dogs. Charming.

It's true, we DO have to wallow in the mud with the pigs....but we can't, in so doing, forget that there is a moral purpose behind the wallowing. The right has the bible, the book that forgives all slimers, as their higher moral purpose; we have a common but unspoken sense of fairness and decency that is not (completely) bound by cosmology.

is that a politician makes himself the most important feature, while a statesman makes his nation the most important feature.

Bush is a politician, as are all the other scumbags he has around him who could give a shit about policy and only care about politics.

He does not deserve to be the president of this great nation.

Especially at this time when we need a great statesman who can lead our country through a difficult time as we learn how to preserve our democracy and fight terrorism.

Using game and sport metaphors for our national elections makes the idea of compromise seem impossible, even though it's often in the best interests of all in this nation to do so....so tell your "wants to be even-handed" boss that he is cheapening the entire basis of our reason for being as a nation to think that winning is all that matters.

I'm sure Hitler was a brilliant politician, too, (and I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler, just using a horrible example of someone who was a master politician).

Mussolini appealed to his countrymen's patriotism and tradition of excellence in the arts and culture to gain power (oh, and violent force, too!), but ended up manily using that power to venerate himself. Politician all the way.

Kerry strikes me as a statesman.....but in order to win, he needs to wear the coat of a politician for a while.

There are a good many I know who treat political ideology as if they supporting a football team. In fact, nearly every single one of them is hoping that Bush pulls out an October Surprise (notwithstanding the fact that it would necessarily entail mass deception of the public).

...would defend this kind of dirty game playing. It's not as though the Indians have benefited from all the "games" that have been played on them.

You'd think he'd be pretty sensitive to encroaching despotism.

I don't get it either. That's why it's a good thing that he's reading "What's the Matter with Kansas?" so he can get an idea of why the repugs consistently get people to vote against their own interests.