While I usually consider Scott's coverage of Things Dubya and Republican to be more than a bit over the top, I share his disgust with (alleged) plans to have the cornerstone laying of the new WTC site held during the Republican National Convention 2004 in NYC.

Heavy-handed politicizing of an event like that is not going to serve the GOP, or the President, well. Nor should it. People who would be impressed by it are probably already solidly in Bush's camp. People who are against Bush are just going to be further polarized. And those riding the fence are just as likely to be disgusted enough to, if not vote for whatever hypothetical Dem is running, then simply sit things out.

Americans are very secular. But they also have a profound sense of the sacred. You risk offending that at your political peril.

Filed under :: 9-11 :: Politics & Law
Link · Print · Edit · TR/G

This is both sickening and unsurprising. Unfortunately, Dave, I don't share your view about the reaction of fence-riders - if there are still any left in this country. The GOP knows they can still get huge mileage making GWB the "rebuilder." Americans are emotional and have little or no memory. The administration has been skillful in exploiting those qualities, and I don't see that stopping any time soon.

And the "Americans are stupid sheep, except for me and my close circle of buddies" contingent speaks. Now excuse me, I'm going to go light a candle on my shrine to Dubya and then order fifteen more pictures of big-eyed children on Ebay. That's what us 'Murcans do, yah know.

From Adam J.: "Americans are emotional and have little or no memory."

Excuse me? Americans have a greater regard for their history and the principles that guide their polity than any other nation on Earth. Is Adam an American, or does he just play one on the Internet?

There are any number of Europeans (and a few Asians) who'd make such a claim, but the irony of it is extraordinary. Revealing their inability to grasp necessary distinctions, they confuse having history with respecting history, and emotional decision-making with emotional reaction. And, I'd say, so does Adam.

Adam, I have to disagree. I don't think Americans, as a whole, are so easily manipulated as you fear. And, frankly, if we are, we deserve what we get.

Btw, I've not yet come up with any conclusive schedule confirming the above synchronicity.

Ms. Porretto, exactly where is your evidence that Americans -- citizens of a county barely 300 years old -- have greater regard for their history than other nations? Is it based on test scores? Gallup polls? Whatever you felt like saying at the time.

Americans *do* remember things like Vietnam and the Civil War and the other big-ticket items. However, knowing terms and having opinions about them doesn't translate to having an informed long-view of historical events.

And if Iraq is any indication, we're doing just fine on the repeating history tip.

Andrea: how nice for you that you know that you and your friends are the smart ones and *we're* the idiots. You wanna know how smart the American public is: Ask them if Saddam Hussein blew up the World Trade Center. At last count, plenty of them thought so.

Hm. John asks if Francis got his data from "test scores, Gallup polls" and so on -- and then he makes the claim that "plenty of Americans" thought that Saddam Hussein blew up the World Trade Center... something that I believe someone claimed to have extrapolated from a poll.

Whatever, man. I don't read polls. I do know that from my personal obvservation in my own community (listening to conversations and actually talking to live people in the Central Florida area) people here still seem to be aware that Osama bin Laden was behind the Trade Center attack, that most of the terrorists in that attack were from Saudi Arabia like Bin Laden, and that Saddam Hussein was the dictator of Iraq, a different country. I haven't interviewed them in depth, however. Maybe there are "plenty" of Americans who are a tad confused over just what is going on re the Middle East. That isn't any excuse to call the entire American population, all 275+ million of us, ignorant children, which is Adam's stance. (Insofar as his tossed-off quip can be called "a stance.")

By the way, that's a really lame attempt to turn my own argument against me. Adam -- and you, John -- are the ones claiming to be smarter than the bulk of the population of America, not me. Did I say that you were idiots and I was the smart one? No -- you said that yourself. Okay, if you say so.

Apologies to Dave for turning his comments forum into a bitchfest, but I couldn't let this sort of nonsense just slide.

I think that Team Bush could pull it off. Look at their track record. A huge load of smug, divinely-anointed (they think), triumphalist GOP neocon ideologues though.... heh.

No problem. Let me just -- ah -- remove the lamp from the end table there. And -- excuse me -- move that crystal knick-nack from within reach -- and -- ah -- okay, y'all can have at it ...

I apologize that my polarizing influence derailed discussion of your original post, Dave. I'm still quite interested in what Andrea and Francis (among others) think about the idea of putting the WTC cornerstone down during the Republican convention.

I don't think much of it. In fact, I think it stinks. This will piss people off as much as the 1992 Republican national convention did (the one that was a giant boohoo sobfest of emotional incontinence spiced with Pat Buchanan's particularly maudlin brand of hate), and the Democratic convention back in 2000 where Gore did that bizarre face-suck on his wife. And if this happens to be true and not just a slanderous rumor, since I happen to be a member of the Republican party they'll be getting my handwritten, snail-mailed letter telling them exactly what I think of it.

Hear, hear.

I don't believe I've actually seen anything definitive about the scheduling, aside from innuendo about it here and there. The GOP convention is scheduled for prior to 9/11. No word on when the groundbreaking/cornerstone thang is actually going to happen. As I said, I think it would be a huge mistake to dick around with that beyond the normal, inevitable level of political bandstanding

Interestingly, the Times altered the text of that story for some reason. It no longer states the bit about when they're trying to get the cornerstone planted.

If I was of a conspiratorial mindset, I'd say that Rove cracked his whip and the So-Called Liberal Media bowed.

There has never, ever been a more politicizing administraiton than this one, not to mention a more corrupt one.

Bush Died, People Lied. Where's the WMD? There was no imminent threat.

Impeach Bush.

Hmmm. The Times removed the text in question. Does that mean ...

... that the Evil Overlords forced them to remove it?
... that it was hacked by Evil Overlord's minions?
... that someone pointed out that it was (inflammatory) supposition presented as fact?

Hmmmmm.

Scott -- I think that should be "Bush lied, people died." Right? As far as I know, the Real Bush is still alive. Unless they prefected the Bush Animatronic Replicant and have already replaced him. Oops -- I wasn't supposed to tell. Hold on, I hear someone at the d