My FINAL Word On Indecision 2004

I confess: I have never viewed "Citizen Kane." What I know about William Randolph Hearst, I learned from William A. Swanburg's biography: Citizen Hearst (1961). Hearst was a proto-fascist who would endorse W if he were alive to day. As for W, his piety is as genuine as he is tough. He talks the talk, but he can't walk the walk. If this is (fair & balanced) skepticism, so be it.

[x HNN]
Does Bush Think He's Channeling God?
By Robert S. McElvaine

As I read Ron Suskind's dismaying cover story on President Bush's religiously inspired certainty in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine, "Without a Doubt," I kept experiencing déjà vu.

I've seen this storyline somewhere before: A president who had been a feckless, party-loving, hard-drinking man, is visited by a messenger of God and suddenly changes his ways. Thereafter, he knows what is right and will listen to no one who suggests otherwise. This president, convinced that he is doing God's work--that he is God’s spokesman on earth--suspends civil liberties to fight crime. He repudiates international treaties and announces that the United States will build new weapons to put itself in a position of world dominance. He orders other nations to follow American dictates, or else. That the "or else" means using American military might for preemptive war is made clear to world leaders when they are assembled and shown a demonstration of American military power. They all immediately agree to do what the United States (and God) demands.

Then it hit me. The plot that sounds so much like the way George W. Bush sees himself and his presidency is that of a now obscure 1933 film produced by William Randolph Hearst's Cosmopolitan Studios, Gabriel Over the White House. In it, an irresponsible man named Judson Hammond, played by Walter Huston, is elected to the presidency on promises he doesn't intend to keep. "Oh, don't worry," an aide tells him, "by the time they realize you’re not keeping them, your term will be over." Then, driving his car recklessly, President Hammond has a tire blowout at 100 mph. He apparently dies from his injuries, but is transformed by divine intervention and emerges, literally born again, as a supremely confident leader who has no doubts in the rightness of his course. He demands that Congress give him dictatorial powers and then adjourn, so that he can solve all domestic and international problems. He once was lost; now he's found. But what has he found?

President Hammond's approach to the world, like that of George W. Bush, fits with neither traditional Republican isolationism nor the Wilsonian internationalism practiced by most presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt through George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Rather, the film, with the assurance that God is on the side of the United States, advances an approach to the world that might best be termed "isolated internationalism." With God on our side, this nation should neither withdraw from the world nor work out agreements with other nations to form cooperative international coalitions. Rather, the United States should simply declare what it will do and expect others to do. Other nations are welcome to join in a Coalition of the Willing, meaning those willing to follow unquestioningly the divinely inspired Leader of the United States.

Mr. Hearst's simplistic views of the world and of the solutions to its problems eerily foreshadow those that hold sway in Mr. Bush's White House today. God spoke through Hearst's fictional President Hammond; similarly the Bush who now occupies the presidency confuses himself with the one that burned in Exodus 3:2. "I pray to be as good a messenger of [God's] will as possible," Mr. Bush told Bob Woodward.

It is well known that Ronald Reagan often confused movies with reality. Garry Wills and others have contended that Mr. Reagan got his idea that something like the Strategic Defense Initiative was possible from a 1940 movie, Murder in the Air. That film depicts a new super weapon called an "inertia projector" that can shoot down enemy planes before they reach the nation. In the movie, this weapon makes the United States invincible and puts it in a position to establish world peace.

Now it appears that the current president is living out a movie fantasy of his own, basing his self-image on the plot of a seven-decade-old movie that purported to speak the will of God but actually spoke the will of William Randolph Hearst.

The source of the problems of Orson Welles's fictionalized Hearst in Citizen Kane was that he had lost the love of a mother; the source of our--the nation's and the world's--problems with George W. Bush is that he thinks he has found, not just the love, but the voice of a Heavenly Father. That voice, which is in fact one that is all too much of this world, sounds uncomfortably similar to that of the real life Hearst.

Welles's Charles Foster Kane represented America, with its ideals corrupted by excessive wealth and power, demanding that others follow his distortions of reality. Hearst’s Judson Hammond was an American president corrupted (although Hearst didn’t realize it) by the belief that he had Ultimate Power on his side. Citizen Bush suffers from the same delusion.

The citizens of America must recapture the ideals of our national youth. All together, now, as we enter the voting booths on November 2, let us whisper: "Rosebud."

Robert S. McElvaine teaches history at Millsaps College in Jackson, Miss. He is the author of Eve's Seed: Biology, the Sexes and the Course of History (McGraw-Hill). He is currently completing his first novel and screenplay, What It Feels Like....

Copyright © 2004 History News Network

Presidential Predictors?

The Weekly Reader poll went to W by 20 points. The kiddies like W overwhelmingly this year. The couch potatos will be watching the Packers play the Skins today and W's supporters will be Hogs for the day. Others look at the underbellies of family dogs to determine the depth of a winter coat of hair. Hairy means 4 more years of W's wonderful leadership. Of course, the last predictor is fictitious. Who will win on November 2. 2004? I dunno. If this is (fair & balanced) befuddlement, so be it.

[x Alternative Insight]
The Predictors of the Presidential Election


Several techniques predict the coming presidential election and favor George W. Bush to succeed himself as President of the United States. However, technical predictors lack total credibility; each comes with a caveat of voter beware. Close elections defy the polls and last minute changes in voter preference are standard. One way to predict a presidential election is by combining facts with historical trends, voter momentum and a "gut feel." All you need to be accurate in your prediction is to have the right gut and a sensitive feel.

Predictor #1- The Thirteen Keys

Alan J. Lichtman, professor of history at American University in Washington, DC, has devised a method for determining the presidential election. The method contains 13 statements, each having either a "true" or a "false" response. If six or more replies are "false", then the incumbent party loses the presidential election. Professor Lichtman tuned his "crystal gazing" system by test driving various statements until they successfully predicted all presidential campaigns since 1860.

The 13 statements:
1. The incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the midterm election than after the preceding midterm election.
2. There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.
3. The incumbent-party candidate is the current president.
4. There is no significant third-party or independent candidacy.
5. The economy is not in recession during the campaign.
6. Real (constant-dollar) per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth for the preceding two terms.
7. The administration has effected major policy changes during the term.
8. There has been no major social unrest during the term.
9. The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10. There has been no major military or foreign-policy failure during the term.
11. There has been a major military or foreign-policy success during the term.
12. The incumbent is charismatic or is a national hero.
13. The challenger is not charismatic and is not a national hero.
Note: If six or more of these statements are false, the incumbent party loses. For this election only keys 6, 10,11 and 12 are positively false. Statements 8 and 9 are not sufficiently false.

The Thirteen Keys predict that George W. Bush will be re-elected, but the predictive quality of the "13 Keys" has limitations.

The Keys predict a preference vote and not the electoral vote.

The statements are valid in a static environment. The dynamics of our society may change the significance of a statement. As an example, before television, charisma didn't have too much weight with the electorate. In the modern television era, a candidate gains attention with visual charm.

Statistical analysis is valid until it is no longer valid. The law of large numbers may eventually 'hiccup" the analysis. The 13 Keys algorithm has been fitted to a pattern of behavior over a specific 120 years. Each year, events might modify that pattern.

The "Keys" are not weighted. Each one is given the same value, although they are of unequal importance.

Statements influence other statements. An example: If the economy goes into recession, then its likely that Keys 8 (major social unrest) and 4 (third party candidacy) will go false.

Predictor #2- The Mathematical Technique of Regression

Yale economist Ray C. Fair developed a statistical analysis using the mathematical technique of regression to predict the outcome of presidential elections. Professor Fair uses six factors to model the share of the presidential popular vote going to the incumbent party. The three most determining factors are:

the per capita growth rate of the GDP;
the number of quarters during the previous 3¾ years in which the growth rate exceeded 3.2 percent, and;
the inflation rate.

Three less critical factors:

is a candidate an incumbent, with incumbency noted to have an advantage;
the Republicans are noted to have having a slight historical edge;
desire for change, that favors the Party out of power for more than two terms;

Professor Fair's model predicts that George W. Bush will be re-elected by a wide margin, close to 58 percent of the vote. Unless figures are being misinterpreted, the more essential economic factors don't favor the Bush administration, and so it's difficult to believe Fair's conclusion. All models have their weakness, the principal ones being the number of data points available for the predicting equation. This model has other weaknesses; waging the battle against terrorism has replaced the economy as the principal determinant in voters' preference and the War in Iraq also runs high in directing votes. Despite the limitations, Professor Fair' s predictions of vote percentages since the 1916 election have been unusually accurate.

Predictor #3- Polling

Polls taken weeks before the election usually give an incumbent the edge. Polls are partly awareness contests; voters' choice depend upon the brand name from media and advertising. Since the president makes daily headlines, many voters are attracted to his name. Last minute events and more considerate thought before pushing the lever, neither of which are reflected in polls, influence the voter's final choice.

Other contradictions to the reliability of polls:

(1) A recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed a contradiction: respondents slightly favoring Bush also had 58% of them hoping for "major changes" in a second Bush term.
(2) AMERICAblog.org has a chart from The Polling Report (http://www.pollingreport.com/) that describes "how 23 of 26 polls in 2000 showed Bush winning the popular vote in the 3 days before the election. Two of the polls had Bush winning by 9 points."

Predictor #4- Subjective Analysis

Examining the facts and combining facts with historical trends, voter momentum and a "gut feel" is a method for analyzing most situations.

Some facts that are important to the electorate, don't favor Bush and have trends that could continue through the election process :
(1) The Consumer Confidence Index fell 1.9 points to 96.8 from a revised reading of 98.7 in August. Analysts had expected a reading of 99.5. Will consumers losing confidence vote for those who are responsible for their loss of confidence?
(2) Worker's costs for health insurance have increased by 36 % since 2000; one part of a "disguised" inflation that is eroding "take home" pay. Will workers vote for an administration in which their "take home" pay has been reduced?
(3) In July, 2004, the National Intelligence Council ( NIC) prepared a bleak assessment of the efforts in Iraq that has been dismissed by Bush (reported by the New York Times). One of a plethora of reports that will appear before election until the electorate realizes the danger due to the adminstration's foreign policies.
(4) The stock market is stagnant. If Wall Street is concerned, won't all Americans become concerned?
(5) Government annual budget is at record high deficit. After enjoying surpluses, will Americans accept record deficits?

Historical trends of voter patterns also don't favor Bush.

In the 2000 election George Walker Bush was a relative unknown. Positioned as a compassionate conservative, many voters gave the inexperienced Bush the benefit of the doubt. After four years Bush has lost his principal benefit. He has displayed incompetence in several disciplines, demonstrated meager intelligence on vital matters, exhibited awkward handling of the English language and shown little compassion. Bush has his permanent followers but they aren't sufficient to carry him into the presidency.

Is it conceivable that those who voted for Bush in the 2000 election when they were unaware of his lack of ability would be voting for him in the coming election after they have become aware of his lack of ability? Is it conceivable that he can gain new voters - where would they come from? Polls claim a drift of women to Republican ranks, due to terrorist fears. These votes don't come from the feminist constituency that votes solely on women issues. By election time, as many non-feminist women might desert Bush as those that have suddenly become attracted to him. Voter drift to Bush is random drift and the drift is in both directions.

The thrust of the Bush campaign is to turn the president's failures into positives, sort of using his debts as collateral:

He is irresolute in his determination to achieve victory in Iraq rather than being stubborn to change policy and being ignorant in forming new policies.

He is decisive in the war on terrorism rather than making decisions that have aggravated the war on terrorism.

He is truthful and honest rather than reciting the most outrageous lies ever presented to the American people.

He represents family values rather than noting he is never together with his family and his daughters have been involved in alcohol consuming episodes.

He has a vision for America rather than he shows no vision on any subject.

He must be allowed to finish his program rather than he has no well developed program to finish.

He, leader of the country, should not be changed in mid-stream in times of emergency, rather than, as John Kerry said it, "When you're going over a waterfall or sinking, it's preferable to change the leader." Note: Herbert Hoover and Lyndon Johnson were discarded in "times of emergency" because they were unable to lead the country in the "time of emergency."

Is it possible that the electorate will accept the deceptive campaign until election day? Hardly likely. George Herbert Walker Bush, the president's father, had credentials and abilities far exceeding his son. President H.W. Bush, after leading the country to a decisive victory in the Gulf War lost the election to a relative unknown, Governor William Clinton. Why would the electorate approve a greatly inferior George W. Bush for a second term after they had rejected his more qualified father, George H.W. Bush, in his second term bid?

Conclusion

Never in American history was an incumbent as beatable as George Bush. His detractors accuse of him of being the worst and most uninformed president ever to hold the office - and they might be right. So, what's the problem? Evidently, John Kerry has run a poor campaign - but he has not lost. The major problem: Senator Kerry, despite his war record and years in the Senate, is still a relative unknown to the American audience.

President Bush's ardent followers cite honesty, conviction and steadfastness as his qualities. They believe he has American values and the courage to fight terrorism. They don't cite accomplishments because he has no accomplishments. These persons, who are aren't sufficiently informed and won't allow otherwise, don't influence others, don't run to vote and might not even seek the voting booth. On the other hand, a vast part of the electorate has a mission - to make certain Bush does not return to office - and will campaign ferociously, try to influence others and run to the nearest polling booth, possibly more than once, to vote for Kerry. The last weeks of the election campaign, which includes debates, will inflate Kerry's name and image and deflate Bush's record. People don't vote for their downfall. When they arrive at the gas station and pay the elevated gas prices (partly due to the Iraq war), go to the television and observe the continual toll of life in Iraq, read their financial statements and learn their economy has stagnated, they will conclude that the "guns and butter" strategy, also used by Lyndon Johnson, leads to catastrophe and they'll pull the Kerry lever.

POPULAR VOTE
Kerry: 49%
Bush: 47%
Independents: 4%

ELECTORAL VOTE
Kerry: 324
Bush: 214

Alternative Insight presents news and views that are alternatives to the conventional media. The news and views don't necessarily represent those of Alternative Insight.

Copyright © 2004 Alternative Insight