I'm sure that I'm just being paranoid...
Posted by E
I was listening to BBC World Service on our local PBS station on Saturday, and caught part of Carrie Gracie's interview with Ohio Governor (and Bush campaign chair for Ohio) Robert Taft.
Most of what I heard of the interview consisted of Taft sticking carefully to the somewhat desperate-sounding standard responses that the repubs are using in interviews these days, to wit: Kerry flip-flops, Bush is a moral leader, things are getting better, etc., etc.
For me, the interview actually got interesting about 22 minutes in, when Carrie came up with a question that the timorous American media would never have had the courage to ask. She said that journalist Paul Krugman and senior Democratic officials had expressed concern that the Bush regime would not surrender power even if they lost the election, and she asked for Taft's response to those concerns.
Of course her question, while far too direct and to the point for any mainstream US journalist to ask, clearly springs from the general European opinion that Bush & Co have largely subverted the democratic process in this country, and that the dream of America as a free and open society may finally be drawing to an end.
It was Taft's response that set my paranoid little heart into palpitations. He did not answer the question
. His initial response was blather about not being able to understand the opposition to this wonderful, hard-working president. To her credit, the interviewer then re-stated her question, asking whether the Bush team could be "trusted to play by the rules." This launched Taft off into another tangent about how "trust is a real issue in this election particularly as it pertains to John Kerry." So again, he did not answer the question
. All he had to say to set my mind at ease was something to the effect of "If the Bush team loses the election, they will of course accept the will of the American people and do everything they can to ensure a smooth transition for the new president." But he didn't say that
So I'm just being paranoid, right? It's obviously kooky to think that maybe Taft was being purposefully evasive because he's privy to the regime's plans to maintain their deathgrip on this country regardless of the outcome of the election. I mean, I feel silly for even wondering about it --just as Krugman and senior members of the Democratic party must feel silly for expressing their concerns. That sort of thing couldn't happen here, right? This is America, and no matter how vengeful and fanatical the current administration is, they wouldn't dream of turning this country into a true, full-blown oligarchy. Right? Right?