Change and Fear: What they got wrong about America

Change and Fear: What they got wrong about America

: The reason Howard Dean (with Al Gore) lost is that they ran a negative campaign. But the problem wasn’t that they were negative about other candidates. It was that they were negative about America.

: First, read the post below about fear, about Gore and Dean trying to say that George Bush is using fear to get elected and get his way — even as they tried to pump up fear of Bush to get elected and get their way.

Now go read Joe Trippi’s blog that’s all about change, just like the Dean campaign: change, change, change. They thought we all had a huge hunger to change America.

: And that’s what they got fundamentally wrong: We, the voters, didn’t want to hear Dean (and Gore behind him) telling us how screwed up our country was and how much we needed to change it.

It’s not screwed up. Oh, sure, there are things that are wrong and things that could be better. But that’s different from saying we need to change it all.

We wanted to hear a candidate start by saying he liked America, he loved America — especially at a time when it is under attack from Islamic nut jobs and Euro bozos and even Mexican soccer holligans — and then propose ways to make it better.

But that’s not the fundamental message that came out from Dean: Oh, he said some of it; all candidates do. But the message that cut through it was all about change, change, change.

Now, of course, some of that is to be expected from the party out of power. They have to make the party in power look bad to oust them.

And it’s the conservatives who, by their nature, are less about change; they conserve things they way they are.

In addition, many of us are reluctant to wave flags in normal times.

But all that necessarily changes in a time of war, when we all must pull together as Americans to defeat our enemy.

Yet Dean and some of his supporters and fellow candidates refused to see it that way. They acted as if the only war we’re in is the one in Iraq and they said it’s a wrong war so they could complain about Bush. They refused to see what we all see: We are at war against and under attack from and afraid of terrorism.

And that is what has to change.

The enemy is not within. The enemy is without.

We don’t fear our fellow Americans. We fear the terrorists who are killing us.

We don’t want to fundamentally change America to survive. We must bring fundamental change — democratic and economic reform — to the Middle East to survive.

The voters see that. Dean and Gore don’t. That’s why the voters rejected Dean (that and the fact that he displayed an unstable personality and immature behavior and a petulant pissiness). But Dean and Gore and Trippi still can’t hear what the voters told them. They still want to tell the voters that the voters must change.

Wrong.

74 responses to “Change and Fear: What they got wrong about America”

  1. david Avatar

    Very well said, Jeff…probably the most insightful short piece about the Dems fundamental flaw/s.

  2. Ebb Tide Avatar

    If you are a worker who recently lost your job, lost your health insurance and are having a hard time finding another good paying job, then you want change. If you are someone making a good living and things are all hunky-dorey you want the status quo… If more people from group A vote, then the country will get a change of management in the oval office. Half the country didn’t bother to vote last time, so it is those voters, if they bother to vote this time, that will make the difference. Reagan’s “Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?” still is a question voters will ask themselves.

  3. Joe Peden Avatar

    “If you are a worker who recently lost your job, lost your health insurance and are having a hard time finding another good paying job, then you want change.” Ebb Tide
    This is the definition of a “victim”. We can hope that many who have suffered some setback [all of us?] don’t blame someone else, much less the President. Why anyone wishes to claim this mechanism is a basic principle needs explanation.
    As a point of order, losing your health ins. in no way means you lose your health care.

  4. Swopa Avatar

    Jeff, seeing as you never tire of dumping on Dean, and pointing out how his failure to win shows his misunderstanding of America and his apparent miserableness as a human being … what does this say about Joe Lieberman, who began the campaign with the highest name recognition of any Democrat — and led in the earliest polls — but crashed further and earlier than Dean did?
    That Lieberman must really be an out-of-touch loser, judging from the standards you’ve set for Dean.

  5. Maciej Ceglowski Avatar

    There is no war. Terrorists killed a couple of thousand Americans two years ago in a particularly spectacular mass murder. Calling our response a war was just a propaganda ploy. Like the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs, the War on Terror is being fought against an abstraction, and so is by definition unwinnable. We’ve already seen the redefinition of ‘terrorism’ to fit Iraq, and I’m sure there’s more to come. There will always be a threat, real or manufactured, that justifies the continuation of the War on Terror. We are at war with Eastasia – Eurasia is our ally.

  6. Charlie (Colorado) Avatar
    Charlie (Colorado)

    There is no war.
    Wouldn’t it be pretty to think so?
    He asked, derisively.

  7. angell Avatar

    There was no war in 1939 either Marge. A few million Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Ukrainians, homosexuals, gypsies were mass murdered.
    The slaughter of Armenians by Turkey, the massacre of Balkan Christians by the Red Sultan, the East Timor massacres, massacre of Hindus by Ikhtiyaruddin Mohammed Bokhtiar Khilji in India, Saddam’s murder of half a million of his own people. These are just simple mass murders–nothing to get your panties in a knot about. The Hagia Sophia, most significant church in eastern Christendom, was converted into a mosque. The Zoroastrian religion was all but eliminated in Persia. Buddhists were cleansed from Afghanistan. Christianity was wiped out in North Africa. But no, we are not at war–we are just on the way to being islamized. Just the kind of future I pray for, for future generations.

  8. Joe Peden Avatar

    Swopa, why would anyone vote for Lieberman when they have Bush? Lieberman never explained this very well, or his message didn’t get out.
    Dean, conversely, never moved to the center, which he should have done right around the time Gore gave him the kiss of death. I guess he was afraid of losing his base of rabid America haters.
    The democrats still have the same problem: how do they align with Bush’s message of optimism and self-defense, yet differentiate themselves so as to provide a choice? Good luck. They don’t.
    Thus they will continue to push their pathologic message of hate and paranoia, and of course, other vague slogans. A lot of people seem to like this message. Those who support Bush do not. I bet Lieberman votes for Bush.

  9. anne.elk Avatar

    The Hagia Sofia *was* converted to a mosque: in 1571.
    In 1936, the Muslim known as Ataturk converted it into a museum. (Open daily except Monday.)

  10. anne.elk Avatar

    When Lieberman dropped out, I *was* in fear for the next 48 hours.
    I believed the greatest threat to Kerry would have been if Lieberman had decided to oppose Bush by running as a Republican.

  11. Rob A. Avatar

    >There is no war.
    What if your enemy says they are at war with you?
    Do you have any choice but to accept that and proceed to defend yourself?
    I can’t disagree with you that calling it a “War on Terror” does seem abstract but I think we all know who our enemy is. The war wasn’t defined by Bush & Co., it was defined by OBL & Fatwa Inc. In order to confront a “stateless” threat some traditional definitions have to take new meaning. 9/11 was more than merely “a particularly spectacular mass murder” it was a new kind of war with a new definition. The scale and scope of the attack forced us to respond and I can’t see how the President could not respond as he has.
    Disagree with the tactics and strategy but don’t deny we’re at war. The enemy declared war on us; we have no choice but to oblige.

  12. Mithras Avatar

    Jarvis-
    I am looking forward to Dean dropping out of the race, just so you’ll finally stop pushing these ridiculous pet theories about him. He called for change! No other challenger for the presidency ever did that, right?
    Anyway, you really should be working on your lines about how I’m-a-liberal-but-John-Kerry-is-bad-for-America. You know, how else are you going to please the people you hope will pay you for blogging?

  13. angell Avatar

    Well, I wonder if they would accept changing the mosque at Mecca into a museum, open all days but Sunday.

  14. Joe Peden Avatar

    Mithras, have you moved to Canada yet? That would be a good “change”. And how did you know that Barbra Streisand funds Jarvis?

  15. Reid Avatar

    “There is no war.”
    Yes, and as Michael Moore claimed, no one has died from terrorism since 9/11, either. Al Qaeda’s been just as charming as innocent schoolgirls ever since. They have no intentions of harming anyone, ever again.
    So let’s get back to talking about important things that happened 30 years ago. That’s what’s crucial in Election 2004.

  16. Angus Jung Avatar
    Angus Jung

    “We are at war with Eastasia – Eurasia is our ally.”
    That’s deep! Wasn’t there a novel about that?
    “I am looking forward to Dean dropping out of the race, just so you’ll finally stop pushing these ridiculous pet theories about him.”
    Why do Jeff’s opinions bother you so much, Mith? I can understand your disagreement, but you seem to be emotionally invested in it to an unhealthy degree.

  17. Maciej Ceglowski Avatar

    Let’s be clear about semantics – it’s one thing to say we’re fighting Al-Qaeda, a clearly defined organization that attacked us. Personally, I believe that calling that action a ‘war’ gives too much credit and stature to the terrorists, but I understand people who feel otherwise.
    But it’s another thing to declare a war on “global terror”. Al Qaeda has members, sources of funding, leaders and an ideology, all of which can be attacked. “Global terror” is an abstraction that stretches to cover any political contingency, as we have so beautifully seen demonstrated in the recent invasion of Iraq.

  18. Rob A. Avatar

    Is it really such a “stretch” to put Saddam in the same league as Al-Qaeda?
    Why is AQ fighting us & the Iraqis working towards a new and democratic country in Iraq if they don’t see it as part of the same war?

  19. angell Avatar

    Well, political correctness forbids us calling it a war on islamofascists. Any fool knows there is not a nation on earth where islamic fanatics are not beheading or blowing up innocents.
    Fanatic Islamists trample on the rights of others who practice differing religions… They use their religion, not as a system of personal beliefs, but as the foundation of their ideology, and work to violently destroy innocent people and violently overthrow governments, and to create Islamist states, and these are the enemy we are at war with.Fanatic Islamists are the enemy of this country and civilized societies everywhere, they are even the greatest enemies of decent Muslims. And they live among us and demand their rights as citizens of our countries while they plan the next attack. And they scream against racial profiling while they profile we infidels as their targets. And theyhave many supporters which I refer to as the Fifth Column…enemies of America on the side of terrorists.

  20. Joe Peden Avatar

    Macieg, the new terrorists are pure sadomasochists. No one is safe, and they have told us this. Is this too abstract for you? Are you worried that Saddam was not a pure enough sadomasochist to qualify or contribute? You nuance yourself into nonsense, another excuse for not facing reality on the part of the rationally challenged Left. But, again, as terrorists are not allowed to cross international borders, we must still have them cornered in Afgahnistan? So why worry, they are trapped there.

  21. Mike Avatar

    I love your blog, Jeff. It’s always a unique perspective.

  22. Undertoad Avatar

    The question is not whether there actually IS a war or not. The question is whether the voting electorate believes they are in a war.
    Increasingly they do not.
    By November, barring another attack, they will believe it in much lower numbers. It’s only been a bit more than three years and their collective consciousness has already shifted away from a wartime attitude.
    Barring another attack.
    The debate here whether we’re at war or not: that debate is NOT HAPPENING IN AMERICA.

  23. Othello Avatar

    “If you are a worker who recently lost your job, lost your health insurance and are having a hard time finding another good paying job, then you want change.”
    I lost my job in December and am still looking for work. As for health insurance, I didn’t lose that in December, seeing as how the job didn’t provide any to begin with.
    I just don’t happen to think it’s the job of the President of the United States to find me work and provide me with a dental plan. (Lifting the tax burden & heavy-handed regulations on businesses would go a lot further in those areas, and that is more the responsibility of Congress and my state government in Sacramento.)
    I do think it’s the job of the President of the United States to ensure the safety of me & my fellow Americans from foreign enemies, and see to it that they don’t incinerate me in my workplace or blow me up in the mall or movie theater. Job #1, in fact.
    Do I think there is a place for healthy internal debate on issues like jobs and health care? Absolutely. But if we are being slaughtered in our own streets by barbarians who want us all dead (and they won’t check our voter registration first, believe me), then domestic policy differences are pretty irrelevant.
    Since I believe that there is still a very real threat to our national security [translation: me, my family & my fellow citizens] from Islamofacist terrorists, come November I will be voting on POTUS based on who I think will best carry out the responsibilties of Job #1.

  24. Shannon Love Avatar
    Shannon Love

    There was a psychologist some years ago who created an optimism/pessimism index for writings and speech. He applied it politicians and found that those who spoke in the most optimistic terms were the most likely to win.
    Those who run on a platform “we’re doing great and we can do even better” will beat those who say “we suck and we’ve got to change.”
    I think that Dean and most Democrats are in the “we suck” camp and that is why they have been losing.

  25. Othello Avatar

    By the way, I think Jeff deserves a lot of credit for voicing these concerns. Every group hates to have its weaknesses debated in public, but I don’t think the Democratic party’s weakness on national security issues (and I would argue that it is a real and substantive weakness, not just one of perception) is exactly a big secret.
    There was once a time when presidents with a (D) after their name were very hawkish on foreign policy, and yet still managed to be liberal in their domestic agendas. (FDR, Truman, and JFK come to mind.) Please note that these were all wartime presidents.
    A healthy, politically competitive Democratic party is good for America. Democratic voters who try to remind their leaders of the necessity of taking national security threats seriously are doing their party (and America) a favor, not a dissservice.

  26. standa Avatar

    Transcript: Howard Dean on ‘Fox News Sunday’
    Sunday, February 15, 2004
    CHRIS WALLACE, HOST, FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Earlier this week, former Governor Howard Dean said that he will press on no matter what happens in Wisconsin this Tuesday. But overnight it was learned that he will return to the Vermont after the primary to reassess his campaign. Can the once high-flying, front- running Dean campaign still turn things around?
    Howard Dean joins us now from Burlington, Vermont.
    And good morning, Governor. Good to have you with us today.
    HOWARD DEAN, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Good morning, Chris. Nice to be on. Thank you.
    WALLACE: Over the last week, you have taken a lot of shots at John Kerry, and we have strung together some of your greatest hits. Let’s take at look.
    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
    DEAN: Senator Kerry apparently also supports the kind of corrupt fund-raising

  27. standa Avatar

    STUPIDITY IS ALL AROUND
    by Ted Rall
    Thu Feb 5, 2004
    NEW YORK–Bush must be laughing his ass off. Voters too dim to recall yesterday’s news are letting him get away with running on the imaginary successes of a phony record. Lazy journalists are allowing him to run on a patently fictional platform of promises while ignoring the disastrous realities he has planned for 2004. Now Democrats, falling for Karl Rove’s silly “we’d love nothing more than to run against Howard Dean ” baiting, are about to hand him the November opponent nominee Republicans wanted all along: John Kerry.
    Hit the theme from the old Mary Tyler Moore show. New lyric: stupidity is what’s all around.
    Time to change things again…

  28. angell Avatar

    Standa–please provide for me the proof that Bush is running on a phoney record. Making the claim that you do, you must have proof that I am not privy to–could I please have access to this proof. I am very confused as to how this even has anything to do with the elections, no more than Alex Polier’s father thinking Kerry is a sleezebag for chasing his daughter. There are bigger things at stake here.
    I just read this :
    http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031773659263&path=!news&s=1045855934842
    Now you obviously have info that can prove that this record is phoney. Please share.

  29. JorgXMcKie Avatar
    JorgXMcKie

    I’d be a whole lot more impressed, and more likely to vote for Democrats, if I heard some plan or policy other that “America! We suck because stupid evil genius BushHitler is President. I’ll change stuff. Mostly raise your taxes.” That is not a real selling message. Let’s roll out the debate. Instead of griping, whinging, and generally complaining, let’s see some alternatives debated on things like: 1) should we be in Iran *now*? If not, what should we be doing about terrorism? Sending the 3rd ID looking for Osama? Where? Under what command, ours or the UN’s? 2) Job loss. Is it inevatible? If not, why not and what programs or policies will be put in place to prevent job loss? If it is, what programs or policies should be put in place to soften the pain and get new jobs? 3) What sort of health plan can we afford? Why? How? Who pays and who gets? What do we give up?
    And so on. So far, the current President, as is his job, has offered (and in some cases, passed) his arguments, programs, and policies. The loyal opposition has (mostly) obdurately opposed everything, evidently just because the President proposed it. C’mon, let’s put some meat on the bones of those objections.

  30. angell Avatar

    Standa–Ted Rall–now that’s really scraping the bottom of the barrel.. He is the guy that had a hey day making fun of the victims’ families . They do not get more anti-American than Ted Rall. If I were Kerry I’d be thankful Rall did not endorse me.
    Ted Rall at work:
    http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=1161

  31. Wagner Avatar

    > it’s one thing to say we’re fighting Al-Qaeda, > a clearly defined organization that attacked us
    The trouble is, Al-Qaeda *isn’t* a clearly defined organization. It’s a loose affiliation whose kernel is 4000 or so hardcore members directly tied in to Al-Zawahiri and his operational lieutenants, plus 100,000 or so who trained in their Afghanistan camps (these are Ronan Gunaratna’s figures), but then returned to their home countries to join this or that local Islamist terrorist group. These dozens of groups are satellites or fellow travelers of Al Qaeda, though it’s not entirely clear how much communication or cooperation they have with Zawahiri et. al., when they are, say, blowing up a disco in Bali, or a synagogue in Turkey. Supporting these groups are some hundreds of extremist mosques, madrassas, and charity fronts throughout the world (including the US), which act as recruiting posts which are subsidized by elements of the Saudi royal family and sympathetic Islamists around the globe. At this point, we are talking about millions of people who are tied to Al Qaeda on a operational, financial, or propoganistic level, but at the same time, are not directly members of Al Qaeda. Then on an ideological level, of those who support the goals of Al Qaeda, consider the recent poll (by Gallup, I believe) of Muslim countries. When asked to name their choice of great moral leader for the future, Muslim populations named bin Laden by an average of 40-70%, in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and so on. (99% of Palestinians polled named bin Laden.) Only 12% or so of Muslims from Turkey (not coincidentally, the only democratic Muslim country) cited bin Laden as their choice, but even here, we’re talking millions of people. And taking all these countries together, we are talking perhaps *hundreds* of millions of people who support bin Laden’s idea of re-establishing the Caliphate over the entire Muslim world with him as caliph, and the murder of as many Jews and Americans as possible, to make that happen– and are willing to offer their moral support, money, logistical assistance, or even their own lives to that cause.
    So to say we are at war with Al Qaeda is rather too narrow. To say we are at war with Islamist terrorism is rather too exact (for it is a nice side effect that non-Muslim terrorists in Ireland and Sri Lanka, for example, have abjured violence since the world reponse to 9/11). To say we are at war with terrorism is not perfectly accurate, but considering the tens of thousands who are perpetrating it, and the hundreds of thousands who would join them in perpetrating it, were they given the means, and the millions rooting for their cause and egging them on to more bloodshed, “war” is probably the best term for the conflict we are and must be engaged in, at all levels.
    I really, really, really, really wish more Democrat leaders would understand all this. Some do. The rest seem more concerned with bashing Bush for over-reaching and over-emphasizing this effort, and that’s to their shame. And speaks to their irrelevance.

  32. standa Avatar

    angell, I used the Ted Rall’s “Stupidity” piece just for emphasis.
    The primary purpose of my post was the Howard Dean on ‘Fox News Sunday’ which speaks volumes !!!
    Funny how you only responded to the Rall ‘puff piece’.

  33. angell Avatar

    Ok, sorry. I know Rall is a vehement Deaniac-and I thought you were by the posting of the lengthy Dean interview. I misunderstood your intent. Again, apologies.

  34. billg Avatar

    The thing that bothers me about Dean is that I don’t know what he’s for. I know what he’s against: Bush and the war. I know he must have position papers laying about offering opinions on all sorts of things, but why should I make an effort to chase them down if his chosen persona is anti-war and anti-Bush?
    Being against war is a lot like being against murder: “OK, that’s nice. Now what?” I’ve never heard an answer from Dean.
    Leadership requires building confidence and hope. You don’t do that by being against something.

  35. Bruce Hayden Avatar
    Bruce Hayden

    Jorge,
    I think that Iran is almost well in hand. It is now surrounded by U.S. clients and troops, and these U.S. clients are moving towards democracy (of sorts). This is creating significant internal pressure for change. Add to this a huge younger generation that is too young to remember the Shah, etc. and is fairly pro-American, and you are going to have change from the inside. It may be bloody, but it will come.
    The problem for the cleritocracy in Iran today is that they claim democracy, but don’t practice it. Every move they make to stiffle dissent cuts into their legitimacy. Far more stable I think is a brutal dictatorship, like that formerly in Iraq, where power was maintained by fear. Formenting internal dissent only resulted in massive deaths, as Saddam Hussain acted to maintain his power, as evidenced by his actions against the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south, after the Gulf War. Indeed, he essentially destroyed the Fertile Crescent during his last decade in power in order to kill and control the marsh arabs.
    So, why Iraq and not Iran? Because we still have a decent chance to effect regime change in Iran without direct intervention, whereas we found we did not have that chance in Iraq.
    As to Afganistan, my feeling is that the 3rd ID would be too “heavy” for finding ABL and finally taking out AQ. Besides, a good part of the problem is political – not really Afganistan today, but the neighboring parts of Pakistan, a putative ally of ours. The sad reality is that the government of Pakistan does not really control these portions of its own country.

  36. Charlie (Colorado) Avatar
    Charlie (Colorado)

    I want to disagree that “Terroism” as an abstraction can’t be fought. Of course, the word “terrorism” can’t be fought, but what the “war on terror” is fighting is not the abstraction but the groups of people who believe that terror is a useful tactic. And even more, the states that allow terrorism to be supported from within their borders.
    We’ve taken out a couple of those, and several otehrs have rolled over, or begun to, “coincidentally” about that time.
    This looks to me to be a direct result of the “war on terror”, and a desirable thing.

  37. onecent Avatar

    There is no war. Terrorists killed a couple of thousand Americans two years ago in a particularly spectacular mass murder…….
    Preceded by the 1993 attempt to blow up the WTC, prior multiple US embassy bombings, the USS Cole, 24/7 intelligence chatter of ongoing US denouncements and jihad edicts ongoing……..I don’t think your non-war observation has reached certain Arab entities. Their actions over the past decades would be deduced by any sane person as the mind-set of a group behaving as at war.
    And, let me add, you can take your glib observation that only “two thousand”(it was closer to three) of my fellow Americans killed in a single event doesn’t constitute war and shove it you know where. It could have been my children, you creep. Their strategic reach was their shortcoming. Their implied desire was a threat to all of Americans. Their as defined as not just OBL, but also the many Arab entities that fund, support and pray for the destruction of the US. That’s what makes it war.
    Most of us, thank God, haven’t reached your kind of detached logic where war is determined by the number of casualties or events.

  38. Martin Lindeskog Avatar

    Jeff Jarvis wrote: “In addition, many of us are reluctant to wave flags in normal times. But all that necessarily changes in a time of war, when we all must pull together as Americans to defeat our enemy.”
    A year ago I was waving the Gadsden flag (“Don’t tread on me”) and the 1st Stars and Stripes (“Betsy Ross”) flag at an anti-war & anti-American rally in Gothenburg. I participated in an one-man counter-demonstration, showing my support for the American troops and allies in the fight against terrorism.
    We are fighting a war of ideas. If you are interested in my point of view, read my post, THE BATTLE OF IDEAS: CHICKENHAWKS VERSUS PACIFICISTS.
    Best Premises,
    Martin Lindeskog – American in Spirit.
    Gothenburg, Sweden.

  39. Catherine Avatar

    “There is no war. Terrorists killed a couple of thousand Americans two years ago in a particularly spectacular mass murder ”
    Oh, thank God! I thought it was a big deal that 3,000 people were killed, and we were lucky that 20,000 weren’t killed (since 40K worked at WTC any given day, and in the days following we had no idea how many survived). BIG relief! Where have you been the last few years!
    Seriously, any person or organization who claims it would be the greatest joy to see me die, has declared war on me and my home. That it would give them more joy to die in the process shows what a bunch of sadistic nuts they are and reason is beyond their capabilities. It’s pretty simple to me. That fact that they have backed up their words with actions over and over again and you don’t see this means you have willed yourself out of rational, logical thought.
    Second, when will people realize that the (and any) President doesn’t control the economy? WHEN?

  40. hen Avatar

    “There is no war”.
    Charles Baudelaire wrote: ‘The Devil’s greatest trick would certainly be to
    make us believe that he does not exist’.
    Keep your blinders on about the real threat that the West faces — you’ll sleep better…until you are killed.

  41. Franky Avatar

    How times have changed…..I remember when there was a spirit of trying to understand why Mexican fans would shout out “Osama” at a football match, why there was widespread anti-americanism in Europe, Latin America, Africa etc etc. Now, it’s just slamming down the hatches and waiting it out. As we’ve sunk further, it’s just “we’re right and everyone else is wrong” (as a demonstration of the extremes of this, I read an article by some psychobabbalist who compared the U.S. to a teacher and those who disagreed to troublesome school children – and there’s still some who argue the US is not an empire? Well at least the empire mentality is in place).
    There’s more bullshit about America being an ethical force for good in the world. I noticed that one took off about the same time no WMDS were being found. Among the strategic reasons for getting rid of Saddam, was the prospect of WMD. The US screwed up on that one. Mistakes happen, and it was a common error amongst the doves and hawks before the war. But to then gracelessly argue that really it was all an act of charity to help the poor Iraqi people is the height of hypocrisy. Look in the mirror and say these words aloud: “Dick Cheney supported sending American troops to die for the general welfare of the Iraqi people” see if you can finish the sentence without laughing.
    And what’s this about “pulling together as Americans to defeat our enemy”? So we can’t criticse the handling of the response to the attack on the U.S. because then we’re be accused of factionalism, scoring political points?
    What about if you’re fundamentally opposed to how the executive is handling this war and its domestic policies? It’s your duty as a moral agent to be quiet and pull in what you consider the wrong direction or speak out? In answer to this question, looking over history on the whole, I know who I admire.

  42. Ebb Tide Avatar

    Joe P writes: “We can hope that many who have suffered some setback [all of us?] don’t blame someone else, much less the President.”
    Well, that was the basis for the “it’s the economy, stupid” slogan wasn’t it? That people wanted to vote in a new President and effect change in strengthening the economy.

  43. Catherine Avatar

    Franky, while apparently you think the U.S. should put itself on the couch for some self-examination. We have done plenty of that. It is opinions such as yours that lead to WTC 1993, the Cole, 9/11, Bali…You seem to think there is some rational cause and effect here. We need to “understand” where the terrorist (or European or anyone) is coming from, to understand “why they hate us.” With your logic, a black person should be a little more understanding towards the KKK because they may make a few good points. The Jews should have really tried being less…. “Jewish,” whatever that is, and more understanding towards the Nazis that wanted them wiped off the face of the earth since they may have had a few reasonable grudges towards them. The list goes on.
    If Americans just did some more self-analyzing, we would realize those who hate us have legitimate reasons for wanting us dead. I would sob, “I have met the enemy and it is me! World, forgive us!” Then the world would hug us, and after a good cry together, we would sign a bunch of treaties and become a better country by attending weekly “12 step” meetings at the UN, to whom we are grateful for their collective forgiveness.
    What a load of fantastic crap. All of these apologists neglect to factor in the rest of the world communities activities that brought us to this place.
    I have to agree with poster Harry below: “As far as the international community and their self-interests are concerned; I would rather be friendless and alive than multilaterally adored and dead. So screw ’em. To wit, if anyone feels the need to grovel and apologize to the Europeans, the UN, or whomever for protecting yourself, your family, your friends, your neighbors, your fellow American citizens, and our country then please do it in the privacy of your own crappy universe’s toilet, preferably on your cell phone and not in public, it’s friggin’ embarrassing.”

  44. onecent Avatar

    Hey, Frankie:
    Among the strategic reasons for getting rid of Saddam, was the prospect of WMD. The US screwed up on that one..
    9/11 was justification enough to start cleaning out the cockroach havens, well identified and established in the mideast, that have demonstrated a desire to kill us. I could care less if WDM’s are found in Iraq at this point in time. We know they were there at one time. They were used to kill Kurds en masse. Or do you refute that? And Saddam was always so honest.
    But to then gracelessly argue that really it was all an act of charity to help the poor Iraqi people is the height of hypocrisy.
    Hey, Frankie, charity it has turned out to be. Or have you seen any demonstrations by Iraqis on CNN demanding Saddam back? Same with the Taliban removal in Afghanistan.
    In your universe, Frankie, does common sense ever filter in or do your reverse Machiavellian games/pedantic adherence to dumb semantics always rule? Your are like a fool who would have wanted the defeat of Hitler and the liberation of his death camps reversed because President Roosevelt and Churchill didn’t telegraph Hitler or the public the full extent of their military plan. It is enough that Congress voted almost unanimously to invade Iraq along with Bush. Or have you forgotten that too?
    Sometimes, Frankie, as people say, the devil IS the carper of details.

  45. Franky Avatar

    Catherine,
    Well aparently you didn’t do much soul-searching. And the new reason for 9/11 was those amongst us who asked why people may hate us? wow that’s a good one. Rushbaugh teach you that one? Sounds like one of his fifth-column rants.
    So now these terrorists are not rational? There’s no political agenda at work that has possibly millions of adherents? they’re all insane!!!! Let me let you in on a little secret, Catherine: that’s what they feed to the idiots in our electroate. Just as Bush Sr. was told to compare Saddam to Hitler because it helped the slower-witted amongst us identify one man as the reason to go to war, notice how Bush repeated the word “madman” so many times in that interview? That was porbably number one on his talking points memo. It’s for the birds.
    But let’s go back to this soul-searching you’ve done, Catherine, what was the reason for the attacks on the embassies, USS Cole etc,? Let’s see the extent of this soul-searching. Just to let you know, because life is short if you say: “our freedom” or “they want to convert us to Islam” I’m ending the conversation.
    Onecent,
    No. 9/11 was not justification enough to go invade countries who had nothing to do with the attack and showed absolutely no threat to the US. But I’m betting you’re one of the people who believe there’s some connection between the secular Iraqi state and the fundamentalists Islamists. Don’t worry, onecent, maybe some evidence of a conection between Iraq and Al-Queda will show up one day.
    I mean how dumb are you? All evidence points to Saudi Arabia as the source of the funds for these attacks, the source of the extreme form of religion being practised by the terrorists, the source of 15 of the 19 hijackers, and yet you get convinced into attacking Iraq? I mean seriously onecent, how dumb are you? Laugh or cry, they’re both appropriate reactions to such imbecility.
    I’m sorry to have to say this but as tragic as 9/11 was, it doesn’t justify the US in anything it does. And I’ll explain why it’s in your benefit that the world adheres to rules: the US will not be number one forever. History has shown that all superpowers fall. The US will remain one of the world’s powers as far as I can see, but I’m pretty sure we’re moving to a multipolar world again (China and possibly India). You want a system where the Chinese decide to pre-emptively strike the US because it has weapons that are capable of reaching mainland China? Well you ushered in this new era of international relations, and I hope it is to your tastes.
    Why do I get the feeling that this new theory of pre-emptive attacks can justify the end of the rest of the world, as long as America is saved. And I see the mood amongst some of us and know that as long as gas prices aren’t effected and the Wal-Mart is still open, you won’t give a shit.

  46. hen Avatar

    Franky – You forgot the “sarcasm tags”. What America was it that you refer to that wd try to understand why a bunch of a$$holes wd cheer for a murderous, psychotic murderer? Certainly not the USA. And the fact that certain members of Europe don’t like us? Pls i consider it a badge of f’ing honor that the French, the Naz..oops, Germans and their chocolate poodles, the Flems don’t like us. I wd expect nothing less from these ungrateful f’s.
    And if America isn’t an ethical force in the world i wd defy you to name any other country that has been a greater force of good over the past 2 centuries. France? Germany? China? Oh i know maybe the Canucks — hell they gave us hockey and good beer, but i’m guessing that doesn’t quite match up to what we’ve done. Of course the pointy headed intellectuals such as yourself wd never sink so low as to acknowledge how great America is…way to low brow for your type, huh?
    And besides not giving up on the notion that WMD’s might still be found in Iraq (hey i buried 100 cadillacs in California — start looking for them now and when you uncover them let me know), if we are wrong, so to wd be the enlightened French, the faithful Mexicans, the honorable UN, et al, etc, ad nauseum.
    Let me guess who you admire: Stalin, Che, Fidel, Yassir and their ilk…how close am i?

  47. Franky Avatar

    So such a force for good for two centuries? Name me one instance when America acted in a way that was not consistent with its interests? Just one. Just one little one.
    And if such a force for good, tell me why the rest of the world doesn’t seem to agree? If the light of US foreign policy shines soooooo bright, why does the rest of the world dislike us?
    I mean if I was in a room full of people and they all disliked me, I might begin to consider a reason why. That level of scientific thinking a little too advanced for you? But no, like a broken record, just keep repeating “America is great”. There was a time when the buffoon at the back of the class shouted “America is great, America is great” without providing evidence was gently ushered to one side. Now he’s got the mic.
    Your question as to whether I admire any of them? I despise all of them to varying degrees.

  48. Andrea Harris Avatar

    So the chief criteria for a country’s actions to be considered “good” is for it to be totally against its own interests? God, you are one sanctimonious little prig. The opinions of comment beetles like you aren’t even worth considering. Jesus H. Christ, if terrorists did to any country what they did to us I’d be standing and applauding if that country did the same things we did to take care of the matter. I wouldn’t be spouting pseudo-moralistic bullcrap about how the people of that nation should “soul-search” and “try to understand” the hatred of terrorists. I know you are incapable of opening your titanium-shielded skull enough to take this in, but there is no huge mystery as to “why the terrorists hate us.” They hate us because we aren’t like them. They are the evil murdering bigot psychokillers, not us. You and all the other Osama fans, like your Mexican soccer-watching buddies, can go straight to hell.

  49. Anonymous Avatar

    I shouldn’t waste anymore of Jeff’s bandwidth addressing the idiocy of Franky but what the heck.
    The reason why there are “millions of adherents” to OBL or Islamists or whatever is nothing that i care about. I don’t care that the Japanese during WWII revered their emperor as a God, i don’t care that millions did the evil bidding of Hitler, i don’t care that communism, Stalinism and fascism is still in vogue in certain circles — all i care about is when they pop their wittle heads up to point their AK’s at us we already have lased their position and a 2,000 lb JDAM is closing fast. If this war turns into a more global matter (i.e. attacking forces in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc) that wd be fine with me. Now you might think 3,000 dead Americans is something that requires naval gazing on our part, i consider it an invitation to open up a Texas size can of Whup Ass and let these terrorists, and their supporters know that maybe 100 yrs from now we won’t be the baddest bad ass on the globe but for now you crossed OUR line and we are going to do WHATEVER we deem necessary to protect ourselves and our interests.
    Further, in case you are unaware, the Gulf war ended with representatives of Iraq signing a cease fire agreement with the US, not the French, not the UN, America, and despite the fact that for a decade we ignored their failure to comply with same, their targeting of our planes, their general belligerance we could have and should have resumed the war immediately upon Iraq’s attack on the Shia, Kurdish and Marsh Arab population — we didn’t then and that is our mistake, which we have not rectified in spades.
    But let me ask you, do you support an attack on Saudi Arabia? It appears that you do. Further, why wd you assume that the US will not always be the #1 super power? You see the difference between the “3,000 dead Americans, BFD” and “9/12/01 Americans” is that your type HOPES that America gets a black eye, my type believes that with vigilance we should NEVER have to bury our civilians murdered by forces from abroad in America again.
    Franky, i certainly hope you are not an American. Please tell me you are a Euro or some other such thing.

  50. Yehudit Avatar

    “Just to let you know, because life is short if you say: “our freedom” or “they want to convert us to Islam” I’m ending the conversation.”
    I’ll say it. The Islamist attacks on Americans are because they find our freedom repulsive (especially the freedom of our women), and they want us to convert to Islam or die. Now will you shut up?

  51. angell Avatar

    Frankly–do they also hate Sudanese policy, and Nigerian policy, and Indonesian policy, and European policy, and Russian policy, Bangladesh policy, Lebanese Christians policy, Egyptian Coptic policy,and India policy–is there anyone these killers can get along with. Hell, they even attacked statues of Buddah and desecrated them. They defecated on the altar in the Church in Bethlehem. These are sick sociopaths hell bent on destroying themselves and as many nnocents as they can, to please allah. Well, I hate muslim policy–with a passion. Screw allah.

  52. Franky Avatar

    By the way, let’s go over the things that make America uniquely great? Let’s see if this is based on solid evidence or just waving $2.99 flags?
    Name the exceptional things about America that make it great, so it must be things that other countries don’t have. I’ll start: we seem to do average (i.e. mid-range) on education comparitive to other countries, higher crime rates than most of Europe, bigger drugs problems than anyone in the world, inequality is getting more and more pronounced (remember when we would point at countries and say that massive and growing inequality was a sign of a real backward economy? Well welcome to the banana republic of the USA, a place where presidencies are handed down over generations).
    Yeah, you’re right Jeff, why change this earthly paradise? And considering we own one third of the global economy, that’s even more embarrassing.
    Now, let me anticipate the reactions, I’ll get the “You hate America” speech. Am I the only one who demands more of a country that started out with such promise? A country founded on a political document unheard of in history up to that point? Tell me what do you think Washington, Jefferson etc would say about the fact we elected George W. Bush? Is that what they had in mind (and if you’ve seen the interview with Russert, let’s drop the big game that really he’s a smarty guy underneath it all – he was extensively prepped on all the questions he was asked and he fumbled most if not all of them – what he’s not used to public speaking? Yeah, I guess x years as govenor and three as president just never taught him how to address people).

  53. hen Avatar

    Sorry that was my anonymous post above.
    Why wd any country do somthing, anything, that was not in it’s interest? that doesn’t even remotely make sense. But how about Kosovo. What was our interest there? None, but we acted UNILATERALLY to clean up the Euros backyard.
    Regarding why “they don’t like us” i cannot say this enough: I don’t care. The question is “why should WE like them?”.
    I will conclude by saying Andrea is dead on right, your idiocy is stunning, and if you need someone to explain to you why America is the greatest nation the world has ever known you need to go back to 7th grade and pay attention to all of your history classes.

  54. Tim Avatar

    Boy, talk about a divide.
    It’s pretty simple, really.
    Some think it’s forever September 10th – and they’ll vote against Bush; most of the rest of think its September 12th – and we’ll vote for Bush (and other candidates like him until we win). Those few who aren’t sure might tip the difference – that is, if those who think it’s September 12th aren’t already a clear majority.

  55. Martin Lindeskog Avatar

    Franky:
    America is the greatest country in the world! Maybe you should do some introspection and think about why America is the freest country in the world. President’s Day is a perfect time to think about it.
    America should stand up for the principle of individual rights, and shouldn’t care about if the rest of the world isn’t pleased… The problem is that the U.S. foreign policy is not “shining soooooo bright” due to all the compromises and mixed signals, but hopefully this will change in the future.
    Martin Lindeskog – American in Spirit.
    Gothenburg, Sweden (a.k.a. the socialist paradise).

  56. Franky Avatar

    Andrea,
    I was told we had an ethical foreign policy, in fact a foreign policy that was without equal over the past two centuries. I asked for examples. I’m sorry if you couldn’t provide any.
    And as for your fantastic analysis of the reasons for their attack – why is it always seem to be Americans they go after, or their allies? February, yes I can see you have no interest in understanding the whys, so there’s not much to talk about is there. But let me just correct you on one thing: next time be honest – when you say we should have attacked Saddam when he attacked marsh arabs, shias etc, let’s remember it was active US participation that allowed him to put down the rebellion. It wasn’t passive, it was active. The Iraqis didn’t just take off in helciopters and put down the rebellion, they asked for permission. Permission granted (it’s all there in pretty much any history book on the war, not hard to find). I guess another piece of ethical foregin policy.
    I guess in the end this is what it comes down to: I believe in rationality and I understand there are extremists on both sides, but the power of the majority of the moderates will push aside the extremists, and force will be employed in order to crush the extremists. When I see some of the incoherent spluttering like those posted above, I feel like I’m among the western version of Al-Queda. “Filthy swine America” seems to me to come from the same lack of thought as “America is great, America is great”. They’re not arguments, they’re slogans, easily adapted and remembered by the slow-witted.

  57. Joe Peden Avatar

    Ebb Tide, you can promulgate the idea that the President caused you to lose your job, and encourage this belief in others. This would, however, be so seldom true as to be irrelevant. So those who have hit on hard times should not wait for someone to save them when they need to save themselves. Why does the President know anything about your job? You should.
    The slogan, “It’s the ecomomy, stupid” is a propaganda ploy. That’s the point of the statement. Thus, if the ecomomy is “bad” it’s G.B. I’s fault. If it’s good it’s Clinton’s doing. Anyone who thinks much knows that Presidents can not do too much to influence the economy. Bush’s main contribution here was to make a normal economy possible by handling terrorism so that we are not terrorized into stagnation or recession. I have no idea if the tax cut helped, except psychologically also.

  58. onecent Avatar

    I mean if I was in a room full of people and they all disliked me, I might begin to consider a reason why…..
    You are. So start asking.

  59. Catherine Avatar

    Franky,
    You never answered anything I said directly. It was just name calling. Why is your demand for introspection on “why they hate us” any different from a black person being asked to be a little more understanding towards the KKK? Or should the Jews ave really tried being less more understanding towards the Nazis that wanted them wiped off the face of the earth since they may have had a grudges towards them?
    I tried to put it into simplistic terms that you understand.
    You also have a complete lack of presidential history. You really have to stop reading indymedia and get out of the house every once in a while…

  60. James Avatar

    Jeff wrote: “In addition, many of us are reluctant to wave flags in normal times.”
    What the hell for? While I’m aware that there do exist many for whom ‘flag waving’ is distasteful, I can’t imagine why.
    I’m especially confused as to why someone such as Jeff Jarvis, who is obviously aware of what a great country America is (see http://tinyurl.com/2azex for proof), would sometimes try to hide that sentiment.
    Jeff, am I missing something? Can anyone explain this phenomenon to me?
    James

  61. Andrea Harris Avatar

    Onecent: you rock. James: what on earth are you talking about? Are you mixing Jeff up with someone else?

  62. James Avatar

    Andrea,
    No, I’m not confusing Jeff with someone else. I’m a long-time reader of Jeff’s blog. I like much of what he writes, and believe that he loves this great country. I’m not in the least questioning his patriotism.
    But I don’t understand why he would write that “In addition, many of us are reluctant to wave flags in normal times”, and “…I never was a flag-waver and a nationalist and a parade-day patriot…”.
    I’m not being sarcastic or critical. I am sincere in wanting to understand why some occasionally find overt, public expressions of patriotism distasteful.

  63. Eric Deamer Avatar

    Meet the new trolls
    Same as the old trolls

  64. James Avatar

    Eric,
    Asking an honest question makes me a troll?

  65. Eric Deamer Avatar

    James:
    I’m not talking about you. I’m talking about “Franky” above.

  66. James Avatar

    Eric,
    My bad. Thanks for the clarification.
    One point: Though name-calling is unnecessary – not to mention uncivil – I do think you exercise remarkable restraint in calling Franky a mere ‘troll’. ;)

  67. Jeff Licquia Avatar

    I was told we had an ethical foreign policy, in fact a foreign policy that was without equal over the past two centuries. I asked for examples.
    OK, here’s one.
    Show me one country in the world that has had regional or global military dominance and has refused to translate that dominance into empire. By empire, I mean real troops occupying new territory, with no intention of giving it back to anyone, foreign or domesic.
    Hell, show me one country which not only didn’t deal out postwar retribution on countries vanquished in battle, but also spent even more of its resources to rebuild said vanquished nations before becoming their staunchest allies.
    In my study of history, both lists are one entry long, and we occupy the only slot in each.
    In 1945, the USA straddled the world. Our opponents in World War II had been crushed. Our troops occupied vast areas, both from past conquests (the Philippines) and recent (Japan, Germany, Italy). The strongest of our allies, Britain and the USSR, had both exhausted themselves, both having fought back from very near disaster. No other allies in that war had even token military might to resist us with. And we had the Bomb.
    So did we annex Japan and Germany? Demand tribute from the Soviets for our assistance? Exact WWI-style reparations on Italy? No. As it turns out, WWII was a net loss, in terms of territorial control, for the victorious and “hegemonic” USA, and our “tribute” was paid by us to our allies and enemies to rebuild them.
    Of course, the Marshall Plan is now a standard template in today’s diplomatic climate (never mind that no one else has both the military and economic resources to actually fulfill such a template). But, as in the cases of democracy and limited government, the rest of the world derives its virtue in this arena from emulating and improving on the American example. And, in nearly all cases, such example is only followed after a period of hubris and arrogance refuted by American military might. As it once was for Germany and Japan, so it is now for Afghanistan and Iraq (and perhaps others).
    Say what you will about European nuance vs. American naivete; I will comfort myself with the supreme examples of European vs. American attitudes: the post-WWI peace (created by the European powers over our objections) vs. the post-WWII peace (crafted and implemented largely by us). Europe, for all its snooty attitude then and now, itself only saw peace when it had American ideals shoved down its throat and American troops shielding it from the next great evil.
    None of this makes us better than them now, or vice versa. We should all be willing to learn from each other. But when they rise to assert their ethical superiority over us, our critics would do well to remember that the very pedestal they stand on bears the nameplate “Made in USA”.

  68. ruprecht Avatar

    War on Terror. Of course you can have a war on terror. Terror is a tactic of attacking civilians in a way that leaves the host country or countries semi-immune to punishment.
    When the sponser of the attack is known the attack is considered an act of war (thus noboby complained about the war against the Taliban), when the sponser is unknown it was treated as a crime. At least in the past. Bush has decided to treat all terrorist attacks and groups as acts of war and to dig deep and find the sponsers in an attempt to cut off the usefullness of the tactic.
    Al Queda has been seriously hurt, but the real story is that by going after funding the US and allies have managed to starve dozens of smaller terrorist groups of funding forcing them to sue for peace. By going after Afghanistan and Iraq Libya ended up dumping their WMD and terrorist ambitions and coming clean.
    You can fight a tactic.

  69. Ebb Tide Avatar

    Joe P (if you’re still here reading this far down, in a really interesting thread btw) writes:
    “Anyone who thinks much knows that Presidents can not do too much to influence the economy…”
    Well, I happen to agree with a lot of what you wrote, but I think the President has a LOT to do with how the economy works… and this is how I look at it…. if we are indeed fighting a war on terror (which I think we are) then how can we be sending people to Mars, leaving no child behind, give tax breaks, have deficit spending NOT related to the war on terror (which I happen to agree deserves to have spending assosiated with all the many efforts on that front) but what I argue with is all the “business as usual” politcal pork barrel spending and Bush’s own efforts to increase spending ASIDE from the war on terror.
    So I think the President does have a lot to do with the economy, and jobs creation (I am fully employed btw) and creating an atmosphere of fiscal responsibility even if Congress won’t stop spending like crazy. The President is not insignificant in the equation.

  70. JLawson Avatar

    Re “If you are a worker who recently lost your job, lost your health insurance and are having a hard time finding another good paying job, then you want change.”…
    Got a friend who was making a modest living running mainframe printouts around branches of a company. He did this for 15, 20 years… The money wasn’t great, but it wasn’t a demanding job – and money wasn’t that important to him. The thing was it was low stress.
    To make a long story short, the mainframe shop at that business shut down, they retrained him as a COBOL programmer and kept him on – until someone saw him watching female mud wrestling on the internet one day. He got fired.
    I talked with him shortly after he got laid off – counseled him to take a job, ANY job, to keep the money coming in. His response was that he wanted to be free to go work for an employer at a moment’s notice, and he didn’t feel comfortable taking a job that he’d have to leave. Plus, he was afraid he’d get ‘comfortable’ in something other than the perfect job, and not try to find one that really suited his skills.
    To date (and it’s been two years+) he’s worked a couple of months as a cab driver, done a bit of work as a musician.
    Yet he still refuses to look for work in any field outside what he wants (technical writing) – when I suggested he attend a TSA hiring fair, he acted quite insulted.
    You can’t make someone work, if they feel that work is beneath them.
    J.

  71. James Avatar

    Re: “War on Terror”.
    I prefer the term “War on Terrorists”. Let’s help the bastards personalize this thing.

  72. Anonymous Avatar

    I constantly wrote into DFA asking them to drop the word “CHANGE” from their stump speeches.
    Did they not have a linguist on staff? It seemed so obvious to me, and I am no linguist.
    Eventually it disappeared from Dean’s speech. Now, however, you can hear Kerry saying it. Let’s hope Kerry is smart enough to add a specifier: change ….the current administration. Or something.

  73. Ebb Tide Avatar

    J Lawson, there is a distinction between unemployed and unemployable and people will always be out of work who have no skills and don’t want to retrain.

  74. Steve Avatar

    Example. My daughter and her husband have four young children. My son-in-law was already under employed based on his education and honors related thereto. He made $45,000.00 working in something at least related to his engineering degree. He was “laid off.” After three months he found a job handling refinancing of mortages and is now making about $15,000.00 per year. That presents sort of a problem. The last monthly Cobra insurance payment they had to make was $1,800.00. They sold their house. They sold one car. Their savings are long since gone. One of the children has especial health problems (HPE) which requires full time attention. My son-in-law has extensive special training in fibre optics, DSL & T-1, construction of related computers for same, and a good knowledge of electrical engineering. He was laid off from a job doing home installation of telephones. He worked 60-80 hours per week during the last several months of his former job. He has no idea who has picked up the slack for his former employer. He worked four hours overtime his last day on the job before being laid off. Now this is a bit of an example of hard times. Their families are supporting them trying to keep them afloat. Theiy’re fortunate to have two families with the ability to do so.