Bush wins big: Even in Florida

No matter how you cut it, George "Dubya" Bush decisively won the mid-term elections. In Florida, where he had barely edged out the Democrats’ Al Gore by 537 in the November 2000 polls, gone through the agony and humiliation of a 36-day recount, and, finally, had to win the presidency by a hairbreadth five-to-four vote of the US Supreme Court, Bush at last came in a big winner.

This happened when kid brother, Governor Jed Bush, was reelected by a resounding margin. Jed first thanked God, then his parents (George Sr. and Barbara, the former First Lady), and finally the "great American President" – meaning Dubya – who had come down to Florida to campaign for him.

Let me add one more thing: I particularly like and admire the gentlemanly way in which Jed's Democratic Party challenger, Bill McBride, gracefully conceded the election, congratulated Jed Bush, then called on all to close ranks behind their state leader. It took courage – indeed, the word is intestinal fortitude – for McBride to smile as he thanked his supporters and declared his opponent the winner. His wife was there, too, on that painful stage, smiling bravely and adoringly at him.

It takes moments like this to define the character of a man. I caught only a glimpse of McBride, but I suspect that his fortunate nation will hear more of him later. As for Jeb — he deserved to win. That’s the way I look at it.

The bigger picture is that Bush now has a reinforced mandate from the American people – having pulled off a mid-term triumph matched only by the great Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1934 and Bill "Comeback Kid" Clinton in 1984. He had stuck his neck out: Staked his presidency on the outcome of this election. His marathon, last-minute five-day campaign through ten cities carried his message: Vote Republican and show the world you’re behind me! His gamble paid off. This is one cowboy who’s not ready to ride off into the sunset. Not yet.

The Republicans captured the House, racked up more governorships, and nosed the Democrats out of control of the Senate. Why, Elizabeth Dole got elected in North Carolina! That foxy lady is a "Comeback Kid", too.

A Republican victory isn’t necessarily good for us. One thing is certain: It’s not good news for Saddam Insane. It wasn’t the central issue, which was really the economy and the daily lives of Americans, but Bush now has a mandate to batter Baghdad and bully Saddam. He’ll send his planes, his rockets, he’ll throw the kitchen sink at the Iraqi despot. But send troops in? Probably not, not even in January. Why risk American ground forces who’ll be met with biological weapons, poison gas, and every booby-trap you could ever imagine? They may be tarred as dumb cow-punchers (and oily oil men) in Texas, but they’re not that dumb – not even in Crawford.

Perhaps all that shadow-boxing is just a bluff. Yet – like the go-for-broke Bush electoral stump – it might just pay off, even if only by accident.

* * *

It was interesting to learn from Alikabok, my keyhole beeper, that the US government’s "trouble shooter", Ambassador William Taylor, will be arriving today. Taylor will fly in on an official jet, direct from Washington DC.

The ambassador’s "cover" is that he’ll be giving a seminar on "counter-terrorism", but his real mission will be to talk with President Macapagal-Arroyo who’s scheduled to return tonight from a short visit to Hanoi, and possibly Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon). Will he bring gifts – or something more grim? Abangan.

Don’t expect the US to back down from its Travel Advisories warning Americans not to travel to Southeast Asia where the terrorist threat is a reality. President GMA joined the chorus from the ten members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to protest the American travel warnings. But why should she? If we can’t guarantee the safety of Filipinos from violent attacks or mad bombers, (not even a mayor from Abra), how can we pretend we can protect travelling Americans? Remember Americans Guillermo Sobero (who was beheaded) and Martin Burnham? Aren’t we the homeland of the Abu Sayyaf?

Last Sunday in Phnom Penh, for instance, Thailand’s Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra condemned those travel warnings as unfair and unfounded. He called for the rescinding of those cautionary restrictions so they would not discourage tourists. The Financial Times of London revealed that countries such as Australia, Britain, the US, and Denmark, which currently holds the European Union presidency, have warned their citizens to exercise extreme caution in Southeast Asia, "with most naming Thailand’s popular southern resort island of Phuket as a place where heightened vigilance is needed". Thaksin, alarmed, criticized such Western warnings as merely "speculative", but had caused great harm to Thailand where tourism accounts for some six percent of gross domestic product.

Can you blame those foreign governments for being paranoid in the aftermath of the Bali Bombing which killed more than 180 revelers (mostly Australians and Europeans) in a fiery Holocaust? Before that terrorist attack, Bali and Phuket were the two top Asian destinations in sharp contrast to all other Asian destinations where tourism had withered on the vine. Hotel occupancy in both Bali and that 550 square-kilometer island resort in southern Thailand, with its magnificent beaches and lambent waters, ran as high as 90 percent – with visitors from Europe and the US arriving by the planeload. When the Bali blasts occurred, I was tempted to write that Phuket might be the next terrorist target, but I deliberately held off, not eager to call anybody’s attention to it, much less remind terrorists of that other paradise isle’s existence.

Now that foreign travel advisories have already noted the vulnerability (and tempting target nature) of Phuket, with its hordes of Western tourists, I can point out that Phuket is perilously located in a region where Islamic troublemakers can easily be infiltrated, or melt into the local population. Located on the border of Malaysia, Phuket has, in fact, a large population of Thai Muslims, plus immigrants from Malaysia.

In terms of religion and race, Phuket’s population is varied. Buddhists, as might be expected in Thailand, constitute the majority (about 60 percent) plus "assimilated" Chinese who have always dominated the island’s economy. Then there are the Thai Muslims, who constitute about 35 percent, plus some Malays, Indians, Pakistanis, a few Europeans, and the so-called Mokens or "sea gypsies" (the equivalent of our Badjao). When I was last there many years ago, the island had 28 Buddhist temples, 29 mosques, four Christian churches, one Sikh temple, and 12 or more Chinese temples.

Phuket is now studded with 5-star hotels belonging to the big chains as well as de luxe resorts. In those more primitive and pristine days, I recall one instance in which four of us went to the "Irish Bar" (completely staffed by Thais, without a single Irishman in the establishment, not even an O’Shinawatra). We were determined to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day with appropriate libation and song, even in that sultry clime. One of our group was an Irishman from Ireland, another an Irish-American, a third an Irish-Australian, and, naturally, I was included as an Irish-Ilocano, with the name of O’Soliven. (Believe it or not, at Fordham U this writer belonged to the "Ancient Order of Hibernians".)

After that drinking session, my subsequent memories of Phuket remain a blur. What I do remember is that we had to literally carry our one true Son of Erin in the group to his plane the next morning and strap him in. Aside from being plagued by the Demon Grog, he was afflicted with Fear of Flying.

* * *

According to yesterday’s Asian Wall Street Journal (November 6), Indonesia’s President Megawati Sukarnoputri "recently pleaded with Australia to lift its (travel) warning, because, she said, the negative economic impact it caused on her country aided terrorism."

The report by Scott Neuman added that "it is a view shared by Amitabh Kant, India’s joint secretary of tourism. As tensions between India and Pakistan mounted earlier this year, the US issued a travel warning. Several other countries followed suit. Mr. Kant says it led to a 20 percent drop in tourism to his nation.

" ‘Our view is that the lead taken by the US was extremely hasty and ignored the fact that tourism is the best antidote for terrorism,’ he said."

The ASWJ noted that Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines are among the Asian nations "that aren’t pleased about travel advice discouraging tourists." On the Tourism Authority of Thailand’s website, Neuman wrote, "there is a response from Phuket Governor Pongpayome Vasaputi. ‘Thailand has been, and still is,’ one of the safest destinations and is not the target of terrorism."

Don’t tempt Fate, Khun Pongpayome." I can only remark. Where terrorists are concerned, mai pen rai is a policy that simply doesn’t work. They’re party-poopers by profession and are quite likely, when least expected, to toss a bomb while you’re enjoying your preferred form of sanuk.

As far as foreign governments are concerned, their policy is sauve qui peut, not the salvation of Asian economies. How can "tourism" be the antidote for terrorism? It simply provides terrorists, not to mention kidnappers, with more juicy targets.

* * *

How can we say we’re still trying to attract American tourists and businessmen to our country? Last Tuesday night, one of the few American businessmen to ignore the US government’s travel advisory about coming here was . . . well, "bumped off" from the Philppine Airlines flight from San Francisco to Manila.

The American had a confirmed seat on First Class, but when Pampanga Vice-Governor Mikey Arroyo, Jr. arrived at the airport with nine friends or members of his party, the nonplussed American was "asked" to give up his seat. The fellow, at first, indignantly refused, even when informed of the identity of the VIP involved – the President’s son – who was rushing home to join his wife and new-born baby. Everyone can understand a new father eager to get home to see his newly-enlarged "family", but why the high-handedness of insisting that his nine other companions be boarded, and a revenue-paid ticket-carrying passenger evicted? How could PAL refuse the "request" of the Chief Executive’s son – and still remain in business?

In any event, the indignant American businessman was partially mollified when, in exchange for his reluctant consent to be off-loaded, he was awarded an additioinal First Class round-trip ticket, or its equivalent.

My curiosity prompts the question: Could this happen on the airline of any other country, outside of dictatorships, of course? Just asking.