George W. Bush is big on male
I think it's clear that these faith-based fellows are, at the least, thinking "impure thoughts" on a regular basis. They're so in love with power built on macho fantasies, so emotionally involved with the mostly male posses who enable their power -- and so tempted to cross over to the "dark side" once in awhile, just because they can -- that any latent bisexual or homosexual tendencies are bound to show up in their speech and gestures, if not their bedrooms.
Mike Malloy was pondering on his show this week, only half-jokingly, over whether we have our first homosexual president in office right now. He didn't mention Abe Lincoln or the other possibles, but he didn't have to.
During the time when that Gannon/Guckert creature was making his numerous mystery visits to White House, Bush's administation had sold a majority on Americans on bogus military actions, bogus security measures and bogus tax cuts. It had persuaded enough people that the president was a decent and strong leader when he was anything but. It got away with shaping reality with unprecedented Orwellian skill...so would it be a surprise if closeted members of Team Bush felt they could get away with inviting a gay prostitute over for some "hard earned" playtime?
With every day, those who said hubris would be BushCo's Waterloo are looking more prescient. And to have so much hubris that even our pathetic whore media can't completely cover for it, is arrogance that makes Richard Nixon look downright humble.
It's always interesting to note the viciousness of the contempt these jokers have for those who disagree with them. They love to create a straw man of the stunted, corrupt liberal who can't and won't accept their so-called flawless and clear logic. And they position their rhetoric in terms that exploit people's stupidity about the subject matter.
Take the mechanics of Social Security, for example: Many people (myself included) are dunces at financial math, and unless they have an inbred skepticism (as I do) they are vulnerable to fall for cheap wingnut word games about how privatization is inherently a better deal than government entitlement. (See Krugman, Paul for a detailed critique of Soc Sec privatization; also see Stock Market Crashes, 1929 and 1987.)
Fortunately, in the case of Social Security, there is a simple underlying flaw to Bush's privatization plans that most people can comprehend: When it comes to facing old age, it's better to have a guaranteed safety net than to rely on an unreliable investment market, even if the market might possibly yield a better return.
I don't think conserva-pundits like Krugman's colleague at the New York Times, David Brooks, have much skill anymore (if they ever did) in forwarding logical argument. What they do, what their brethren in the GOP propaganda machine do, is state what has the best chance of being believed by the most demographically advantageous of voters/consumers.
Color the bullshit upbeat, angry, professoral, moralistic...it all plays like market-tested opiates for the gullible. Corporations do the same thing with their advertising campaigns, and is it any wonder most corporations feel such a kinship with the master BS artists that the post-Reagan Repugs have become?
When you think GOP apologist, think of someone not unlike Philip Morris, which got away with decade after decade of selling to young people a known and proven killer.
Why haven't people yet thrown Republicans into a deserved state of disgrace and political exile?
Ronald Reagan messed with our minds, is one big reason why. He made a huge difference in how people see Republicans to this day. He was a very marketable figure, both during and after his presidency; under the Bushes (whose rise to power Reagan made possible) the Iraq adventures I and II were very marketable wars.
The 1970s era also messed with our minds. Since Nixon went to China and Carter failed to rescue the hostages, the National Security issue was one that many people became inclined to favor Republicans on, while the bodies of FDR and Truman rolled in their graves.
And, in a "land of plenty" (whether based on reality or hype) tax-cut ideas and other GOP economic plans generally don't get the kind of critical examination they deserve, and that works to Republican advantage.
It also works to Republican advantage that America remains essentially under the spell of the Christian religion. The Christian churches and the GOP share a lot of the same manipulative tricks, based on exploiting fear and ignorance, to make the sheep get with the program.
One of my main problems with Christian culture is that "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven" is too often treated like an undeserved Get Out Of Jail Free card, and the various Xtian sects have done a piss-poor job of stopping this. In this context, it's okay to raise hell on Saturday as long as you give lip service to the Lord on Sunday.
Faith without works is dead, said the Book of James. Not everyone who says Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, said Jesus of Nazareth. "Don't tell me you're a Christian. Let me figure it out." said J. Swadesh, formerly of Table Talk.
It's relatively easy in Jesusland to sell the idea that liberalism is the cause of today's social evils. People associated as liberals were at the forefront of the sexual and rhetorical revolutions in the '60s, and because much of today's media has devolved into softcore sex porn and rhetorical "hate porn," the conservatives say we can trace the dots to a supposed liberal source. Many in the heartland believe the conservatives have a valid point, and thus overlook significant contributions post-'60s conservatives have made to the coarsening of dialogue and culture.
Mr. and Mrs. Kansas haven't yet figured out that there are worse things in the world than MTV-style porn and partisan political rancor...things like rampant greed and rank hypocrisy. Until Democrats can get them to realize that there are, conmen conservatives will have the upper hand.
It's time that Democrats try to sell the value of honesty again, like Jimmy Carter did in his brief shining moment of 1976. Granted that all politicians lie, but the difference in degree between Democrats and Republicans does matter.
The worst recent Dem lying has been about blowjobs, and perhaps about errant campaign contributions. The worst recent Republican lying has been about war and national security, about our economic and environmental future, and about the democratic process itself. It seems clear to me which degree of lying has done more damage to the America envisioned by Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Paine and Madison.
No secret that the current political rancor is rooted in sincere resentment on both the conservative and liberal sides. But I think liberals generally have a better sense why conservatives hate them, than vice-versa.
Reasoned libs know that conservative hate doesn't all eminate from Cro-Magnon stupidity. They recognize it also reflects long-term disappointment with the failed promise of post-RFK liberal leadership.
But conservatives, for the most part, are truly shocked by the idea that what they represent would create such vitriol. They see their movement, even when it falters (which they think rarely happens), as being pure of heart. They identify with the cartoon of St. Ronnie: "We love people so much we offer them true freedom from immorality and bureaucracy." And if someone dares challenge this, they better be as respectful as that nice Mr. Lieberman over there in the corner.
As for life in a post-Bush reality (if that's possible) I'm so far liking Wesley Clark best of all the potential 2008 presidential candidates. He started his '04 presidential run too late, and was a bit too green a campaigner. But overall he has a resume to rival John Kerry's, and enough poise & gravitas to make Dick Cheney look like a little girl.
I think it's good that the media is stupidly (or purposely?) forgetting him, in all their "Hillary mania." It'll make Clark's "Iowa surprise" that much sweeter, if he does indeed run. Whether the money men will give Hillary (or Kerry) enough later oomph to retake the lead, is still up in the air.
Kerry could play the "I came this close to unseating a popular wartime president" card, if the media lets him. He probably wouldn't even have to mention last year's Ohio debacle that likely robbed him of the presidency.
Disingenuous, sure. But depending on how well the others a.) play in Peoria; and b.) kiss media ass, perhaps effective.
Al Gore might also give it another shot in '08, but I'm skeptical about his chances. He has not only been "Gored" by the media, he's been "Deaned," due to his 2004 endorsement of the Doctor plus his recent firebrand speeches. It's unlikely he can overcome this.