Terror Terror Fear Fear Fear 9/11 George W. Save Us Dems Suck Terror Terror Fear Fear Fear

[filkertom]

Crooks and Liars has the Republican National Committee's new attack ad. Basically: Dubya is trying to save the country from terrorists, and the Dems want to censure and impeach him for it. Who do you stand with?

Problem is, of course, that pretty much every legal scholar except the ones in the White House believe that Dubya has willfully violated both the FISA Act and the 4th Amendment. So, if the Dems have any savvy at all (sadly, not a sure thing), this is an easy one to turn around: Dubya is so inept at catching terrorists that he feels he can't do it without breaking the law and violating the Constitution, and the Dems want to get him the hell out of the driver's seat before he takes the bus over a cliff. Who do you stand with?

And, bluntly, I've been disgusted with the fear card for the last three years at least. Every damn time they start to actually call Bush on his bullshit, suddenly it's OMGWTFBBQ Terrorists! 9/11! Remember the Pueblo! Et cetera. They don't want to govern; they don't want to lead. If they did, they've had the chance for five freakin' years.

Which raises the question: What do they want?

I used to think it was simply money and power, but now I'm not so sure. Everything from Pax Americana to the Rapture has been discussed, but... something's going on here. The public interest has been almost completely abandoned by the Republican party, and -- as much as I wish I didn't have to admit it -- that really isn't like them. Yeah, a lot of 'em are big fans and friends of industry, free market policies that reduce people to serfs, and living individually for today rather than working communally for the long term. But they used to be able to speak, not necessarily convincingly but at least honestly, about fiscal responsibility and reducing the size of government and defending people's rights. They used to get along with the Dems, and vice-versa, and there was at least a chance of decent legislation coming out of it now and then.

Now? Terror terror fear fear fear 9/11 tax cuts Dubya's great Dems are traitors terror terror fear fear fear.

Any serious thoughts about Republican leaders? I'm not talkin' Frist, Hastert, or John "Joe Biden" McCain. Their souls are long since mortgaged. Republicans, who do you really trust in your party? Dems and independents, are there any Republican leaders you trust? And if any of you do trust Frist, Hastert, McCain, or anyone in the Bush Administration, could you please explain why? I'm not being snarky here: I want to know.

Comments

trouble is, the terror card is working

[capplor.livejournal.com]

I don't understand it, but I've had all my adult birth-relatives (as opposed to the husband & kids) voted for Bush in 04 because "He kept us safe from terrorists". Never mind that the 9/11 plot was obviously years in the making, and resource intensive and could NOT be repeated the next day. Never mind that in 1986 I was being briefed that the next war WOULD be terrorists attacks and that there was no known reason it hadn't already happened. (And never mind that they STILL believe that, despite the 9/11 commission and everything that's happened since.) Mind you I do NOT claim to be the only sharp tack in the batch either. Most are college educated; Mother has more degrees than I do.

What do they want? The only thing I can think of, that fits the facts and is moderately self-consistant is to GET the whole world on the other side, so that all the "wrong" kinds of people can be nuked to oblivion in "good conscience". I hope I'm wrong.

Re: trouble is, the terror card is working

[warinbear.livejournal.com]

When it comes down to voting for the Shrub, the best explanation I've heard (not that it's all that good, and not that I agree with it) is that it's a bad idea to change Presidents in mid-war. Bleah.

As to what Bush & Co. want, I think it's less about getting money and power for themselves and more about denying money and power to anyone else. At the very least, they're not wanting anyone within the States who isn't in their pocket to have such an advantage.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Check any and all press photos of Republican leaders over the last few years. You're looking for a dark-haired guy in a suit who smiles a lot.

Seriously, I think they've made deals that they can't back out of with someone who terrifies them. Don't know who, don't know what for, but they're running scared themselves. They know that if they back out, or let the side down, money and power will not save them, and that's probably a new experience for them.

Just a thought...

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Karl Rove's hair isn't particularly dark, is it?

;)

[darthparadox.livejournal.com]

I think the point could be a holy war. Country be damned, they've worked to the point where a war on the entirety of Islam is not a terribly large leap to make. It's the only way I can reconcile their actions with the concept of competence.

Honestly, though, I think the best explanation is the simplest - rich kid gets it in his head to be preznit like Daddy. So he puts together a group of his friends and throws a shitload of money at it, captures the presidency, and realizes his in over his head. And we have an utterly incompetent administration. But of course Bush can't admit that he's incompetent, and doesn't know what the hell he's doing. But hey, in the movies, when someone gets attacked they go and kick everyone's ass, right? Maybe that'll work here too.

So here we have war in two countries and a third coming. He gets the support of the conservative Christian base because he's beating all them terrist ragheads back into line, and away he goes. It's all a big game of cowboy.

I hope for his sake that Christianity isn't correct in its conception of the afterlife, because if it is, he's going to burn in hell.

[jss]

> I hope for his sake [...]

You're far kinder than I am.

[ericthemage.livejournal.com]

Honestly, though, I think the best explanation is the simplest - rich kid gets it in his head to be preznit like Daddy. So he puts together a group of his friends and throws a shitload of money at it, captures the presidency, and realizes his in over his head.

I think you have that backwards. More like, rich group of people wants to take power, needs someone controllable in the White House. They pick Bush. He's always had people behind him cleaning up after his mess. A useful idiot.

[mrteapot.livejournal.com]

Who's good in the Republicans? I'm a Democrat that I voted against Arlen Specter in '04, but since his reelection he has been good at calling the President and the administration on their bullshit. Better than the Democrats, often, and his word has been carrying more weight, too. It has to do with the fact the he's a moderate Republican, far more moderate than those in power, and is getting very old. He's getting very old, and nearly died of a brain tumor, and I think he wants to do some good in Congress before leaving.

He joined the Republicans originally because he was opposed to the corruption in the Democratic party, and now is faced with a Republican party full of corruption. He has more strongly opposed bush's wiretapping program than most Democrats: he proposed impeachment at one point if the wiretapping is determined to be illegal.

Plus, he's got a name like a 1950s science fiction hero.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I admit I'd feel a lot more kindly towards Specter if he'd done his job and sworn in AG Gonzales, rather than just let him have a nice, friendly, non-legally-binding chat.

[mrteapot.livejournal.com]

True enough. I don't support him 100%, but I haven't found a politician of any variety that I can support. Specter's voting record and political history is, in my view, a mixed bag. But that's well ahead of the rest of the Republican party, which is nearly all bad (my other Senator, Rick Santorum, comes to mind).

Twilight zone

[sepdet.livejournal.com]

Mostly, being a good little classics scholar, I assume that we'll be getting Nero in soon as this Caligula person is running out of horses to make into Supreme Court justices and other appointees. However, something else always springs to mind.

Rumor has it that Shrub likes Babylon 5 (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated/msg/c320273baf21a72c).

This is not a totally unrelated item. Babylon 5 had a political figure seize the presidency through unethical means (okay, a very well-concealed coup and assassination instead of an election debacle, but still), use a supposed terrorist attack as an excuse to institute the Patriot Act -- er, I mean, the Night Watch -- thought police, a Ministry of Peace, have his own little war against the evil terrorists on Mars who of course had NOTHING to do with the initial bombing, foment anti-earth sentiment, push through various agendas, line the pockets of his corporate buddies, sell his soul to the devil (the Shadows), and institute martial law. Among other things. Oh yeah, and blockade various Earth colonies that seceded in protest over his policies.

It was exaggerated, pulling in bits of McCarthyism, the Vietnam War, the Weimar Republic, and everything else. But there are SO many parallels, particularly President Clark playing the terror card over and over, saying that we have to route out the traitors and alien subversive forces trying to topple the government, and therefore all sorts of freedoms have to be curtailed.

The thing that always scares me: If Shrubya really DID like Babylon 5, then-- is he really following President Clark as his role model? Didn't he get that this was the villain?!! Apparently not, because they sound just alike!

[yinepuhotep.livejournal.com]

The only Republican I used to trust was Ron Paul, until he signed on to the "prevent the courts from protecting religious freedom" bandwagon.

Now, I don't trust the Republicans any more than I trust the Democrats. Hell, the only candidate of ANY of the parties that I've trusted since I was old enough to vote was Mike Badnarik.

[ericthemage.livejournal.com]

The only Republican I used to trust was Ron Paul, until he signed on to the "prevent the courts from protecting religious freedom" bandwagon.

I usually follow Ron Paul, but I must have missed that one. What is it?

[yinepuhotep.livejournal.com]

The measure I'm referring to is listed at thomas.loc.gov (http://thomas.loc.gov) as: H.R.4379 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4379:) : To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

Mr. Paul was the representative who introduced the bill on 11/17/2005.

In the text of the bill, Mr. Paul would prohibit federal courts from hearing any cases involving religion, privacy rights, or any case involving sexual orientation, sexual practices, or reproduction. The bill would also make all previous decisions on any of those matters non-binding. On top of that, the bill would make it an impeachable offense for a federal judge to hear any of those types of cases.

While I was looking that one up, I noticed some others that indicate Ron Paul isn't the libertarian he claims to be, such as the following measures he sponsored in the most recent session:

• H.J.RES.46 : Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.


• H.R.776 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.


• H.R.3822 : -- Private Bill; For the relief of Milton De Jesus Marroquin.


• H.R.4118 : To prohibit Federal payments to any individual, business, institution, or organization that engages in human cloning.

And the following measures he co-sponsored during the same period:

• H.R.69 : To require assurances that certain family planning service projects and programs will provide pamphlets containing the contact information of adoption centers.


• H.R.356 : To ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child.

[liddle-oldman.livejournal.com]

I've been assuming it's just a two-fisted grab for what they can wrench free.

These sorts have been trying to roll back everything FDR ever did since he did it. As far as I can tell, the current administration is trying to roll back Theodore Roosevelt, and bring back the Gilded Age.

That's my theory.

We'll ignore the hard liners who are, literally and fervently, trying to bring about the Appocolypse.

Visualize whirled peace

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

They don't have any better ideas. Their imagination is limited and this is the best they can do.

There are, broadly, three groups here: (1) the public, (2) the party elite, including the Senators and Representatives, and (3) the administration. Each has different motivations:

1. The public supporters of the Bush administration are largely motivated by fear of the Other, fear of poverty, and despair of the future. There is also a great deal of--would you believe?--masculinity doubt, hence militarism and Schwarzenneger.

2. The party elite likes its power. Some of them hope to use it for "good", I believe. Exactly what good they could that outweighs the bad they are doing I cannot imagine.

3. The administration itself is divided into three factions.

The factions of the administration are:

1. The religious fanatics, led by Bush.

2. The imperialists led by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, who are convinced they will usher in a century of American empire, but seem likely instead to induce the creation of multiple regional empires, which will contend to form a global government. (I expect we will see the European Union, the Islamic Crescent, India, the East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere, and the Latin American workers and indigenous people's union. Africa will remain the sick man of the world, though great leadership from South Africa seems likely.)

3. The greedy, including the corporatists, who are simply out to loot the county.

There is one bright spot in all this: one of the basic problems is a paucity of imagination and that is something there is a remedy for. If we can imagine better things, and offer them as futures, the public--the world--might grab them and keep running. One caution: I want to offer the hope of a better world that is still a real world; not a messianic fantasy that turns to more despair and tyranny. That said, the vision of a unified world at peace is as relevant now as it has ever been, and perhaps more in reach than ever before.

I'll tell you what they want, what they really really want:

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

A pony.

No, OK. Back in the 70s (the first epoch I can claim to be personally aware of) the GOP was making all sorts of deals and speeches aimed at getting power. I noticed this as a kid. We had GOP politicians saying one thing and doing another, saying mean things about their opponent that actually applied to them, and doing things at least 90% of their constituency wouldn't approve of if it came to be known that they did so and why they did so.

This started with Nixon's wiretapping, and ended... well, it didn't end *in* the 70s, but ended with Mr Reagan's march toward the White House.
Part of that march took place in 1980. At least one of these two things have, TTBOMK, been confirmed: that Mr. Reagan had access to Mr. Carter's Q&A book before at least one debate, and that GHWB had talked with the Iranians holding the hostages and asked them to *not* release the people until after the election.

Iran-Contra was one part of a scheme intended to allow the White House to do just what it wanted to without any of those messy checks and balances.

During my lifetime, each GOP President who has been in office for longer than one term has attempted major efforts to do an end-run around the Constitution. The evidence is there; it is plain to see. It is a pattern. The only way for people to ignore this is to have something else to focus on. This means cutting out people's rational thinking with emotional thinking. Thus, fearfearfear horrorterror Demsaretreasonous.

The GOP has been like a model at a club for collecting money and power and doling it out amongst themselves. Collecting money and power is something politics can be very good at. Let's face it, at its worst the use of politics is a legal means of thievery and intimidation. The problem is, gathering power and money does not also include knowledge of how to govern. It does include knowing how to tell people what they want to hear. Note Enron.

Quite frankly, the model's been wearing a lot less covering as the years have gone on.

Count me disgusted

[beldar.livejournal.com]

I was REALLY hoping this video was an April Fools trick.