It's Remarkable

how it seems like ALL the republican bushites seem to always be on message. Some of the things this author has noted have been said almost verbatim on this board. Do you guys all subscribe to the same mailing list or something? Do they update the “story” for you every week with new talking points?

[quote]We cannot let pass without salute Martha Stewart’s remarks after being sentenced to five months in prison. In the long history of amazing things said by people in peculiar circumstances, you must admit, this ranks right up there. “There are many, many good people who have gone to prison,” she observed. “Look at Nelson Mandela.”

We live in a great nation.

Unfortunately, we are all likely to be driven batty if this presidential campaign gets any worse, which it is likely to do. Last week, I was on book tour doing one chat show after another and so got to experience first-hand the Republican orchestration of their talking points. And an impressive display it is. Truly, they speak with one voice, repeating the same thing over and over, never off-message ? just remarkable.

For the first two days I was on this media marathon, the story du jour was the Senate Intelligence Committee report that concluded the CIA was just flat wrong on its pre-war calls on Iraq. Wrong abut the weapons of mass destruction, wrong about connections to Al Qaeda, wrong about Saddam Hussein having a nuclear program and so on. All of which we already knew the government had been wrong about, but this was the Official Report.

So here’s the Republican reaction: “See, the CIA was wrong, so you people owe President Bush an apology.” I’m sitting there, brilliantly riposting, “Huh?” Here’s the chain of logic. The CIA was wrong, therefore those on the left who say President Bush lied to us are wrong because he wasn’t lying, he just believed the CIA. And you people are being rude and hateful and ugly and just mean about President Bush, and we want an apology.

What I’m worried about here is the amnesia factor. Am I the only person around who distinctly remembers an entire 18 months ago? This is what happened: The CIA was wrong, but it wasn’t wrong enough for the White House, which kept pushing the spies to be much wronger. The CIA’s lack of sufficient wrongness was so troubling to the anxious Iraq hawks that they kept touting their own reliable sources, such as Ahmad Chalabi and his merry crew of fabulists. The neo-cons even set up their very own little intelligence shop in the Pentagon to push us into this folly in Iraq.

Which brings us to the second talking point last week. Iraq never happened. I swear to you, this war and its disastrous aftermath never happened is the new official line. Down the memory hole. Never happened. You dreamed the whole thing. Iraq is now like Ken Lay and Chalabi. They never heard of it. Only met it once. Besides, Iraq contributed to their opponents.

According to The New York Times, “several Republicans,” presumably speaking for the Bush campaign, noted that American casualties in Iraq are down from last month. Actually, that is quite untrue. Forty-two Americans were killed in Iraq in June, presumed to be an unusually bloody month because it was leading up to the big handover of sovereignty. As of July 21, 43 more Americans have been killed in Iraq, with 10 days still to go in the month.

Total number of Americans killed so far is 901, but the new line is: What War? We turned it over to the Iraqis, see? Presto, it disappears, just like magic. It’s their problem now. Doesn’t have anything to do with us. Bush is out campaigning by calling himself “the peace president.” Honest. “He repeated the words ‘peace’ or ‘peaceful’ many times, as he had done increasingly in his recent appearances,” reported The New York Times from Iowa this week.

Watch the media compliantly take up this line. Truly fascinating. We’re also getting a new round of “9-11 was all Clinton’s fault anyway.” I don’t think this one will work for the R’s. It’s kind of pitiful, after four years, to still go around saying, “It’s all Clinton’s fault.”

Their first week in office, the Bushies claimed the Clintonites had taken the W’s off White House computers, glued the drawers together and committed other vandalism ? all of which turned out to be a big fat lie. Why that didn’t tip the media off about what kind of people they were dealing with is unclear to me.

Tell you what’s not Clinton’s fault, and that’s the shape this country is going to be in by the time we get rid of this administration. In addition to the fiasco in Iraq, Bush’s larger contributions to misgovernment include blinding a fiscal irresponsibility that has put this country deep in debt for years to come.
[/quote]

I’ll post the attribution later, I wanted to see if any of the bush-liters can guess where it came from first…

Pot, this is the kettle…I think I’ve been smoking too much of you.

tme,

There is a great big world beyond your mother’s basement. Come join us!!!

When you get a job, make money, pay your taxes, you will come around.

Until then, spend some time in the gym…

JeffR

That was really cute jeffy, but in the 30 or so years since I left home I’ve probably paid more in taxes than you’ve earned yet…

I don’t spend any time in a gym at all, I’ve got a pretty decent setup right now out in my garage. Rack w/cables, bench, two bars, a dozen sets of dumbell handles, 800#s of plate and a dip/pullup stand. Just coming off a two week rest right now, but this time of year I limit myself to a couple of upper body push/pull workouts a week. I average about 200 miles a week on my bike June through September, so I save the higher intensity weight training for October through May.

Thanks for your interest, though.

Tme, Bushites don’t think for themselves very often, much like their beloved leader…

Man, like there isn’t a liberal line that most’ve you guys on the left don’t toe. The basic principles of each party will be those that it’s supporters will follow and the liberal line against Bush is just as single-minded as the conservative line against Kerry is. I mean come on, as that author was busy bashing the right, he went ahead and espoused the basic liberal line on Bushes faults that have been echoed here on this forum many times. I’m not saying the basic premise of this thread was wrong, only that both sides are equally guilty…

No arguement here, slim. Four years from now when President Kerry is running for re-election I’m sure the tune will be pretty much the same, just from the other side. Who knows, depending on what kind of job he does I may be one of those taking shots at him then.

Bush is getting the worst of it now simply because he is such an easy target. I happen to be a registered Republican with Liberterian tendancies who just happens to think that Bush Lite is the worst thing to have ever happened to this country. But then as my pals zebbalina and rainman will gleefully point out, because I don’t march in lockstep with the bushleague administration I must be a “bottom feeding liberal democrat”.

There can be no such thing as a Republican who doesn’t worship at the feet of the shrub. Hey, he talks to god after all. What more could you possibly want in a president?

tme,

I never once called you a “bottom feeding liberal democrat.”

And I actually wanted Steve Forbes to be President. Bush was not my first choice, however he will be reelected…so what can you do?

[quote]tme wrote:
No arguement here, slim. Four years from now when President Kerry is running for re-election I’m sure the tune will be pretty much the same, just from the other side. Who knows, depending on what kind of job he does I may be one of those taking shots at him then. [/quote]
Then what the hell is the point of this post?

Dude, I am a conservative with libertarian tendancies, and I disagree with you on almost everything I have ever seen you post. So how the hell are you a republican?

[quote]DA MAN wrote:
Dude, I am a conservative with libertarian tendancies, and I disagree with you on almost everything I have ever seen you post. So how the hell are you a republican?[/quote]

DA: I never claimed to be conservative, especially by your standards. Fiscal conservatism has nothing to do with bibles or abortion, but I guess if I don’t sign up for the whole social conservative neocon christian thing then I can’t belong? Should I go and change my party affiliation tomorrow?

It wasn’t until Reagan the this “moral majortity” christian thing started taking over the Republican party. In 1992 when Bush had his platform basically dictated to him by the radical right, I had no choice but to vote for Clinton. Then in 96 the biblistas hand-picked Dole. Good job, another 4 years for Slick Willie.

In their zeal to court the christian conservatives, the republican party has completely lost touch with and alienated a lot of it’s more moderate membership.

So how the hell can you claim to have libertarian tendencies and back a jackass like bush lite? This asshole it the anti-christ to libertarian, exactly 180 degrees from anything and everything the Libertarian party stands for. You drank the fucking Kool-Aid, man.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
tme,

I never once called you a “bottom feeding liberal democrat.”

And I actually wanted Steve Forbes to be President. Bush was not my first choice, however he will be reelected…so what can you do?[/quote]

Ok, you’re right zeb. It was “bottom feeding liberal”. I completely made up the “bottom feeding liberal democrat” thing, and I apologize.

I would have vastly preferred either McCain or Forbes, but it became obvious early on that the party was ready to completely destroy any and every candidate that would stand in the way of their annointed one.

“I happen to be a registered Republican…”

“There can be no such thing as a Republican that doesn’t who doesn’t worship at the feet of the shrub.”

The Moral Majority really got rolling in the early 80’s, over twenty years ago. Tme, you are still a “registered Republican?” I little slow on the uptake, aren’t you?

By the way, Bush’s big thing in 1992 was not the hard right, but “kinder and gentler.”

If you are going to act like a smarter- than-thou-in-the-know kind of guy, perhaps you should learn how to spell and stay away from the “fucking Kool-Aid, man.”

My bad- the sentence should read “A little slow…”

[quote]schrauper wrote:
The Moral Majority really got rolling in the early 80’s, over twenty years ago. Tme, you are still a “registered Republican?” I little slow on the uptake, aren’t you?[/quote]

You’re point is? I have no clue how the words of mine that you quoted and this statement are related, and I really doubt that you do either.

[quote]
By the way, Bush’s big thing in 1992 was not the hard right, but “kinder and gentler.”[/quote]

Bush went to Falwell, Robertson and Ralph Reed in '92, and they dictated the Republican platform to him. They had plenty of influence in the Reagan and Bush whitehouse before this, but Bush needed the Konservative Kristian Koalition vote to get reelected in 92. Simple enough for you?

[quote]
If you are going to act like a smarter- than-thou-in-the-know kind of guy, perhaps you should learn how to spell and stay away from the “fucking Kool-Aid, man.”[/quote]

Likewise.

Bush says “God called him” to be president… God told him to invade Iraq.

woah.

The last thing America needs is a delusional ex-drunk with a messiah complex, with his finger on the Armageddon button.

Bush is desperately trying to call God back, for this next election, but it seems like the line is busy.

I’ll keep it simple for you, tme, real simple. Do you or do you not, as a “registered Republican…worship at the feet of the shrub?”

It’s been, what, twenty-some years since the Moral Majority came into the public view? You can’t spew enough vitriol about the "biblistas " and the “Konservative Kristian Koalition” and how they maintain an iron grip on the party that you still hold membership in. If the party leaves you, you can leave the party. Do you get it now, or do I have to use baby talk?

I’m extra sure that if you talk to the Bible thumpers and the “hard right” they will all agree on what a raving success 41 was. It goes without saying that party platforms are sent to Congress word for word to be enacted into law pronto.

By the way, enlighten me please on this whole “…social conservative neocon christian thing.” You do, of course, know that the so-called neo-cons were predominately intellectual ex-liberals with social science backgrounds, “mugged by reality” one might say. Among them were a large percentage of …Jews? Irving Kristol and Commentary magazine come to mind.

KKK- you clever boy, you.

Did it ever occur to you that 41 and Dole were loyal time-serving Republican soldiers whose time had come? I doubt it.

tme,

Actually, I never called you a “bottom feeding liberal” either! Perhaps you have me confused with others on the board that you go back and forth with.

What I liked about Forbes was his plan for a flat tax. Just one thing I don’t like about Kerry is his plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts.