 |
|
Add to My Group
|
June 10, 2008 at 10:25:29
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 6/10/08: by Hans Meyer Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
There has been an obvious attempt of late by the right-wing noise machine to re-write (very current) history. Unfortunately for that noise machine, some of us have memories which go back further than 10 seconds ago. Let’s review some examples and how they illuminate this blatant attempt at historical revision. First up, there’s the attempt to divorce conservative and Republican. This usually takes the form of “George Bush never was a conservative” proclamations from the pundits and mouthpieces on the right. For example, when Bush was at 60% approval in the polls (in November, 2003) Jonah Goldberg said “...Bush has proved that he's a Reaganite, not a "Bushie.” And when Bush plummeted to 32% (in May, 2007) what did he say? Goldberg said, “look at Bush from the right angle, he looks an awful lot like a liberal.” From “Reaganite” (in 2003) to looking like a “liberal” (in 2007)? Flip-flop. Next, let’s look at the price of gasoline. The right-wingers want to blame the (just elected in November, 2006) Democratic Congress for the $4.00/gallon gasoline Americans are now facing. If they were honest with us and themselves (which they’re not), they would know that a stable Middle East equals lessened fears of potential shortages caused by the disruption of the world’s oil supplies, which in turn equals stable speculation on future oil prices. Instead, the Bush administration, in its foolish invasion of Iraq (and now saber-rattling over Iran), has caused oil speculators to raise the price of oil to astronomic levels. When Bush took office oil was around $30 a barrel and gasoline was around $1.20 a gallon. Now oil is $140 a barrel and gasoline is over $4.00 a gallon. Sorry right-wingers, this is not the result of action or inaction on the part of Democrats in Congress since January, 2007. This is a direct result of a destabilized Middle East, compliments of the Bush Administration’s war of choice/invasion of Iraq in 2003. And a destabilized Middle East equals fears of disruption of the world’s oil supplies, which equals higher prices driven by those fears of the speculators. Finally, there’s the Iraq war itself. A few weeks ago Jonah Goldberg published a column on the surge and the Congressional vote last summer authorizing it, comparing John McCain’s vote for it to Barack Obama’s vote against it. Goldberg piously announced that had America followed Obama’s vote all the wonderful things in Iraq (since the surge began) would not have happened. What a perfect example of choosing a point in time which somehow proves your argument, while conveniently ignoring an earlier point in time which completely demolishes the point you’re trying to make. Sorry, Mr. Goldberg, but had you gone back just a little further in time to, say, 2002, and seen that McCain was in favor of the invasion in the first place, while Obama was against it, you might have been a little more circumspect in your judgment. Heroic efforts after the fact (in 2007) do not negate stupid choices in the first place (in 2002). 
www.FreeWorldRadioNetwork.net
Hans Meyer is the host of Situation Awareness, a more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
| 11 comments |
|
There are...
... many more examples of the attempt by the right-wing noise machine to re-write history. My local newspaper is filled with Zings! (anonymous one-liners) and letters to the editor which indicate that many Americans have bought, hook, line and stinker, these kinds of attempts. - Hans by Hans Meyer (11 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 4 comments) on Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:06:52 AM  (0+)
|
|
Kevin James
Kevin James gives Goldberg a run for the money. by ed kriner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:18:42 AM (0+)
|
|
Historically impaired
This is exactly the type of short, simple and direct article I would enjoy reading more of. The first aspect of this that I find incredulous is that people like "Rube" Goldberg actually believe this stuff they concoct. It seems to be a witch's brew, and the more of it they make and drink, the more they believe. And of course they truly expect most other people to believe it as well. The second part of the incredulity is that many Americans DO believe it. This must be true or else the big media outlets, on radio, in the press and on TV, with big broadcast noise machines would not be enjoying the success they are. I was almost simultaneously gratified when Bill Moyers ate the lunch of an O'Reilly producer, and then was stunned to read, only moments later, that many white, Appalachian men will not vote for Obama because they have been told he will "enslave" white men if elected President. These people are not just challenged, they are seriously imaired, in their judgement, their objectivities and their loyalties. Allowing the press to be be "free" has also seemingly allowed it to have a perpetual hangover, from having drunk too much of itself. We should pay more attention to the warnings being issued by the media reformers who gathered recently in Minnesota. Dubya would probably tell us that it is OK that we have been "pressified", or something along those lines. Limbaugh would make something good of that. And the WH press corps would assure us that it was only a case of our being "incorrectibly misiformationalized" . Marginalized, decieved and lied to is more like it. by Ivan Hentschel (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 302 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:13:26 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The pulpit pundits...
Appalachian men will not vote for Obama because they have been told he will "enslave" white men if elected President. If this is true, they most likely heard it from a "pulpit pundit" at an evangelical church receiving tax-exempt status. Time to take tape/video recorders into religious institutions and out these separation of church and state violators on YouTube and elsewhere. You talk politics from the pulpit -- pay up or shut up. by Amanda Lang (23 articles, 14528 quicklinks, 442 diaries, 731 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:08:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Maybe pulpit panderers?
Amanda, you are probably right. But they got their ammo from the continuing flow of disinformation from the past. We really can't afford to excuse the state of "ignorance is bliss" any longer. I think the pulpit pundits and really leech-like substances that pander to fear to keep their pockets lined. Religion, opiates, fear, tax exemption, power, greed and deception. It's all a big ugly cultural concoction. Sad. by Ivan Hentschel (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 302 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:30:57 PM (0+)
|
|
I salute you both Hans and Amanda,
Just look how the Reich idolizes Ronald Reagan, with name branding anything of lasting value in the US of late. He even has an airport formally known as Washington National Airport, how ironic and I wonder how the air traffic controllers union employees working there opinion's are over this. RR was a snitch-B rated actor, who swapped wives then political parties, and had a rouge government that supported "Freedom Fighter's" now re-labeled as Terrorist's by the Reich. His bloated government and budget busting federal deficits that your grandchildren will still only be paying interest on the principle, are contrary to the "Family Values" GOP(Greed/Opportunistic Party). He didn't have anything to do with the breakup of the former USSR, but his administration had everything to do with gutting EPA laws, stealing wealth through the S & L scandle and junk bond ponzy schemes, supplying weapons for cocaine that created a violent epidemic of crime in the inner city's across the nation in the 80's. His administration comes a close 2nd of dismal government management to the current self-appointed cabal of Bu$h & Co., with 3rd being the "Voodoo Economics" quoted Bu$h Sr. There is no separation between these pontificate-r's of their interpretation of "The Word" and their political allegiance to the Reich. Why? They believe they are on God's side by promoting/infusing the 2nd coming of Christ. What they don't seem to gleen from interpreting between the lines is, if and when it happens, on a time-line not motivated by human hands. Yet who did Jesus associate with while roaming the earth? The destitute and downtrodden. Would these self-professed "Christan's" even recognize him if he was already here? I doubt they would acknowledge him from their Ivory Towers, built from extortion of the blinded masses, who give so foolishly of that they really can't spare. by Stanimal (2 articles, 226 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 1254 comments [234 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008 at 2:32:43 PM (0+)
|
|
A libertarian view
From a libertarian point of view Bush in many ways behaves like a liberal. Especially glaring are his Medicare prescription drug coverage, No Child Left Behind, & his stimulus checks. I suspect that if a Democrat had done these things there would be nothing but praise for them from progressives. by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 401 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:04:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: "You keep using that word...
...I do not think it means what you think it means" -- Indigo Montoya Maybe it got confused with "loopy." psst... the jackboots are showing. And quit trying to pass off that Klan hood as a Toga. Silly neocon. Semantics are for smart people. by waldopaper (15 articles, 3 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 609 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:23:02 PM (0+)
|
|
Well
There is no Republican Party anymore except in name. Just 2 colors of Democrats (Red and Blue). By definition, a Republican has always been for small government, protectionist, anti-war except when attacked, pro business, and fiscally responsible. Republicans do not support Free Trade, nor Globalization that infringes on American sovereignty, nor do they support the Federal Reserve System, nor the Income Tax that was required to pay the interest on the debt the system would give us. The Democrats starting with Wilson and FDR gave us big government, social welfare, corporate welfare, wars and unholy international alliances, fiscal irresponsibility. They have evolved and today have become more about corporate welfare and less social welfare (the New Deal was a bone to throw to the public for the fascist NRA and Farm Bill, the SS trust fund has been looted of a 2 trillion dollar surplus) . They also gave us the evil known as the Federal Reserve System and the Income Tax. Yes, Bush is a Democrat, as his McCain, and Obama. Only one flavour on the ballot. Of course, there are serious differences in matters that have no major importance except to those who do not understand the larger issues. But on the larger issues, they are identical. Democrats might tax business a bit more and spend a bit more on social stuff so long as business can profit from it, and Republicans might spend more on the military and less on social spending, unless it benefits business. Real Republicans are as extinct as the dinosaur. by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:56:47 AM (0+)
|
|
Never existed
"Real Republicans are as extinct as the dinosaur." If they are as described they never existed in the first place. by Hans Meyer (11 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 4 comments) on Wednesday, Jun 11, 2008 at 6:07:29 AM (0+)
|
|
Toxic brand
"From a libertarian point of view Bush in many ways behaves like a liberal." It doesn't matter what point-of-view you're using. The fact is, and the point of the article was, George W. Bush was "sold" (and elected and re-elected) as a conservative in the Reagan mold. Until, that is, his "brand" became toxic. by Hans Meyer (11 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 4 comments) on Wednesday, Jun 11, 2008 at 6:11:17 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
