While sitting in the waiting room of our doctor's clinic, an old friend arrived, accompanied by her daughter, and we began to chat since we had not seen each other for a while. The daughter inquired as to whether we had "signed up" for the new prescription drug progam. I answered in the negative, explaining that it is so complicated that I had not yet had time to figure it out. I had worked on it, figuring the amounts that will be "deductibles and co-payments", those amounts that would fall within the "donut hole", and adding in the projected price of the premiums which, we are given to understand, are neither stable nor predictable and may be raised by the insurance companies at any time. On the whole. with my preliminary figures, it would add to our medications expense and appears to be, in my opinion, "just another Bush boondoggle"
The response was icey! "I take it that you do not like George Bush, then!"
"I do not like his policies and I do not approve of the Iraq War," I stated. "I do not like his tax breaks for the rich and his attempted tampering with the Social Security system."
"Well," she interjected, "I just love him! He is so cute!"
I have found that this is the typical reaction of those who insist that George W. Bush is the greatest thing to happen in these United States since the invention of the automatic bread slicer. One cannot discuss issues with them on any matter. The cult of personality has taken over and he is their boy, regardless of anything that is said or done by him or anyone else. They don't know what he is doing and they don't care! They have elected him God and he can do no wrong. If one persists in discussing any policy, foreign or domestic, one cannot help but learn that soon we are met with blank stares as if we had launched into the theory of relativity. It is obvious that the average market-variety Bush supporter must be sleep-walking as they really have no idea what is going on. On cue, they are ready to parrot the Party talking points, but don't even try to involve them in a real discussion of facts.
In a recent conversation with a young person who normally refuses to even discuss anything political with me or anyone else, I mentioned that the internet is awash in stories about the possibility of a scandal involving the "outing" of an undercover CIA agent which may involve Karl Rove. His beautiful blue eyes literally glazed over as he asked, "Who is Karl Rove?" I did not bother to further confuse him with names like Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby, or John Roberts. The most radical supporters of George W. Bush are totally unfamiliar with the names of those whom he has seated in the positions of power. But then, we can hardly expect them to make the connection with names like Newt Gingrich and Ollie North, not to mention John Poindexter since they have no memory of modern history before the year 2000.
It would seem that fully a third of the voting public are unknowing and uncaring of public or world affairs. They do not really watch television news or read newspapers, learning most of their political news from behind the pulpit in church on Sunday. George W. Bush is a good Christian and we may rest assured that our nation is in good hands as he goes about the world vanquishing the evil ones and forming Christian democracies. We must not worry our innocent little minds with details or ask questions because God is blessing America and good will triumph!
Others simply look at their pay checks and, if they are among the fortunate few, they applaud the tax cuts and revel in their positions in the middle class as evidence of their worth making them better than the poor fools who are suffering poverty due to the loss of their own jobs. "Those slobs in New Orleans 'had it coming' because they didn't evacuate when they should have." "Africans are dying by the thousand because they have always been backward and they just have to grab their own bootstraps to become as capable as we are." "The Democrats are just belly-aching because Bush beat Al Gore." They can't trouble their "beautiful minds" with things like offshoring of jobs or the build-up of the Chinese miltary capacity in South America and the Caribbean. "President Bush will take care of that."
The talking points are legend but, on closer examination, they simply make no sense and serve only to hide the fact that this a nothing more than a cult of personality. Political discourse in this country has converted from discussion of issues to a team sport, "Our Guy vs. Your Guy". In the process of learning that the Bush Republicans have totally abandoned even a cursory interest in the affairs of the nation, they can, at every opportunity, recite every detail of the scandals of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky and all the other alleged but unproven charges against that president before, during, and after his tenure in office.
With the exposure of the Able/Danger group, the wires are hot with their disclosures as the Republicans call all the talk shows and shout excitedly, "See? There were so WMD's! Able/Danger said so!" The poor souls are so fact-deaf that they never notice the time frame in which this knowledge was developed. It was in 1990-1, which is why the UN sent the inspectors in to make them all be destroyed. "Scott Ritter? Who's he?"
They will also deride the Democratic Party for its failure to push forward a candidate for the next presidential election or any policies in opposition to those of Mr. Bush. While they do have a point on the latter, why should a minority party bother to suggest programs and solutions to a Congress that is so heavily weighted to the other side that such ideas would die a-borning? Any leader who is put forth at this time would quickly become mired in malignant accusations, (as in the case of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton), that they could hardly be expected to be effective in campaigning. As for choosing a "leader", there appears to be no hurry since the next election is still some time away and any number of people may make themselves available. Any "turkey" who raises his head above the flock at this time is going to be beset by buckshot from both sides. Better to try to build popular support sufficient to resist the Democratic Leadership Council and their efforts to dictate whom the candidate should be.
However, we "independents" may have have a "stopper" for the Republican rants, With the Republican Party literally pulling itself apart over Constitutional interpretations, Supreme Court appointments, and the torture issues, perhaps we should turn the tables and ask them whom they prefer for a Republican candidate in 2008. Once they get over the shock of learning that there may be life after Bush, they will have much the same answer they now receive from the rest of us. The fact is that, so long as Bush&Company hold the ignorati of our country in thrall, there will be no restoration of our civil rights, no respect for law or the Constitution, and no progress in building a better, healthier, and safer nation. Meanwhile, we can only try to ameliorate the total destruction of our country as we know and love it so that there will be something left which can be rebuilt to its former glory.
The most difficult and greatest period of our history is still ahead of us.
The author is a very "with-it" old lady who aspires to bring a bit of truth, justice, and commom sense to a nation that has lost touch with its humanity in the search for societal "perfection".
in the chandelier but I cannot for the life of me understand the point of this editorial. Based upon conversations with two people, a woman in a waiting room and a boy of undetermined age, the author decides that all who support Bush are below the intelligence of a moss covered rock.
Perhaps she is correct, but it seems to me that Bush is winning the battles almost daily and has done so for five years and counting. I believe that this article represents nothing less than the mounting frustrations of democrats or "independents" as this author claims to be after posting a paragraph that seems an apology for the inactions of the democrats:
"They will also deride the Democratic Party for its failure to push forward a candidate for the next presidential election or any policies in opposition to those of Mr. Bush. While they do have a point on the latter, why should a minority party bother to suggest programs and solutions to a Congress that is so heavily weighted to the other side that such ideas would die a-borning? Any leader who is put forth at this time would quickly become mired in malignant accusations, (as in the case of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton), that they could hardly be expected to be effective in campaigning. As for choosing a "leader", there appears to be no hurry since the next election is still some time away and any number of people may make themselves available. Any "turkey" who raises his head above the flock at this time is going to be beset by buckshot from both sides. Better to try to build popular support sufficient to resist the Democratic Leadership Council and their efforts to dictate whom the candidate should be."
Mary, it takes little imagination to visualise that paragraph as being written by an apologist for incompetence in the mold of Michael Brown or Michael Chertoff. Do you not see the need for an opposition to do more than deride the failures of the in party? Do you not understand why your average Bush supporter has nowhere else to turn precisely because the democrats have failed to counter Bush policies with reason, logic and sanity? Do you believe that 50.1% of the American voting public voted for Bush because they compared the two competing political strategies and chose one over the other? No, in fact, they were exposed to only one such strategy as the democrats simply had none. If you give the voter no choice then it is your stupidity that should be derided not theirs.
It is far too simplistic, frankly, to blame GOP victories on the stupidity of the electorate, and it is also far too alienating as well. If this is the best that progressives can do we are all doomed.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Monday, February 20, 2006 at 10:23:26 AM
It does say at the end who the author is and the article reflects the precise view of the author. You certainly can have your own puny opinion ( sorry for the alienation, I just quote the Seven of Nine from the Star Trek) but the author does have a very valid point: we bask in ignorance and feel cute about it. Now, the 50.1% whatever can go to Hell together with all those puny explanations that they did not see, were not explained, were not approached, maybe their asses were not licked well enough, whatever. They are all adults. They were supposed to make adults decisions and if they did not, the cutie who kills their children will show them... Maybe we should all really understand something here: The GOP fights for their interests using all the powers they have. They do not give a damn about people. What we need is also a fight for OUR interests with ALL the power we have. And that's where we need Powerful Figures. And one thing a Powerful Leader does - is he tells his base that they are his base and that he will do anything for his base, not the mythical People. GW did that. And they pampered hism with dollars. Now, I want to see that one who calls us his base. And then I will pamper him with my money. Until then I prefer to shaw the stupid that they are stupid. It is good for the soul.
by
Mark Sashine (42 articles, 19 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 3219 comments)
on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 at 9:45:06 AM
especially you, Panurg. I waded through that murky response, found little of import within it and feel rather sorry for your lack of ability to express political opinion. Perhaps if you get an actual adult to read what I wrote, explain it to you, help with the bigger words and harder phrasings you will not need to quote Seven of Nine or any other of your television heroines...what a maroon!
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, February 26, 2006 at 3:31:42 PM
