J’accuse!

Technorati Tags: Bush Administrations,Republican Party

A very simple indictment of the current Republican Party can be found in two elements, both provided by the Party establishment itself.

1). The “We Built It” logo

2). The absence of reference to Pres. George W. Bush

“We Built It” is in the past tense.  So, the question is What is the “it” the Republican Party has built?  Whatever it is, it must exist now, because they speak of its completion. They must be speaking of the legacy of past Republican administrations.

There is an odd leap, however, between today’s Republican claims and the previous administration most called-upon today. And that leap is from 1989 to 2010.

Missing from Tampa’s Republican history are the administrations of Bush père et fils, one of which raised taxes in order to have a legitimate, responsible history, the other…well, you know: he vastly enlarged the size of government, government spending, and presided over an illegitimate war which was the offspring of a matrix of lies.

WE BUILT IT  Indeed, you did. And you’re ashamed of it.

As well you ought.

Sphere: Related Content

She Didn't Say That...Did She?

Over at the local newspaper, The Desert Sun, a new editorial page "Community Conversation Editor," Angela Cortez, is learning the ropes.

An editorial page commentary on Jerry Falwell today, Falwell's views opened door for many, has an interesting clue as to the direction Ms Cortez is likely to take.

After a rather benign recitation of objective facts, the editorial writer concludes with this: For better or for worse, Falwell was a religious and political force in this country, and his views - while at times despicable and inexcusable - opened the door for a lot of like-minded people to have their voice heard.

Read into that whatever you like. I, for one, like to read that those "like-minded people" are "despicable and inexcusable."

I repeat my contention: Falwell died too soon; he didn't have a "deathbed" conversion/apology as was granted to Lee Atwater, another political operative whose main function in life was to "spin" the truth to achieve questionable ends.

I wonder what Ms Cortez, and/or the editorial writer, meant.

Sphere: Related Content

Let's Cut to Chase

This link will take you to a Salon.com website written by a former "adult" movie "star," Matt Sanchez. He made movies for one of the leading gay pornographers of the '90s.

Sanchez made the front page of Salon because he was recently honored by the Conservative Political Action Conference last week in D.C., and photographed with Ann Coulter.

Until he was "outed" by leftie blogs, Sanchez was feted by the right wing because he had written a piece for the Columbia University "campus newspaper that blasted the anti-military bias among my fellow students at Columbia University."

A couple of points: 1) the anti-military bias certainly shows itself on college campuses around the nation, and it is ill informed. If the people who are anti-military thought for just a few seconds, they would realize the absolute necessity of a well-armed defense force. That is not to say that on occasion the deployment of the armed forces should not be questioned. The military is led by human beings who are capable of misjudgment. As a concept, though, the military is amoral. It is a necessary entity for the survival of the ability of college students to protest its existence. (The irony is too delicious!)

2) Sanchez has every right to have performed in gay erotica and to have moved on to a more mature posture in his life.

The only question is his decision to dance with someone other than the "one whut brung ya." He doesn't give a citation for his Columbia essay, so one doesn't know what he said. It is curious, though, that he appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity & Colmes" and not, say, "Countdown." Keith Olberman might have been interested in a Columbia student's presentation of an argument against such student attitude. Of course, the right wing willy-nilly jumped on a piece criticizing anything having to do with protests against the Iraqi war; much the same as they did with Ben Shapiro from UCLA.

This story doesn't have "legs." As a matter of fact, the two friends who occasionally read this might not have heard of it at all.

It does show, though, that love and war do make strange bedfellows. I resist making obvious analogies between the Republican wet dream Coulter, and whatever Matt Sanchez has become for them.

Anyway. The Salon piece is an interesting read. Sanchez is unapologetic for his motion picture career, and he needn't be. Good for him on that.

Sanchez might be a bit more cautious of his current comrades (no pun intended). They might not be so forgiving after the story has lost its legs.


Matt Sanchez
Neo Cons
Republicans

Sphere: Related Content

Neo-Cons and Defeat

What is it with the neo-con/Bush sycophants and their love for defeat? Redeployment isn't defeat.

If we engaged in the ideological struggle of the century, then we also need to struggle with philosophy and logic as well as with armed forces.

So far, there has been precious little attention paid to the underlying support for the murders and terrorist tactics: religious texts which can be interpreted to reward bloodletting in the name of a deity.

We have to re-think the whole approach to this struggle, include religious texts in our planning, and, while we're rethinking, it would be wise to redeploy our troops to a less vulnerable position, and thus save them for a later possible armed conflict.

One is not defeated if one wages war wisely. One observes, plans, and buys time for the most propitious moment.

Stop with defeat already. It isn't over until it's over; just ask the "defeated" Taliban in Afghanistan.
Neo-Cons
Iraq
Defeatism
Religion

Sphere: Related Content