A Conservative Fears for America

We’ll tell you after the election is over, with Bush trouncing Kerry.

It will, indeed, strike fear into the heart of the naive, weak-minded extremist Left, when the American people give Bush a stunning mandate.

They’ll point fingers, first over THERE, then (turning) over THERE and, finally (turning to John Kerry) exactly where the blame belongs.

Hate Bush will become hate Kerry.

Ha, the Bushies can’t even impose their will a mile north of the border. They may fly in Texas but they’re a joke in Canada and the rest of the world.

But then Kerry is going to win. 🙂

I don’t think that many of Bush’s supporters really care about Iraq or budget deficits. I think the “culture war” meme is really his strength; there’s a strong belief throughout portions of America that the liberals oppose God, via religion-free schools and courtrooms and via breaking down traditions of all kinds, including gender roles, marriage and family stability, sexual exclusivity. To be sure, there isn’t really a groundswell to roll back easier divorce laws, but handing out condoms in schools is seen by conservatives as an endorsement of premarital sex, and abortion a reward for wicked behavior.

I’m not saying any of this is correct, but I think the many people who believe in the culture war concept feel obligated to support the Republican candidate, regardless of whether he knows how to conduct a war or not.

It’s really a continuation of the “Godless communist” meme familiar from Cold War days.

“Bush’s conservative supporters want no debate. They want no facts, no analysis.”

Bull****. This is the fourth time I have heard “they want no debate”, “they do not want you to vote”, “they do not want any discussion”, etc.

You know where I heard those claims? Move0n.org, Will Ferrel, Farenheit 9-11, Air America, and Ted Kennedy.

Dan is such a shill it is embarassing.

Uh, that’s five, Cog.

The Jacobins were around when I was in college, too. They’ve kept all the old conservative views *except* civility, respect, and generosity, because jettisoning those basically allows you to be an obnoxious, judgmental jerk whose sole purpose in life is me-first.

Today, the New York Times Magazine ran a very long, but very important an powerful piece that outlines Bush’s faith and instincts-based presidency, the thinking Bush used in leading our country to war with Iraq, and what he has planned for ‘when’ he is reelected for a second term. (very scary)

The TV media MUST pick up and cover this story!

Without a Doubt
By Ron Suskind, New York Times
October 17, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?oref=login&oref=login&oref=login&pagewanted=all&position (you may need to register for a username, but THIS IS AN IMPORTANT READ)

Excerpts:
*”Just in the past few months,” Bartlett said, ”I think a light has gone off for people who’ve spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he’s always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.” Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush’s governance, went on to say: ”This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can’t be persuaded, that they’re extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he’s just like them…

*”This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,” Bartlett went on to say. ”He truly believes he’s on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.” Bartlett paused, then said, ”But you can’t run the world on faith.”

*All of this — the ”gut” and ”instincts,” the certainty and religiosity -connects to a single word, ”faith,” and faith asserts its hold ever more on debates in this country and abroad. That a deep Christian faith illuminated the personal journey of George W. Bush is common knowledge. But faith has also shaped his presidency in profound, nonreligious ways. The president has demanded unquestioning faith from his followers, his staff, his senior aides and his kindred in the Republican Party. Once he makes a decision — often swiftly, based on a creed or moral position — he expects complete faith in its rightness.

*This is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith. It could result in a loss of confidence in the decision-maker and, just as important, by the decision-maker. Nothing could be more vital, whether staying on message with the voters or the terrorists or a California congressman in a meeting about one of the world’s most nagging problems. As Bush himself has said any number of times on the campaign trail, ”By remaining resolute and firm and strong, this world will be peaceful.”

*Forty democratic senators were gathered for a lunch in March just off the Senate floor. I was there as a guest speaker. Joe Biden was telling a story, a story about the president. ”I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad,” he began, ”and I was telling the president of my many concerns” — concerns about growing problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems securing the oil fields. Bush, Biden recalled, just looked at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. ”’Mr. President,’ I finally said, ‘How can you be so sure when you know you do
n’t know the facts?”’

Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator’s shoulder. ”My instincts,” he said. ”My instincts.”

Biden paused and shook his head, recalling it all as the room grew quiet. ”I said, ‘Mr. President, your instincts aren’t good enough!”’

“Uh, that’s five, Cog.”

Wrong. Air America spewed a lot of the “arguments” from Farenheit 9-11 almost verbatim. As did Dan Gillmor more than once.

Nice job, Cog: that was a prime example of what Roberts was talking about.

I must say that I’m disappointed that you don’t remember my writing comments very similar to Roberts’ on several occasions. But, given what you wrote, you probably didn’t bother reading the whole article, so you wouldn’t have recognized the similarity…

“Dan is such a shill it is embarassing.”

What’s embarrassing — for the knee-jerk righties — is how many times recently they’ve accused Dan of being a “shill” based on things HE DIDN’T EVEN WRITE.

The quote cog criticized, and over which he accused Dan of being a shill, was taken directly from an essay by a *conservative* commentator, Paul Craig Roberts. Whoops.

“The president has demanded unquestioning faith from his followers, his staff, his senior aides and his kindred in the Republican Party. Once he makes a decision — often swiftly, based on a creed or moral position — he expects complete faith in its rightness.

“*This is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith. It could result in a loss of confidence in the decision-maker and, just as important, by the decision-maker. Nothing could be more vital, whether staying on message with the voters or the terrorists or a California congressman in a meeting about one of the world’s most nagging problems. As Bush himself has said any number of times on the campaign trail, ”By remaining resolute and firm and strong, this world will be peaceful.”

Uh, tanner650, which way is the Kool Aid