As only a Reagan can say...

The Case Against

>George W Bush, by Ron Reagan

> The Case Against George W. Bush

>

> The son of the fortieth president of the United States takes a hard

>look at the son of the forty-first and does not like what he sees

>

> By Ron Reagan

> September 2004, Volume 142, Issue 3

>

> It may have been the guy in the hood teetering on the stool,

>electrodes clamped to his genitals. Or smirking Lynndie England and her

>leash. Maybe it was the smarmy memos tapped out by soft-fingered

>lawyers itching to justify such barbarism. The grudging, lunatic

>retreat of the neocons from their long-standing assertion that Saddam

>was in cahoots with Osama didn't hurt. Even the Enron audiotapes and

>their celebration of craven sociopathy likely played a part. As a

>result of all these displays and countless smaller ones, you could

>feel, a couple of months back, as summer spread across the country, the

>ground shifting beneath your feet. Not unlike that scene in The Day

>After Tomorrow, then in theaters, in which the giant ice shelf splits

>asunder, this was more a paradigm shift than anything strictly

>tectonic. No cataclysmic ice age, admittedly, yet something was in the

>air, and people were inhaling deeply. I began to get calls from friends

>whose parents had always voted Republican, "but not this time." There

>was the staid Zbigniew Brzezinski on the staid NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

>sneering at the "Orwellian language" flowing out of the Pentagon. Word

>spread through the usual channels that old hands from the days of Bush

>the Elder were quietly (but not too quietly) appalled by his son's

>misadventure in Iraq. Suddenly, everywhere you went, a surprising

>number of folks seemed to have had just about enough of what the Bush

>administration was dishing out. A fresh age appeared on the horizon,

>accompanied by the sound of scales falling >from people's eyes. It felt

>something like a demonstration of that highest of American prerogatives

>and the most deeply cherished American freedom: dissent.

>

> Oddly, even my father's funeral contributed. Throughout that long,

>stately, overtelevised week in early June, items would appear in the

>newspaper discussing the Republicans' eagerness to capitalize (subtly,

>tastefully) on the outpouring of affection for my father and turn it to

>Bush's advantage for the fall election. The familiar "Heir to Reagan"

>puffballs were reinflated and loosed over the proceedings like (subtle,

>tasteful) Mylar balloons. Predictably, this backfired. People were

>treated to a side-by-side comparison’ÄîRonald W. Reagan versus George W.

>Bush’Äîand it's no surprise who suffered for it. Misty-eyed with

>nostalgia, people set aside old political gripes for a few days and

>remembered what friend and foe always conceded to Ronald Reagan: He was

>damned impressive in the role of leader of the free world. A sign in

>the crowd, spotted during the slow roll to the Capitol rotunda, seemed

>to sum up the mood’Äîa portrait of my father and the words NOW THERE WAS

>A PRESIDENT.

>

> The comparison underscored something important. And the guy on the

>stool, Lynndie, and her grinning cohorts, they brought the word: The

>Bush administration can't be trusted. The parade of Bush officials

>before various commissions and committees’ÄîPaul Wolfowitz, who couldn't

>quite remember how many young Americans had been sacrificed on the

>altar of his ideology; John Ashcroft, lip quivering as, for a

>delicious, fleeting moment, it looked as if Senator Joe Biden might

>just come over the table at him’Äîthese were a continuing reminder. The

>Enron creeps, too’Äîa reminder of how certain environments and particular

>habits of mind can erode common decency. People noticed. A tipping

>point had been reached. The issue of credibility was back on the table.

>The L-word was in circulation. Not the tired old bromide liberal.

>That's so 1988. No, this time something much more potent: liar.

>

> Politicians will stretch the truth. They'll exaggerate their

>accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. Spin has long been the lingua

>franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his

>administration have taken "normal" mendacity to a startling new level

>far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging of public

>perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of

>symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty

>itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on.

>

> None of this, needless to say, guarantees Bush a one-term presidency.

>The far-right wing of the country’Äînearly one third of us by some

>estimates’Äîcontinues to regard all who refuse to drink the Kool-Aid

>(liberals, rationalists, Europeans, et cetera) as agents of Satan. Bush

>could show up on video canoodling with Paris Hilton and still bank

>their vote. Right-wing talking heads continue painting anyone who fails

>to genuflect deeply enough as a "hater," and therefore a nut job,

>probably a crypto-Islamist car bomber. But these protestations have

>taken on a hysterical, almost comically desperate tone. It's one thing

>to get trashed by Michael Moore. But when Nobel laureates, a vast

>majority of the scientific community, and a host of current and former

>diplomats, intelligence operatives, and military officials line up

>against you, it becomes increasingly difficult to characterize the

>opposition as fringe wackos.

>

> Does anyone really favor an administration that so shamelessly lies?

>One that so tenaciously clings to secrecy, not to protect the American

>people, but to protect itself? That so willfully misrepresents its true

>aims and so knowingly misleads the people from whom it derives its

>power? I simply cannot think so. And to come to the same conclusion

>does not make you guilty of swallowing some liberal critique of the

>Bush presidency, because that's not what this is. This is the critique

>of a person who thinks that lying at the top levels of his government

>is abhorrent. Call it the honest guy's critique of George W. Bush.

>

> THE MOST EGREGIOUS EXAMPLES OF distortion and misdirection’Äîwhich the

>administration even now cannot bring itself to repudiate’Äîinvolve our

>putative "War on Terror" and our subsequent foray into Iraq.

>

> http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/040729_mfe_reagan_1.html

>

Well, there does seem to be some tectonic shifting going on! This is a remarkable article. It also reflects something I've been hearing in the depths of Republican Kansas: "I've always voted Republican, but I can't bring myself to vote for Bush again." If that sentiment starts to play itself out across the country, Dubya's in truly deep doo-doo.

Change is difficult in the U.S. The body politic in a nation the size of the U.S. is so huge that the built-in inertia against change is enormous. But Americans really are not stupid. They may be self-centered and frighteningly provincial at times, and they're generally turned off by politics and politicians, but they're not brain dead (superficial appearances to the contrary). It takes a lot to get the attention of the electorate and to begin a shift in thinking, but it can and does happen, and I think it's happening again. The judicial coup d'etat that brought Bush to power, the 9/11 catastrophe, the grossly mismanaged aftermath, the war that was based on a mountain of lies, the prisoner abuse, the endless carnage, the astronomical deficits, the massive unemployment, the gigantic financial scandals involving some of Bush's nearest and dearest friends and supporters. . . That's more than enough to get the attention of the voters! Tonight's BBC World reported on the unusually large and eager crowds meeting the candidates so early in the race. There's a lot of polarization and a lot of very strong feelings, it seems. But Bush shouldn't rely on the polls, because they may not be accurately reflecting the sentiments of those "I've always voted Republican but this time I can't" voters. It's going to be an historic election in many ways, and turnout may be much higher than anyone ever anticipated. If it is, that won't be good for the GOP! Make sure everyone you know votes this year; it's going to be one of those make-or-break elections for America's future.

>Well, there does seem to be some tectonic shifting going on!

>This is a remarkable article. It also reflects something I've

>been hearing in the depths of Republican Kansas: "I've always

>voted Republican, but I can't bring myself to vote for Bush

>again." If that sentiment starts to play itself out across

>the country, Dubya's in truly deep doo-doo.

The level of ignorance required to say this is breathtaking. By Ron Reagan Jr.'s own admission - see link below - he is a liberal athiest who voted for Al Gore, and not for George Bush, in the 2000 election.

Thus, only someone dreadfully uninformed would interpret his article as "reflective" of some sort of a "tectonic shift." Ron Reagan Jr. has long been a Democrat. It should come as no surprise, then - and it is completely meaningless -- that he dislikes George Bush.

LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/27/magazine/27QUESTIONS.html?ex=1092110400&en=967f75383709cbac&ei=5070&ex=1091592000&en=10830462e6c79bff&ei=5070

Uh, huh. Totally irrelevant. As are the things Ron's hearing from his friends about their (and their parents') voting plans, or the kinds of things I'm hearing in the Midwest. Or the humongous crowds Kerry's generated this early in the campaign in liberal hotbeds like Grand Rapids (Gerald Ford's home town) or Kansas City (not exactly a hotbed of liberalism, either, where over 20,000 people waited for his train until after 10:30 p.m). I don't know how you manage to keep whistling in the dark while your head is so deeply buried in the sand, Dougie, but you oughta sell tickets! It must be an interesting sideshow attraction!

>The level of ignorance required to say this is breathtaking.

Is it also stunning, fabulous and divine? :7

>The level of ignorance required to say this is breathtaking.

>By Ron Reagan Jr.'s own admission - see link below - he is a

>liberal athiest who voted for Al Gore, and not for George

>Bush, in the 2000 election.

Oh God Dougie, next you'll be calling RR Jr. a terrorist...

>Oh God Dougie, next you'll be calling RR Jr. a terrorist...

Had you bothered to click on the link I posted and read the interview with him, rather than lazily puke up a characteristically snide and stupid remark, you would have known that I didn't say anything about Ron Reagan, Jr. that he didn't expressly say about himself. He expressly said that he was a liberal, that he was an athiest, and that he did not vote for George Bush in 2000. I just conveyed what he said about himself.

I didn't convey these things to say he was a bad person - I conveyed them to make clear how idiotic it was for Trilingual to act as though the anti-Bush article he published somehow is surprising or reflects some great shift in the electorate.

If you think that those attribtues which RR Jr. used to describe hismelf are similar to being a terrorist, that says more about your own views than it does about mine.

The meds are affecting your reading ability, Dougie. I didn't post the RRJr. article. Glutes did. And the article is still notable, because whatever his own political inclinations, RRJr. seems to have made a lot of effort over the years to avoid obscuring his father's memory and legacy. That has meant keeping a pretty low profile. For RRJr. to publish an article like this suggests that he can no longer keep still. His mother may also know about and approve the article. This suggests that the Republican voting bloc isn't as solid as it has been in the past. What will you do, Dougie, if your idol Bush loses the election? Immolate yourself?

"What will you do, Dougie, if your idol Bush loses the election? Immolate yourself?"

I'm not Dougie, but I'm still a Republican -- one of those who is appalled at what W and his crowd are doing to the party. It should be enthusiastically championing the private energies of all the people of this nation, as it did in the case of black people in the Civil War and Reconstruction, a period in our history long overdue for reassessment. The GOP should be cheering people -- including gay people -- on as they build lives in the entrepreneurial capitalist world the GOP was put on earth by God to promote, and getting the government out of their way instead of spending us into oblivion for wars we don't want or need. Only then can the yin and yang relationship with the Democrats be re-established and the political health of this country flourish again.

So what will I do if Bush loses? Enjoy Kerry's dilemma as he tries to govern in a conservative country with a (probably) GOP congress, having run a campaign which hid his real (very liberal) convictions. And look forward to a good fight with the religious nuts who have all but captured the Republican Party. I say bring back the old time Episcopalians and Presbyterians who used to know how to make religion a legitimate part of our public life, and send these megachurch religio-entertainist-fascisto-armageddonists back where they came from. Harrumph.

>The meds are affecting your reading ability, Dougie.

There aren't very many universal truths on the Internet. One of the few such truths, though, is that anyone who relies upon the oldest and tritest online cliche of referencing someone's "meds" in order to refute what they have said is a person who, without knowing anything else about them, can be safely written off as a medicore, pointless, painfully boring imbecile with no redeeming value of any kind.

>I didn't post the RRJr. article. Glutes did.

Right. You're the one who said that the article reflects a great tectonic shift in the electorate because you were ignorant of the fact that RR Jr. is not a Republican. And now, you're too embarrassed to just admit that you were mistaken, and as a result, we have to suffer through your standrad rambling nonsequitors and sad platitudes about "meds."

And the article

>is still notable, because whatever his own political

>inclinations, RRJr. seems to have made a lot of effort over

>the years to avoid obscuring his father's memory and legacy.

>That has meant keeping a pretty low profile. For RRJr. to

>publish an article like this suggests that he can no longer

>keep still.

Even if you are right that he has kept quiet so as to not embarrass his father, his father is now dead, in case that news didn't reach the filthiest corners of the cheapest third world bathhouses. The fact that RR Jr. picked now to express his long-known liberal views likely has much to do with that event, and nothing to do with some "tectonic shift" in the electorate which you are desperate to find but which doesn't exist.

His mother may also know about and approve the

>article.

She's endorsed Bush. This is just rank, uninformed, batthouse drooling on your part. In other words, it's quite prototypical of your posts here and of your life.

This suggests that the Republican voting bloc isn't

>as solid as it has been in the past.

Here's the latest Rasmussen daily tracking poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com), which is AFTER the Democrats' convention but BEFORE the GOP convention:

BUSH - 48

KERRY - 47

It's been that way for the past 3 days, which, in the world of daily tracking polls, is the hallmark of of an accurate results.

What will you do,

>Dougie, if your idol Bush loses the election? Immolate

>yourself?

This is an excellent illustration of your partisan sickness. I have said 10000 times that I am not voting for Bush and do not support his re-election, in large part due to the reasons set forth in the articulate reply to you from the Big Master 4 U (which you will never comprehend, even if you study it until your death). But you are one of these people who is incapable of nuanced or complex thought (I sound like John Kerry), and thus, that concept can never make it through the thick layers of dead cells which you optimistically call your "brain."

There are, however, some benefits to Bush's being re-elected. One of them is the faint hope that you and the other sadly paranoid NAZIS-ARE-COMING!!! freaks will make good on your promise and flee forever. The more I read about types like you making this promise, the more tempted I am to change my mind about this upcoming election.

Uh, huh. But you didn't answer the question about what you'll do if Bush loses. You say you aren't going to vote for him? Even though you've defended him tooth and nail for months? Does this mean you've found someone even MORE right-wing to vote for? I hadn't hear Fred Phelps was running. Or maybe you were planning on writing in his name?

By the way Nancy Reagan has come out for Bush for president and I think she trumps Ron Jr easily.