January 25, 2008
I couldn’t agree more (probably because I can’t think of any more ways to say it than I already have) with Margaret Cho’s assessment of this CNN article:
Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in S.C.
. . .
Recent polls show black women are expected to make up more than a third of all Democratic voters in South Carolina’s primary in five days.
For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?
No other voting bloc in the country faces this choice. …
Writes Cho in today’s Huffo:
CNN received dozens of e-mails shortly after posting the story, which focuses largely on conversations about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that a CNN reporter observed at a hair salon in South Carolina whose customers are predominantly African-American.
. . .
An e-mailer named Tiffany responded sarcastically: “Duh, I’m a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I’m illiterate I’ll pull down the lever for someone. Hm… Well, he black so I may vote for him… oh wait she a woman I may vote for her… What Ise gon’ do? Oh lordy!”
I too am insulted at the idea that just because I am a person of color and a woman that I should be expected to automatically vote for Obama or Hillary. Why are white men allowed to look at the issues and judge for themselves and the rest of us are expected to take sides grade school style? That is racist and sexist and dumb.
Amen to that. Detractors can believe it or not as they like, but I wouldn’t vote for a gay candidate just because s/he was gay, either. As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t want a woman President, or a black President, or even a gay President; I want the best President — and if that President happens to be female, or black, or gay (or all three), then happy day in the morning! But assuming my vote has anything to do with race, gender, or any other incidental is indeed racist and sexist, and insults my intelligence.
Certainly, I will vote for a pro-gay candidate over an anti-gay candidate, but that’s not the same as voting for the woman, or the African-American, or the queer just because s/he’s a woman, or an African-American, or queer. (For the record, again, my ideal candidate this time around was Dennis Kucinich, the most pro-gay candidate of the bunch, who is a white, heterosexual male. Oh, yes, I’m still angry as hell with him, but he is still my ideal candidate.)
So, good on Notorious C.H.O., for reiterating what needs to be hammered into many skulls.
However: What in the world is Cho thinking (or, more accurately, not thinking) when she allows herself to be seduced by the utterly meaningless “hope” mantra of the Obama camp?
Still, I believe Obama and Hillary are the best candidates. …
Why Obama?
You’re right, Margaret: Neither gender nor race should enter into your decision — but I would think that as a bisexual woman yourself, you would take Obama’s repeated and continuous betrayals of the LGBT community into account.
And you would also notice that Obama, for all his pretty talk about “equality,” simply does not support full equality for LGBT Americans, period. In fact, he maintains a crystal-clear position: Even the most cruel, most active form of homophobia (short of murder — although I would argue that the “ex-gay” movement is nothing less than passive murder) isn’t nearly as terrible as any verbal slight against African-Americans. There’s no way to spin his double standard.
I hate that people are saying that Oprah is some kind of gender traitor because she is backing Obama. Don’t even talk about Oprah unless you want to fight. I got a brick in my purse so watch it (remember, ladies — something heavy inside something light = weapon). I think it is wonderful that Oprah is getting involved in politics. It is brave and exciting and gives me lots of hope for the future.
Oprah? I think it’s a wonderful thing when anyone gets involved in politics — but Oprah’s track record isn’t exactly consistent. Let’s not forget that Bush’s 2000 campaign was languishing, badly, until his milestone appearance on Oprah’s show; the Oprah Effect on Bush was summed up quite accurately by both Kate O’Beirne and Bill Press:
O’Beirne: “[The race between Bush and Gore is] terribly tight. But we might mark George Bush’s boffo performance on ‘Oprah’ this week as the beginning of his comeback. And he certainly had no trouble explaining to that audience of women his tax-cut plan, how a single woman would get a tax cut under his plan, not under Al Gore’s, and it was very well received by those women.”
Press: “If I were the Bush campaign, I’d put George Bush on ‘Oprah’ everyday, I thought he did great today. Al Gore is on ‘Leno’ tonight. So it’s going to be the campaign of the talk shows, and we’ll see what happens. But clearly, Bernie, as we said the last time I was here, it’s a close race now, it’s going to be close, I believe, all the way down to the end.”
(Sure, Oprah had Gore on her show the week before — but talk shows aren’t bound by any “equal time” rules; heck, there isn’t even a Fairness Doctrine anymore — and the Republicans like it that way just fine.)
On the same edition of CNN’s “Inside Politics,” Candy Crowley said: “If you’ve got a gender-gap problem, and George Bush does, ‘The Oprah Winfrey Show,’ with its large and overwhelmingly female audience, is the place to be. … And whatever your dreams, if your quest to be president requires female, suburban, swing voters, then upscale, family-friendly Oprah is the one to, as she puts it, get a sense of politicians as human beings.”
Sure, Oprah smacked down Bush, hard… later, after the damage had been done. But Oprah was just one of a lot of people who woke up only after BushCo had been given free rein to bring this country to its knees. That doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in Oprah’s ability to judge a candidate on his merits, or predict what he’s going to do once he gets in office.
And while Oprah has been tossing a few nickels (to Oprah, $10,000 is just a few nickels) at Democrats since backing Carol Moseley Braun’s Illinois State Senate run in 1992, let’s not forget that she previously backed the Republican leader of the Wisconsin State Senate, Susan S. Engeleiter — who lost her ‘88 race, but who was chosen by George H.W. Bush as the next Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
And let’s not forget that it was Oprah who singlehandedly gave Donnie McClurkin the break he needed to become a gospel superstar: “[The song ‘Stand’] received a critical endorsement from daytime television superstar Oprah Winfrey. McClurkin told Jet, ‘She stood on television, held the CD up and said, “This is my favorite CD in the world. After you’ve done all you can, stand. You all need to buy it.”‘ The popular reception for ‘Stand’ and ‘Speak to my Heart,’ the album’s other standout single, earned McClurkin a certified gold record and a Grammy nomination, positioning him among contemporary gospel’s elite.” [Musician Guide]
And let’s not forget that it was Oprah who introduced Donnie McClurkin to Barack Obama.
And we know how that worked out.
I won’t argue that Oprah doesn’t do some good with her show — but she’s best at tasks such as, say, raising awareness about anorexia. Some might says she’s at her worst when letting Tom Cruise bounce around on her couch like a hyperkinetic jumping bean, but in reality, she’s at her worst when she uses her enormous influence indiscriminately. In endorsing Barack Obama — a candidate running on some fluffy cloud of good vibes, with virtually no plan behind his ethereal promises of “hope and change” (hope for what? change what?) — it is impossible to believe that Oprah has made any serious effort to pin down what Obama intends to do. The Big O has, like every other groupie, been seduced by a nice voice and good looks, happily oblivious to the lack of substance under the pretty surface.
Which brings us back to Margaret Cho:
I think that is what I love about Obama — he represents hope.
Hope for what, exactly?
He is all about change — a new beginning.
What kind of change? No matter who gets into the White House, Democrat or (God forbid) Republican, there will be change.
The question — for every Obama supporter, not just Cho and Winfrey — is: Exactly what kind of change are you expecting? That’s a difficult question to answer, because Obama himself has never offered a clue as to what kind of “change” he intends to deliver; at this late date, it’s obvious he doesn’t know the answer to that himself.
So, let’s try an easier question: What kind of change are you even hoping for?
And another hard question: What has Obama said or done that indicates he will deliver the kind of “change” you want? I want specifics. “He’s so inspirational!” just doesn’t cut it. L. Ron Hubbard was inspirational, too. So is the Dalai Lama. So is Suze Orman.
The difference is that I can tell you, specifically, what each of the three aforementioned leaders is all about, in ten words or less. I can’t explain Barack Obama after two full years of listening to him talk. Can you?
His youthful optimism appeals to me and his hope for the future enthralls me and these issues transcend race completely.
Arrrrrgh! Attraction to his “youthful optimism” and being enthralled by “his hope for the future” are not “issues” — they are emotions. An issue is healthcare. An issue is the war in Iraq. An issue is marriage equality.
I don’t care why you like him — I want to know why you support him. Hell, I like Cameron Diaz, but I wouldn’t support her if she ran for President on nothing but her good looks and charm.
On the flip side, I don’t like Hillary Clinton — I don’t find her particularly warm or endearing — but damn it, I know what she stands for. I don’t agree with her on everything (in fact, there’s a whole lot I don’t agree with), but I know what I’m getting, and I know I can live with it.
So my choice really for the next president is going to be very well thought out; I am between Barack and a familiar face.
Margaret, if your choice really “is going to be very well thought out,” then you’ll be voting for Hillary, not Obama.
Put the Kool-Aid down now, and start paying attention to what Obama is really saying — and not saying.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
"Ex-Gays",
Barack Obama,
Bisexuality,
Celebrities,
Christianity,
Dennis Kucinich,
Donnie McClurkin,
Election 2008,
George H.W. Bush,
George W. Bush,
Hillary Clinton,
Homophobia,
Marriage Equality,
Race/Ethnic Issues,
Women
October 26, 2007
The (presumably) final line-up for Barack Obama’s “gospel concert your” fundraiser is up at barackobama.com:
EMBRACE THE CHANGE!
Charleston
Friday, October 26, 2007
North Charleston Performing Arts Center
5001 Coliseum Drive
North Charleston, SC 29418
Gospel Performances by:
Mary Mary, Hezekiah Walker, Beverly Crawford
Mary Mary, in an interview with Clay Cane: “I feel how God feels about it … I don’t agree with the lifestyle, but I love them. … They have issues and need someone to encourage them like everybody else — just like the murderer, just like the one full of pride, just like the prostitute … hopefully our music impacts them in a way that makes them want to change it.”
Mary Mary. Anti-gay. Check. √
Hezekiah Walker says: Homosexuality is a “sin,” a “shame,” and “the worst”; the rumor of homosexuality is “character assassination”.
Hezekiah Walker. Anti-gay. Check. √
Beverly Crawford: One one hand, Crawford has “recorded some albums with Bishop Carlton Pearson” — the Oral Roberts alum whose radical “Gospel of Inclusion” got him kicked out of the Church of God in Christ (the nation’s largest African-American Pentecostal denomination); he’s now a bishop in the undeniably pro-gay United Church of Christ.
On the other hand, she’s also appeared with radically anti-gay Trinity Broadcasting Network televangelist T.D. Jakes — who “has called homosexuality a ‘brokenness’ and said he would not hire a sexually active gay person” and “endorsed the so-called Truth for Youth campaign, which is distributing specially-made anti-gay Bibles to high school students all across the country” — and is signed with Jakes’ record label.
Beverly Crawford. Anti-gay? Well, certainly not an ally. A draw. √
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Greenwood Civic Center
1620 Hwy 72 221 E.
Greenwood, SC 29649
Gospel Performances by:
Byron Cage, Mighty Clouds of Joy, Vanessa Bell Armstrong
Byron Cage, in a 2006 radio interview on “La Gospel Talk” (listen to MP3 audio here), agreed with NARTH “ex-gay” founder Joseph Nicolosi that homosexuality is in essence a defect. Cage said that “there’s an interesting passage” in the New Testament in which the disciples (we think he means the Apostles) asked Jesus why a child would be “born lame”; Cage’s answer was that God doesn’t make mistakes — but that God creates such a defect so that “Jesus could heal it.” (Kind of like the argument that Jesus needed Judas Iscariot to betray him, or else he couldn’t have been crucified, and then risen from the dead.)
Cage also said: “I agree with Dr. Nicolosi that there are choices people make to be one way or the other” — and then compared homosexuality to being overweight, as the sort of choice “that could kill us.” Cage then went on to say that one of his mentors had died of AIDS, and another had died of a heart attack, and asked, “Which is worse?”
Byron Cage. Anti-gay. Check. √
We honestly don’t know if Mighty Clouds of Joy, or any of its members are devout homophobes, but we did discover something very unsettling: The group’s choice in the company it keeps.
In 2004, Mighty Clouds of Joy appeared at an event that, by its name alone, sounds like something all nice and peaceful and Kumbaya-like: the Fourth World Summit on Leadership and Good Governance, sponsored by the Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace and the Interreligious and International Peace Council, of which the International Peace Federation is part.
Problem is, the International Peace Federation is one of the organizations of the scary, extreme-right-wing, extremely anti-gay Washington Times publisher Rev. Sun Myung Moon (he of “Moonie” fame). In fact, Moon himself…
…took to the podium to deliver a profound ecumenical message, entitled “Our Mission in the Last Days of Providential History.” Having worked for decades to confront the threat of atheistic communism, Dr. Moon noted that with the conclusion of the Cold War, the fear and insecurity of this global conflict is thankfully past. “And yet,” he asked, how secure and happy are we? Young people now liberated from the yoke of communism are enjoying their freedom to such an extent that they are in danger of running off the cliff of debauchery.”
Selfish individualism and slavery to free sex has led to unthinkable calls for homosexual “marriage.” “Imagine for a moment,” he asked, “the world that would result from what they advocate. Humanity would become extinct within two generations.”
But that’s hardly all. Earlier in the summit:
…IIFWP conference participants were treated to breakfast courtesy of the Washington Times Foundation. They joined a total of roughly 3000 participants coming not only from the surrounding Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, but also from two conferences sponsored by IIFWP affiliated organizations—the American Family Coalition, and the American Clergy Leadership Conference.
. . .
The prelude to breakfast was concluded by an intimate video presentation from former president George Herbert Walker Bush. He remembered fondly the Washington Times, before speaking at some length about the importance of faith and family for the country, and for himself, his wife, and his children, including the current U.S. president.
As breakfast wound down, a performance by the noted gospel music group Mighty Clouds of Joy drew attention back to the central stage, where they were followed by the Honorable Robert J. Dole, former U.S. Senator from Kansas. The man who had once lost a bitter competition with George H.W. Bush for the Republican nomination for president was magnanimous and humorous as he, too, spoke in support of the breakfast’s themes.
In lead up to the keynote address, Dr. Chung Hwan Kwak introduced IIFWP founder, the Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon, by mentioning three key points. First, that Dr. Moon knows God’s heart… Second, that Dr. Moon intimately knows God as the invisible creator who is the True Parent of humankind. Third, that Dr. Moon is the king of peace…
. . .
The Mighty Clouds of Joy brought the house to its feet in thanks and praise as they led the assembly in singing “Amazing Grace,” and the concluding prayer was delivered.
Mighty Clouds of Joy. Anti-gay? We think so — among other things. √
Vanessa Bell Armstrong. We don’t know. 
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The Township Auditorium
1703 Taylor Street
Columbia, SC 29202
Gospel performances by:
Mary Mary, Donnie McClurkin, Deitrick Haddon, Mighty Clouds of Joy
Deitrick Haddon. We don’t know.
Donnie McClurkin. You have to ask?
See also:
What’s The Matter With Obama. (This Is Not A Question.) Part 1.
Donnie McClurkin and the Unmasking of Black Hypocrisy
Barack Obama Attempts Damage Control, Comes Up Short. Way Short.
What Were We Saying Again About the Company Obama Keeps?
Memo to Obama: You’re Only Making It Worse
Obama On Imus Back In April: No Racists On My Staff
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
"Ex-Gays",
Barack Obama,
Celebrities,
Christianity,
Donnie McClurkin,
Election 2008,
George H.W. Bush,
Hate Speech,
Homophobia,
Music,
Oral Roberts,
Race/Ethnic Issues,
Radical Religious Right,
UCC
April 22, 2003
Okay, read this carefully. Make sure you get Rummy’s full meaning:
“[B]uilding a free Iraq is the right — indeed the responsibility — of the Iraqi people,” [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld said. The interim authority is conceived of as a stepping stone in that process. It will be a temporary structure, large and inclusive, welcoming all Iraqis who agree that a new Iraq should not threaten its neighbors, should not have or make weapons of mass destruction, should not support terrorists, and should guarantee the rights of ethnic and religious groups, political freedom, individual liberty and the rule of law,” he said.
That process will not involve the Ba’ath Party, Rumsfeld said. That party “does not fit the conditions that I’ve described,” he said.
Coalition Civil Affairs Team Meets Free Iraqis in An Nasiriyah
Defense Department report, April 15: Operations in Iraq
U.S. State Dept. Web site
April 15, 2003
Got it? The Ba’athists — Saddam’s party — according to our intrepid SecDef, are NOT going to be involved in rebuilding Iraq, in the interim governorship of Iraq, or in enforcing the laws of Iraq.
Remember that.
Now…
Ba’athists slip quietly back into control
Less than two weeks after the collapse of the regime, thousands of members of the Arab Ba’ath Socialist party, the all too willing instrument of Saddam, are resuming their roles as the men and women who run Iraq.
Two thousand policemen — all cardholding party members — have put on the olive green, or the grey-and-white uniforms of traffic wardens, and returned to the streets of Baghdad at America’s invitation. …
Seasoned bureaucrats at the oil ministry — including the brother of General Amer Saadi, the chemical weapons expert now in American custody — have been offered their jobs back by the US military. Feelers have also gone out to Saddam’s health minister, despite past American charges that Iraqi hospitals stole medicine from the sick.
It has become increasingly apparent that Washington cannot restore governance to Baghdad without resorting to the party which for decades controlled every aspect of life under the regime. …
Gee, is it just me, or is something really wrong with this picture?
Since “regime change” has remained one of the most popular choices on Dubya’s Top Ten List of Reasons to Invade Iraq, let’s look up the definition of the word “regime”:
re·gime also ré·gime
n.
- A form of government: a fascist regime.
- A government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime.
- A prevailing social system or pattern.
- The period during which a particular administration or system prevails.
- A regulated system, as of diet and exercise; a regimen.
Hmmm… That’s funny. I wonder how…
Oh, wait a minute! I think I understand. Let’s go back about a year and a half:
Allies refine definition of the endgame
United States and British officials backtracked yesterday on threats to oust the the ruling Taliban, after cracks appeared in the international anti-terrorist coalition against terrorism. …
On Tuesday, Mr Blair said Britain would inflict “very considerable damage” on the Taliban if they refused to hand over Bin Laden — something Mullah Mohammad Omar has so far refused to do.
The planned military action in the region “is not designed to replace one regime with another regime”, [Press Secretary Ari] Fleischer said yesterday.
He conceded that it was “a complicated region of the world” in which there was a “historical relationship between the Northern Alliance and Pakistan’s government which the United States is aware of and sensitive to”.
Downing Street also distanced itself from the aim of a change of regime. “We are taking this one step at a time,” one government source said. “The idea that the west wants to impose a government on Afghanistan is wrong.”
However, the consensus of strategists on both sides of the Atlantic is that it will probably be impossible to fulfil the official war aims of rooting out terrorist networks in Afghanistan without a change in Taliban leadership. …
Washington and its allies are caught between the looming ghosts of two previous mistakes. On the one hand, the CIA “victory” in helping drive Russian troops out of Afghanistan left in its wake only violent anarchy as the US failed to provide economic aid and the Afghan warlords fought among themselves. The chaos paved the way for the rise to power in 1996 of the Taliban. On the other hand, US strategists have long blamed the first Bush administration for failing to use the opportunity in the 1991 Gulf War to oust Saddam Hussein, who has since remained a major threat to US interests. …
So, let’s see… We can threaten to take out a regime. But then it’s okay to backpeddle and say we didn’t really mean it — especially when we can’t even capture the guy who leads that regime. And then, to make it all okay, we get Ari Fleischer to say that it’s basically just too complicated for anybody to understand.
Gee, I’m still a bit confused… but since the Taliban is still in control of every inch of Afghanistan outside Kabul, and Ari says that’s okay, then “regime change” must really mean:
Bomb holy hell out of a country, boast that you’ve got both the manpower and the firepower to install a working “democracy,” and then — after suddenly realizing that you don’t really have the resources to do everything you said you were going to do — declare the effort a resounding success and make a big show of capturing a few stray party big-wigs, but quietly leave the functioning, day-to-day operations of the existing governing structure (i.e., “regime”) intact, and rely on the bad guys to maintain order.
Uh, yeah, that makes sense… about as much sense as anything else.
Sure worked for Afghanistan, didn’t it?
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Afghanistan,
Donald Rumsfeld,
George H.W. Bush,
George W. Bush,
Iraq,
United Kingdom & N.I.
April 15, 2003
Sharon Bush plans tell-all book about Bush family
Sharon Bush is planning to write a tell all on the Bush family, The New York Observer is reporting exclusively in Wednesday’s paper.
Sharon Bush, the estranged wife of President George W. Bush’s younger brother, Neil Bush, has spent two decades with the Bush family.
Sharon Bush’s spokesman, Lou Colasuonno, told The Observer:
“This will be the story of Sharon Bush’s life inside one of the most powerful families in America. She witnessed the evolution of a dynasty. She believes, and is prepared to reveal in her book, that the Bushs are far more pragmatic and calculating than has ever been seen before. She will show that the family orchestrates its public image from top to bottom. She will reveal that the family is in essence a political operation.” …
She recently met extensively with renowned biographer Kitty Kelley, who is working on her own book on the Bushes…
Kelley’s agent, Wayne Kabak, of William Morris Agency, told the Observer: “Kitty had a very long lunch with Sharon, and a great deal of information was put on the table…”
Mr. Colasuonno told The Observer: “This is a woman who has had some wonderful times with the Bushes and knows she’s fortunate to have had a close-up view of two Presidencies. But she has seen the dark side, too. And she intends to provide a view of the family that everyone will want to read.”
And to think I was sitting around waiting for Nancy Reagan!
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
George H.W. Bush,
George W. Bush
April 14, 2003
“My father crapped bigger ones than George Bush,” says the former president’s son, in a flame-throwing conversation about the war and the Bush administration’s efforts to lay claim to the Reagan legacy.
The Bush inner circle would like to think of George W.’s presidency as more of an extension of Ronald Reagan’s than of his one-term father’s. Reagan himself, who has long suffered from Alzheimer’s disease, is unable to comment on those who lay claim to his political legacy. But his son, Ron Jr., is — and he’s not pleased with the association.
“The Bush people have no right to speak for my father, particularly because of the position he’s in now,” he said during a recent interview with Salon. “Yes, some of the current policies are an extension of the ’80s. But the overall thrust of this administration is not my father’s — these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive, and just plain corrupt. I don’t trust these people.” …
Reagan, still as lean as he was in his dancing days, has a sharp tongue — but like his father, he has a knack for softening his barbs with a charming affability and disarming sense of humor.
Reagan took a swipe at Bush during the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia, which featured a tribute to his father, telling the Washington Post’s Lloyd Grove, “The big elephant sitting in the corner is that George W. Bush is simply unqualified for the job… What’s his accomplishment? That he’s no longer an obnoxious drunk?” Since then he’s been quiet about the current occupant of the White House — until now.
“My father had decades of experience in public life. He was president of his union, he campaigned for presidential candidates, he served two terms as governor of California — and that was not a ceremonial office as it is in Texas… He knew where he was coming from, he had spent years thinking and speaking about his views. He didn’t have to ask Dick Cheney what he thought.
“Sure, he wasn’t a technocrat like Clinton. But my father was a man — that’s the difference between him and Bush. To paraphrase Jack Palance, my father crapped bigger ones than George Bush.”
Reagan says he doesn’t have anything personal against Bush. He met him only once, at a White House event during the Reagan presidency. “At least my wife insists we did — he left absolutely no impression on me. But Doria remembers him very negatively — I can’t repeat what she said about him, I’d rather not use profanity…”
But Reagan has strong feelings about Bush’s policies, including the war in Iraq, which he ardently opposes. “Nine-11 gave the Bush people carte blanche to carry out their extreme agenda — and they didn’t hesitate for a moment to use it. I mean, by 9/12 Rumsfeld was saying, ‘Let’s hit Iraq.’ They’ve used the war on terror to justify everything from tax cuts to Alaska oil drilling.” …
“Yes,” he concedes, “there are some holdovers from my dad’s years, like Elliott Abrams and, my God, Admiral Poindexter, who’s now keeping watch over us all. But that observation doesn’t hold up… He had no thought that America should be the world’s policeman…
“Now George and Dick and Rummy and Wolfy all have a very different idea about America’s role in the world…”
Reagan says his opinions about the war were not changed by the rapid fall of Baghdad. “Look, whether or not Saddam was a bad guy, or whether the Iraqi people were terribly oppressed, was never the issue. I mean I’m happy for the Iraqis, but that’s not what this was all about. Nor was the military conclusion ever in doubt; this was the Dallas Cowboys playing a high school team. Their army was a third the size it was in ‘91, and it didn’t give us much trouble then.
“And the weapons of mass destruction? Whatever happened to them? I’m sure we’ll find some,” he laughs. “They’re being flown in right now in a C-130…”
Reagan’s parents were notoriously remote from their four children. Ron Jr. reportedly had the closest relations with his parents and he remains close with his mother… Reagan says his mother shares his “distrust of some of these [Bush] people. She gets that they’re trouble in all kinds of ways. She doesn’t like their religious fervor, their aggression.”
Reagan says his family feels particularly alienated from the Republican Party over its opposition to embryonic stem cell research…
“And they told us, ‘Don’t worry about W. not knowing anything, good old Dick Cheney will be his minder.’ Dick Cheney? And this was going to be compassionate conservatism? Dick Cheney is to the right of Genghis Khan, he wants to drill in your backyard, he wants to deny black people their rights — it was all there in his voting record for us to see. What were we, rubes?”
While Reagan rejects a political career, he clearly doesn’t shy from speaking out. What if GOP conservatives, who still lionize his father as the greatest president of the 20th century, pressure him to shut up? “That wouldn’t be a smart thing for anyone to do.”
Thoughts a-plenty here:
As deliciously dicey as his remarks may be, don’t get your hopes up that anything Ron Reagan, Jr., has to say will be taken seriously — or taken kindly to — by the Republican camp. Young Ron was never the John-John of the GOP; the right-wing has always branded him a sissy-boy, pointing to his career as a dancer as “proof” of that horror of horrors, homosexuality.
Which would be understandable, from a narrow-minded bigot’s point of view — if it were true. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, I know people who know Ron Reagan, Jr., and I assure you — Ron is no queer. (I find that rather unfortunate, actually; a charming gay First Son — especially a Raygun progeny, and a progressive, outspoken one at that — would have been even more satisfying than relying on the well-meaning but easily-ignored lesbian half-sister of Newt Gingrich. No offense to Candace, mind you, but in reality a gay Reagan would have been a much greater coup).
And while it’s true indeed that Dutch & Nancy were none too palsy-walsy with their kids, the article correctly notes that Ron, Jr., was closer to his parents than his siblings. Make no mistake about blood and water — or the bond between mother and son.
Which brings us to Nancy — whose loathing for the BFEE isn’t even a well-kept secret.
Say what you like about Attila the Nun (I certainly do), but peel away the outer layers and layers (and layers) of the hollow-eyed shrew Tarpley & Chaitkin call “the social-climbing arriviste of capital society,” and you’ll find… well, “an evil-tongued presence on a thousand telephones a week complaining about the indignities she thought she was subjected to, always obsessed by public opinion and making Ronnie look good in the most ephemeral short term.”
But even the most passionate Reagan detractors are forced to admit that Nancy simply and truly loved Ronnie. And she still does. Don’t ask me to explain it; the thought of those two “having congress” is enough to make anybody swear off ugly-bumping for life - and the idea of a 75-year-old man calling his wife “Mommy” evokes a distinctly sickening feel of incest to the whole affair, compounded by the spectre of your grandparents playing bedroom games you’d really rather not think about.
Ahem.
The point is, Nancy is fiercely devoted to Ronnie, and she’ll go to her grave protecting his memory and (for better or worse) his legacy. (Granted, were it not for Ronald Reagan, hack actor, ex-rat fink, and framer of the “trickle-down theory” of economics - who was so politically self-conscious he couldn’t even bring himself to say the word “AIDS,” let alone deal with the issue, until 1987 - you and I would be much healthier, happier, and more flush with cash. But we’ll save a detailed analysis of “How Reagan Ruined Your Life” for another day.)
Since the Gipper’s incapacitation by Alzheimer’s, Nancy hasn’t moved far from his bedside. No doubt she’s in that unenviable position known all too well by those of us who have watched a loved one die a cruelly lingering death: You love ‘em, but there’s nothing you want more than to see them finally let go… let go.
And when Ronnie finally lets go? What then? There are many who speculate that Queen Nancy will hold court and have her day — and make things mighty uncomfortable for her hubby’s former veep.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Dick Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld,
George H.W. Bush,
George W. Bush,
Iraq,
Ronald Reagan,
September 11
April 4, 2003
Bush reportedly shielded from dire forecast
WASHINGTON - President Bush’s aides did not forcefully present him with dissenting views from CIA and State and Defense Department officials who warned that U.S.-led forces could face stiff resistance in Iraq, according to three senior administration officials.
Instead, Bush embraced predictions of top administration hawks, beginning with Vice President Dick Cheney, who predicted Iraqis would joyously greet coalition troops as liberators and that the entire conflict might be over in a matter of weeks, the officials said.
Dissenting views “were not fully or energetically communicated to the president,” said one top official, who, like the others, requested anonymity. “As a result, almost every assumption the plan’s based on looks to be wrong.”
Boy, that last sentence is reassuring, isn’t it?
Sounds to me like the White House is spinning this SNAFU every which-way in order to cover Georgie’s soft little bottom.
Or is Georgie just wishing he could have it both ways — like Poppy?
I was out of the loop.
— George H.W. Bush
May, 1988
I’m in on everything. If our policies aren’t working, I can’t say, “Wait a minute, I’m not to blame,” because I’m a full partner.
— George H.W. Bush
August, 1988
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Dick Cheney,
George H.W. Bush,
George W. Bush,
Iraq
March 28, 2003
Time magazine reports that the president poked his head into the office of Condoleezza Rice, his national security adviser, in March 2002 and told three senators sitting there: “[Expletive deleted] Saddam. We’re taking him out.”
Now, that’s just wrong. Georgie would never say “expletive deleted.” Heck, he probably couldn’t even pronounce the word “expletive.” What he really said was, “F–k Saddam. We’re taking him out.”
That word, he can pronounce. Just ask Al Hunt. In fact, you’d be surprised at some of the two-syllable words Georgie can pronounce, with very little effort.
What do you mean, I missed the point of the article? As they say in Texas, not hardly. You think the idea of invading Iraq — inspections be damned — just popped into Little Georgie’s head in March of 2002?
Haven’t you been listening? The plans have been in the works for ages; Wolfowitz’s people finally put it on paper in early 1992, and the newly-formed PNAC presented the plan to Bill Clinton in 1998.
Hey, don’t get on Bill’s case — King George I had plenty of opportunity to take out Saddam, and declined. The momentum from the “win” in Kuwait would have been enough to garner support both at home and abroad — and might have even won Poppy another four years in office.
(Come to think of it, if we’d known all along Iraq was such a threat, why didn’t Little George make it a major talking point of Campaign 2000?)
And don’t give me that tired old excuse that congressional Democrats wouldn’t let George I act on his own. The CIA director-cum-Veep and his ex-boss waged unconscionable war, trained, funded, and armed terrorists (hint: initials include OBL and SH), and installed puppet dictators throughout the Mideast and Latin America without so much as a “screw you” to Congress or the American people, for far less legal or ethical reasons (and with far more disastrous results) than Poppy could have armed himself with.
(And they accuse peaceniks of “aiding and comforting the enemy”?)
So don’t try to feed me that old line about Bush I being “prevented” from doing any damned thing he wanted.
What Poppy did do was miss his window of opportunity — and the neo-cons had to wait for Junior to hit the trifecta.
So, the big, whoop-de-doo Franks “revelation” is old news — at least to those of us who have been paying attention.
Still, one wonders if Georgie Boy has fingers enough to plug any more leaks.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Bill Clinton,
George H.W. Bush,
George W. Bush,
Iraq,
Latin America,
Misc. Bush Lackeys,
PNAC,
Ronald Reagan
