cat's meow
07/03/06, 04:09 pm
In the 1970s I was studying to become confirmed in the Episcopal Church. I truly believed this was the right thing for me and I do not regret it to this day, I wanted to be a part of the Christian 'community.' But, I was asking many questions about my leaders and this was during the Carter administration, I was in a very good AP American History class where the teacher was arrogant and pushy but I am better off because of it. He made sure we understood the importance of the founding fathers intentions with the Constitution but also made sure we understood the country is a living, breathing set of people and the Supreme Court helps us with that concept...the decisions do help the country to evolve and move with mankind. The country at that time (I remember the late 70s well) was in a bad way because of the Watergate scandal, we had been betrayed in a very nasty way by the administration that was working under Richard Nixon. I voted for John Anderson in 1980, an independent because there had to be a new voice. I still think this way today, I did vote for Ralph Nader in 2000 (see how much good that did, LOL).
I am going to leave Bush and religion out of this for the moment. Facts are that Donald Rumsfeld, Carl Rove, and Dick Cheney did work for the Nixon administration during their formative years and were very influenced by the process that John Dean, G. Gordon Liddy, John Mitchell, Haldaman and Erlichman and a list of others followed in order to stay in power. It was corrupt and very corrupting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/herblock/essay3.htm
http://www.watergate.info/chronology/1972.shtml
We come to the late 1990s and Carl Rove had already used religion in Texas as a partial (not total) device to slander Ann Richards and get George Bush elected. Religion always works; you can get the higher moral ground much faster than the opponent. Almost identical tactics have been used in George Bush's (the son) presidential campaigns that were used to get and retain Nixon in office.
Nixon and George W Bush (the son) and are not good to compare as people, part of it is George HW Bush (the dad) was not associated with the Nixon inner circle, he was mainly a foreign diplomat (he is an honest man, I have no doubt; just not too adept at good domestic policy). I don't think he raised a 'dishonest' son, but I do believe the son was very dedicated to his dad in supporting all political campaigns and functions the family was involved with (a robot this way). The son has a very good idea of how the system of American politics works.
Rove and George W come together down the line because Rove and the insiders from Washington did/do have an agenda of finding the right 'front man' for what they wanted. While religion is an issue the Republican party is more aligned too ('conservative values') it has been an issue that I do not believe for a NY second Carl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld give a rat's ass about. Sure, George W went to that motel one night and confessed his sins in front of a pastor and was 'born again'...OK, sure, that is all and good but that was personal 'testimonial' that was absolutely manipulated in the most insidious way to get Rove's candidate into power. George W is who he is but you have to look at the people around him, it is not the same situation as Nixon but much of the same thinking has gone into all this. Some of John Danforth's (R, MO) interviews and what he has to say about his disenchantment with his own party are key to this, it re-enforces the despicable character of Rove, Tom DeLay and many others. Danforth is truly a man of religion and the law, he has impeccable credentials the most devout Christian cannot ignore; he believes in what are truly conservative values and bipartisan ways to solve problems.
Religion, patriotism, and taking the moral high ground has been the ‘straw man' for covering up some very questionable actions that have been going on since the first Nixon Whitehouse. These are not new concepts. George W has been a political robot in this, the Republican structure used Reagan in this way too. The Democratic party should stop trying to ‘find and groom’ a candidate like this. Men like Howard Dean or Bill Bradley (who exceedingly smart and compassionate people) need to be able to move to the top because of their natural attributes, not some dumb idea a political operative has. Barak Obama is in this category, I see him as a very clear surprise (but true) candidate that should be allowed to move naturally to the top.
I am going to leave Bush and religion out of this for the moment. Facts are that Donald Rumsfeld, Carl Rove, and Dick Cheney did work for the Nixon administration during their formative years and were very influenced by the process that John Dean, G. Gordon Liddy, John Mitchell, Haldaman and Erlichman and a list of others followed in order to stay in power. It was corrupt and very corrupting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/herblock/essay3.htm
http://www.watergate.info/chronology/1972.shtml
We come to the late 1990s and Carl Rove had already used religion in Texas as a partial (not total) device to slander Ann Richards and get George Bush elected. Religion always works; you can get the higher moral ground much faster than the opponent. Almost identical tactics have been used in George Bush's (the son) presidential campaigns that were used to get and retain Nixon in office.
Nixon and George W Bush (the son) and are not good to compare as people, part of it is George HW Bush (the dad) was not associated with the Nixon inner circle, he was mainly a foreign diplomat (he is an honest man, I have no doubt; just not too adept at good domestic policy). I don't think he raised a 'dishonest' son, but I do believe the son was very dedicated to his dad in supporting all political campaigns and functions the family was involved with (a robot this way). The son has a very good idea of how the system of American politics works.
Rove and George W come together down the line because Rove and the insiders from Washington did/do have an agenda of finding the right 'front man' for what they wanted. While religion is an issue the Republican party is more aligned too ('conservative values') it has been an issue that I do not believe for a NY second Carl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld give a rat's ass about. Sure, George W went to that motel one night and confessed his sins in front of a pastor and was 'born again'...OK, sure, that is all and good but that was personal 'testimonial' that was absolutely manipulated in the most insidious way to get Rove's candidate into power. George W is who he is but you have to look at the people around him, it is not the same situation as Nixon but much of the same thinking has gone into all this. Some of John Danforth's (R, MO) interviews and what he has to say about his disenchantment with his own party are key to this, it re-enforces the despicable character of Rove, Tom DeLay and many others. Danforth is truly a man of religion and the law, he has impeccable credentials the most devout Christian cannot ignore; he believes in what are truly conservative values and bipartisan ways to solve problems.
Religion, patriotism, and taking the moral high ground has been the ‘straw man' for covering up some very questionable actions that have been going on since the first Nixon Whitehouse. These are not new concepts. George W has been a political robot in this, the Republican structure used Reagan in this way too. The Democratic party should stop trying to ‘find and groom’ a candidate like this. Men like Howard Dean or Bill Bradley (who exceedingly smart and compassionate people) need to be able to move to the top because of their natural attributes, not some dumb idea a political operative has. Barak Obama is in this category, I see him as a very clear surprise (but true) candidate that should be allowed to move naturally to the top.