The 'Nutters Are Restless
In their increasingly scary push to turn the USA into a big church, the fundanutters are putting pressure on The White House, writes David D. Kirkpatrick in The New York Times:
Some of President Bush's most influential conservative Christian allies are becoming openly critical of the White House and Republicans in Congress, warning that they will withhold their support in the midterm elections unless Congress does more to oppose same-sex marriage, obscenity and abortion....Midterm Congressional elections tend to be won by whichever side can motivate more true believers to vote. Dr. Dobson and other conservatives are renewing their complaints about the Republicans at a time when several recent polls have shown sharp declines in approval among Republicans and conservatives. And compared with other constituencies, evangelical Protestants have historically been suspicious of the worldly business of politics and thus more prone to stay home unless they feel clear moral issues are at stake.
"When a president is in a reasonably strong position, these kind of leaders don't have a lot of leverage," said Charlie Cook, a nonpartisan political analyst. "But when the president is weak, they tend to have a lot of leverage."
Dr. Dobson, whose daily radio broadcast has millions of listeners, has already signaled his willingness to criticize Republican leaders. In a recent interview with Fox News on the eve of a visit to the White House, he accused Republicans of "just ignoring those that put them in office."
Dr. Dobson cited the House's actions on two measures that passed over the objections of social conservatives: a hate-crime bill that extended protections to gay people, and increased support for embryonic stem cell research.
So, scientific progress should be held back, and gay people should be denied rights because some people have primitive beliefs? These people are free to avoid partaking of medical discoveries that offend their religion, or to huddle together in little homophobic circles, but they have absolutely no right to legislate my life or anyone else's based on their religion.
Again, I loathed Kerry with pretty much every fiber of my being, but it's just too dangerous to vote for many Republicans these days. And for all you real conservatives out there (like me), don't give me that crap about the Democrats handing it all to welfare queens.
As I've said before, George Bush is the biggest big Democrat we've had in The White House in years. And, don't kid yourself, he, too, loves welfare queens -- the kind who get millions of dollars in tax money from the rest of us. (I believe you've met Mrs. Halliburton? Oh, and then there's Mrs. Faith Based But Unproven Sex Ed. Mr. AIDS will be right along.)
What sick mess have we all let this country fall into? And again, I'm no bleeding lefty, but with McCain so busy blowing Jerry Falwell, and Hillary very likely without a chance in hell of being elected, somebody please tell me where we're all going to turn.
Did you notice the sign-off on the speech tonight? Bush shares Reagan's gift for pandering to his religious base without people much noticing. If you can handle some chatter about history, see this video clip, in which Alter offers a convincing psychographic take on why Dubya's so poor a president:
http://bloggingheads.tv/?id=87
Short version: As a recovering alky, he has a teetotaler's inflexibility. This may be why he was re-elected; compared to talk-it-to-death Clinton, he seemed comfortably principled.
(PS Lena: I ran into Todd today at McCabe's... It was me and him in the back room with the electrics. I shook his hand and said hello, and then tried to play the main theme from "Don't You Ever Learn" on a Strat, but I was nervous and bungled it, so he didn't recognize it. Fucker's tall. But almost all of you are....)
Crid at May 16, 2006 12:39 AM
Do you have another address for that clip? It was Mickey with an interview about FDR.
Amy Alkon at May 16, 2006 5:53 AM
Btw, did anyone see our ex-future president's show on SNL? Pretty funny: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/SNL-Al-Gore-5-14.mov .
Frog in L.A. at May 16, 2006 8:23 AM
That's the one. It goes on for awhile. The point gets made near the end when they compare GWB and FDR. Dubya is all about loyalty (Brownie, Myers), whereas Roosevelt was all about results. Ideology didn't stop FDR from experimenting with approaches, and he was ready to throw longtime associates overboard if they goofed. But in the Bush's teetotaling White House, as long as you wear a tie, show up on time and turn off your cell phone when he's in the room, your job is secure. Have you noticed that this White House doesn't leak, and that when it does, there's little doubt that it came from the top?
Clinton also ran a looser operation. Clinton got laid in high school (Hell, Clinton got laid in kindergarten): He's perfectly happy with a milieu of of gossipy, self-interested parties and shifting loyalty. Remember all those "Friends of Bill?" His ne'er-do-well brother-in-law lived in the basement for eight years, where WH staffers brought him a steady supply of cheeseburgers. A *very* steady supply: http://tinyurl.com/zena5
Alter offers what may become history's best take on GWB's core fault: 'He is not supple, and this limits his effectiveness as an executive'. Dubya's sobriety was comforting after Clinton's endless teenage melodrama, and of course it was the preferable approach when we were under attack. People will be looking for something new in '08. Can't imagine what, yet.
Crid at May 16, 2006 9:03 AM
I heard a truly frightening example of this mind-set in an NPR interview with the author of a book about the growing American theocracy, who said that the conservatives have an "Alice in the Looking Glass" approach that allows them to ignore reality when it's convenient. The CDC was holding a conference and some scientists were going to deliver a report that concluded that abstinence-only sex ed doesn't work, statistically speaking (i.e., doesn't reduce teen pregnancies, STDs, etc.).
A conservative Congressman got wind of this and demanded that the "other view" be presented as well. His rationale was that the study's conclusions proved the authors were biased against abstinence-only sex ed.
Yes, these scientists were so unreasonable as to draw conclusions based on DATA.
Melissa at May 16, 2006 7:08 PM
Leave a comment