The following is an excerpt from my new book, Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Myths of Republican Politics. The book is available for online ordering now and will be in bookstores on April 15.
It examines the deceitful, personality-based election tactics the Right uses to build absurd cults of personality around their leaders while demonizing liberal and Democratic candidates. Accompanying that, as always, is the vital role the establishment press plays in disseminating those vapid though powerful themes. This excerpt is from the chapter concerning John McCain's candidacy and how those themes will be deployed by the right-wing/media monster to transform him into a principled, honor-bound American icon.
The press's veneration of McCain as "a different type of Republican" has echoes of how George Bush was built into an iconic hero. In 2000, we were inundated with claims that Bush was a departure from the hard-core, Gingrichian right-wing Republican. Bush was no mere conservative, but a "compassionate conservative," someone who, exactly like McCain, combined the most admirable virtues of the conservative man with a streak of idiosyncratic independence that rendered him substantially different -- better -- than the standard right-wing Republican.
And exactly like the media's hero worship of McCain now, Bush in 2000 was presented as the sole figure capable of healing our partisan rift. He was a "uniter, not a divider," who venerated solutions above partisan bickering. Bush would reach across the aisle, recruit Democrats to his side, and just as he changed the tenor of politics in Texas, so, too, would he bridge the partisan divide in Washington after eight long years of Clintonian divisiveness.
Here is how then-RNC chairman Jim Nicholson put it during his 2000 Convention speech: "My friends, this is going to be a different kind of convention for a different kind of Republican." Bush spokesman Ray Sullivan mouthed a similar line during the campaign: "Gov. Bush has shown time and time again that he is a different kind of Republican."
Replace "McCain" in 2008 with "Bush" in 2000, and the cliché-ridden script has barely changed. Both then and now, the GOP nominee, despite a virtually unbroken record of standard conservative orthodoxy, is depicted as far too honorable and independent to be considered an ordinary politician, let alone a standard conservative partisan. Both the 2000 Bush and the 2008 McCain were mavericks -- inspiring, honest figures who transcend partisan warfare and piously float far above the muck of traditional politics.
Indeed, the central praise typically heaped by journalists on McCain -- that no matter what one thinks of his views, he always says what he thinks, because he is a man of real conviction -- is exactly the marketing package in which George Bush was wrapped, particularly when he ran for reelection. Just compare McCain's media reputation as a plain-spoken, truth-telling maverick with the crown jewel of George Bush's 2004 GOP Convention acceptance speech:
THE PRESIDENT: In the last four years, you and I have come to know each other. Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand.
[applause]
The depiction of McCain as a truth-telling, apolitical maverick is just about as accurate as previous similar depictions of Bush were. On virtually every policy issue of significance, McCain's positions -- not his rhetoric but his actual positions -- ultimately transform into those held by the dominant right-wing faction of the Republican Party and, even more so, are identical to the positions that shaped and defined the failed Bush presidency.
In every way that matters, this exotic, independent-minded maverick is nothing more than a carbon copy extension of the Bush worldview, nothing more than a George W. Bush third term. One sees this most clearly in McCain's view of America's role in the world, whereby he channels the central, and indescribably disastrous, Bush mentality almost verbatim.
The central animating principle of the two Bush/Cheney terms has been that Islamic radicalism is not merely a threat to be managed and rationally contained, like all the other threats and risks the United States faces. Rather, it is some sort of transcendent ideological struggle -- a glorious War of Civilizations -- comparable to the great ideological wars of the past. As such, it will engage all of America's military might and the bulk of its resources, as the United States navigates an endless stream of enemies and wars that subordinates all other national priorities and that assumes a paramount role in our political life. That was the central theme of George Bush's presidency, and it is the central theme of John McCain's worldview now.
In articulating a foreign policy at least as bellicose and war-seeking as that which defined the most radical and disastrous aspects of the Bush/Cheney years, McCain has even taken to using language almost identical to that repeatedly used by Bush. As the Boston Globe put it in September 2006:
McCain has nonetheless adopted Bush's sweeping language in defining the war on terrorism: "I think it's clear that this is now part of a titanic struggle between radical Islamic extremism and Western standards and values," McCain said earlier this year.
McCain's unfettered willingness to commit U.S. troops to the war in Iraq; his blithe acceptance of literally decades-long occupation of that country; and his extreme and often even joyous vows to wage war on Iran, if he perceives that they are close to acquiring the ability to develop nuclear weapons, are all part-and-parcel of the same Bush/Cheney emphasis on Middle Eastern wars and U.S. hegemony that has wreaked so much damage on our country over the last seven years. Whatever else one might want to call McCain's worldview, "independent" or "unorthodox" or "a different type of Republicanism" is manifestly not it.
The preposterously simplistic and dangerously Manichean approach common to both Bush/Cheney and McCain -- United States: Good; those who oppose us: Bad; therefore War Is Needed -- manifests in a virtually indistinguishable approach to the world's most complex problems. In the middle of the raging Israel-Hezbollah war of 2006, President Bush, unbeknownst to him, was accidentally (and now infamously) recorded while speaking privately to Tony Blair at a dinner of European leaders. Bush, in between bites of food, made clear what the solution was to the war: "What they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over."
The Decider issues orders. Everyone complies. And problems are solved for the Good, regardless of complexities, obstacles, or realities.
Consider how identical--almost to the letter--was McCain's prescription in the same year for how to solve raging sectarian tension in Iraq, in remarks addressed to a gathering of GOP donors, as reported by the New York Observer's Jason Horowitz:
In a small, mirror-paneled room guarded by a Secret Service agent and packed with some of the city's wealthiest and most influential political donors, Mr. McCain got right to the point.
"One of the things I would do if I were president would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, 'Stop the bullshit,'" said Mr. McCain, according to Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi, an invitee, and two other guests.
That's the thoughtful, insightful view of the highly experienced, profoundly serious maverick for whom foreign policy is a mastered discipline. Apparently, all Iraq needed for the last five years was some profanity-laced commands issued by the American president to the frightened sectarian simpletons, and harmony would have reigned. This is precisely the same belligerent, narcissistic pretenses that rendered George Bush one of the most despised, destructive, and impotent American leaders in modern history. John McCain seems to believe that all that was needed was just a bit more belligerence and a more imperious tone when dictating to our subjects around the world.
The mirage-like nature of McCain's alleged convictions can be seen most clearly, and most depressingly, with his public posturing over the issue of torture. Time and again, McCain has made a dramatic showing of standing firm against the use of torture by the United States, only to reveal that his so-called principles are confined to the realm of rhetoric and theater, but never action that follows through on that rhetoric.
In 2005, McCain led the effort in the Senate to pass the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which made the use of torture illegal. While claiming that he had succeeded in passing a categorical ban on torture, however, McCain meekly accepted two White House maneuvers that diluted his legislation to the point of meaningless: (1) the torture ban expressly applied only to the U.S. military, but not to the intelligence community, which was exempt, thus ensuring that the C.I.A.--the principal torture agent for the United States -- could continue to torture legally; and (2) after signing the DTA into law, which passed the Senate by a vote of 90-9, President Bush issued one of his first controversial "signing statements" in which he, in essence, declared that, as president, he had the power to disregard even the limited prohibitions on torture imposed by McCain's law.
McCain never once objected to Bush's open, explicit defiance of his cherished anti-torture legislation, preferring to bask in the media's glory while choosing to ignore the fact that his legislative accomplishment would amount to nothing. Put another way, McCain opted for the political rewards of grandstanding on the issue while knowing that he had accomplished little, if anything, in the way of actually promoting his "principles."
A virtual repeat of that sleight-of-hand occurred in 2006, when McCain first pretended to lead opposition to the Military Commissions Act (MCA), only thereafter to endorse this most radical, torture-enabling legislation, almost single-handedly ensuring its passage. After insisting that compelled adherence to the anti-torture ban of the Geneva Conventions was a nonnegotiable item for him, McCain ultimately blessed the MCA despite the fact that it left it to the president to determine, in his sole discretion, which interrogation methods did or did not comply with the Conventions' provisions.
Thus, once again, McCain created a self-image as a principled torture opponent with one hand, and with the other, ensured a legal framework that would not merely fail to ban, but would actively enable, the president's ability to continue using interrogation methods widely considered to be torture.
Indeed, by casting himself as the Supreme Arbiter of torture morality, McCain's support for this torture-enabling law became Bush and Cheney's most potent instrument for legalizing the very interrogation methods that McCain, for so long, flamboyantly claimed to oppose. Such duplicitous behavior is all the more appalling when one considers that McCain's status as Torture Arbiter was largely grounded in the fact that he himself was tortured while imprisoned, yet he is nonetheless willing to act as compliant dupe, if not active enabler, in legalizing torture by the United States.
The coup de grace in the exposure of McCain as a torture enabler came in February 2008. Senate Democrats -- in the face of their knowledge that McCain's Military Commissions Act allowed the president to continue to use torture techniques, such as waterboarding, and motivated by the refusal of new Bush attorney general Michael Mukasey to declare such practices illegal -- introduced legislation that would outlaw waterboarding by all agencies of the U.S. government, including the C.I.A., rather than merely outlawing its use by the U.S. military, as McCain's 2005 DTA had done.
Faced with the clearest test yet of the authenticity of his claimed anti-torture convictions, McCain, as he sought to placate the far-right base of his party, left no doubt that his anti-torture posturing was pure political theater. While the anti-waterboarding law passed the Senate 51-45, McCain voted against the waterboarding ban, notwithstanding years of dramatic protests over this interrogation technique. Worse, McCain's excuse for his vote -- that there was no need for the law since waterboarding was already illegal -- was a complete falsehood, since discretion for determining the legality of waterboarding continues to rest with the president under the very law, the MCA, that McCain caused to be enacted in 2006.
If one were to attempt to create a caricature of a Great American Hypocrite, one could do no better than describing John McCain's behavior on this torture issue, one of his signature maverick positions. After years of self-serving posturing as the moral leader on torture and after basking endlessly in the media reverence that accompanied it, McCain worked behind the scenes on one measure after the next that enabled and legalized torture. Then, when faced with as clear-cut a vote as could be imagined, he opposed a law that would have outlawed the very methods that the Bush administration had admitted using and that McCain long insisted constituted torture.
If one examines America's presidential elections beginning in 1980 to the present, what one finds is a consistent and unchanging pattern. The Republican Party dresses up its leaders in all sorts of virtuous personality costumes. The establishment press, driven by the vapid dynamics of high school personality complexes, digests and then promotes that iconography. National elections are dominated by personality imagery and smears and are almost completely bereft of consideration of substantive issues. Worst of all, the personality images that dictate our election outcomes are not just petty, but entirely false, grounded in pure myth.
In every one of these critical aspects, John McCain is perfectly illustrative of the same twisted process that has infected our political discourse and converted our national elections into, using the words of John Harris and Mark Halperin, a personality-based freak show. The media depicts McCain as a moderate despite his warmongering extremism. He is heralded as a "new kind of Republican" even though, as a candidate, he is the spitting image of George W. Bush and, on the issues, a more or less reliable supporter of the defining Bush/Cheney policies. He is relentlessly painted as an independent, apolitical maverick, despite a willingness to change positions the minute that doing so is politically expedient. The press refuses to subject him to critical scrutiny because of their great personal affection for him. And he is held out as the honor-bound truth-teller despite both a public and private life that has long ceased to contain any actual acts of honor and truth-telling.
John McCain is a natural candidate, right at home in a political party led by Great American Hypocrites and with a press corps that reveres great American hypocrisy. The press adores him for the same vapid, personality-based reasons it adored George W. Bush. And McCain's media-built and media-sustained reputation as a trans-partisan man of principle and conviction is every bit as genuine as it was in the case of Bush. If the GOP/media machinery manages to elect him, he will undoubtedly produce extremely similar -- if not worse --results.
The preceding is an excerpt from Glenn Greenwald's new book, Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Myths of Republican Politics. The book is available now at Amazon. Reprinted by permission of Glenn Greenwald/Crown Publishers. All rights reserved.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Glenn Greenwald: The straight-shooting commentator we"ve been waiting for.
GET TO WORK ON VOLUME TWO!!! I"m delighted to hear about this forthcoming book!!! For some time, I"ve been floating the idea of collecting the numerous episodes in the last dozen years in which loud-mouthed, sanctimonious, conservative preachers, politicians, public officials, activists, and spokespersons have embarrassed themselves by philandering, pederasty, homosexual encounters, kinky sex, patronizing prostitutes, estrangement from family, and unseemly divorce.
Typically, these transgressors earlier grabbed the stage to proclaim the primacy and hegemony of conventional sexual morality, "family values," and Christian values " and, in most cases, castigated deviators from those codes. I hope the book documents all the loud talk that preceded the falls.
Republican strayed sheep typically apologize and ask for understanding and forgiveness from their fellow Republicans. They take for granted that Democrats will forgive most of the behavior in question. What Democrats want is for the transgressor to acknowledge and apologize for the attack-sanctimony that preceded the episode and which makes it hypocritical. However, attack-sanctimony is such an important part of the Republican arsenal that Republicans prefer to keep the focus on the transgression rather than on the rhetoric that preceded it. Hence the familiar ritual of apology, compassionate clichés, and forgiveness.
As long as Republicans continue with this pattern, they will keep generating chapters for volume two!
As we all know, one of the most explicit opponents to this point of view was a Supreme Commander of an entirely different kind. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, long before becoming Commander-in-Chief, was a General Of The Army. Five stars. The highest rank possible, and one rarely given to anyone. He earned it.
And he spoke. In January of 1961, on the eve of his departure from the Presidency, "Ike" coined the term "Military Industrial Complex" and spoke earnestly of its dangers. He had seen how even at that time concerns for "a new bomber" were trumping concerns for ... anything else. And when he spoke in this way he was a verifiable expert on two fronts. He'd been to the top of the military, having commanded it, and then he'd been to the top of the rest of Government, having commanded it, too.
The social problem that faces us all today would be very familiar to "Ike," as would be the cacophony of propaganda, the simultaneous usurping of all three Branches of Government, and all the rest. After all, he had spent his military career fighting against two other heads of this ancient Hydra: in Nazi Germany and in Imperial Japan.
When this same monster appears fully-formed in our own land, do we recognize it, as "Ike" did?
I don"t think it can be done in the courts. Boycotts, rebellion and blogs.....Maybe.
This was meant as a response to this post
RnR See Profile I'm a Fan of RnR
Is it not possible to file a class action suit against the msm (all of them) charging that privately owned corporations are using the publicly owned airwaves in order to promote falsely advertised products (candidates...or whatever) and deliberately deceive the public?
The advertising industry is getting a free ride here - they are the traitors writing the deliberately misleading smarmy little ads. They are as much willing co-conspirators as the msm in the fascist takeover of the US of A.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 AM on 04/07/2008
"Apparently, all Iraq needed for the last five years was some profanity-laced commands issued by the American president to the frightened sectarian simpletons, and harmony would have reigned. This is precisely the same belligerent, narcissistic pretenses that rendered George Bush one of the most despised, destructive, and impotent American leaders in modern history. John McCain seems to believe that all that was needed was just a bit more belligerence and a more imperious tone when dictating to our subjects around the world."
Word.
It's hard to tell if McCain was merely playing to his raw-meat-eating crowd of conservative elites and telling them what they want to hear, but that he would say this nonsense is frightening and disheartening. Couldn't McCain have satisfied the crowd with at least some statement that this is an ancient conflict and we need a better solution than using our whip on their back?
Is McCain smart? Ranked 894th out of 899 in his Naval Academy class. Does he have the right temperament? A long list of tantrums and inappropriate behavior which even he cops to. Did he bravely serve his country? Absolutely. Is he capable of setting a course for this country that will reverse it's economic, and spiritual descent? Not from anything I've heard him say or do during his career in the Senate. Basically his qualifications come down to he was shot down in Vietnam and bravely endured torture. That's his pitch so far.
Well put! Wonder who was 899th.
Agreed.
He has a lot of experience in the Senate, but his record is decidedly mixed. Rejecting MLK Day was only one of his "mistakes".
your sad attempt to smear senator mccain is as embarassing as it is pathetic. for someone to ignore the very real bipartisan accomplishments, the very real sacrafice, and the very real courage of this man is what the liberals in this country have to do to justify the election of the most unqualified man ever (obama) over one of the most decorated public servents (mccain) in our history. bend reality all you like libs, america sees obama as the farse, media creation he is, and mccain as the iconic war hero he is. its really not a touch choice. its like choosing between carter and eisenhower, no contest.
"the iconic war hero he is" - Ok, stop with the kool-aid. McCain was a bomber pilot who dropped bombs on people from 20,000 feet and flew back to his carrier for a shower and hot meal. He had an unfortunate encounter with a SAM missile and wound up in a North Vietnamese prison camp. He was tortured and wound up telling the North Vietnamese what they wanted to hear. This incident in his life made him opposed to torture - a stand he reversed when Bush/Cheney pulled his chain, not the mark of a hero.
By the way - dictionary definition for Iconic - "an object of uncritical devotion".
I'm not sure but I don't believe that being a charter member of the Keating 5 would qualify as "one of the most decorated public servants" - and if your definition of courage involves kissing the butts of people who have attacked you and your family like McCain did with Bush and Rove, then I guess McCain is pretty courageous, too. I would call that flip-flop and being a weasel.
One last thing - your keyboard has two (2) shift keys - they are there for a reason, learn to use them.
I'll say this real slow - "KEATING FIVE, MCCAIN GOT $112,000, COST TAXPAYERS $3.4 BILLION, 9 FREE DREAM TRIPS, CORRUPTION!"
Yes, real sacrifice and courage. What a hero. Just what we need. He helped with the S&L debacle, might as well hand him the entire economy and see how far he can bury it, right?
McCain is nowhere near as qualified as Obama to be president. You certainly wouldn't say that mere years in the Senate is the criterion? Oh, then it must be the fact that McCain was 894/899 in his class at the Naval Academy or his insane rendition of "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb, bom Iran!"
In case you are truly interested, which I doubt, we see Obama as one of the most intelligent, well-educated, thoughtful and artculate candidates to come along in ages. Oh, and he's also inspiring and a natural leader. By the way, you can't be serious in your comment that being incarcerated as a war prisoner for years qualifies someone as an "iconic war hero." What would that say about the military heroes who actually led soldiers in battle or determined the tactical/strategic course of a war?
"its like choosing between carter and eisenhower"
Let's explore this smear a little bit.
Fact: Carter was named Captain of a nuclear submarine when that program was headed by legendary admiral Hyman Rickover, the father of the nuclear Navy, and a *notorious* tough-ass who DEMANDED the best.
Fact: As Captain of a nuclear sub, Carter had his finger on the trigger of more fire-power than *existed* when Eisenhower was a general.
Well, your username says it all, doesn't it? You've made up your mind.
The courage McCain displayed in Vietnam hasn't, unfortunately, carried through completely to his career in the Senate. Take a look at the Keating 5, and his relationship with Jerry Falwell (and other religious leaders) if you want to see someone who has shamed himself.
McCain will not win this one. Get ready for at least 4 years of Barack Obama.
"McCain will not win this one. Get ready for at least 4 years of Barack Obama."
JMEB, I certainly hope you're right about that. Personally, I'd rather see at least four years of Hillary, because I want to see a woman president for a change, but Barack would do just fine. But, Heaven forbid! I certainly would NOT want to see at least four years of John McCain! That would be akin to giving Bushy Boy a third term! YIKES!!! NO! NO!! NO!!! A THOUSAND times NO!!!! The mere thought of THAT scares the bejeebers outta me!!
Give me a break! McCain is not even close to the most decorated public servant ever and all your trolling isn't going to change that. The fact McCain caved on the recent anti-torture bill absolutely negates any type of honor or courage he might have obtained by managing to crash his plane and get captured (which does not make him a war hero, just incompetent). Most true war heroes would not get involved in politics exactly because they have integrity and morals, something that most of our politicians lack (including McCain). I almost crapped my pants laughing so hard when I read McLame and iconic war hero in the same sentence (without is not between them that is).
Hey, all you beboopers out there, take note.
The above post is an example of first-rate thinking, analyzing, and writing. This was fairly common in the Western World at one time, but is now as rare as hen's teeth.
Dido
"It examines the deceitful, personality-based election tactics the Right uses to build absurd cults of personality around their leaders while demonizing liberal and Democratic candidates. Accompanying that, as always, is the vital role the establishment press plays in disseminating those vapid though powerful themes."
And Democrats don't do this? Please, I'm laughing myself sick.
The Democrats never sold you an alcoholic failure to be president. After almost 8 years of Bush you should be able to tell
The Gore Bush election is the best proof Greenwald is right. I remember it well. And when Bush still could not win they used the Supreme Court. The Republicans with the help of the media sold an alcoholic spoiled brat, a failure in everything he touched and made him president. And now look what he did to the nation.
You stand amid the carnage of our once great nation laughing?
I've tried to understand you, the generic you that holds your fellow Americans in such contempt, but I cannot. Please, help me understand the self-righteousness, the hubris, the oblivion of comprehension of what we have wrought. What is it that draws you into this horny shell of self that shuts out all reason and emits only ridicule and venality?
What is it that rallies people living from paycheck to paycheck under threat from the tyranny of whim, living in swallowed terror of illness, of misfortune to vociferously champion their tyrants? Do you really not comprehend the horror that has been perpetrated against our country and the world?
What black irony is it that prompts your laughter?
Love your writing.
Actually, no - the Democrats don't do this. At least not in any measure that puts them anywhere near the Republicans. You might make a case that an occasional Democrat has employed these tactics (Obama? yeah, probably.) -- but every Republican has. I don't know how you can even compare the two. The key words to focus on are "deceitful," "personality-based" and "demonizing."
All politicians have been packaged to some extent; an unfortunate, perhaps unavoidable necessity due to how the media reduces positions to their simplest terms. Republicans have been extremely successful at- if not creating, then certainly exploiting this system that rewards the candidate who speaks in the starkest terms. It's a lot easier (and politically safer) to say "taxes are bad" than to explain why they are necessary and how they should be fairly distributed. That's just one example. For every issue I can think of, the Republicans have a pat, simplistic position. By ignoring subtleties and nuances that exist in the real world, they are deceitful to voters (and perhaps even to themselves). The Democrats, for their part, often make the mistake of over-explaining their positions and policies. So we end with Dubya and McCain portrayed as straight-talkin' and maverick, and Gore and Kerry portrayed as stuffy and professorial.
Our Constitution has been shredded, our rights have been trampled, we are in an ongoing illegal war, our soldiers are being picked off by snipers and IEDs, our image abroad as a super power is tarnished, our national infrastructure is crumbling (literally), and our economy is spiralling into a depression.
All you can do is laugh and say the Democrats do it, too. What a good citizen you are.
Again, it's amusing that some Dems really think their party never does this sort of thing. It's kind of cute that there are folks so trusting.
Part two:
* The DNC message makes criticisms of McCain that could be directed at its own leading candidates as well. It notes that he lacks training in economics, which is equally true of Clinton and Obama. And it accuses him of "staggering" reliance on lobbyists for campaign help, when Clinton also has substantial aid from lobbyists and Obama has some from former lobbyists.
If recent history is any guide, the preemptive attack that the DNC outlines in this message will be followed by similar attacks by Republicans. Past elections have included spiraling rounds of attacks by both parties, in which each side claims to be responding in kind to the other.
Analysis
According to this fundraising pitch, the DNC plans a massive advertising campaign that will give voters what we judge to be a distorted picture of Arizona Sen. John McCain's positions. The mass e-mail was sent out to the party faithful Feb. 6, the day after McCain emerged from Super Tuesday as the clear front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, and even before former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney suspended his run for the GOP nomination. The subject of the e-mail: "How we'll beat John McCain."
So... that's it? That's the evidence you offer? This proves that "the Democrats do it too?"
I think you are failing to make a distinction between run of the mill politics, in which candidate's weaknesses are called out by the opposition. This includes all manner of fair-game issues: voting records, past speeches and promises, affiliation's with donors, etc. All of which - though ugly at times - is perfectly normal in politics.
But what Greenwald was getting at is a more insidious strain of political manipulation that is far more common in the GOP. They employ their knack for framing issues and using symbolic imagery to paint their candidates as true Americans, and Democrats as anything but. They tend to avoid criticizing policies (perhaps because in point by point comparison, their policies would be revealed to be horribly flawed) and instead rely on using cheap fear tactics and stereotypes to move many Americans to vote against their own best interest...
The Democrats do do it too, obviously, and the fact that none of you can see that is hilarious.
"I know you are but what am I" was not particularly clever or effective when I heard it from my fellow 4th-graders, many years ago.
It is even less so when it comes from someone who presumably considers herself an adult.
Posted April 6, 2008 | 10:41 PM (EST)