The Man Who Would Be Bush

Are Americans unusually stupid or is it something our president put in the water? ? As millions surrender their homes and sacrifice other standards of our nation's economic and political reputation to the caprice of the Bush-Cheney imperium, a majority of voters tell pollsters that they might vote for a candidate who promises more of the same.

Assuming that likely voters are not now thinking of yet another Republican president simply because John McCain is the only white guy left standing--an excuse as pathetic in its logic as the decision four years ago to return two Texas oil hustlers to the White House because they were not Massachusetts liberals--must mean that tens of millions of Americans have taken leave of their senses.

If not the white-guy syndrome, why would even a shocking minority of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters say they prefer McCain to the other Democrat? How otherwise to explain the nation's widespread bipartisan rejection of the Bush presidency and yet a willingness to let McCain continue in that vein?

To be sure, as a senator, McCain has exhibited flashes of independence on behalf of taxpayers, as in his support of campaign-finance reform in which he partnered with Democrat Russ Feingold. McCain's investigations of the military-industrial complex's shameless exploitation of terrorism fears set a high standard, as in exposing the air-tanker scandal that dispatched a Boeing exec and a former Pentagon employee to prison. But his political ambition is showing. Although he previously harshly criticized the enormous waste in the Iraq occupation, today, as a presidential candidate, he opens the door to a hundred years of taxpayer dollars tossed down the drain in Iraq. The man who was tortured now hugs a leader who authorized the same.

By so unabashedly embracing the most glaringly failed U.S. president ever, McCain has surrendered the right to be considered an independent candidate, judged on his own merits and personal history. A vote for McCain is a vote for that rancid recipe mixing religious bigotry, imperial arrogance and corporate greed that he had stood against in the run-up to the 2000 presidential election when he challenged George W. Bush, but to which he now has capitulated.

Too harsh? Then consider just how tight the space is between the rocks of our failed Mideast policy and the hard place of our impending financial disaster. The sudden out-of-control spike in the cost of oil--the key short-term market variable, the specter that stokes inflation fear and limits moves to avoid recession--is not a natural disaster or in any realistic way the result of inefficiency in the use of energy. What more than doubled the price of petroleum in the short run was not that too many of us bought Hummers, but rather that the political stability of the region that contains the bulk of that oil was deliberately and recklessly roiled.

In the name of fighting the 9/11 terrorists, the Bush administration overthrew the one Arab government most adamantly opposed to the Saudi financiers of that son of their system, Osama bin Laden. Instead of confronting the royal leaders of a kingdom that supplied 15 of the 19 hijackers, we invaded a nation that supplied not a single one. While Bush overthrew Saddam Hussein, who had no ties to the hijackers, he embraced the leaders of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the only three nations in the world that had diplomatically recognized and supported the Taliban sponsors of al-Qaida.

Consider that historical marker at a time when the UAE and Saudi Arabia bankers are buying major positions in distressed U.S. financial and other key corporate institutions. I know, it all sounds too conspiratorial, like imagining that we might wake up from this national nightmare and discover that the CEO of Halliburton, who replaced Dick Cheney when the latter selected himself to be Bush's vice president, now has his headquarters in Dubai, tucked safely into the obscenely oil-revenue-rich UAE that our troops were sent to Iraq to protect.

There is no national outrage, or even seriously sustained media interest, over the fact that Cheney's old company profited enormously from ripping off U.S. tax dollars going into the Iraq occupation. Nor is there even much curiosity about the shenanigans of Halliburton, which is doing business with Arab oil sheiks at a time when the U.S. banks these Middle Eastern oil interests bought into are moving to foreclose on American homeowners.

It's just the sort of egregious betrayal of the trust of the taxpayers that Sen. McCain would have gone after, before he sought to don the soiled robes of the Bush presidency.

Comments

[WilliePilgrim]

Great observations, Mr Sheer. I would point out, however that whenever we empower the federal government to rectify a situation we simultaneously empower the following adminstrations to use that same power to dismantle that which we thought was inalienable.
Therein lies the appeal of a "less government" approach to a problem...though in fact a higher level of enforcement for corporate and government corruption would be a good and noble thing and probably be a better deterence to future corruption, provided we flogged 'em in public and them prohibited them from going to a federal jail and insisted corporate and government corruption be payable by high profile public toilet cleaning for several years to life.

[laocoon]

Yesterday the news on the came in with the story that the Obama campaign was still having to deal with the elitism accusation. that was the the "news" the McCain gaffes happen and are not reported over and over. Obama's "mistakes" have legs. who gives them the legs. news is largely what the news reports as news. at one time the news came from many independent sources and they all pretty much had to cover the actual news. now ???? any wonder why we see the public being dumbed down.

[REJames50]

McCain Wins?
The RNC claims "internal polling" says John McCain leads Hillary in a potential head-to-head match-up by 11%. Isn"t this the same Republican leadership that claimed, right up to the election in 2006, that the GOP would fare well that day, according to Karl Rove? In that election not one seat was wrested from a Democrat in 468 Congressional elections. These same pollsters said Rudy Giuliani was the leading Republican candidate just last November.
I thought, "Put your money where your mouth is." So, I googled "What are the Las Vegas odds in November"s presidential election?" Google referred me to Betfair, in England, with wagering on the election here apparently being taboo. Betfair"s latest odds were 7:4, Obama over McCain, and, on an earlier date, the odds were 11:13 in favor of Obama, 13:8, for a McCain presidency.
Now, I don"t gamble, with surviving and staying healthy constituting ample jeopardy for me, moreover I think the lottery is despicable, ripping off the poor. That said, how much faith do I have in these odds--how confident am I that McCain will fail? Has anybody got a spare boarding pass to London?
McCain is the designated heir-apparent of an oft-despised George Bush, a man whom Ralph Nader says is "historically illiterate," a war criminal, while 81% of us say the country is on the wrong track. "Those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind," a harvest that will ripen come November.

[Stevealmi]

Stop using up your energy ranting about how stupid the American public is. These folks are mis-informed not stupid. They do not rely on the internet for their news as the folks who post here do. They read their paper in the morning and watch the news at night. Those networks and newspapers are owned by investor groups and corporations that cater to big money so the opposing view will never be heard. Use that energy to inform, not rant.

[laocoon]

When I talk to these people they do not want to hear anything that does not reinforce a few dumb but emotional views. the arguments they spout are so lame one must wonder why they dont realize how lame they are. they are not stupid people but they seem to have formed judgments based on emotional manipulations.

[appleknocker]

Why would anyone who voted for Bush in 2004 NOT vote for McCain? Is there anything known now that wasn't obvious then?

[danielet]

Well Bob, it's funny...what goes around comes around. I remember when I debated you on Vietnam in 1966 at Berkeley. Now I cheer your precient perspective on the "conservative" Republican party I was so long a part of. We are both alive, well and healthy enough to fight the big lie machine. But you proved stronger in that you hold on to your hope that Americans will see through their yahooism, falg waving and racism enough NOT to vote for someone who cares so little-- except for show-- as McCain. Many POWs are ready to "Swift boat him" but what good is masking now with an issue 30 years old? He's done a lot that speaks for itself since. None of us are angels; but we are hopefully not fools either. McCain speaks Bush-talk as a substitute of smoke for policy. On behalf of my American kids and grandkids I thank you for holding on courageously so that at this critical time you can put the real questions before people who would rather be deaf, dumb and blind.

[SILVANUS]

You ask if Americans are stupid: Well, say this: 50% of them would rather cling to their bigotry in pain than work through their egoic issues of insecurity, entitlement, and fear.
They "identify with the aggressor", that toxic syndrome of voting for the Frat Jock/Prom King who would just as soon spit on YOU, lowly tripe, but ,yet, you want so much to be like him, and your vote might get him to at least not hurt you, or maybe, toss you some blessed dog food.

[ianrthorpe]

I entirely agree.

What a pity the democrats could not find a credible candidate.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977275305&nav=Namespace

[wmbear]

MCCAIN IS DOUBLY CONTEMPTIBLE...

1) For his inane view of the world in and of itself.

2) For sucking up to the man (George W. Bush) who totally fucked him over during the 2000 primaries.

[hopelessobama]

because in mccain they see solutions for both sides, someone who can bring all sides to the table. barack's resume is that of a bitter partisan who votes down the liberal line in lockstep with the most extremes of your party, which is why you support him.

mccain is moderate, and no amount of 'mcbush' will ever change that. this country is center right, and rather then deny that fact, you continue to be shocked that more people prefer a moderate war hero then a black panther/socialist hyrbrid.

[rixhex56]

Do you know the difference between "than" and "then"? Just askin'...

[rixhex56]

I wonder what solutions they see. Can you explain?

[laocoon]

I see nothing moderate about McCain and Obama seems very moderate to me.

[baylaw73]

McCain is "moderate?" Are you seriou? And what exactly are you relying on to support your claim that "this country is center right?" No chance pal. This country is broadly in favor of most of the so-called liberal agenda. The problem is, most people are not informed as to what the Republicans actually stand for. They don't realize that it is the party of greed, war, poor governence, and extremism. And since when is getting shot down enough to make one a war hero? The only heroes frm that era are the one who resisted the terroist war against the people of Southeast Asia.

[LeftRight]

McCain is NOT moderate, and has never BEEN moderate!! He has stood up to the establishment only where it was SAFE, and wouldn't hurt either him, OR the republican establishment!

[flatus]

Robert,
You are, of course, correct on every point and I share your frustrations.

If it isn't stupidity or the drinking water then what is responsible for the failure to correct, impeach, and return to the ideals of Thomas Jefferson?

I fear that it is because we have been sheltered from the storm by not being drafted and living in an economy that had been propped up by war, huge deficit spending, illegal workers, and ethics-free banking.

[hopelessobama]

you realize jefferson was a republican who pushed for war with france and would have detested government overreach like a national heathcare mandate?

[swamijie]

Actually, Jefferson was a Democratic Republican, which eventually became the Democratic Party we know and love today. The Republican Party started with Lincoln and wasn't around during Jefferson's time.

[rixhex56]

On what do you base your conclusion that Jefferson would have "detested" a national healthcare system? There is absolutely nothing I know of to support that conclusion.

And Jefferson saw France as an ally.

[THEhillbilly]

"Assuming that likely voters are not now thinking of yet another Republican president simply because John McCain is the only white guy left standing..." Jaundiced parroting of a party line can't really be called an assumption unless you're partial to euphemisms, which you aren't--name calling is your game. However, what you laughably call "assuming" can legitimately be called stupid, pouty speculation. Correct that line before your next outburst.

[julieeiluj]

The sad politicians that follow him, and allow him to continue with his crimes are just as guilty. America as a country is a big fat zero for allowing this to go on.

[desmirl]

When people vote against their own interests--economic and political--they have no one to blame but themselves when their jobs--and their wealth--goes overseas.

[LeftRight]

What about when we DON'T vote against our own best interests, but a majority of OTHER voters vote against both their own, AND your best interests? Cause that's what's happened twice to me now, in 2000 and 2004!

[Puller58]

Bob, you are forgetting the history of politics in this country. You can find many examples of voters who voted for people for every office from the presidency to dog catcher and seemed blind to the obvious. McCain wants to be prez. He couldn't be prez by being a "maverick." His campaign reflects that reality. Third party candidates do not win elections except for flukes like Jesse Ventura. That leaves our two parties, and you can consider the planks the presidential candidates run on as largely window dressing. Talking with any supporter of any of the candidates often betrays a strong desire to believe despite reality. Polls mean little. The election day polls are what counts. Now once the elections are over, you get the real deal. Even when that reality clashes with the campaign promises, supporters talk themselves into accepting the results. No matter who wins in November, their supporters will be loyal no matter what happens.