uTopianTurtleTop

BUMPKINS, SUCKERS, RUBES, PATSIES, HAYSEEDS, & HICKS AGREE: BUSH IS MAKING AMERICA SAFER

The bumpkins and suckers who believe Karl Rove's calculated nonsense about liberals wanting to offer therapy to Osama bin Laden deserve the country we're all getting -- one despised by most of the world, with good reason; one militarily hobbled and strategically insane; one deeply in debt and careening toward economic wasteland; one at war with the canons of science and reason.

The rubes and marks of the nation are dragging the rest of us down.

A lot of Bush supporters -- the "values" voters -- at least are getting what they want: an anti-science, anti-human-rights, anti-enlightenment administration. Their concerns are not worldly concerns. The thesis that lower-middle-class "values" voters are getting taken for a ride by the Republicans, and that they're fools for voting against their economic self-interest, is both factually wrong and tactically condescending. First, the Republicans are indeed stacking the courts with nonsensical fetus fetishists and successfully placing restrictions on abortion AND BIRTH CONTROL in places all over America AND THE WORLD. This is what the fetus fetishists want -- maximum pregnancies and maximum births. Second, the idea that self-described "Other World"-ers should be swayed first by Mammon is simply condescending.

No, the fetus fetishists and the deep-pocket plunderers have always been the Republicans' natural constituency (post-Reagan, that is; before that, Republicanism did have an honest component of fiscal conservatism and individual rights). It's the "security first" Bush supporters who are the rubes, the suckers, the fools, the marks, the bumpkins, the patsies, the hayseeds, the hicks. Because Bush's prosecution of his self-declared, Orwellian, War on Terror has been incompetent, dishonest, and self-defeating in the extreme.

A couple months ago I posted that some time in late May the days of Osama bin Laden being at large since the mass murder of September 11 would surpass the duration between Pearl Harbor and V-J Day -- the length of America's involvement in fighting the Second World War. The post got picked up and linked to widely in Blogville. A commenter on the post at a heavily trafficked liberal blog, Digby’s Hullaballoo pointed out that not only had Bush failed to apprehend bin Laden, but that by withdrawing American troops from Saudi Arabia he had given the terrorists exactly what they were demanding. Now, as it happens, I support, in this instance, the decision to give the terrorists exactly what they demand. But it's hardly a mark of machismo to do so.

When Bush invaded Iraq, he gave bin Laden more than he ever could have hoped for.

Sorry, suckers. I'm sorry your gullibility is dragging the rest of us down. Here's hoping we make it through OK, despite your idiocy and Bush's thorough dishonesty and incompetence.