Excuse me, Mr. President -- its God calling on line 2

Ron Suskind's NYT Magazine piece about Bush Without a Doubt begins with a discussion with a Republican domestic policy advisor named Bruce Bartlett. Bartlett says ''Just in the past few months, I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do . . . This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts. He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence. But you can't run the world on faith.''
The Suskind spends the rest of the article proving to a disbelieving political world that yes, Bush really does believe he is on a mission from God, and yes, so do his followers.
Its a lengthy article because people need a lot of convincing. This is a form of meglomaina that western democracies have never seen before -- even the great egotists like Nixon, DeGaulle, Churchill and Trudeau never actually thought of themselves as divinely ordained, at least not all of the time. In western culture, the only people we've seen before who went on a stated Mission from God were the Blues Brothers. Like Elwood and Jake, nothing will stop Bush from doing what he thinks God wants him to do. Luckily, God only wanted Jake and Elwood to put on a concert. God apparently wants Bush to transform the United States into a republican's vision of paradise - endless wars against the infidels, no abortions, and making sure the rich get richer. Lord, hear my prayer!

Kerry-o-phile priests

Will the Catholic clergy ever stop abusing their parishioners?
Maureen Dowd describes the Catholic bishops campaign against Kerry in Vote and Be Damned -- a threat which obviously meaningless to the New York Times editors, who in the same edition endorse Kerry for President without any concern whatsoever about the opinion of the Catholic church.
The American Catholic church will live to regret how they have marginalized themselves in American society -- regardless of who wins the election, they have shown themselves to be small-minded, mean-spirited, backward, sexist, manipulative bigots who have allowed their most holy sacrament, communion, to be trivialized into a media circus. After this, who could take their so-called "moral authority" on anything seriously ever again?

The "bad man" theme

Hullabaloo gets it right -- the focus until the election will be Kerry as a "bad man" -- the goal is to make Kerry look like a dirty campaigner, a liar, a cheat, etc etc.
"I think this is simply the opportunistic opening salvo in a full-on character attack on John Kerry as a "hit below the belt" dirty campaigner. Typical GOP projection. In between will be more of the Rove patented ratfucking that they will pin on the Democrats. At this point I don't think that Rove has anything too sophisticated up his sleeve. We are going to see simple, crude attacks on Kerry's character in the hopes that it will stimulate the neanderthals to vote and to swing a few simple minded undecideds. And, of course, this is an innoculation against a Kerry win. They are setting it up to say he stole it."

A desperation move from a failing campaign

Hilary Rosen's Washington Post column Outrage That Rings False shows how once again an issue made into an "outrage" by the Bush campaign is going to turn around and bite them on the ass.
The issue is turning now to how Lynne and Dick Cheney, and Mary, too, have ignored for four years the constant Republican attacks on gay people, not speaking out about any of the Bush administration's anti-gay manoeuvers, and are now using a manufactured "anger" just to try to demonize Kerry.
Rosen writes that she feels sorry for Mary Cheney, that she is now a pawn in this race. I don't feel sorry for her in the least.
The Cheneys, all of them, have had their chance to show leadership, and they decided long ago to shut up and make their alliance with the gay-bashers. I hope they all sink together.

More Doonesbury articles

Here is Friday's article, the Lone Star Iconoclast editorial "Kerry will restore American dignity" This editorial states "we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq."
and here is Saturday's article "A Questionable Kind of Conservatism" by George Will. Writing in July, 2003, Will says "Cumulatively, foreign and domestic developments constitute an identity crisis of conservatism, which is being recast -- and perhaps rendered incoherent. "
And earlier this week I missed referencing Wednesday's article, Salon's "Why Conservatives must not vote for Bush" where Doug Bandow writes "Quite simply, the president, despite his well-choreographed posturing, does not represent traditional conservatism -- a commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility. Rather, Bush routinely puts power before principle."
Its an interesting series that Doonesbury has undertaken here -- I would love to find some discussion about whether it has influenced anyone.
It is likely a useful exercise to gather these articles together -- the one problem I see is that the links are so complicated to read and to follow, particularly when written in 6- point type on newsprint, that I think it would have been better to post them day-by-day as links on a single website -- still, I hope they were read and discussed. When I google "Honest Voices Reading List" I get more links today than I did on Monday, so some blogs are talking about it. Unfortunately, many are complaining about the small print of the URLs, just like I did, instead of discussing the articles. For the left-wing, however, the articles are mainly old hat, yes-we-already-knew-that stuff. But hopefully they will open some previously-closed eyes.
And check this out, on a blog called John Dufresne there is a priceless photo of a movie theatre marquee whose owner has posted this message "Congratulations to John Kerry for exposing Bush as an incompetent moron in debate" -- just goes to show that blog-culture is spreading EVERYWHERE!

Gays ARE born, not made -- THAT'S the issue

In the dispute over Kerry's so-called "outing" of Mary Cheney, Kerry's defenders are missing the point.
This Salon article John Kerry's lesbian moment sums it up at a personal level by contending that Lynne Cheney is embarassed that her daughter is gay. No doubt she is, but Salon misses the larger issue here.
Kerry has the temerity to state that the religious right is wrong. Kerry has challenged the right-wing conviction that gays are made, not born. And he uses Cheney's very own daughter as an example -- no wonder Cheney and his wife were mad. They really were hoping, I suppose, that no one would notice that Mary Cheney's very existence proves that one of the most heartfelt beliefs of their electoral base is wrong, wrong, wrong. No wonder the family keeps her under wraps at events like the convention.
Only if you believe, as the religious right do, that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" can you justify the hatefest of discrimination against gays which stains American public discourse and policies.
If America accepts that Kerry is correct, that gays are born not made, then discriminating against gays is no more justifiable than discriminating against blacks, or against people in wheelchairs -- and then, it's bye bye constitutional ammendment, bye bye workplace discrimination, bye bye sodomy laws, hello gay marriage.
And of course, it appears to be an Article of Faith for Republicans that they DARE NOT demonstrate any actual leadership toward educating or changing public opinion, but instead MUST pander to the beliefs of their base at all times, however hateful and misguided they are.

Be ready for Strike Four!

Every now and then in baseball, a pitcher ends up having to pitch four strikes to get a batter out -- or a team has to throw four batters out to end an inning. Like when there is a dropped third strike and the runner gets to first safely, or when the infield bobbles an easy pop fly, or when the umpire calls a good pitch a ball by mistake, or when a batter cocks the bat but the base ump rules it no swing.
I have the feeling in this election that the Democrats are going to be in this situation -- they will have to get Bush out with four strikes, rather than just three, to make up for all the Republican foul play. Reading the blogs recently, there have been stories about electronic voting data tampering, spurious voter registration companies tearing up Democrat registrations, black voter intimidation, not to mention the redistricting scandals. What it means is that Democrats will have to get their voters to the polls by the millions and millions, to create a victory so obvious and so complete that it cannot be questioned, or overturned by an umpire's ruling.

Third Doonsbury article

in his Honest Voices series is here. It is a Lincoln Journal Star article entitled LOCAL VIEW: Going to war in Iraq was a mistake, by Representative Doug Bereuter, who retired at the end of August after 26 years in the House. He concludes "Was the pre-emptive military strike to remove Saddam in America's best interest? . . . I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action, especially without a broad and engaged international coalition. The cost in casualties is already large and growing, and the immediate and long-term financial costs are incredible. Our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened. From the beginning of the conflict it was doubtful that we for long would be seen as liberators, but instead increasingly as an occupying force. Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world."

How stupid do they think people are?

This story from Las Vegas Voter Registrations Possibly Trashed (via Josh Marshall) says a company called Voters Outreach registered hundreds of people, then tore up the democrat registrations.
Now, did they actually think that no one would tell? And did they actually think that their financing by the RNC would not be revealed? Its getting pretty wierd down south.

Batteries not included?

When Jay Leno asked Edwards what was the lump on Bush's back during the first debate, Edwards replied "His battery?" It brought down the house.

Second Doonsbury reference

Here is today's Doonsbury reference. ""An analysis of Bush's war in Iraq" from what his Honest Voices Reading List -- WSJ reporter Fassihi's e-mail to friends She writes about the reality of American occupation for reporters - who do not dare to leave their hotels- and for the people of Baghdad:
America's last hope for a quick exit? The Iraqi police and National Guard
units we are spending billions of dollars to train. The cops are being
murdered by the dozens every day-over 700 to date -- and the insurgents are infiltrating their ranks. The problem is so serious that the U.S. military has allocated $6 million dollars to buy out 30,000 cops they just trained to get rid of them quietly.
As for reconstruction: firstly it's so unsafe for foreigners to operate that
almost all projects have come to a halt . . .
Oil dreams? Insurgents disrupt oil flow routinely as a result of sabotage
and oil prices have hit record high of $49 a barrel [this piece was published on Sept. 29]. Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer because Saddam is holed up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq? . . .
. . . One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle.
. . . I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in
the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree
elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"

What do you want to bet . . .

. . . that one of Rove's promised "October Surprises" will be this announcement (drum roll, please): Rumsfeld will report, following his trip to Iraq, that things are going so swimmingly and there are so many Iraqi troops now that a substantial number of US troops can come home immediately after Iraq's January elections (cymbals clash!)

Shameless Agitator - great blog

Great posts on Shameless Agitator -- as well as some new "bulge" photos, Andrea excerpts important passages from the NYT interview with Kerry about his war on terror.

Here is the Doonsbury reference

In today's Doonsbury, he refers readers to "an overview of how well Bush has served republican principles by Dwight Eisenhower's son" -- here is the article: Why I will vote for John Kerry for President After criticizing Bush's record, John Eisenhower writes "Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically."

Dred Scott case = Roe v Wade = making abortion illegal

In last night's debate, Bush made a bizarre reference to the Dred Scott case in the mid-1800s as an example of the kind of decision a new Supreme Court justice should or should not be making -- I couldn't really follow it, not being an expert on American constitutional history.
But now it is explained -- Paperwight's Fair Shot explains that the Dred Scott case is being used by anti-abortion groups now to compare their cause to the cause of abolishing slavery.
So Bush was speaking in code to the radical religious right, promising them that if reelected his pick for the Supreme Court would be someone who would want to overturn Roe v Wade.
This is getting seriously wierd, isn't it?