posted on January 24, 2001 09:54:39 AM
As Bush roundly celebrated his coronation with a raft of corporate parties, jarring images conflicted with the accompanying words; the theme of reconciliation that the news anchors positively burbled was hardly in
evidence.
Eight burly DC cops body slammed protesters to the pavement in the most violent televised public protest police reaction in 30 years while CBS's Bob Schieffer chuckled that nobody was hurt and no one arrested (15?
were), as if he had no idea what video had been played behind him. The irony and absurdity of huge black cops manhandling whites protesting the most corrupt election in 125 years, stolen by the wholesale purging of black votes . . . wasn't noticed. Bush had promulgated the insidious notion that protest was close to terrorism and assembled the largest police presence in American history, a praetorian guard layers deep to line the parade route, likely not seen since the Roman empire.
Despite tens of thousands of angry protestors, little could be seen on network TV, which largely sterilized its screens of offensive images. Overcoming concerted police efforts to restrict, obstruct, hide, and deny legitimate protest, C-Span showed the thousands of parade feet of angry protesters waving signs of disgust and
booing—the Presidential motorcade speeding up for many minutes to avoid the "unpleasantness." At one point jogging Secret Service agents leapt onto the running boards of Cheney's car en masse, as if to physically
shield his tender ears from the assault of the crowd—a shocking image, since it invokes memories of assassination attempts. It was Nixon in Venezuela—a President having to scuttle through his own hostile capital
due to his perfidy. The new maximum ruler was made aware of the depth of people's discontent.
In his hearings, John Ashcroft repeatedly swore his fervent devotion to the cause of minority rights and to upholding the laws on abortion, though he's fought ferociously and subversively his entire career to restrict and scuttle those laws and rights, and will, of course, continue to do so from the machinegun pulpit of the AG's office. Much of his testimony was laughable, given his history and predilections (he thinks dancing is immoral),but his ratification is considered likely, even by the Democrats like Joe Biden that should be leading the filibuster (that Ted Kennedy may yet do). Ashcroft was polite and gentlemanly, as reputed, but couldn't suppress the contempt leaking out of the corners of his mouth, contempt for the weakness, the liberalness, the Godlessness of his accusers; the radioactive hatred that underlies so much of the fundamentalist agenda . Ronald Reagan showed the same contempt, though by the end of his term he had largely transcended it.
George Bush II filled in all the proper spaces in his inaugural address: civility, reconciliation, healing; as a skater does the required jumps for her routine, but they were empty and hollow. He seems to have no appreciation for words and what those words mean. Far more than Reagan, he is parroting things as an actor, but there is no connection between his words and his actions.
This is a chronic knock on politicians, but with Bush it's gone beyond cynicism, it's moved into Alice in Wonderland territory. He says one thing and does its opposite. He is so deeply, vapidly insincere that he's
frightening, a wind-up dummy who only repeats what is prepared and fed him. More alarming, he seems to absolutely, completely believe every wrong-headed scheme he proposes and refuses an iota of compromise. When questioned impromptu, he often becomes utterly inarticulate—in the famous one hour. interview, Letterman would ask a question, Bush would recite a sound bite. Letterman would ask "But what does that mean?" Bush would repeat the sound bite. Letterman would plead "What do you mean by that?" and Bush
would repeat the exact same sound bite—he couldn't even put it in other words. This happened five times. I guarantee that some $5–10 million chair was endowed just when Bush graduated from both colleges; there's no
way someone that doesn't read gets through an Ivy League school.
He talked of justice and opportunity but appointed Ashcroft who is committed to perverting both; he talked of integrity and character, but showed none in waging war on the legitimate count of the votes; he spoke of civility but refused to compromise one inch on his reckless tax cut and radical agenda; he spoke of compassion but executed and imprisoned people at an awesome rate in Texas; he champions education but doesn't read books and insists complex policy issues be boiled down to one page outlines; he spoke of empowering citizens, but remains a cheerleader and fabrication of big business and its truckloads of cash; he spoke of leading the world, but would destroy arms control, non-proliferation, and environmental treaties; he talks of humility, but radiates a smug self-satisfied arrogance (by humility he means America shouldn't stop tyrants from slaughtering their people), an arrogance that brooks no dissent and allows for no potential alternatives.
It's going to be a long four years and,unless the Senate Dems develop some cajones, I fear the Bill of Rights won't survive undamaged. Ashcroft is the key.
posted on January 24, 2001 10:08:27 AM
"He is so deeply, vapidly insincere that he's frightening, a wind-up dummy who only repeats what is prepared and fed him."
The best description I have heard yet.
I was shocked when I saw him interviewed the other night. The reporter asked him how he felt about the fact that his wife said she is pro choice? He said - she can think whatever she wants - very sarcastically and then moved on. No suprise, the very next day he shut down funds to countries that support aborition.
With Ashcroft and the two-three new supreme court justices he is going to put into place - this will be a scary four years.
posted on January 24, 2001 10:10:27 AM
Hi boysmommy3, I agree. A scary four years, but we can hope that will ensure that the following four will be very different.
posted on January 24, 2001 10:15:17 AMIt was Nixon in Venezuela—a President having to scuttle through his own hostile capital due to his perfidy.
Speaking of Venezuela, I once had a panic attack in downtown Caracas. The huge number of people concentrated in a relatively small area there literally scared the heck out of me. In retrospect, perhaps it was all the soldiers strolling around with machine guns that provoked the attack, I don't know. Definitely a hostile place.
posted on January 24, 2001 10:16:01 AM
His influence will last much longer than four years depending on those Supreme Court appointees.
We should all be very happy that, during one of his little talks given on inauguration day
he said he wanted us all to act like "citizens" not "subjects". Now why would we act like subjects anyway?He is not King George.
posted on January 24, 2001 10:33:24 AM
A nasty (and probably dumb)thought crossed my mind...: What if his unwillingness to help Caifornia with it's Energy crisis were a ploy to transplant "Silicon Valley" to Texas or some other state? We know how unhappy he was at Al Gore taking this state, among others...What if one of weasle-face's missions were to destroy California? Could it?
The key members of his cabiney have multi-million $$$ holdings in major companies: Ashcroft: 5M, Powell, worth 24M; I forgot the other people and figures. It seems thast would all benefit from California's demise.
Bush must have been taking flax from his cabinet members, and had to relent just a little, and order various companies to sell us Energy...but you know darned well he must be getting a bleeding ulcer over it!!!
Just before the "coronation", it was announced that when most inaugurations have brought an average of 1,000.00 a plate, he was accepting 100,000.00 "contributions", which apparently, had never been heard of before (does not mean it never happened; only that it was never heard of).
posted on January 24, 2001 11:29:39 AM
The title of the thread brings to my mind a question that I've been debating the last several days. In describing junior should the most emphasis be placed on "Insincere" or "Simpleton"? I think that the insincerity is the chief distinguishing attribute. Painting himself as a moderate and unifying presence throughout and immediately after his campaign, several of his cabinet appointments and most obviously Ashcroft, are anything but moderate. Then he begins his reign of terror by shredding an abortion/medical aid program and allowing a giant tax proposal (mainly another wealth subsidy) before he has even presented a budget. Education reform has been a little more moderate, only the inclusion of the vouchers is debatable, but then the proposal is safe enough anyway and unlikely to be a personal priority. So insincerity seems to be the winner at this time at least.
Now in the remote event that the far right and big business or Colin Powell actually allow him to be involved in any serious decision-making, the simpleton aspect would certainly seem more important. Even aside from substantive issues though, he's going to have to be protected from the press. Even the conservative mainstream press can cover up his inept mutterings and language inadequacies so far. So in those instances, his presidency could be in grave danger of even the most casual scrutiny by the public in which case the simpleton label could be his historical legacy.
posted on January 24, 2001 11:43:19 AM
I was so totally surprised with the NON coverage of the protests. Anytime there are any violence or protests involving foreign elections it gets headline coverage.
posted on January 24, 2001 11:47:52 AM
Yes,Zazzie, the media pretty much glossed over the protests. They did note how small the crowd was [the well wishing crowd] along the driven route. They said it must be the bad weather! HA!That was such a lie! People have lined the streets in huge masses in freezing rain and snow and ice before. It must have been who was riding in the car.
posted on January 24, 2001 12:07:30 PM
Protestors were pelting the presidential limo as well. I can't remember the article, but it said his daughter's were horrified to watch as the car had to speed up and slow down, as it tried to avoid foreign objects being hurled at it.
posted on January 24, 2001 12:11:09 PM
Yes! Actually pelting the presidential limo with eggs! Why wasn't this given more coverage? It was the first time there has been such protest on inauguration day and yet it was overlooked as though it was just a happy day! There will be such spin on the news for the next four years we will be lucky if we have any idea of what is really happening in our own country.
posted on January 24, 2001 12:31:56 PM
Yes, this was the first time that a incoming President had more protesters than supporters.
The man is an addict which signals insecurity and now won an office for daddy and the boys without being the popular vote. Wonder what that does to his psyche.
posted on January 24, 2001 12:38:48 PM
I realize that the news stations were making an attempt (by request or not I do not know) to broadcast the event in a positive 'regal' light. It is an important day for USA every 4 years---but there was other news going in with the protests that was almost ignored.
Were they asked to downplay the protests or did all the major news broadcasters make the same unilateral decision not to show much? It just seemed so strange. If Gore was the one in the Limo--and eggs were thrown--I wonder what we would have been shown.??
posted on January 24, 2001 12:59:29 PMThe key members of his cabiney have multi-million $$$ holdings in major companies: Ashcroft: 5M, Powell, worth 24M;
Well, we know Dubya & Cheney don't ... not since they unloaded their stock portfolios while the gettin' was good, i.e. *before* they started their smear campaign on the economy. ('Course W says he still has some stock holdings in his blind trust.) Flashback to W's oil days when he was the only investor to walk away intact.
posted on January 24, 2001 06:30:01 PMFar more than Reagan, he is parroting things as an actor, but there is no connection between his words and his actions
AMEN!
I wonder if he ever looks at his speeches before he gives them to see what he has actually been given to say, as in the content and meaning... or if he just scans it so he can figure out how to pronounce the 'big' words.
