You Gotta Be Crazy To Vote Republican!
What is it about Republicans? Based on the results of a study recently released, I may have a clue to offer.
Anyone who has been paying attention to Republicans over the years discovers that they are very big on imposing the full weight of the law, but only on everyone else. They consider themselves to be immune from the law.
I’m not just talking about the presidencies of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, although I include them in my premise.
Take the new Defense Secretary nominee, Robert Gates (please!). Thanks to the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Gates could, if confirmed, create a parallel American legal system existing outside the protections of the U.S. Constitution, and would pick the military judges and set the rules for administering the system. Habeus corpus would not exist for anyone, citizen or not, brought before the MCA kangaroo courts, thanks to the short-sightedness of the Republican-dominated, Democrat-abetted Congress.
Yet, would Gates not feel like his rights were violated if prosecuted for his participation in the original October Surprise? Would he not be a war criminal for advocating the bombing of Nicaragua during the Sandinista years had it been carried out? Should he not be for his participation in the Iran-Contra scandal?
But he isn’t the worst of the offenders against traditional American liberty. Nor do I include the Bush Administration - with the exception of Dick Cheney - as among the worst.
I reserve that distinction to Newt Gingrich, who in addition to being atypically intelligent, is completely amoral. Moderate Republican and Bush Administration opponent Gerald Plessner details Newt’s prurient interests, and Capitol Hill blue labels Newt a “Bill Clinton-style Republican” due to his “preference for oral sex” - the offense over which Gingrich led the charge to impeach Clinton for lying to investigators about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
The parallels with Bill Clinton don’t end there, however. Amy Reiter asserts in an August 1999 salon.com column that Newt improperly bestowed gifts upon the objects of his dalliance much like his party charged Clinton did with Monica. It was used against him by members of his own team, Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, in their effort to take control of the House Republicans.
But unlike Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich has been divorced three times while Hillary still holds the marriage license on Bill (why is between them as far as I’m concerned).
What this all indicates is that Newt Gingrich will screw anything and anyone - including the American people and the Constitution.
At the annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment freedom of speech award dinner, Gingrich claimed that a “different set of rules” regarding free speech may be needed to limit the ability of terrorists to communicate.
This led Rob Kall of OpEdNews to ask, “Why isn’t Mainstream Media Skewering Gingrich for Anti Free-Speech Remarks?
“Bottom line, if a [Democrat] said what Gingrich said, they’d be tearing him or her a new piece of anatomy. Think about he way the mainstream media (MSM) went after Howard Dean when he got overenthusiastic, or how they went after Kerry, when he blew a joke, leaving out a key word or two. The MSM went into ultra high rotation, showing the gaffes over and over again.
“But a [Republican] said it, so he gets a pass.”
It may be that Gingrich “got a pass” from the entrenched corporate media because it sees Newt as their rescuer from the competition of the growing “new media” of the Internet. Even Time Magazine grudgingly admits that “The netroots had some key victories.”
Any cartel, such as the American mainstream media industry, seeks to limit the ability of competitors to compete, allowing for a comfortable and very profitable existence while someone else does all the dirty work - for a tax-deductable “fee”.
Such has been the case with the Republicans for the last six years and more. One can tell from the numerous laws written during this time that makes the American people the enemy of the corporatists, not the least of which is the latest, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (H.R. 4239).
As Bob Cesca reminds us:
“The price of liberty is that it inherently leaves us somewhat vulnerable to attack. Liberty doesn’t mean weakness in the face of legitimate threats.
“You, me and every human being who calls him- or herself an American ought to be willing to sacrifice ourselves before acquiescing to the tyranny of those who advocate such unconstitutional laws as the USA Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and other yet-to-be-proposed ideas [like The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act] put forth by reactionary Republican cowards … and “reactionary Republican cowards” includes Newt Gingrich … [who] wants to be our next president.”
But in typical, stay-under-the-radar fashion, Newt isn’t seeking to campaign in the normal manner for the job.
“I am not ‘running’ for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen.”
He must really believe that the Hitler quote, “Sooner will a camel pass through a needle’s eye than a great man be ‘discovered’ by an election” applies to him if he thinks that he will become president by popular acclamation.
It’s clear by his historical actions that he considers himself a superior being, and that the rest of us aren’t worthy of putting in our opinion. It’s time we did, concerning Newt and anyone else (like John McCain) who advocates that Americans surrender their rights in trade for a specious and dubious “security”.
McCain, who is currently more popular than any other prominent Republican being considered by the public for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, seeks to limit your freedom by requiring public service of all citizens aged 18-27. It’s the easiest way available for him to find the troops he wants to send to Iraq.
Speaking of Iraq and more troops to be sent there, we can’t ignore the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! He is as out of touch as McCain and Gingrich. As P. M. Carpenter wrote in his column:
“If freedom is indeed just another word for nothing left to lose, Bush now has it in spades. Bush has isolated and alienated himself from the planet. The planet welcomes and encourages his isolation and alienation. Seemingly no one cares any longer what or who Mr. Bush is. And given the hardware and manpower still at [Bush’s] disposal, that’s a scary thought.”
With China and India becoming the centers of the world’s activities (as declared by no less than former World Bank chief James Wolfensohn), the time has passed when a clueless dolt of either party can be president without harming the nation. We need to recognize, as Bob Cesca reminds us:
“[T]errorists, whatever delusions of grandeur they might be suffering from, do not have the means to take over America and overturn our Constitution. However, those smiling white faces on television who wear their patriotism on their lapels are certainly up to the task. They’ve already started.
“It’s become easier for the terrorists now. They can’t take over, but they can facilitate the end of American democracy simply by laying up their shots with acts like 9/11, and allowing men like Newt Gingrich to finish the job - one little bit at a time - with the support of frightened citizens and thousands of tiny soundbites calling for the “reexamining” of free speech.”
It’s becoming very clear that those for who facts are inconvenient there is an explanation: Bush supporters are certifiable:
“[Christopher] Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election.
“Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.
“Lohse says the trend isn’t unique to Bush: A 1977 study by Frumkin & Ibrahim found psychiatric patients preferred Nixon over McGovern in the 1972 election.”
Now we have to see to it that there aren’t enough psychotics to vote for McCain - or Gingrich. We can start by healing all those who can possibly be healed.