HBO's Real Time with Bill Mahr is catching up with the American Blasphemer in casting Bush and his self proclaimed success, 911, into perspective. If the GOP were not so insistant that the event was a glorious triumph for Bush, I would not have to constantly remind them that Bush is largely to blame for the tragedy.
Mahr's general contention that 911 was not really a success of any kind for Bush or the US was embellished with hilarious sarcasm. I enjoyed it. The opinion that Bush reacted honorably is indicative of a severe and dangerous mental illness that still grips the nation. The denial of what is obvious due to nationalist pride. It also serves as a good lie for profit.
Mahr cleverly used Andrew Sullivan, poorly informed GOP lover, to carry the right wing torch into a discussion with two wealthy and bright centrists, Arianna Huffington, and Jason Alexander.
Sullivan eventually discredited himself as far as having any logical or spiritual moral guidelines to qualify a political opinion with the possible exception of satan's own influence.
Perhaps a combination of biased media consumption, and ignorance prompted Sullivan to berate Dick Cheney concerning his gay daughters. Apparently Sullivan considers Cheney disrespectful of his daughter. I have seen no evidence of this in Cheney's public statements or his image. Sullivan actually considers this, this perceived disrespect, to be a serious wrongdoing and worthy of consideration when discussing presidential politics. Despite all that, Sullivan "admires" Cheney and Bush, indicating that he approves of torture, stealing, killing, and other immoral acts, but is intolerant when it comes to direspecting a gay person. Sullivan deserves disrespect, gay or not.
Both Mahr and Bush subtly indicated they were sexually attracted to Bush and that this phenomenon helps explain the popularity of the new Stalin.
Jason Alexander, advocated diplomacy and winning back our allies as a good idea which is the John Kerry position, the Albert Kada position, and the opinion of many intelligent persons. This represents one profound difference between the two presidential candidates despite the nearly blind perspective of Bill Mahr and the giant neoliberal herds who only detect similarities. This phenomenon is part of what I call the "Disneyland Angst".
Disneyland Angst is the idea that the government should be used to protect you and create a so called safer world. Disneyland Angsters like Mahr, Michael Moore, and gun control advocates have little respect for politicians like John Kerry and Bill Clinton based on their inability to comprehend right wing pressure in the federal government. The same people who criticize these guys for being too moderate, generally refuse to accept the fact that the citizen has the responsibility to protect themselves and their family, not the government. When you give this important responsibility to the government, your rights become privileges, and freedom slowly disappears along with democracy. Even if their chosen candidates dominated the government, and Amy Goodman was the president, they would petition the government to protect them from the big bad world full of gun toting drug crazed criminals. Hey Rush Limbaugh, how is your buzz doing? Give them freedom and they will sell it or give it back.
I think Kerry would make a fine president and do hope that he occasionally smokes a joint. I am not interested in political leaders that do not at least occasionally smoke a joint. It defies wisdom and common sense to vote otherwise.
It helps prevent delusions by allowing the smoker to take a righteous look at themselves. As a Caucasian, I can assure you, that with or without weed I can imagine what it is like to be a black person in the US. This fundamental and simple use of imagination is discouraged by our society and devices like TV sets. Based on the popular principle that whites are incapable of this fantasy, no book of realistic fiction would ever have been published. The same principle and skill applies to recognizing yourself, recognizing what you feel, and why.
Perhaps this episode of Real Time shows that having a meaningful discussion about presidential politics can be achieved without a right wing pundit. Most of what the right wing brings to the table is nonsense that has to then be disproven for the gullible demographics which is regressive. Progressive politics happens when the right wingers are excluded. Conservatives should be welcomed.
A political conservative is one who is wary of changes that do not need to be made and the citizens who advocate such bad ideas. Conservatives know that a constitutional government guarantees our freedom despite the chaos of the representative democratic process. I mean to say that Pat Buchanan, Sullivan, Bush and the GOP are not as conservative as I am. They are not conservatives at all.
William F. Buckley said that a "conservative is a worshiper of dead liberals" which defines Albert Kada, not Ronald Reagan and the GOP. The GOP are fanatical fascists who overtly use reform as a cover up for the abusive and oppressive political platform that they thrive and profit on.
Real Time is a bit more interesting and entertaining than Bill's other show from the 90's, "OPINIONS OF THE ELITE, STUPID OR NOT". Bill has an English comprehension problem when it comes to the phrase "politically correct". The meaning of the phrase evades and frustrates Bill, and he still cannot use it properly in a sentence, however his Bush jokes are funny.
I consider myself a radically progressive conservative liberal who shares no opinions with Pat Buchanan, including his disapproval of the current occupation of Iraq. Buchanan approved of the invasion. At a grassroots level, all Bush voters approved of an Invasion of Iraq in the year 2000.
Sullivan also speculated that Saddam Hussein would have developed better weapons and used them to attack other nations. Reality and facts indicate that Saddam was cooperating, within reason, with the UN by disabling medium range missiles at the demands of Bush. I saw the damn process being performed on TV and it was all confirmed and inspected by the international community.
If I were the commander in chief I would decisively win any war with Persia no matter what kind of weapon they invent. Preventing the conflict would be the challenging part and from here it looks easier than flipping a hamburger.
In the unlikely event that I would have to bomb any part of Persia, besides Haliburton itself, I would give the nation and the location a warning that I was going to bomb it, and then bomb it. Debate about the accuracy of smart bombs would then be intelligent. I do not approve of offensive surprise attacks.
Arianna Huffinton, possibly more intelligent than her public image, came up with an idea that is not POLITICALLY CORRECT. The idea is that there remains an untapped yet abundant supply of potential voters for Kerry who did not vote in the last presidential election.
There are a few potential problems with this idea. One is that the general public is poorly informed about Bush, his policies, and the other issues. If they get their information from commercial sources and state funded sources they are likely to vote for Bush, again due to nationalist pride.
Another problem is that based on history and experience, and as a result of oppression, most US voters are dishonest and are hateful. Many of these dishonest voters will vote for Bush if they see some profit in it. Especially if they see easy money. Many hateful voters will vote for Bush as a powerful advocate of hate, war, and revenge. To many he represents their hero who will avenge them against the evil Arabs.
If Kerry is to win, very thoughtful and strategic attempts to attract voters in certain locations may help. Think.
He who recognizes and uncovers false optimism, is an optimist.
see also andrewsullivan.com
by Albert Kada
from THE AMERICAN BLASPHEMER http://www.io.com/~davecom/
Original: BILL MAHR ATTEMPTS REALISM