Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ron Reagan: "The Case Against GW Bush."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-04 08:02 AM
Original message
Ron Reagan: "The Case Against GW Bush."
Sorry if this is a dupe--I searched but couldn't find it. This is a stunning piece, particularly given who the author is. And while I think his view of his father's work as President (which is only a small part of this piece) is understandably rose-colored by his love for his father, the rest of what he writes, and the way he writes it, hits home.

http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/040729_mfe_reagan_1.html

snip

The comparison (between Reagan Sr. and W) underscored something important. And the guy on the stool, Lynndie, and her grinning cohorts, they brought the word: The Bush administration can't be trusted. The parade of Bush officials before various commissions and committees—Paul Wolfowitz, who couldn't quite remember how many young Americans had been sacrificed on the altar of his ideology; John Ashcroft, lip quivering as, for a delicious, fleeting moment, it looked as if Senator Joe Biden might just come over the table at him—these were a continuing reminder. The Enron creeps, too—a reminder of how certain environments and particular habits of mind can erode common decency. People noticed. A tipping point had been reached. The issue of credibility was back on the table. The L-word was in circulation. Not the tired old bromide liberal. That's so 1988. No, this time something much more potent: liar.

snip

None of this, needless to say, guarantees Bush a one-term presidency. The far-right wing of the country—nearly one third of us by some estimates—continues to regard all who refuse to drink the Kool-Aid (liberals, rationalists, Europeans, et cetera) as agents of Satan. Bush could show up on video canoodling with Paris Hilton and still bank their vote. Right-wing talking heads continue painting anyone who fails to genuflect deeply enough as a "hater," and therefore a nut job, probably a crypto-Islamist car bomber. But these protestations have taken on a hysterical, almost comically desperate tone. It's one thing to get trashed by Michael Moore. But when Nobel laureates, a vast majority of the scientific community, and a host of current and former diplomats, intelligence operatives, and military officials line up against you, it becomes increasingly difficult to characterize the opposition as fringe wackos.

Does anyone really favor an administration that so shamelessly lies? One that so tenaciously clings to secrecy, not to protect the American people, but to protect itself? That so willfully misrepresents its true aims and so knowingly misleads the people from whom it derives its power? I simply cannot think so. And to come to the same conclusion does not make you guilty of swallowing some liberal critique of the Bush presidency, because that's not what this is. This is the critique of a person who thinks that lying at the top levels of his government is abhorrent. Call it the honest guy's critique of George W. Bush.

snip

And chances are your America and George W. Bush's America are not the same place. If you are dead center on the earning scale in real-world twenty-first-century America, you make a bit less than $32,000 a year, and $32,000 is not a sum that Mr. Bush has ever associated with getting by in his world. Bush, who has always managed to fail upwards in his various careers, has never had a job the way you have a job—where not showing up one morning gets you fired, costing you your health benefits. He may find it difficult to relate personally to any of the nearly two million citizens who've lost their jobs under his administration, the first administration since Herbert Hoover's to post a net loss of jobs. Mr. Bush has never had to worry that he couldn't afford the best available health care for his children. For him, forty-three million people without health insurance may be no more than a politically inconvenient abstraction. When Mr. Bush talks about the economy, he is not talking about your economy. His economy is filled with pals called Kenny-boy who fly around in their own airplanes. In Bush's economy, his world, friends relocate offshore to avoid paying taxes. Taxes are for chumps like you. You are not a friend. You're the help. When the party Mr. Bush is hosting in his world ends, you'll be left picking shrimp toast out of the carpet.



snip



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GCP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-04 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. This is a fantastic article and really needs a KICK
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JitterbugPerfume Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-04 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. man oh man!
I never thought I would EVER love someone named Ron Reagan

but that guy has it goin' on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-04 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
3. Wow!
"When the party Mr. Bush is hosting in his world ends, you'll be left picking shrimp toast out of the carpet." Sums it up nicely!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTwentyoNine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-04 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
4. Wow! I like this....
"The real—but elusive—prime mover behind the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, was quickly relegated to a back burner (a staff member at Fox News—the cable-TV outlet of the Bush White House—told me a year ago that mere mention of bin Laden's name was forbidden within the company, lest we be reminded that the actual bad guy remained at large) while Saddam's Iraq became International Enemy Number One. Just like that, a country whose economy had been reduced to shambles by international sanctions, whose military was less than half the size it had been when the U. S. Army rolled over it during the first Gulf war, that had extensive no-flight zones imposed on it in the north and south as well as constant aerial and satellite surveillance, and whose lethal weapons and capacity to produce such weapons had been destroyed or seriously degraded by UN inspection teams became, in Mr. Bush's words, "a threat of unique urgency" to the most powerful nation on earth."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crachet2004 Donating Member (725 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-04 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
5. Why couldn't we have had the son rather than the father as President...
With the name 'Reagan'? Ron Jr. is clearly trying to protect his father's memory, if not legacy (any legacy has pretty much been discredited by Bush)...and I would probably do the same.

To me, although it is obvious Ron is pretty much on board with US, this article is also an indication of how uncomfortable 'real' Republicans are with Bush. Anyone who holds the memory of Reagan dear, and many of them do, absolutely cannot condone much of what Bush has done-and worse, intends to do.

But if all those 'real' or Reagan Republicans REALLY want to help us, they will come out of the shadows and HELP US! They must know they are a dying breed, soon to be extinct if current GOP leadership has it's way.

I have never agreed with the GOP, since the time of Nixon, much less Reagan; but SINCE the time of Reagan, I have never doubted their patriotism...until now.

The Democratic Party is reaching out to the Reagan Republicans. These days, we actually are not that far apart in some areas of political philosophy. They are all about foreign non-intervention, fiscal responsibility, and a fair tax code. Sound familiar?

I at least, appreciate all the help we can get, from whatever quarter, to win in November. I think a statement of disavowal for Bush by Nancy would just about finish Bush in an electoral sense. And if she doesn't do it, the memory of Ronald Reagan will be forever tied to the Bush legacy of terror, war, lies and corruption.

There is no escaping that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-04 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. kicking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stewert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-04 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. A Must Read.........

This is one of the best articles ever written on Bush, I even linked it on my web site.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-04 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
8. kicking for the afternoon crowd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 06:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC