Re: Bill O'Reilly, Captain Incompetent


alt.politics.bush wrote:
11 July 2006

As I say, I am writing for Gore/Kerry voters. I am pointing things out
to validate your vote for Clinton and Gore and Kerry. For example, it
is useful to pay attention to Grover Norquist. Him and Karl Rove have
determined national policy since 21 January 2006. Norquist gives
instructions to staffers who working for the stupid white male members
of the Republican Study Committee and who want to be able to get a job
with the Jack Abramoff lobby jobs Tom Delay created with the K Street
project to pass into law tax subsidies for the top 1% of Miss American
Pie and Karl Rove gives instructions to the Bobble Heads and Ditto
Heads to turn up the mob rule blood lust to energize their base and to
terrorize everyone else. Grover Norquist brags about punishing George
Herbert Walker Bush about going back on his No New Taxes pledges by
causing his defeat at the polls against Clinton and if I was part of
the adult leadership of the GOP, I'd take him at his word. Ross
Perot was a reaction to the social activism of the core constituency
which responds most directly to the dictates of the Zionist/Fascist
wing of the GOP. The Perot vote was largely composed of the Greatest
Generation in search of adult leadership. And the Bush vote was
largely composed of a mix of reactionary pro-war draft dodgers and
Jesus Freaks while the Clinton vote was composed largely of a mix of
left wing, anti-war draft dodgers and people who are progressive and
Pro-Choice. The reactionary pro-war draft dodgers I associate with
William F. Buckley, Jr. and the YAF, but they have expanded,
intergenerationally, to include Bill Kristol, Ann Coulter and girly
boys like Tucker Carlson and Grover Norquist

Oops! I said it again. Grover Norquist. If you have voted for any of
the stupid white male members of the Contract With America and the
Republican Study Committee, you are voting for Grover Norquist by
proxy, because the Bobble Heads got their jobs by following orders from
Newt Gingrich and every time Grover Norquist farts, these guys spread
crackers with Velveeta Cheese. A vote for Mike Pence, for example, is
a vote for Grover Norquist. If you are a pilot or flight attendant or
machinist at United and if you voted for Grover Norquist, you voted to
suck your pension out of its trust and give it to your CEO and others
covered under Executive Compensation. Because if Mike Pence doesn't
do exactly what Grover Norquist wants done, by way of the staffers who
go to his Wednesday meetings, the same thing will happen to him that
happened to George Herbert Walker Bush in 1992: he will have to go find
a real job without all the nifty health care and pension provisions of
the federal payroll.

Grover Norquist considers organized labor to be evil, just the same as
William F. Buckley, Jr, and anybody who is affiliated with the Heritage
Foundation, the Cato Institute, anything to do with Ayn Rand, and the
Young American Foundation. Hence, a vote for Mike Pence or any of the
stupid white male members of the Republican Study Committee is a vote
to destroy unions. The people who built the trucks that the Soviets
drove to Berlin to crush Hitler and the modules which delivered Frank
Borman safely home again from the moon, that created the critical mass
for the greatest economic engine in history, these are the people
Grover Norquist is directing the Republican Study Commttee to destroy.
Voting for Gore/Kerry may be voting for the lesser of too evils, but
voting for the stupid white male members of the Contract With America
is voting for stupid and evil and that is a useful distinction to make.
It represents a true difference.

Now, there are other sources of validation available to Gore/Kerry
voters independent of me and their own judgement. Bill O'Reilly had
a segment today about 3 writers for the NY Times who have been assigned
to write about the White House, which, necessarily, requires writing
about Bushie. And O'Reilly claims that he has no brief for or
against the NY Times, he's just reporting the facts, blah, blah,
blah. Then he says that one of these writers wrote 59 articles, all
critical of Bush, and another wrote 32 articles out of 50-some, all
critical of Bush and that this criticism was damaging to national
security because, well, you'll be better served to hear what he has
to say for himself.

The first thing I would say is that O'Reilly and all of the
apologists for the administration are defending incompetence. A
constant refrain of pro-Bush callers to C-Span is that the media needs
to quick picking on him, Bushie, because he is really, really trying
and he is doing the best that he can.

Which is exactly my point: his best isn't very good. And O'Reilly
thinks that it is unpatriotic and damaging to national security to
confront that reality head on. First of all, the Bush League came to
town looking to start a war, preferably with Iraq, but who ever was
handy. And they ignored everybody'e concern about terrorism: it is
obvious they believed right up until 911 that all of Clinton's
activity around things like the Cole and the embassey bombings that
terrorism was just a rhetorical theme Clinton would trot out to change
the subject from his ***. The only people who were behind the curve
on terrorism were the Bush League, the Contract With America, and the
stupid white male Zionists/Fascists at the core of the Karl Rove wing
of the GOP.

And, of course, the stupid white male Bush voters who put a head of
lettuce into the Oval Office twice. And of course, the people who are
being hurt the most by the applied stupidity of Grover Norquists's
version of Supply side economics that the stupid white male members of
the Republican Study Committee write into law are the stupid white
female Bush voters and the stupid black Bush voters and stupid brother
Bush voters and the stupid sister Bush voters of the
AFL/CIO-Teamsters-Services .

And the Gore/Kerry voters are as much collateral damage of 25 years of
the avoidable unintended consequences of the applied stupidity of
Supply side economics as targets of Grover Norquist's economic
warfare in Karl Rove's utter commitment to the cultural warfare
embedded in the hate mongering and fear-baiting mechanisms of his
commucation strategy.

But the Gore/Kerry voters have the means at hand in all the people that
people like Grover Norquist, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann
Coulter, among others, say are unfairly critical of Bushie and pay
attention to what those people have to say. Because it may not sound
the same, but it will connect the dots between Grover Norquist, Karl
Rove, and John Edwards' Two America stump speech. Edwards was
exactly correct in 2004 and nothing has changed. John Edwards
description of things is like me: it is NOT a response to any argument
put forward by anyone else, on either side of the debate, liberal or
conservative, Jeckyll or Hyde. He is using the same modeling I was
using with the pie pans filled with ice as representing various strata
of a population, England's at the time of the Magna Carta as one
period, one especial zeitgeist, as it were.

Bill O'Reilly is a liar. That's just a given. He is like Lord
Ha!Ha! in WWII in terms of his moral substance. His job is to pretend
to be a disinterested mentor, not unlike Plato instructing at the
Academe, but he is a propagandist as part of Karl Rove's
communication strategy. Remember the vast right wing conspiracy and
how the media scoffs at its existence? Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove
are ideological clones. And O'Reilly's job is to applaud the
incompetence of the Bush League and to muffle, if not strangle, any
discouraging word on the range.

Such as these 3 political writers at the NY Times. Whatever these guys
are saying about the White House is connecting the dots with Edwards'
Two Americas in ways that Gore/Kerry voters need to see for themselves.
But it is a whole lot easier to connect the dots when you know where
the dots are, in the first place. If you are like me and your heart
got broken, twice, when the vote didn't go to Gore/Kerry, trust that
feeling and triangulate it with 911 in your own experience and use that
as your point of departure. And the more dots you can identify within
this context, the more your focus will shift from the convergence of
vision necessary to create the Old Woman/Young Woman gestalt response
to the divergence of vision necessary to create the 3-D effect of the
computer generated Magyc Eye graphic art popular in the late '90's.

And once Edwards' Two Americas model gains a similar substance in
your own mind, much of what I am describing in Iraq in regards to the
military role will become transparent and useful to your own
considerations. Just for the record, he is talking about Tory
Socialism. Because of Tory Socialism, we got a serious problem in
America and Edwards describes its effects. Now, he doesn't
necessarily identify the cause for these effects, but being able to
recognize these effects as symptomatic of something else and not cause,
in an of themselves, is the first step in adjusting the outcomes and
restoring the commonwealth

But before we can adjust the outcomes by restoring the commonwealth, we
have to replace the stupid white male members of the Republican Study
Committee and Bill O'Reilly wants to reward the incompetence which
got us into Iraq and killed Casey Sheehan and everybody that died after
the capture of Baghdad International Airport. Every thing that happens
after that could have been avoided with United Nations sanction and
Afganistan would be moderately pacified.

They say war is trade between kings. They also say that war is the
continuation of politics by additional means, which is the basis of the
relationship between the US military and the US Constitution. We, the
People, are the Philosopher King of the American Commonwealth. Bushie
and Congress are hired help. Like all hired help, they are worthy of
their hire, but We have no obligation to reward incompetence. One of
the characteristics of the Karl Rove wing of the GOP is that they
expect good intentions to trump incompetence. A great deal of Karl
Rove's job is to constantly lower expectations of job performance
while constantly applauding the administration for over-achieving. I
was listening to Mona Charon on Book Notes with Brian Lamb and Ruth
Marcus display this process, sort of rewriting history as a feature of
syntax.

Newt Gingrich does something very similar. Imagine any given idea as
being a lily pad on a frog pond covered with lily pads and that
Gingrich's train of thought as he expresses it in practically any
context is like a frog, jumping from lily pad to lily pad, whether or
not the roots of the lily pad, as ideas, had any actual existential
analogue congruent with the thought experiment he creates.

I see where the Tailor has hit Bombay. Al Qaeda made a mistake when it
took credit for the Russian school too late. They failed to cover the
tracks of The Nanny and this Chechnyan terrorist paid the price.

What Bill O'Reilly fails to understand is that being a POW is
torture, in and of itself. He was a draft dodger and he prefers to
beat up on people who can't fight back. But I'll say it again, the
way we are treating these POW's at Gitmo validates the treatment of
John McCain as a war criminal by Hanoi. I understand that politics
breeds strange bedfellows, but I've never understood how McCain could
stand to be around people like O'Reilly and Limbaugh and Gingrich and
Gramm.

Here's something else to consider about O'Reilly's show: if
Blanchard is right about inflation and the price of gold being
undervalued at twice its price, then Allen Greenspan was either
incompetent or cooking the books as part of Karl Rove's policy
design. Personally, I think he was cooking the books like the good
little soldier that he was. I hope I'm wrong, but if Blanchard is
right, we are in deep ***. Everything these people touch turns to
***.

"When it comes to accusations, we don't know who's telling the truth,
so I'm not going to get on the Bill O'Reilly bandwagon. But one of his
producers is suing him for unwanted phone sex with her while he was
using a vibrator on himself. To me, that doesn't sound like Bill
O'Reilly, because usually he's pulling stuff out of his ass." --Bill
Maher

And that's the truth.

.

Loading