Listen Up, GOP Base: You’re Britney Spears and President Bush is Kevin Federline
Everyone should be lucky enough to have siblings, especially if they’re from the opposite sex. Why? To give us a better perspective on the people we find attractive. As we come of age, the dynamics of attraction skew reasonable thought. Sometimes you need a sibling to point out stuff that should be obvious, but isn’t.
I remember as a young boy when my sister advised me to pick a wife – not just because she was pretty – but because I could be friends with her. That stopped me cold. I had literally never thought of it. This leads to one of my theories for the systemic disrespect between the sexes.
How many woman out there have watched men fall all over someone who they know is a loser? They know the hottie in question is all wrong for the star-struck, love-sick guy she ends up with, and he finds out down the road. Meanwhile, he’s wasted all that time while he could have been happier. This is not breaking news here – it’s been covered for ages in songs like, “Why Do Fools Fall in Love?”
The same thing is true for straight men watching women fall all over some guy. I knew Kevin Federline was a low-rent, card-carrying hound dog from 2 minutes after he showed up. Hearing him chat with Britney on their moronic reality show, I knew right away that he was a hustler – there wasn’t anything good in his heart. It takes discipline to watch women go ga-ga, over someone you know is a devious clown, and not lose respect for the gender. Just as women lose respect for men, when we do our crazy stuff, ruining families and lives just for a crack at some devastatingly fine, sweet young thing.
Throughout the last few years, I’ve searched for an analogy for what was going on between President Bush and his supporters. The only one that fit was the teenage girl-puppy love model. That is, until now. President Bush is Kevin Federline. He’s shallow, dumb, mediocre, devious, reckless, and morally lacking. His conservative GOP base – those loyal Republicans in the unmovable 30% - represent Britney Spears. They look upon this man whom the rest of us can see right through, and gush about how wonderful he is: “Look, he’s clearing brush. He’s wearing his cowboy jeans. He’s a godly man!”
If you are one of these conservative Republican Bush supporters, you should be going through what Britney Spears is right now. You should be seeking a divorce. Tuesday night was the night America went home with someone else. Use the hurt to come to your senses. We’re still in deep trouble as a country here, and we can no longer afford 30% of our citizens to be fawning, pop tarts. Take the advice of your political siblings. President Bush is a loser, and it’s time for you to grow up.
posted by Bill McDonald @ 9:38 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Paul Krugman today labeled this weird puppy love "the bizarre Bush personality cult." That makes it a thing of the past. So glad we're over that and can look back in awe and wonder who put soma in the drinking water.
Bill,
Let me explain something to you. Your post is the equivalent of Paris Hilton trying to give life advice to Rosa Parks.
It is quite obvious you have absolutely no clue why it is that Republicans gravitated toward Bush. I suspect you similarly disparaged Ronald Reagan as a warmonger and an idiot. The theme is pretty well rehearsed now amongst the ranks of liberals. Listening to you and other liberals like Krugman try to analyze conservatives is like listening to a Laurence Welk fan analyze Deadheads. You simply are approaching it from a bias that prevents you from having any realistic objective conception.
I am not a 'right wing nut'. I am agnostic. I support gay marriage. I donate to national and local charities at well above the national average...WELL above. I like dirty jokes, violent movies, and organic produce. I love the Oregon coast and participate yearly in the beach cleanup. I am an amatuer home brewer and love to hang at my local coffee shop on a Saturday morning. I have a 5 year old and a 3 year old to whom I am doing my best to teach tolerance a civility to everyone...even those that may disagree with them.
And I am a Bush supporter. I think he has made many mistakes.....as has EVERY man who has ever held that office. Bush has held office in a time that was the most trying in recent history. It required tough choices that generated criticism from people that have no idea what it is like to be confronted with such choices.
I know the Bush-hate syndrome so prevalent on this blog will simply write me off as a kook, but I think history will judge otherwise. The ultimate War-monger-in-chief, Ronald Reagan, would have been absolutely skewered in an internet era. Harry Truman was in a non-internet era. When the people that harbored such vitriol and hatred die off, the objective truth tends to sort itself out.
Now, off my soapbox...Whaddayah all think about John McCain 'declaring' for today? He'd be my second choice behind Rudy at this point.
People disparaged Ronnie Reagan as a warmonger and an idiot because he was, suprise, a warmonger and an idiot.
Funny thing, he had pretty much the same cult of close advisors as the current weed-whacker does. See any similarity here? Neocons select a mouthpiece that looks pretty (and in Ronnie's case, could actualy talk in real sentences)to gather in the sheep (the 30% Bill refers to).
laurelhurstdad is the PERFECT example of derangement syndrome.....he is longing for the American Utopia of the Carter years. Good times, good times....
I listened to Mary Matalin and Sean Hannity say the reason the Republicans lost was that they got away from the conservatism of Ronad Reagan. They mentioned fiscal conservatism. The only problem was that Reagan ran up horrendous debts in the trillions that we still owe by the way.
I've always agreed with some conservative tenets - but it's annoying when they're just words to get phonies like President Bush elected. I believe in a strong national defense but I don't believe in being a war machine that kills hundreds of thousands with unnecessary prememptive strikes.
Until Republicans stop believing their own hype, and get real, they will lose.
Oh, and Butch, you know I like you and I appreciate your efforts on this blog, but you have this one coming: Before Republicans mouth off, why don't you try winning an election first? Sound familiar?
LOL! Would it matter if we "tried winning an election first"? You'd just accuse us of stealing it. I notice an absence of election fraud accusations this time around. Hmmmm.
The Republicans did attempt to steal this election, but the anti-Republican vote was so big that it overwhelmed it. I also suspect that the fraudsters from last time have now had enough with the Bush administration, themselves.
Still, look for some serious indictments coming from the Virginia campaign, where Allen's people tried to sppress the Dem's vote through phone calls. If that had worked, it would have meant the GOP had stolen the control of the Senate. There were also a lot more people watching having learned that Bush stole 2000 and 2004.
The base did not vote as a block. Many conservatives, and many of the Christian Right Wing, either stayed away or came out to vote against President Bush, the amazing levels of corruption in the GOP Congress, and the Iraq War.
I really admired those people who changed their mind on the Bush administration and didn't stick with them in a cult-like manner, or like someone pulling for a football team.
That's putting America ahead of the GOP and because of them and those of us who got this from the beginning, checks and balances have been restored, the monarchy is over, and the country was saved on 11-7-06.
"Fawning pop tarts" -- I love that term!
It's an interesting analogy. I don't know that I would label Bush as Kevin. Maybe Rove is Kevin? It's part of the contradiction that liberals seem to lose track of -- Bush can't be both dumb and brilliant at the same time. I haven't decided which one he is, but I'm pretty sure Rove is brilliant.
While Butch may have established that he is not a typical Bush supporter, the Rosa Parks/Paris Hilton analogy doesn't quite work (though it is amusing). Public opinion polls overwhelmingly support the notion that Bush supporters were drawn to his aw-shucks, pseudo-godliness, pseudo-patriotic "charm." That maybe not be why Butch likes him, but it certainly represents a significant amount of his supporters.
I don't dislike Butch, but I absolutely disagree with him. History will, indeed, be the final judge... if we survive to even write it.
Ellie,
Nice analysis.
I think the inability for the Bush base to see through him has a lot to do with their scientifically proven need to have an authoritarian figure in their lives. That is why they are so willing to turn their freedoms over to the federal goverment, discarding centuries of progress in human rights, just for a feeling of being safe.
It's a cowardly position and it leads to real trouble when the leaders turn out to be
power-grabbing weasels.
One of the big factors in this election was the realization by the religious right that they've been played. The #2 Faith-Based Initiative guy wrote that book about how the White House would call the religious guys whack-jobs behind their backs.
It was unfortunate that they allowed their faith to give power to people who didn't deserve it.
Too bad others in the Bush base couldn't realize that it is better and more courageous to hold onto our rights, rather than turn them over to Bush and Cheney in the dubious hope that our Big Daddies in Washington will protect us.
I am sitting here thinking about your "authoritarian figure" comment.
I've long had this unarticulated idea about linking strong religiosity to control issues. (I know -- it's hardly counterintuitive.) I have certainly known a few people (in my own family even) who fit the description of "strongly religious" -- and they tend to be control freaks, wanting to extend their views on others. I've always thought religion was more of a tool for them -- it enabled them to control others under the guise of relgious rules, morality, etc. (It's not that I think all religious people fit this description -- that wouldn't work because there has to be some one or group to be controlled. And they are probably legitimate believers.) I wonder how this would play with the "authoritarian figure."
So, do the control freaks bow to the authoritarian figure because he further enables their desire to control or does he threaten their control power? It seems to me that so long as he agrees with what they want to control (those damn gays and slutty women!) then the authoritarian figure is OK, but as soon as he steps outside of the "moral" box, then he's screwed. Really -- where would Bush be without the gay marriage and abortion hype? Strip those away and you've got a warmonger who claims to be fiscally conservative but spends like my grandma at a Meier & Frank, er, Macy's sale.
Post a Comment
<< Home