Thursday, June 07, 2007

Revisionism

I have been appalled to hear, amidst right wing punditry, that George W. Bush, the Republican President for the last many years, is actually a liberal.

This is a recent development, and more of that trying to sell the word 'Liberal' as a dirty word, and as a synonym for 'stupid.' Right Wingers Against Really Real Reality (RWARRR!) must be losing their minds that someone they helped sell as a really real conservative has ended up bungling almost ever single thing his administration has tried.

I could go on, but I don't have to. You see, Doug over at Hey, Jenny Slater says almost all that needs to be said about this. "Return to Sender." Like Olbermann, Doug proves that sometimes the best political writing and humor comes from sports fanatics. You should go. Read. It. Now.

(He does begin a list of Republicans we liberals will accept, though, if the Republicans and faerie dust sniffing 'conservatives' are willing to start handing them over. I agree very much with the list.)

3 comments:

Dante said...

Going so far as to call Bush a liberal may be a bit revisionist but anyone paying attention knew full well that they weren't electing an economic conservative as far back as 2000. Initially the excuse was that he was only throwing out ideas like "commpasionate conservatism" to get elected. Then he did actually push that agenda and continues to do so when possible. Of all the times to tell the truth when campaigning...

In 2002 Bush had it made politiically due to the War on Terror and the successes in places like Afghanistan (which was bolstered by the Soviets notorious failing on a completely different mission there). Sure Bush wasn't a conservative but America just wasn't buying the alternative since Republicans very succesffully painted the Democrats as cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys at the time. No sense in opposing him at that time.

Then in 2004, Bush was given the gift of Kerry. I'm not entirely sure Bush ever made a single campaign promise outside of the War on Terror in 2004 but that was more than enough to beat Mr. Lurch. Swiss cheese on a Philly? Might as well be asking how a cash register scanner works or looking at your watch during a debate.

By 2006, the former Republican voters were beginning to think things like, "Well, I like to eat cheese," and "Monkeys aren't too bad." And when the wheels fell off of the complete and total Republican lock on our federal government, people suddenly remembered all those thing they didn't particularly like about Bush from way back when.

So "liberal" might be a bit of a stretch, but the premise behind that argument is older than the current Bush Presidency and isn't nearly as revisionist as you'd like it to be. Bush was tolerated because of the political success he brought with the War on Terror. Now that is gone, there just isn't much left to defend from a conservative standpoint. About the only defense left is, "Well, the alternative would've been worse," and that's an awful hard defense to prove.

sophmom said...

The words "liberal" and "conservative" have lost all meaning, ruined by a Republican spin machine that spent decades saying one thing and doing quite the opposite while teaching the world to spit "liberal" as if it's foul for no good reason except to win elections with lies. It worked for a while and now the whole world's a mess from their antics. JMHO.

celcus said...

So...if Bush is really a Liberal, wouldn't follow that liberals would actually like Bush. And wouldn't it then mean that all those "Bush hater" liberals must really be faking said hatred? And just how does Bill Clinton figure into this nefarious plot to put this stealth "Manchurian candidate" liberal Bush in the white house for 8 years? Maybe Rush Limbaugh can sort this one out...I suspect large quantities of opiates are necessary.