Just how is someone’s political backbone measured?
With the national mainstream media, we get this yardstick-in-lockstep: pundits and commentators spouting that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are persons of great resolve, of enormous strength and rectitude, individuals who stand up for what they believe and say what they think, regardless of the political or personal consequences.
Okay, where is the ammunition, the history, the validation that backs this up?
(Q) Just how does President Bush’s push to ‘save’ Social Security from insolvency fit into this yardstick when his initial proposal on this ‘crisis’ had no connection whatsoever to resolving a projected Social Security deficit in 2042? His initial proposal did not even address a deficit–it simply privatized the system.
Actual pillars of principle would have instead stood up and said the following:
(A) “We want to privatize Social Security because we believe the market can better resolve the problem we face in 30 years.”
or more honestly:
(A) “Social Security privatization is appropriate because Wall Street is the God we worship.”
Another example of said and unsaid:
(Q) Just how does President Bush’s push to ‘reform’ personal bankruptcy fit when the actual cause of the vast majority of bankruptcies is due to job loss and medical catastrophe and his legislation addressed neither of these factors?
(A) Bankrupcy laws must be changed because our personal political coffers and that of our party are filled with contributions from those financial institutions who expect payback.”
Going with the flow:
(Q) Just how does President Bush’s self description of ‘being a uniter, not a divider’ fit into this yardstick when he has presided over the greatest disunion this country has experienced since the days of Nixon?
(A) “I really could care less about uniting or dividing but it sounded good and cast me in a favorable light. The people bought it, so did the media–it worked. That’s really all that matters.”
More:
(Q) Just how does President Bush’s adamant call for an end to tyranny and repression throughout the world fit into this yardstick when the Bush Administration ‘spoons’ in bed with such reprehensibly evil governments like Sudan and Uzbekistan because of supposed aid in the war on terror?
(A) “Morality is simply relative in world affairs, despite the objections of my evangelical faithful who don’t want to hear such.”
And:
(Q) Just how does President Bush’s vehemence that Democrats had access to every piece of intel on Iraq and Saddam that he did fit when redaction was and remains commonplace and presidential daily briefs were and are not shared?
(A) “Yes, things are really not going well In Iraq, mistakes have been made and we’ve stuck our troops in between a rock and a hard place. I can’t figure out what to do but the Democrats are too spineless to offer there own solution.”
And:
(Q) Just how does Vice President Cheney’s declaration that ‘the insurgency is in its last throes’ fit when even the comatose know this is completely false?
(sorry, couldn’t resist breaking into satire on these last two)
(A) “when you wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are, anything your heart desires will come to you…”
(Q) Just how does Vice President Cheney’s initial lie about 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials in April, 2001, then his lie that he never made such a statement, fit?
(A) “Hey, I thought it was three lies and you’re out.”
Is there another President Bush and Vice President Cheney in an alternate universe somewhere? Is that the one the political paparazi are alluding to?
Sadly, no. These are simply two weak-willed individuals .
It may be political suicide to be so frank (maybe not?) but at least it’s standing up, being real and rejecting the accepted dichotomy between living a moral life and demonstrating the very worst of political behavior.
So, despite the obvious inherent oxymoron, which politicians have an actual backbone?