If it were just me who found the entire Republican establishment horrendous, I think it might be easier to dismiss me as a crank, just another "dirty fucking hippie". If it were just one or two stray right-wingers who ignored inconvenient realities, I suppose one could argue that I was engaging in hyperbole and exaggeration to score some kind of political points. Except, it isn't just me. It's not just a few long-haired, America-hating, Grateful Dead-loving "Stuck in the 60's" types. Consider this from Glenn Greenwald (read the whole thing; watch a short ad for a free pass):
In Cliff May's mind (and he's hardly alone), he thinks the Iraq War is wonderful and that the only problem with it is that we have not been prosecuting it aggressively enough. Therefore, that simply must be what normal, regular Americans think, too, even if mountains of empirical evidence demonstrate exactly the opposite -- because, after all, May is a normal, regular American who believes in what normal, regular Americans believe in [or, as David Brooks calls them (i.e, himself), "the normal, nonideological people"]. May's deep-seated faith in that belief outweighs any empirical data.
The capacity of Bush followers literally to ignore facts that conflict with their convictions is truly extraordinary. In the weeks before the midterm election, all sorts of national Republicans were complaining anonymously in the press that Bush and the White House were genuinely living under the delusion that they were going to win the election even in the face of a consensus of evidence showing the opposite.
They lived in that illusory world by doing what Cliff May did here. Bush did not believe the polls because he was certain that Americans intrinsically prefer Republicans because of how Right they are. Hugh Hewitt was actually insisting that the poll data itself was biased against his movement and that polls that showed the candidates tied actually meant that the Republican was ahead, and polls that showed Republican candidates behind actually meant there was a tie. They literally do not recognize the existence of facts which negate their beliefs and desires about their own Rightness. That, of course, is how they continued to insist that things in Iraq were going great, and still are, despite the mountains of facts to the contrary -- the Iraq War is Right; therefore, it must be going well.
Then there is this at The Horses Mouth, commenting on a front page piece at The Washington Post that purports to explain how Congressional Democrats are "overreaching" by "straying" into national security matters. At the post in question, after highlighting a curiously slanted bit in a "news" piece, in which a Republican Congressman is quoted saying the Democrats might upset Americans by appealing to their "constituents" (aren't their constituents Americans?), Greg Sargent highlights the fact that the article is based upon certain, um, factual errors, not the least of which is that the poll numbers just don't add up:
...[G]iven what happened in the 2006 elections, and given what polls are telling us today with virtual unanimity, how in the heck could anyone report with no skepticism whatsoever the absurd idea that the boldness of the Dem Congressional majority right now "has Republican political operatives gleeful"? That phrase is, like, so June 2006. What's more, why are we uncritically swallowing the idea that if Bush "wins" the legislative showdown over Iraq, it'll automatically be good politically for the GOP? Poll after poll after poll shows that the public overwhelmingly supports the Dem Congress' efforts to end the war, and indeed many want the Dems to go further than they are in reigning in Bush.The article in question links to a variety of polls that demonstrate the exact opposite of the Congressman's point.
Finally, there's John McCain's trip to a Baghdad market. You know, it's one thing for a United States Senator to make a fool out of himself, shooting off his mouth about things about which he knows nothing. It is another thing entirely to risk the lives of 100 soldiers, and the crews of 3 Blackhawk and 2 Apache helicopters, to show how safe Baghdad is. I pretty much agree with Duncan's point here (there are some really bad words here, so if you fear your eye sockets may scorch, you may want to skip this):
Last week he laid down his marker. He said yo my bitches - and by his bitches, we mean the media which are his "crazy base land" - your reporting is wack! There are safe neighborhoods in Baghdad!
Then he went to Iraq. He could've walked through one of those neighborhoods. And, hell, he's macho John McCain! Tough guy Saint John! He's got bigger balls than you do! If anyone can swagger down the streets of Baghdad with nothing but his grimace and glare to keep himself safe, it's fucking John McCain!
Now, realistically, I wouldn't have expected even Fucking John McCain to wander down random Baghdad streets unaccompanied. But you would've thought he'd have more self respect than to do it with 100 soldiers, 3 Blackhawks, 2 Apaches, and then have the balls - well, I guess here is where his mighty balls do their job - to pretend it was a stroll through the park.
The whole photo-op was a farce, because as Think Progress is reporting, the snipers have returned and are killing people again.
Because he is the Dean of Political Bloggers (that's a joke for those who might not know it), I shall allow Duncan to have the last word:
People hate George Bush and hate the war. The public would be behind literally any possible course of action the Democrats choose to take to get out of there.
