On "Hardball" Chris Matthews stated, that as a result of his talks with Congressman Jack Murtha--who has ties with all of the Congressman, he was convinced that until their campaigns in 2008 the GOP will stick with the bantam-weight big bro 43 to appeal to their rabid extremist 25% of the US who would support any war ever.
See what W said at his recent press conference regarding who the GOP should consider as the audience they must appeal to. He was asked "Mr. President, for Republicans seeking election next year are you an asset or a liability?
W, playing with the press as a cat does with a mouse he has paralyzed before killing "Strong asset. (Laughter.) Ann."
Why would the press laugh at this ghoul? Oh, that's right-the 4th estate is complicit in allowing W's lies to become the truth. Remember how Judith Miller transcribed the INC's spokesperson Chalabi's lies and placed them verbatim into the New York Times as researched articles-which by the way, the man who was paying Chalabi to make up the lies-Cheney, used as propaganda points against the truth, and to the US populace to gain our support for a war to rid Hussein of WMD.
The reported asked "Can I follow?"
To which lord, name which can't be said, 43 replied "No. (Laughter.) I knew I made a mistake calling on you in the first place. (Laughter.)"
What is lacking in our 4th estates' ethics? How can you laugh at a fool who is limiting the people's access to knowledge of the GOP's planned election? How do they politely chuckle, especially when it seems clear that W is going to go into a fear and war mongering riff.
It concludes:
Q He's known you a long time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, he has.
Q And you got an MBA?
THE PRESIDENT: The problem is I called him and I've known him for a long time.
Q You knew what you were getting into. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Look, candidates who go out and say that the United States is vulnerable to attack and we're going to make sure our professionals have the tools necessary to protect us are going to do well. Candidates who go out and say that helping these Iraqis realize the benefits of democracy are going to do well. Candidates who go out and say that it's very important for the United States to have clear principles when it comes to foreign policy, they'll do well. Candidates who say we're not going to raise your taxes will do well."
He is admitting that a successful GOP Daddy party candidate has to scare the wits out of the witless and convince them that only they can protect us from the un-defined "those who are against us". It is important that the particular country that the GOP ghoul intends to attack doesn't get specified because if they attack Iraq, instead of the more immediate threat to us Iran, and it isn't specified, why you can act as if though you attacked the right country who is our enemy in GWOT.
All of the Behavioral Sciences adherents out there could give a series of long worded explanations as to why these losers love the sight of blood and death. Freud talks about the death drive, which others refer to as the Thanatos drive.
The 25% GOP audience identifies with the killers, and also our poor youth who are victims of W's crime against humanity, "Operation Iraqi Freedom", and are ecstatic to see others getting the boot to their neck or knife in the back. Why do you think these ghouls are so extremely anti-abortion. Back in the 70s there were many books about this phenomenon with many big words. It could be summed up though as--they don't want the US government paying for welfare mothers to have abortions-even though they also hate welfare mothers getting bigger welfare payments for each child--which illustrates that they want bigger benefits for themselves, but want vengeance more! In their minds forcing kids to live in squalor was more painful to them than allowing them to be aborted. In a like manner, nowadays the suicide rate is at record highs by soldiers who are forced to return to Iraq because our youth in that predicament would prefer a peaceful, quick death rather than living in prolonged misery.
I once asked a minor GOP politician why they supported wars, which kill innocents and children, and they supported capital punishment-which in Texas included children, mentally and emotional impaired people, but were against abortion. He admitted it wasn't logically consistent, but that is what the GOP leaders supported, and dad-gummed it, that was good enough for him!
It all goes back to Marxism too. The unskilled, uneducated red stater doesn't want competition for jobs. If some of their youth die then they will have a better chance of getting a job that the illegal immigrants are incapable of grabbing.
To put it bluntly the vile segment of our population with nothing wants to make sure that there is a class even worse off--a US version of the Indian pariah class, and this hatred of the down-trodden by the slightly less down-trodden, filters their perception of ideas.
Also, as Marx posited regarding religion being the "opiate of the masses" TV now is. They like seeing blood and death on TV as it takes their mind off of their own useless existence, a catharsis, and it makes them feel that someone else even has it worse! Their lives are futile wastes and misery loves company! Why do you think the never-ending bloodshed of "Law and Order" saturates TV.
The article "Republicans block measure to give troops a longer break between deployments." at
http://www.slate.com/id/2174369/nav/fix/
states "The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal's world-wide newsbox lead with Senate Republicans blocking a measure that was thought to be the best chance lawmakers had to alter Iraq policy. Sen. Jim Webb's proposal would have mandated that active-duty troops couldn't be redeployed to Iraq or Afghanistan unless they were given as much time at home as they had spent in the war zone. Webb, a Democrat from Virginia, had a prominent GOP co-sponsor in Sen. Chuck Hagel but the proposal gathered support from only six Republicans, so it fell four votes short of the 60 necessary to prevent a filibuster. It now seems clear Democrats won't be able to get Republicans to support any measure that would affect troop levels in Iraq....
When Webb first proposed his measure in July, it surprised many when it gathered support from seven Republicans. But everyone notes that this time around the proposal clearly lost any chance of passing after Sen. John Warner, the other Virginian who is one of the most respected Republicans when it comes to military issues, dropped his support for the proposal. Despite everything that has happened, the vote "offered the most vivid evidence yet that the Bush administration still controls Iraq war policy," says the Post."
The GOP members are talking one thing and doing another-just as W does! Warner voted for it in July and then attacked Petraeus and then didn't vote for helping the troops! How is that possible? Is there some logic to that sequence of events?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
