Liberal Psychosis
-- DJ Drummond
PoliPundit.com
The Liberal Movement in the United States is dead. Actually, it died a long time ago, but the family refuses to give up the corpse, and so clings to its stink as well as its memory. There is abundant evidence of this, but I found an article in New York magazine particularly representative of the Left’s divorce from Reality.
In a piece titled “The Man Behind The Curtain”, John Heilemann slanders Vice-President Cheney in every way he seems able to consider. So far, Heilemann simply expresses the ubiquitous opinion of Liberals in general. The modern Liberal, in sharp contrast to the original reformers and humanitarians, hates anyone who accomplishes success through their own merit and initiative, especially commercial success, and utterly despises anyone who promotes self-sufficiency as a virtue. So of course Richard Cheney, who amassed a sizable estate through investment and corporate management, who has a stable and loving family, including a daughter whose politics he does not share but who loves him, and he her, and who has never sought positions of great power and influence, but who has been called upon by men in power for many years, must be demonized by the Left. Even so, the article tossed out by Heilemann displays a pathological lack of sanity and composure. As a matter of fact, there are sections of the article which I cannot quote verbatim, because of the profanity used.
Heilemann begins his piece by suggesting that Cheney, while appearing calm and courteous, is neither of those things, and tries to suggest the Vice-President is worried about certain possible events to come in the near future, as fantasized by what even Heilemann admits is a “Democratic wet dream”. The short version there, is that Democrats/Liberals are hoping and fantasizing that Cheney will be smeared by the Fitzgerald Investigation, possibly even see more of his staff indicted, so that the Vice-President will be forced to resign. This, if you haven’t picked up on it already, is the way that Nixon was destroyed in 1974. First Agnew admitted to a felony and resigned in 1973, then the Democrats were able to target the President. Never mind that there is not the slightest reason or evidence to support a claim that Cheney or Bush has done anything remotely illegal, or that the Republican-dominated Congress is hardly likely to go after their own highly successful leader, or that years of investigation has demonstrated that every statement Bush made in relation to the CIA or the War in Iraq has been shown to be reasonable and supported by the information available at the time. Liberals instead cling to the fable that Bush must have lied somehow, and therefore they must win back the Congress in 2006, at which time Mikey the Fat Witch will wave his wand and Bush will be impeached. It’s anyone’s guess who will supply the flying monkeys.
Yes, it’s a “Wizard of Oz” fantasy, which is why Heilemann makes reference to the‘‘Man Behind The Curtain’. And Heilemann, in true Liberal fashion, clings oh-so-desperately to the fiction that it cannot possibly be George W. Bush who is outwitting the Liberals at every turn, so it must be the corporate mastermind who is the real power behind the throne. Says Heilemann of Cheney:
<<<
“From the moment Bush took office, it’s been apparent to anyone with eyes to see that Cheney is the prime mover behind this administration…surrounded by a coterie of neoconnish staffers, Libby the most powerful among them…Largely invisible to the public, he has been the untouchable man, immune to criticism, genuflected before by every corner of the Establishment…I suspect that what we’re witnessing today is the end of the Cheney Era.”
>>>
Actually Mr. Heilemann, all we’re witnessing is a serious paranoia of yours finding its way into print. In the first place, I remember well the arrogance and chutzpah of VP Al “Internet” Gore. Cheney’s staff is small and professional, while Gore demanded a staff equal in size to Clinton’s own. While Dick Cheney meets privately with Bush and discusses relevant issues (it may shock you to learn that as President of the Senate, it is considered reasonable for Cheney to know about the President’s preferences and plans), he has not campaigned to improve his personal influence and future prospects the way VP’s Gore and Mondale did when they were in office. The only way you could present yourself in a more rabid and uncredible manner, would be for you to go all out and claim that Cheney travels in a fleet of unmarked black helicopters preparing for a world takeover by mercenaries paid by Halliburton (cue the ‘Empire’ soundtrack).
Heilemann certainly has no love for Conservatives, even as he admits that when he first met Cheney, he “made a plausible case” for the 1991 Gulf War. Heilemann says that Cheney “made for a pleasing contrast with his predecessor, the ghoulish and freaky Caspar Weinberger. He was soothing and sane, almost fatherly - if your dad happened to have at his disposal an arsenal of ICBMs.”
Of course, let’s not forget that the 1991 Gulf War is remembered by everyone with a grasp of the facts, as a good war, one where the United States clearly freed an invaded ally (Kuwait), and where there was no question at all that Saddam had WMD. Heilemann leaves all that out, because it is critical to his fantasy that Cheney must be evil, and therefore facts be damned. Maybe that’s why Heilemann goes so far as to claim that Cheney, rather than the President, has the National Command Authority.
Heilemann instead presses the absurd case that,
<<<
“Driven by some Oedipal force that only Maureen Dowd will ever fully comprehend, Bush the younger seized on Cheney as an alternate father figure, the guiding hand that would enable him to achieve what the old man couldn’t. For Cheney, by contrast, Bush must have seemed the perfect instrument for his precisely specified ambitions: to run the country without the hassle of running for president. Thus the symbiosis from which the Iraq quagmire was born.”
>>>
That section of the article is appalling for its sheer arrogance, stupidity, and irrational hate. Cheney’s competence as an asset is dismissed by Heilemann as an act. His ability to build teams and work within them is perverted to claim that Cheney manipulated people. Cheney’s willingness to listen to all sides and present a complete picture to the President, is instead taken by Heilemann to mean that Cheney tricked Bush. Never mind the countless occasions where President Bush met and spoke privately with world and Congressional leaders, never mind the countless cabinet meetings where Bush ran the show and Cheney was either not present or did not even speak. It remains critical to the fiction in Heilemann’s pretend-world that Bush must be a moron, a simpleton, a puppet. Otherwise, Heilemann might have to face up to the sheer futility and stupidity of the Liberal strategies of the past decade, in Austin then in D.C.
Still wallowing in dementia. Heilemann ponders,
<<<
“what Libby might reveal in the weeks ahead. In Washington, Libby and Cheney are seen as intimately bonded, close friends, trusted allies.”
>>>
It doesn’t seem to have dawned on Heilemann (no surprise), that the indictments against Libby were the stuff of partisan politics and a prosecutor looking for something to call a result, rather than any evidence to support the screaming claims of the Left Wing. Legal experts have already said that of the five counts against Libby, three are clearly very flimsy and likely to fail in an actual trial, and the other two will depend on whom the jury believes in a he-said-they-said testimony. Given that D.C. is overwhelmingly liberal in its polity, even a conviction would not be proof that the charges are valid and true, and in no way would support pursuing the Vice-President or anyone else in the Bush Administration. Obviously, Liberals hope that Libby will be persuaded to “turn” and reveal evidence against his boss, but this is no more likely than a Howard Dean Presidency.
Undeterred by reality, Heilemann goes after the President by claiming that instead of conducting his affairs according to the nation’s needs, Bush is reacting to the Libby indictment. Says Heilemann:
<<<
“a longtime Republican operative outlined for me, in koanlike form, the three-step program he believes Bush must now pursue: ‘Change the people, change the subject, and absolutely feed the base.’”
>>>
Heilemann, pursuing his mantra that all Conservatives must be demonized, describes Samuel Alito as “a barking-mad ultracon”, and in true Liberal fashion, does not even attempt to support that slander.
Heilemann goes on to speculate that when Cheney is gone, Bush will select either Rice or McCain as the new Veep. This is Heilemann’s strong entry in the ‘Stupidest Thing Put In Print This Week’ contest. In the first place, Liberal attacks on Cheney are nothing new, nor are Liberal fantasies that they can get him removed. There is a small possibility that if things are going well at the time, Cheney might choose to step down in favor of a chosen successor to Bush for the GOP nomination in 2008, but that is on the whole unlikely for many reasons, including the fact that many Conservatives find the naming of a successor distasteful. Democrats like that game, but Conservatives prefer to choose their nominee from a broad field. In 2000, Bush had to prove his worth against McCain. In 1988, his father had to earn respect from the Party, and even in 1980, Ronald Reagan had to prove he was the best choice. While Liberal elites believe it is fitting for the people to be told who will lead them, Conservatives prefer to decide for themselves. And this scenario is predicated on the chance that Cheney would step down, a possibility long discussed in public but never considered in the White House. As Dubya heads into the meat of his second term, changing Veeps would be contrary to his nature and intentions.
Heilemann finishes his piece with an unintentionally ironic statement. Intending to claim that Conservatives are weakening, Heilemann instead described the Liberal climate in the face of strong legislation, a trend of conservative gains in elections, and the inability of the Left to present any sort of constructive options or cooperative efforts. He meant it about the Right, but it’s really about the Left, when Heilemann said, “It’s about sheer desperation.”
polipundit.com
nymetro.com |
