Dreaming of Elections Past

I guess I should not be so surprised, but it still amazes me when I hear liberal talking heads harkening back to the old "selected, not elected" themes of the 2000 post-presidential election. Of course, with the president's "all-time low" approval ratings being touted and flouted by the mainstream media, I suppose it was inevitable.

So I had to just shake my head and chuckle when I read columnist James Clingman's latest op-ed piece castigating President Bush:

To begin with, when Bush was first discussed, at least in public, as a viable candidate for president, most of us thought, "What?" "Who?" Many of us wondered, "How in the world do the Republicans think this lightweight could be elected to the highest office in the land?" Talk about a long shot, at least that's what we thought; this guy was the most unlikely person to be nominated by the GOP. Boy, were we wrong!

And then the denouement, contrary to what we always believed to be the standard procedure of the President selecting Supreme Court Justices, we saw a complete reversal when the Supreme Court justices selected our president.

All of the indications leading up to Bush's "selection" point to the fact that we get the leadership we deserve. There is no way we should have the likes of George Bush as our president, but we do. To add insult to injury, we "elected" him again, for another four years, to continue his reign of economic terror on Black people, the elderly, and poor people, Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 notwithstanding.

So let's review. Bush is an idiot. Bush was selected, not elected. Bush (apparently) was not really even re-elected. Bush hates not only black people, but also old and poor people. What inevitably comes next in the litany? My guess was: bash Christians, bash the oil companies, and bash the war on terror (and/or Iraq War). Oh, and grind Bush's character and morals into the dirt as an afterthought. Maybe even throw in a pinch of impeachment while you're at it.

Think about the mind-boggling support he has from some of our most prominent Black ministers, and not just because of his “faith-based initiative” but because they say Bush is a Christian, he has high moral values, he is against abortion and gay marriage, two sins those ministers cannot tolerate in their president; but they can tolerate lying, murder, stealing, and coveting another man's resources.

Okay, that took care of the Christians and Bush's morals, although for the life of me I cannot think of a single "prominent Black minister" that has shown the president "mind-boggling support."

Now, at a time when Bush has the lowest ratings in history, having demonstrated a total disdain for some of the laws he swore to uphold, having shown the people of this country that he is obviously not equipped to be president, having run the country from surpluses to deficits, increasing the debt exponentially, and presiding over a stupid war that virtually everyone knows should not have been started, even after all of that - and more - Bush has not been impeached nor has our vaunted Congressional Black Caucus drawn up papers calling for his impeachment.

Despite the majority of the people telling him he is wrong on the war, wrong on the economy, and wrong on leadership, despite putting his cronies into positions they have absolutely no place being..., despite his failure to come down hard on his family's buddies, the Saudis and Kuwaitis, after American lives were lost defending their oil, and despite his total incompetence, his constant deer-in-the-headlights stare and his "What, me worry?" Alfred P. Newman caricature, George Bush is our leader.

That took care of big oil, impeachment, and a double-barrel blast on the war. My guess is that would pretty much wrap it up, time to hit save, send and power down. Right? Wrong. We forgot the old stand-by, Uncle Tom!

To prove my point even further, we see an intelligent person like Condoleezza Rice supporting and defending George Bush.

She has to know how ignorant he is and how limited he is; she has to see the corruption in his administration, yet she stands at his side like one of Hitler's storm troopers, knowing that what he is doing is wrong but willing, nonetheless, to “follow orders.” I wonder what she really thinks about her boss. Maybe she will write a tell-all book like George Stephanopoulos and Dick Morris did about Clinton.

Wow. This one has everything. Mr. Clingman has successfully combined five entire years worth of media bias in one pointless page of political absurdity. That should be worth a Pulitzer, at least!