Office of the Independent Blogger

Given that I absolutely despise French Aristocrats and philosophers, it is strange that I am reading the works of the Marquis de Sade, and it is stranger still because I have no sexual desire that could be classified as sadistic. I am reading his overall-disgusting works because I am curious about what they entail, exactly, that keep them banned in French society even to this day. But, enough about that. I found it strange in an other-worldly sort-of way when I saw John Dickerson’s latest column in Slate about President Bush.

On his summer vacation in Crawford, Texas, George Bush read Albert Camus’ novel The Stranger. I’m not sure what to make of this. It’s usually college freshmen who suddenly take up the French existentialist’s slim volume, and then usually to impress some literature major with wavy hair. Perhaps it was an act of glasnost: Bush has spent much of his presidency dismissing the French, so now he reads one of the country’s literary heroes and goes public about it. But in Crawford? The president and his aides have long characterized the town as the kind of sensible place where anyone caught reading heady foreign literature-philosophy would be driven to the county line. Maybe that’s the idea—challenge the prevailing stereotype about the president’s favorite place and his intellect?

I call bullshit. In the 2000 campaign, Bush claimed to have read a biography of Dean Acheson, but when asked, knew nothing about him. His aides tell incoming workers that the President “doesn’t read much,” and he can’t be bothered to read memos (Price of Loyalty, Paul O’Neill). You’re telling me that the world’s most powerful dunce has all of a sudden gained a literary edge? I might buy it if, say, his wife were upset with him, threatened to cut off his sex life if he didn’t read a book of her choosing, but I doubt it. Oh, sure, there are rumors that the President has cheated on his wife (this President, not the past Presidents that we know cheated on his wives), but I don’t buy it. George Bush strikes me as the type of man who’d see his wife reading in bed, say, “Whachoo need books for? Iss time for some nighttime!” while snatching the book and taking command.

In other words, I think the President is severely challenged intellectually, incapable of tellling the truth, and has symptoms of misogyny.

Slate, today, didn’t just serve as catalyst for a discussion about George Bush’s sex life and pea brain, but also gives us a brilliant analysis of Leftist Trends in the Democratic Party. With the Lieberman pantsing in Connecticut, I have already heard rumblings for more Conservative types that the Democratic Party is becoming George McGovern’s People’s Republic yet again (if it ever truly was, considering that most Democrats didn’t even vote for him in 1972), but Michael Tomasky discredits that.

Hold on to your hats, folks. Next month, the peacenik, McGovernite, appeasement-happy Democratic voters of yet another state are primed to take out another pro-war senator! Yes, that’s right: Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who voted for the October 2002 Iraq war resolution, is fighting for her political life against intraparty challenger Hong Tran, a public-service attorney from the state who backs “the quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq” and ups the ante by arguing that Cantwell, after serving as George W. Bush’s handmaiden on Iraq, has now “proudly cosponsored legislation with Republican Senator Rick Santorum (R.-Pa.) that lays the groundwork for military intervention in Iran.” Private polls put Tran within striking distance, and my sources in Olympia contend that we may well see a replay of what just happened in Connecticut.

Is the Democratic Party out to immolate itself? Is there no end to this contagion? There’s one problem with the above scenario. It isn’t true. Yes, Cantwell is a real senator; yes, she voted for the war (the Iran bit is news to me). Yes, Hong Tran, a woman of Vietnamese-American extraction, is a real person of apparent accomplishment, and she is indeed running against Cantwell chiefly on an anti-war platform. But there are no “private polls” that put Tran “within striking distance,” and I have no “sources in Olympia.” It’s all but certain that Cantwell will waltz to renomination. On Aug. 6 the Seattle Times ran a profile of the “quixotic” challenger that reported Tran had raised a mere $18,000 from just 20 donors. “Confidence, Tran doesn’t lack,” reporter Alex Fryer concluded. “It’s money and support that seem a little thin.”

I think by now you’ve caught my point. At this minute, eight Democratic Senate incumbents who voted in favor of the Iraq resolution are seeking re-election: Cantwell, Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Tom Carper (Del.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), and of course Joe Lieberman (Conn.), now as an independent. And of those eight, exactly one—Lieberman—faced or is facing a serious primary challenge because of the war. Remember the shock you felt back in June when Dianne Feinstein was defeated by that lefty nutjob in California? Or the fervid chants of “Bring Them Home!” ringing out from the Omaha night when Ben Nelson lost to his anti-war challenger? Didn’t think so. That’s because Feinstein won renomination with 87 percent of the vote, and Nelson didn’t even face an opponent.

Now, while it’s true that these candidates haven’t faced serious Liberal opposition, it’s also true that they all have significant war-chests, financially. Still, I agree with the thrust of the piece, but I’ll wait until 2008 to declare which direction the Party is going in, but I will note this: the Democratic candidate in 2008 is likely to be anti-Iraq War, or anti-continuation of it, at least, probably a “Peace with Honor” sort like Richard Nixon (Hillary Clinton?). It’s important to note that the Democratic Party isn’t moving to the Left on anything but Iraq, and on Iraq, the country is moving Left, in case you haven’t read the polls.

On an entirely different note (from politics to War), the cease-fire’s in effect in Lebanon, and aid to that country is coming slow because of all the destroyed roads. Bush claims Israel defeated Hezbollah, while Hezbollah takes responsibility for Israel’s “defeat.” I think they should all go to their knees and pray for forgiveness.

For anyone wondering what the title means, click away to your heart’s content, and figure it out.

This entry was posted on Monday, August 14th, 2006 at 3:00 pm and is filed under Outside Retort (Current Affairs).