Wednesday, August 11, 2004

The Dan Quail Theory

Back when George W. Bush was selected as the Republican candidate for President, my wife, myself, and several friends - even our Republican friends - reacted with incredulity. At the time I proposed a possible (and admittedly cynical) reason: Since everyone laughed out loud when they floated Dan Quail as a possible candidate, they went looking for another idiot they felt they could control. See, I think the current Republican party knows they can't run the power players and expect them to win, because most of them have bad reputations and long rap sheets in terms of potential links to corruption and CEO misdeeds, ala Dick Cheney, so they need a puppet who will do their bidding. It worked great with Reagan (though it appears at times he had a mind of his own), and didn't work at all with Bush the Sr. So when the time came to float a candidate, and no one would take Quail seriously, they debated who was stupid and pliable enough for the job. And someone said, "Y'know, George has a boy..."

Some folks have dismissed my theory out of hand (probably because the implications are too horrific to contemplate fully), but some have chuckled darkly and nodded with apparent acquiescence to the sadness of it being a real possibility, and not just a cynical, half-hearted conspiracy theory.

Well, members of the jury, I offer exhibit DQT8.1:

Denver Post
Friday, August 6, 2004
Page 8A

"Bush Misspeaks on National Defense"

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." [My emphasis.] No one in Bush's audience of military brass or Pentagon chiefs reacted.
Bailiff, would you tag that and put it with the rest of the evidence? Thanks.


Anonymous said...

Well, it looks like I'll have to withstand another four years of Liberal Propaganda and Bush Bashing. I guess it was inevitable really, but I didn't expect such a Ludicrous statement, form someone who obviously so well informed. (Just incase you couldn't tell that was sarcasm.)

Anonymous said...

To the person who posted the first comment... What ludicrous statement are you referring to? The entry the author wrote or George Bush's statement? If you mean the author, the one so "obviously well informed" (sarcasm), he perfectly quoted what Bush said and nothing was taken out of context. It's not our fault you elected a president whose speechwriter makes things too complicated for him to say. Maybe if his speeches were written like My Pet Goat it wouldn't be such an issue.

You're a fool blinded by party politics -- I bet right now you're finding excuses for Karl Rove. You and all your Republican ilk are sheep waiting for the next excuse to polarize all people into two parties -- yours or Liberal. If the world HAS to be seen in black and white, then at least the Liberals stand for a cause that involves deeper thought and concern more about others and the environment than being conservative (i.e., concern for one's self, concern for one's wealth, add the word 'compassionate' just in case).

As for liberal propaganda... I could have sworn that AM1150 was one of the only liberal stations that appeared, recently, on the radio. Jon Stewart, though sadly a comic representative of Democrat views, is one of the very few commentators with an opposing view to much of what is on TV as well.

And what the hell do you mean by "four more years" of liberal propaganda. Propaganda itself has existed since we've been getting our news from stone tablets.

You live in an alternate reality from those of us who think deeply and do not identify with either party. I am speaking on behalf of those of us who still choose the lesser of two evils -- Democrat -- but do NOT respect party politics. We just know that voting for a third party allows the Republicans another win.