There's been so much wild speculation from the right-wing blogs, radio, TV broadcasts that say "Liberal democrats" think Barack Obama is the
Let me put this in a nutshell.
I have never seen nor heard one single Obama supporter treat or act like Obama is anything perfect, holy, or spiritual. They treat him with adoration
because of the change in political mindset he offers our country.
That being said: What technically defines "idolization" of a symbolic messiah, the likes of which the right wingers blast people like me for?
From my vantage point i see more worship of George W. Bush from most neocon activists in all forms of media today.
Lets look at the most central point in the conservative mind set in today's political word: Rush Limbaugh
On today's show, while i was traveling for a meeting, i heard Rush Limbaugh try to draw a comparison with George W. Bush and Batman.
If only that were all there was to laugh about, lets see what exactly he was talking about:
this all comes from This source
What Bush and Batman Have in Common -- A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the
night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . . Oh, wait a minute. That's not a bat, actually. In fact,
when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a 'W.' ...
lets see. A flash of light. A cry for help. Violence and fear.
Sounds savior'esque to me so far....
I really like the part where the W is reminiscent of the Bat Symbol. Made me giggle.
"There seems to me no question that the Batman film 'The Dark Knight,' currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some
level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war," and here's Brian
from Battle Creek, Michigan who got it and wanted to call and tell us about it
Since Mr. Limbaugh is unaware, i have sent him an email about this passage, letting him know that Batman first appeared in 1939. Which is 69 years
before the release of this film. The classic battle of batman vs. Joker is almost as old as the comic its self.
So how can a movie, based off of a more than 60 year old plot line, be created on blind adoration of a modern day president? A "paean of praise"
you "praise" a messiah. you adore a (wo)man.
"Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push
the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past. And like W,
Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society ... and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished
even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.
George W. Bush is not vilified for confronting terrorists. Remember Afghanistan? I do. What happened to that? That was the forefront on the war on
terror. Why doesn't it exist anymore, and everything is taking place in Iraq?
Certainly there are
terrorists in Iraq. Nobody denies that (that i know of) but there are also terrorists in Great Britain, the United
States, Pakistan, Yugoslavia, Belgium, Barbados, Bosnia, Brazil, Croatia, El Salvador, Chile, China, and Columbia (just to name a few)
So why aren't we fighting terrorism there as well?
If this is an exercise in the exorcism of evil, certainly attacking a non-central figure of terrorist ideals and thought can't have any more impact
than a BB-Gun on a freight train? Speaking in the "over-all" sense of course.
if you want to draw a comparative note between George Bush and Batman, you would have to speak in a hypothetical scenario.
Lets say that the Joker attacked batman and his mansion. Batman hunts down the Joker, slaps him across the face with his bat-glove, and then runs off
and beats the hell out of a bunch of mental patients at Arkham Asylum, saying it was in defense of himself and the mansion, because the Joker is known
to hang out with the wacko's at Arkham.
If that were the case, then I'd be posting a different thread, however; conjecture and reality are not synonyms.
Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those
boundaries when the emergency is past. And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society ... and a criminal
sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.
This is a reprint of above, but i post it again for ease of reference.
Push the boundaries must be code for breaking wide open. When you are fighting an ideal (Islamic extremist) you will never "end the emergency" the
ideal will spread out of pure loathing of our great Country (the U.S.) and will continue to spread like an out of control wild fire.
As much as firefighters try, they simply cannot extingish a wild fire, it has to burn out on its own. Now - true - firefighters try to protect towns
and villages in the path of the fire, but ultimately, where the fire wants to go, it will spread.
That is not implication that you should not fight the fire, but it is implication that you cannot set a "date" of which the "emergency" will be
over. Therefore negating the statement that the boundaries of our freedoms being taken will ever come to an end. Infact, i find it quite the
opposite. Once you feel safe again - why give back the freedoms? So more people can choose to not exploit them? Im confused.
Tony Blair loves Bush. Sarkozy loves Bush. Angela Merkel loves Bush. The Pope loves Bush. None of what is said about Bush is true, and he
doesn't refute it -- which is, I think, why his opinion numbers are so low because he doesn't defend himself. It's not because he's hated.
Loves? Or Caters to, much like we've all had to be nice to the annoying uncle or cousin at the family reuinion.
But regardless, evidently, Americans don't love him at all. Apparently, a lot of republicans don't as well, unless of course, Republicans only make
up about 20% of the United States....and if that were the case, how is it that a republican could ever get elected over a democrat?
All of this blind support for a war in a country that we never set out to invade is simply the beginning of the worship of George W. Bush by some of
the right wingers in today's Political America. There are many more, but character limits prohibit me from sharing them all, in favor of a
Bush says we should attack Iraq because of WMD's. Then it became liberation. Then it became "because we can't leave yet" and now its something
along the lines of "we have to fight terrorism!!!" with talks of Iran in the future? Possibly?
So we went in, found not a single WMD (i mean, come on! Atleast plant them for God sakes, so its not so obvious that Bush is a dumb *snip* !!!)
and after the fact, what do we hear from the right wingers?
The mission was necessary, achievable and noble. For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a
just end, Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration.
We are safer than we were on 9/11, but we're not yet safe. We are still closer to the beginning than the end of this fight. We need a leader with the
experience to make the tough decisions and the resolve to stick with them; a leader who will keep us moving forward even if it is easier to rest.
- John McCain
We are safer? I could be wrong, but i think the man responsible for the attack on 9/11 was Osama Bin Laden. Isnt he still out there? What did Iraq
ever do to us when compared to OBL? And what mission? The moving goal post mission? Move the goal so when we're done, we can claim "mission
accomplished"......wait....... That has already happened
So....why are we still there?
And what does all of this have to do with John McCain?
The fact that he is the mirror image of George W. Bush. The fact that he has used a maverick label to get media attention, in order to secure the
republican nomination for president, and once secured, completely flopped on every issue, in favor of George W. Bush.
In fact, i believe this says it all:
So if George W. Bush is idolized LIKE
a messiah, and McBush is the same thing as W. Bush, then you can see how one could make the assumption
that McCain would be the second coming of the "messiah" as it were.
[edit on 7/25/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]