#Shook: Reaping and Sowing
2600 Dead
http://weaselweek.com/reaping_and_sowing.htm
Reaping and Sowing
by Milt Shook
The political ideology (or "movement," as they laughingly call it)
that has been labeled "conservative" for the last 30 years or so was
built largely on lies and deceit, and that is why it's going down, and
going down hard.
That sounds like a strong statement, but it's not. And if you doubt
the assertion, think hard. The last truly honest conservative was
Barry Goldwater, and he was soundly trounced by Lyndon Johnson, a true
conservative who saw the writing on the wall and adopted the
inevitability of civil rights for blacks, and the need for the
government to do something about the rampant poverty that continued to
thrive in pockets all over the country, and was thereby labeled
"liberal."
The Goldwater defeat motivated the far right to attempt a different
strategy; one in which they held the same beliefs as before, but
couched them in more "acceptable" language, so as to hide their true
intent. In addition, they also adopted very subtle, but very strong
racist overtones that definitely had to be hidden behind "code words."
Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was a blatant attempt to exploit
the racist feelings of those who objected to the federal government's
actions on behalf of blacks, in order to ensure their civil rights,
and to prevent discrimination. The "Southern Strategy" (a phrase
coined by Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips) used the code word "states'
rights" to secure the Southern states as a stronghold for the
Republican Party. The entire "Southern Strategy" was basically
dishonest, because it was a wink and a smile to Southern racist
elements, in language that couched its true intent, as such intent
would never have been found acceptable to most reasonable people.
Unfortunately, this patently dishonest concept demonstrated great
success. And why wouldn't it? The people it appealed to most had made
it a practice to keep people down on weekdays, while praising God in
full voice on Sunday. As a result of its great electoral success, this
dishonest strategy spread to all sorts of issues, and was tailored to
appeal to different groups. Essentially, the entire "movement" was
based on a wink and a nod to extremists, and before long, these people
became the Republican Party's base of support. Prior to Goldwater's
numbing defeat, most of these extremists had been relegated to the
fringes of the Democratic Party; in this new incarnation of the
Republican Party, the "Party of Lincoln" had found a home, where their
practice of creating and using "code words" was suddenly considered a
crucial strategy for electoral success. This strategy of lies,
half-truths and euphemism in order to appeal to the average voter, and
make themselves seem reasonable, long practiced by racists in the Jim
Crow South, was now the key to the Republican Party's resurgence.
Take a look at some of the terminology these people use for a clue. To
the average "conservative" in this day and age, the terms "states'
rights" and "federalism" are synonymous, which is absolutely absurd,
since the terms are actually opposites. The Federalist Society, for
example, uses Alexander Hamilton as a figurehead, but preaches the
exact opposite of Hamilton's vision of a strong, centralized federal
government. They talk about "fiscal responsibility" as they shrug at
enormous budget deficits and throw billions of dollars in tax cuts at
the rich and huge corporate donors. They talk about "personal
responsibility," but don't enforce it when one of their own does
something wrong. They use the word "quotas" when discussing
affirmative action, despite the fact that quotas were outlawed in the
late 1970s. When they discuss "welfare," they invariably invoke an
image of a fat black woman living in a tenement with a dozen kids, and
scoff when anyone mentions the legislative subsidies routinely given
to corporations that are already worth billions of dollars.
In other words, the current "conservative" movement (which is in no
way conservative, but that's another column for another time.) was
built on lies and deceit, and has only achieved its current success
through more lies and more deceit. And there's a problem when you
build a political "movement" on something that doesn't match your true
intentions. At some point, if your message is appealing enough, you
will find electoral success, as the Republican Party has today, and
then you have to perform.
And that is why we find ourselves in the current predicament; a
government that is completely incompetent, and is unable to function
in a public service capacity. The far right now has exactly what they
wanted, and they have demonstrated themselves to be completely
incapable of governing, in part because their lust for power has been
all about gaining power, in part because what they actually believe in
is in direct conflict with what the United States Constitution has
always been about, but most of all because the "conservative" movement
has populated itself with people who have no problem lying and being
deceitful to get what they want. If anyone is surprised by a president
that doesn't think the Constitution should apply to him, and a
Congress whose leadership is populated by criminals, they shouldn't
be.
Why are people so surprised that the leaders of this "movement" are so
corrupt? Their entire political training regimen has come from people
like Newt Gingrich, who thought of himself as something of a genius of
sorts when it came to political language, and using such language to
manipulate public opinion. Gingrich was not the problem, he was a
symptom. Forty years ago, it would have seemed inconceivable that a
popular political movement could possibly be led by such a vile group
of miscreants as the current incarnation of the "conservative"
movement. Here is a partial list of the cast of characters that are
the figureheads of the current "conservative" movement; people who
were given nothing short of "hero" status by real conservatives
because they were winning elections:
*
Tom DeLay has been corrupt for years, not just the last couple
of years, but the Republican Party and the conservative movement
praised him profusely, because his coercive methods brought them
plenty of money. Can you imagine if Ted Kennedy had been brought
before the House Ethics Committee multiple times, and if it had even
been suggested that Kennedy took money and trips from a convicted
criminal lobbyist?
*
Trent Lott represents the epitome of the Southern Strategy; a
racist who covertly longs for the days when "Negroes knew their
place," and who has lived his entire political in a "dual role," so to
speak. He was a master of the "code word" strategy, who regularly
spoke to groups such as the Council of Conservative Citizens, a thinly
disguised group of Southern racists who work hard to bring back Jim
Crow, without looking as if they're bringing back Jim Crow.
*
Lee Atwater was the ultimate Republican political strategist; a
master at using code words and stealth to get people elected. Atwater
was the man responsible for the reprehensible "Willie Horton" ad, the
sole purpose of which was to scare the bejeezus out of white
suburbanites.
*
G. Gordon Liddy is a convicted felon, because he refused to "rat
out" people who were breaking the law and working against the people
of the United States. Yet, the "conservative movement" has embraced
him as a veritable paragon of virtue. Because of this bizarre
admiration, Liddy found a second career as an actor and a radio host.
As a radio host, his career even survived an incident in which he
recommended to his "conservative" listeners the best way to "take out"
a federal agent. Can you imagine the uproar if Ed Schultz suggested
such a thing?
*
Rush Limbaugh is a documented liar, who is not above saying
anything, if he sees it as necessary to support "the cause," even to
the point of suggesting that the Clinton Administration was full of
murderers and thieves. He is also a drug addict, who apparently
doctor-shopped for prescriptions for oxycontin, or hillbilly heroin,
and worked his ass off to get away with it, despite his repeated
admonitions in the past that all drug addicts should rot in jail.
(Limbaugh only escaped jail through the generous assistance of the
ACLU, by the way; a group he spends a lot of time castigating for
being "un-American.") Limbaugh, who claims evangelical Christians
among his strongest supporters, has also been married three times.
*
The aforementioned Newt Gingrich was brought before the House
Ethics Committee several times for questionable financial dealings,
and signed a multimillion-dollar book deal with Rupert Murdoch at a
time when a very important piece of legislation having to do with
Murdoch's broadcast holdings was before the House. And at the same
time he was leading the impeachment charge against Bill Clinton, he
was cheating on his wife with a staffer.
*
Henry Hyde, who was Chairman of the impeachment committee that
railroaded Clinton, was found out to have had an extramarital affair
while serving in the House. Hyde chalked it up to a "youthful
indiscretion," despite the fact that he was in his 40s at the time.
*
Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, who also count evangelical
Christians among their staunchest supporters, have fashioned entire
careers based on "bearing false witness" about everything. Coulter's
career as a "conservative" morals expert thrives, despite her
expressed wish that the 9/11 terrorists had instead hit the New York
Times building, and suggesting that Max Cleland, who lost three limbs
during his service in Vietnam, was a coward, because he didn't lose
them during a firefight. And Savage also does quite well as a
"conservative" spokesman, despite his admonitions that Arabs are
"non-human" and that we should be torturing more prisoners, and his
constant comparisons of those with whom he disagrees with Nazis.
(Jimmy Carter is the latest.)
*
Bill Frist continues to serve as Trent Lott's replacement as
Senate Majority Leader, despite being under investigation by the SEC
for possible securities fraud. A licensed medical doctor, Frist also
probably violated his oath by diagnosing Terri Schiavo's condition
after watching a four year old, heavily edited video, and has often
been involved in crafting legislation that benefits large medical
corporations, despite (or because of?) his family's involvement with
the industry as the founders of the largest for-profit hospital
corporation in the country.
*
Oliver North is a major "conservative" commentator, despite the
fact that he was convicted of lying to Congress, and being a major
player in the sale of arms to Iran to finance an illegal overthrow of
the democratically elected government of Nicaragua, against a specific
law passed by Congress to prevent such a thing.
*
William Bennett is still considered a major "expert" on
morality, despite hiding a very severe gambling habit, and hiding it
from his wife. And Bennett's career as a radio host continues to
thrive, despite his recent suggestion that killing all black babies
would have the net effect of reducing crime. Again, imagine if Al
Franken suggested that the sudden death of all southern white boys
would reduce the number of lynchings?
Again, this is but a tip of the iceberg; if I was writing a book, I
could easily fill it with examples like this. (I didn't even mention
Fox News!) We have a group of people in power right now who got where
they are through lies and deception, so it should surprise no one when
they turn out to be corrupt. Anytime you base a philosophy on
deception, doesn't it follow that you can expect to attract corrupt
people? Honest people simply will not lie to move an agenda forward,
no matter how just they feel their cause is.
Now, all of a sudden, because they have been instrumental in pushing
forward a government that cannot work, "conservatives" are feeling
deceived, and they don't like it. Check out this little whiny diatribe
from Richard Viguerie in the May 21, 2006 Washington Post:
For years, congressional Republicans have sold themselves to
conservatives as the continuation of the Reagan revolution. We were
told that they would take on the Washington special interests -- that
they would, in essence, tear down K Street and sow the earth with salt
to make sure nothing ever grew there again.
But over time, most of them turned into the sort of unprincipled power
brokers they had ousted in 1994. They lost interest in furthering
conservative ideas, and they turned their attention to getting their
share of the pork. Conservatives did not spend decades going door to
door, staffing phone banks and compiling lists of like-minded voters
so Republican congressmen could have highways named after them and so
there could be an affirmative-action program for Republican lobbyists.
White House and congressional Republicans seem to have adopted a
one-word strategy: bribery. Buy off seniors with a prescription drug
benefit. Buy off the steel industry with tariffs. Buy off agribusiness
with subsidies. The cost of illegal bribery (see the case of former
congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham) pales next to that of legal
bribery such as congressional earmarks.
In today's Washington, where are the serious efforts by Republicans to
protect unborn children from abortion? Where is the campaign for a
constitutional amendment to prevent liberal judges from allowing
same-sex marriage?
Instead of conservative action on social issues, the
Republican-controlled House has approved more taxpayers' money for an
embryo-killing type of stem cell research. And it passed a "hate
crimes" measure that could lead to the classification as "hate" of
criticism of homosexual activity. And in the Senate, Republicans have
let key judicial nominees languish, even when Bush has nominated
conservatives for lower courts. Would a strong Senate leader such as
LBJ have let his party's nominees fail for lack of a floor vote?
In other words, poor "conservative" Richard seems shocked -- shocked,
I tell you! -- that people who lie and deceive to obtain power would
lie, deceive and cheat once they have power. I hate to break it to
Viguerie and others of his ilk, but there has never been anything the
least bit "conservative" about most of the "conservatives" in power.
When people like Viguerie talk about honoring principles, I just shake
my head in awe at the chutzpah. For the last 40 years, the Republican
Party has been held hostage by a bunch of zealots who would say and do
anything they felt they had to in order to obtain power, and those
claiming "principles" just sat back and let them do so, because their
side was "winning." These alleged "real conservatives" rarely
complained about the actions of the Reagan Administration during
Iran-Contra, and actively cheered when Bush 41 pardoned pretty much
everyone involved. They sat back, watched and cheered as the court set
a new and dangerous precedent by allowing a sitting president to be
the subject of a lawsuit while in office, and then championed his
impeachment for something that wasn't even a crime, despite the fact
that they knew he would never be convicted. They didn't claim a
violation of "states' rights" when the Supreme Court abused their
Constitutional mandate and demanded that Florida stop counting votes
in 2000. Where were their principles when John Kerry was being "Swift
Boated"? Was it principled to put out flyers in racist country
suggesting that John McCain had a black child? Where was their concern
for "principle" when Max Cleland was being called a coward, and it was
suggested that he lost three limbs "the wrong way" in Vietnam?
Throughout the life of this "movement," so-called "conservatives" ran
all sorts of people based solely on their stated ideology, and their
ability to raise money (or their ability to threaten people for
money), not any sort of "principle." And now that they have what they
think they wanted, they're complaining about it. I'm sorry, but the
crocodile tears won't work this time.
We have a government right now that is the direct descendant of the
dishonesty that has marked the current incarnation of the
"conservative movement" since Goldwater's defeat. Our government's
leadership is populated by so-called "conservatives" who lied and
cheated to get there, with the cheery acquiescence of people like
Viguerie, who has only now decided that things have gone too far. And
now, the rest of us are stuck with an incompetent boob in the White
House, and a corrupt leadership in Congress, all of whom are dishonest
at their core (that is how they got where they are, after all) and
simultaneously trying to keep their constituencies and their
"investors" happy. They don't care about people, because people who
will do dishonest things to get what they want naturally don't care
about people. They don't understand the concept of public service,
because people who lie and cheat to get where they are, have no
concern for how others are affected by the things they do. They only
hire cronies to crucial positions, because people who are naturally
dishonest tend to be paranoid and assume that others are as dishonest
as themselves. Imagine an entire government leadership populated with
"everyone does it" relativists. Actually, you don't have to imagine
it; that's exactly where we find ourselves. You see what we're up
against here.
In other words, you reap what you sow, and the right has been sowing
these seeds for a very long time.
It's not just the Republican Party that's going down right now; it's
the entire "conservative movement." And it's precisely because real
conservatives allowed winning to take precedence over honesty and
fairness.
--
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government
talking
about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.
Nothing has
changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists,
we're
talking about getting a court order before we do so"
-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed, http://yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (please contribute!)
http:yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_essays
--
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
nevermore
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>http://weaselweek.com/reaping_and_sowing.htm
>
>Reaping and Sowing
>
>by Milt Shook
>
>The political ideology (or "movement," as they laughingly call it)
>that has been labeled "conservative" for the last 30 years or so was
>built largely on lies and deceit, and that is why it's going down, and
>going down hard.
>
<LOL> Actually, it's only Shook himself that's been going down, and
going down hard.
liber...@yahoo.com
Wrong. Forty years ago those "miscreants" were southern democrats. The
National Democratic party sowed the seeds of its own demise by
tolerating those very same miscreants in order to maintain the fiction
of a democratic majority in Congress. Who were in the leadership
positions during the heyday of democratic power? Southerners! Nixon
made them a better offer: the destruction of LBJ's Great Society and a
return to the aristocratic southern society. Remember: LBJ was an
accidental president, without the assassination of Kennedy he would
never have been acceptable as a democratic presidential candidate. Nor
without that assassination could he have gotten his Great Society
legislation passed; it was also true, however, the example of Nazi
Germany weighed heavy on the American conscience, helping to pass that
legislation; the post-war generation of southerners are free to forget
that example. The demographics of the democratic party meant the
presidency was a northern office, Congress would be run by southerners.
liber...@yahoo.com
Like your gruntings have value. Have you ever had a spontaneous useful
thought? Maybe your keyboard is just a basketball to you.
nevermore
You don;t really expect me to discuss anything important with loons
like you or Shook, do you?
Brian Carey
> Can you imagine if Ted Kennedy had been brought
> before the House Ethics Committee multiple times, and if it had even
> been suggested that Kennedy took money and trips from a convicted
> criminal lobbyist?
Can you imagine if Ted Kennedy had killed a woman by driving her off a
bridge and leaving her to drowned?
Oh, wait...
2602 Dead
wrote:
Try to pay attention, little Bri. I didn't write the above.
>
>Oh, wait...
Martin McPhillips
news:ujk7e2d9ompivas4c...@4ax.com...
Nonsense. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was an appeal,
in 1972, to win Democratic voters to his campaign
because of the radical left politics embodied by
George McGovern. That broke the "solid South"
electoral block that Democrats had held since
the post-Reconstruction era.
Nixon obviously wasn't just appealing to the
South, however. He won a 49-state landslide,
which included liberal New York.
But he also won the South after an aggressive
record of bringing about the desegregation of
Southern public schools, which by the prevailing
theory of the "Southern Strategy" as an appeal
to racism should have made Nixon anathema in
the South. Nixon appealed to the conservative
cultural and patriotic values of Southerners,
not to their racism, which they were throwing
off in the wake of the civil rights movement.
> in order to ensure their civil rights,
> and to prevent discrimination. The "Southern Strategy" (a
> phrase
> coined by Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips) used the code
> word "states'
> rights" to secure the Southern states as a stronghold for
> the
> Republican Party.
The big joke here, of course, is that when
the Republicans began to make progress with
Southern voters it was after a century long
"Southern Strategy" by Democratic segregationists,
who were in fact key to the New Deal coalition.
It was the "Southern bloc" of 17 Democratic
Senators (and one Republican) who filibustered
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was passed *only*
with the cooperation of the Senate Republican
minority, which voted in a higher percentage for
the Act than did the Democratic majority.
Many of those Southern segregationist senators
are still Democratic heroes: Sam Irvin, Richard
Russell, Herman Talmadge, William J. Fullbright.
milt....@gmail.com
Of course not. Because you're incapable.
nevermore
<LOL> Shook takes a break from the chatrooms to reply to usenet....
2602 Dead
As you may have surmised, I was impresed with your piece, Milt. Some
of your finest work.
nevermore
<ROTFLMAO> A whole lot of wanna-be writers here...
milt....@gmail.com
Thank you.. there's a lot more coming...
nevermore
"As for me, I'm tired of this BS. I'm going to
finish writing my book."
--Milt Shook 1996/07/28
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.discrimination/msg/753a9d0c7acb5d57?dmode=source
"Keep an eye on your bookstore next Christmas, and my name
will pop out at you."
--Milt Shook 1997/12/06
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=348A1B90.51A97B99%40hearthlink.net
"You mean the one that I'm rewriting for publication right now? Or the
one that two publishing houses are interested in?"
--Milt Shook 1998/06/14
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=35831dc6.12233272%40news.earthlink.net
"Sory I have to leave, but I have a novel to finish. Look in your
bookstore
this Christmas; hopefully, no later than march, if Xmas doesn't work
out."
--Milt Shook 1998/08/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=35e34aca.5878878%40news.earthlink.net
"The working Title is "Talent on Loan, and it's about a fat janitor
who
makes a deal with the devil and becomes a blithering talk show host.
The legal complications keep coming from you-know-who. I'm working
around them, however."
--Milt Shook 1999/08/03
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7o7erc%24v37%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
But make no mistake, Parker; two books with my name on them
will be out shortly.
--Milt Shook 2000-09-09
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=%25UDu5.266%24zC.11426%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"I am very close to publishing my first novel,"
--Milt Shook 2002-11-30
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Fq6cnX4oFuzowXSgXTWcqA%40comcast.com
"I'm rewriting that one for a major publisher as we speak."
--Milt Shook 2004-10-22
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=WpidnQe3YPTmA-TcRVn-vg%40comcast.com&oe=ISO-8859-1
Canyon: Say, when is the new date for your book to be published?
Milt Shook: If they can get the fucking cover right for a change,
July 18.
Jun 14 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e773f8f44066cd9e?hl=en&
<LOL> It's been ten years now and Pencil-neck Shook's book is still
only a fantasy in his own weird little world....
milt....@gmail.com
What I find amazing is that he can't answer one single fact in anything
above, and he thinks I'm bothered by this bullshit.
You have delusions of relevance.
milt....@gmail.com
This from an asshole whose written at least 100,000 words on Usenet,
and hasn't made a point yet.
Irony has never been your strong suit, has it?
nevermore
"I mean, Jesus, you moron; basically what you're arguing is that the
Bill of Rights only protects you from the government. That's insane."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=rOednTyGe5IzVjvd4p2dnA%40comcast.com
"The Bill of Rights only applies to governmental actions."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/954468e64b3172d1?hl=en&
nevermore
Yeah, Milt, I know how much you're bothered by it...
Just like you're bothered by being totally incapable of landing any
feminine companionship unless it's halfway around the world.... and
even then you get rejected....
So when are those two books with your name on them going to be out?
milt....@gmail.com
I just finished editing the galleys on the first one, so a matter of
weeks for that one. The second one, I'm still writing...
Why?
milt....@gmail.com
This from a guy who pretends to be several different people just to
give the illusion he has a life.
nevermore
<LOL> You don;t know what you're talking about, Milt. You were the
one that pretended to be "Matt" when used that name to try to support
something you had said earlier.. ...and you were so stupid you
posted using the same IP address... ....and then tried to claim that
a whole bunch of your neighbors had the same IP address..
****************************************************************************
Canyon asked: "so tell us again about how many different people
"sport" the same IP as you, Milt?"
Milt Shook replied: "Four confirmed. Why?"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/7b5fa5eb0ff119ad?hl=en&
****************************************************************************
You're obviously back in that fantasy world again... the same one
where your books are about to be published, you're about to be married
and where some law firm may send you to law school.
nevermore
<LOL> Milt has been claiming that his "book" has been right on the
verge of being published for nearly a decade now....
"Keep an eye on your bookstore next Christmas, and my name
will pop out at you."
--Milt Shook 1997/12/06
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=348A1B90.51A97B99%40hearthlink.net
>Why?
It's quite entertaining to watch you imagine that you're a writer...