The conspiracy behind Bush |

The conspiracy behind Bush

Matt Zalaznick

W. bamboozled me! He is such an awful president, such an intellectual guppy, such a cultural caveman, he had me convinced that John McCain, that outlaw turned party hack, might not be such a bad commander in chief. W. is such a failure, he almost tricked me into thinking I might vote for a Republican should the Democrats pick a candidate as lame as John Kerry in 2008 – or Hillary.This political black magic must be Karl Rove’s true genius. Get such a bozo elected – twice, even – that in the following election, any old right-winger looks good to at least a slim majority of Americans. Rover’s electoral hedge was this: As long as voters – even registered Republicans – are thinking, “Thank God it’s not W.,” they’ll vote for anybody. Except Bill Frist. They might even vote for Jeb, thinking little brother can’t be as bad as the first two Bushes. They might even elect a black woman (over a white woman) and give Rover and the Republican Party the PR-triumph of the century. Oh, the machinations!Any Republican alternative to Bush might even energize the GOP. Red-staters will have an opportunity to replace the partisan devil they know with a partisan devil who’s not as glaringly incompetent.Or maybe Rover will find somebody just slightly less repugnant than W. – someone who won’t bungle an entire war but maybe just screw up a raid on an Iranian nuclear facility; someone who won’t dawdle while Americans are drowning in the wake of a hurricane but only send too few national guardsmen to help Californians recover from a moderate earthquake. Then, by 2016, even if Rover’s been indicted and disgraced, there’ll be no more liberals left on the Supreme Court – unless zombie John Paul Stevens refuses to give up his seat. John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas will still be teeny boppers by court standards. Do I sound paranoid? Well, I’ve never believed weapons of mass destruction or al-Qaida links were the reason W. and the Quaqmire Kids invaded Iraq. Oil was a reason, but I think Rover, knowing the left would oppose the war, also wanted to make us look unpatriotic ahead of W.’s bid for re-election in ’04. War didn’t quite stimulate the economy this time around – or unify the nation – but it was a bonanza for the anti-liberal rhetoric industry. Why else would all that drivel come from the frothing O’Reilly-ites about how inappropriate it was to criticize the commander-in-chief during war time? The unspoken, more sinister message was this: It’s unpatriotic to vote against the commander-in-chief during wartime. The war didn’t do much for the Iraqi people, but it created a bull market for Americans eager to accuse critics of W. and the war of hating the USA. And now the hideous gay-marriage ban is back – just in time to distract Americans from revelations of alleged atrocities committed by our troops in Iraq. Ah-hah! In an attempt to prevent Americans from realizing the truth of this misbegotten war – that, in the Middle East, we’re not setting a good example of liberty and justice for all – Rover’s got W. chipping away at freedom at home. What a clever smokescreen. Those who find gay marriage detestable will have less energy to detest what happened in Haditha. They may even be hoodwinked into believing there’s nothing to detest. Not when activist (or insurgent) judges are threatening the fabric of the American family. War is hell, right? So there’s no time to worry about crimes against Iraqi families when American families have so much to worry about. While bombs may not have demolished the house next door, what if a gay family wants to move in? And those of us rightfully outraged by the crimes in Iraq may have to turn our attention to a real threat – government-sponsored discrimination – that’s a lot closer to home. Either way, Rover keeps our minds off all the missions that haven’t been accomplished in Iraq. City Editor Matt Zalaznick can be reached at 748-2926, or Read his blog at, Colorado

Support Local Journalism