by Gus diZerega, Ph.D

During his debate with Al Gore, George W. Bush took credit for a patient's bill of rights law passed in Texas during his governorship. To be sure, in 1995 Texas passed such a law. But Governor Bush vetoed it. In 1997 the Texas legislature passed an even stronger bill by a veto-proof margin. Bush couldn't veto it without its being overridden. So he attacked the bill, saying "I am concerned that this legislation has the potential to drive up health care costs and increase the number of lawsuits" and refused to sign it. The bill automatically became law without his signature.

At no point did George Bush support any patients' bill of rights law that passed the legislature. Bush lied.

Bush was not reading from a prepared speech. He did not rely on research done by others. There was no compelling reason for him to bring the matter up. Further, he knew he had opposed the bill, and yet wanted American voters to believe he had supported it.

He must have been proud of his lie. During his campaign for President, Bush's website claimed "Under Governor Bush, Texas enacted some of the most comprehensive patient protection laws in the nation." And "While Washington was deadlocked, he passed a patients' bill of rights" (Conason, Big Lies, p. 44, NYT 3/20/00, p. A.16) No he didn't. He committed deliberate fraud on the American people.

It was one of many frauds. In August, 2003, when the Northeast and parts of Canada had a major power black out. Bush took the opportunity to say: "We'll have time to look at it and determine whether or not our grid needs to be modernized. I happen to think it does, and have said so all along." (8/14/03) Another lie. In 2001 Bush opposed legislation providing loans of $350 million to modernize our power grid. Bush's Republicans voted three times on the measure, and each time they defeated it on a party line vote. Sitting in the White House, with unparalleled access to the media, Bush could have spoken in its favor, but did not. That the vote defeating this legislation was along party lines indicates where his real views lay. Bush did nothing to urge passage, nor did he disagree when Tom DeLay termed the measure "pure demagoguery."

The trained gibbons masquerading as news reporters in this country missed this lie as well.

Claiming to be the "education president," while debating Gore Bush declared "Every single child in American must be educated, I mean every child. . . . There's nothing more prejudiced than not educating a child." During 2001 his "No Child Left Behind Act" was passed, creating a powerful federal presence in education throughout the country. Once the media departed, Bush started leaving children behind big time.

Today states teetering on bankruptcy are held responsible for federally mandated testing and administration, without receiving federal money to cover those mandates. In New Hampshire, a conservative state, the School Administrator's Association claims federal programs added a cost of about $575 per student, while adding funding of $77 per student. Democrats like Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Rep. George Miller of California say they supported the president on his assurances that the government would give states enough money to comply with it. Bush then asked for $12 billion to continue that financing in 2004, $6 billion less than the legislation authorizes.

The New York Times reports Rep. Miller said: "We raised this in the Oval Office, we raised this in our meetings with the president," Miller added "He assured us that the funds would be there if the reforms were there. This is calculated conservatism, and they calculate just as much as they can get away with. You can dress it all up, but at the end of the day he broke his promise. It's not much more complicated than that." Bush lied about his concern for educating children. There would be more money available for actually educating children if Bush's law had never been passed.

After the US toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, he promised the new leaders that Afghanistan would receive a "Marshall Plan" to rebuild that forlorn country. The original Marshall Plan was devised by President Truman, General George Marshall, and a bipartisan congress to rebuild Western Europe, saving it from communism. It was very successful.

Bush's 2004 budget allocated Afghanistan zero dollars for rebuilding. An embarrassed congress added some $300 million. A relative pittance for a place like Afghanistan. Meanwhile the US continues to support Afghan warlords, undermining any chance Afghanistan has for creating unity and peace. Bush's promise to Afghanistan was worth less than the time it took him to make it. Now, as conditions markedly deteriorate, Congress is moving towards substantially increasing our aid to Afghanistan, lest it once again sink into anti-American chaos. But when asked by the media, Bush and his courtiers repeat that everything is going according to plan. Another lie.

We have all heard a great deal about Bush's 2003 State of the Union message, and his false statements about Iraq's supposed attempts to buy yellowcake uranium from Nigeria. The media first discussed this issue in isolation from his other lies. Mostly they still do, although at least they are now beginning to notice his many other lies regarding Iraq.

For example, on September 7, 2002, Bush told reporters "I would remind you that when the inspectors went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied, access, a report came out of the Atomic - IAEA - that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."( Wash. Post., 10/22/2002, p. A01) This report never existed. The IAEA did once report that Iraq was between six and twenty-four months away from a bomb before the Gulf War. The war and subsequent inspections, of course, utterly destroyed these facilities.

Bush also referred to an agency report revealing satellite photos exposing new construction at several nuclear related sites. A few weeks later the IAEA said there was no such report on that issue, either.

One month later, on October 7, Bush warned us "we have discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet" of unmanned aircraft able to target the United States. Within a month the CIA reported what should have been obvious: Hussein's aircraft were potentially a "serious threat to Iraq's neighbors and to international military forces in the region." There was no way they could reach the US. The White House then suggested they could be launched from ships or trucks against us. But Iraq had no navy and there is no highway access to the US, as a quick look at any world map would show.

THERE IS NO END to Bush's dishonesty on this matter. Until recently, the White House web site headlined the speech Bush gave on May 1 on the USS Abraham Lincoln off the coast of San Diego, as "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." Now it says "President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." A small thing, perhaps, but symbolic of the utter lack of integrity in the man.

See:
Report on spinsanity.org

Perhaps Bush's biggest lie of all regarding Iraq was his repeated claim that we needed to attack to prevent an Iraqi based or inspired attack on ourselves. In October of 2002, Bush told us Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. . . We know the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX gas." Many Americans were convinced that our country was in danger and ignorantly attacked any fellow citizens who disagreed as disloyal. The man who campaigned as a "uniter not a divider" divided the country deeply on the basis of his lies, as he still does.

(For now the definitive discussion of Bush's falsehoods over Iraq is this report by the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39500-2003Aug9.html For a good and careful listing of many [hardly all] of the lies Bush has told the American people, see http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#GWBush)

After 9/11, we were almost unanimous as a people. We overwhelmingly supported ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan. The civilized world stood united behind us, a moment almost unknown in world history. The breakdown of our cohesion was not due to lack of patriotism by Democrats but the misuse of calls for patriotism by George Bush. The same is true for the breakdown in international trust.

As a click on our George Bush Card site, and investigation of the links there reveals, George Bush has accumulated a record of lying to the American people that probably surpasses the combined lies of any two or three earlier Presidents. Maybe all of them combined. The basic reason is simple, and goes beyond Bush's own personal psychopathology.

Usually Presidents try and sell their programs to the people. Bush knows his real programs would be unpopular if they were understood. He therefore tries to slip them by under false pretenses, and often succeeds. Proof of my claim is that the proposals stray the same while the reasons shift all over the place. Such was the case with drilling in the Alaska national Wildlife refuge, the tax cut, and attacking Iraq. After 9-11 Bush added the rhetoric of "national security" to his reasons why we should do what he demanded. National security is a real enough problem, one he handled incompetently even before 9-11. After that atrocity, Bush appropriated our anger and grief to stampede us into pursuing the narrowest partisan purposes.

We Americans take great pride in our being cynical about politicians. Believing in our own worldly wisdom, we fall victim to a politician who lies differently from others. Clinton lied about his sexual life. Most politicians exaggerate the promises they make and their opponent's failings. They also speak vaguely, trying to make everyone happy. These are the kinds of lies and evasions that are typical of democratic politics. They won't go away.

George Bush's major lies are different. He lies to give us the impression he is doing the opposite of what he is in fact doing, or to get us to support him for false reasons because he could not think of a truthful reason convincing to us. This lying is new, and corrosive to public trust. A politics of perpetual lies makes it impossible for us to think clearly about issues. Up is down and black is red. As a people, we are unprepared for manipulative cynicism on this scale.

Manipulation
Fun is often made of Bush's famous inability to speak English coherently. His lies are often explained away as only his inability to make himself clear. But Bush's prepared remarks are written in advance, and often carefully designed to give the American people one impression while never actually saying it. He then has cover. Bush's speech writers have perfected the tactic of deceptive terminology far beyond Clinton's wondering what "is" means.

Quickly read the following excerpt from a speech Bush gave to some American veterans, as if you were hearing it only once, in the context of longer remarks:

"Having fought under the American flag and seen it folded and given to families of your friends, you are committed, as am I, to protecting the dignity of the flag and the Constitution of the United States."

It SOUNDS like Bush is saying he fought under the flag rather than going AWOL from his safe National Guard position. But that is not what he literally says: that he shares the same patriotic sentiments as those who "fought under the American flag." So he is covered - except that no one speaks that way. The odd terminology in the context of a speech gives his audience a different, and false, message.

On domesdtic issues Bush is as deceptive. For example, after attention was called to his lying about a non-existent report by respected economists that he cited in defense of his tax cuts, rather than back down, he continued to repeat his assertion in a slightly less specific way that nonetheless implies to the casual listener that the Blue Chip is basing its analysis on the passage of a bill similar to his. (http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_03_02_archive.html#90397728)

Another example was Bush's reference to the British Government's report as backing up his claims about Iraq and Saddam's alleged attempts to build atomic weapons. When it became clear that the evidence did not exist, Condoleeza Rice said in defense: "The statement that (Bush) made was indeed accurate. The British government did say that." Bush was only telling us what the British said, he never intended to suggest that was what he said. Subsequent events destroyed this contemptible attempt to justify lying to us through tricky wording. (http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe232-20030803-02.html)

Bush misleads in this fashion over and over again. For example, regarding Hussein's supposed relationship with bin Laden, the "liberal" New York Times wrote on August 26, 2003, "Mr. Bush has never accused Iraq under Saddam Hussein of a direct role in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. " Yet somehow the majority of Americans ended up thinking exactly that.

A quick look at some of Bush's statements demonstrate the subtle deceptions in his words, and explain why the majority of Americans were misled.

• "The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive." 9/25/2002
• "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." 10/7/2002
• "We need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind," 10/14/02
• "This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks." 10/31/02
• "We know he's got ties with al Qaeda." 11/1/02
• "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." 1/28/03

For these and more see: http://www.lunaville.org/WMD/ALQ_uggab.aspx

As "underwhelm" observed in a blog discussion of Bush's dishonesty:

"It's an almost reckless act to listen first hand to the man speak because so many of his lies are packed between the words and you may come away thinking exactly what he intends for you to think without him ever having to say those things explicitly." (underwhelm; 08.26.03 - 10:54 pm; on http://atrios.blogspot.com)

Many patriotic Americans believe we must trust Bush because he is our President. They do not want to listen to the man in the Oval Office with the same skepticism they would when listening to a used car salesman. It is these trusting American men and women whom George Bush has most deeply betrayed. Also betraying them are the over-paid bozos and bimbos pulling in millions while telling us, as did Sean Hannity's after 9-11: "Thank God, we have an honest man in the White House!"

A viable democracy requires informed citizens. Most citizens have neither time nor interest to stay on top of the news, but enough do so that broad popular values tend to be represented in government policies, at least on the most visible issues. (That is why visibility and publicity is so important.) But when discovering what is happening becomes difficult even for citizens interested in politics, this process breaks down. Perpetual lying by those in office strikes at the heart of American democracy.

But perpetual lying is not George Bush's only blow against political freedom.

Secrecy and Intrusion
At the same time Bush is lying to us, he is leading an unprecedented effort to increase government secrecy while opening up the private actions of every citizen to the prying eyes of federal officials.

With his support, Dick Cheney has stonewalled a Government Accounting Office investigation into the devising of his energy plan. The GAO cannot even learn how much tax money was spent in Cheney's operation. That's our money. Cheney's secrecy only makes sense if he has something to hide. If he was meeting primarily with Enron and other companies to craft a plan to their benefit. The content of his energy plan suggests this was exactly what he was doing.
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/26/politics/main570137.shtml)

After he took office, Bush appointee John Ashcroft instructed federal agencies that the Justice Department would look favorably on efforts to withhold information by federal agencies. Bush himself sealed Ronald Reagan's presidential records even though federal law allowed for their being made available. This safeguarded Cheney and Bush, sr.'s records during the Contra Scandals from any oversight by historians. He did the same for his records as governor of Texas, unlike earlier Texas governors.

Bush has continued with a number of increases in secrecy, each small, but when taken as a whole, substantial. Mark Tapscott of the Conservative Heritage Foundation wrote "Why does the White House sometimes seem so determined to close the door on the people's right to know what their government is doing?"

In a report on the growing secrecy in the Bush administration, George Washington University's National Security Archive observed "The practice of implementing small changes all tending towards secrecy, instead of taking dramatic steps to restrain access, makes it much harder to evaluate the impact and, indeed, to fight the changes. It is, undoubtedly, more difficult to garner public support for opposition to minor changes when more pressing issues, like an impending war, are competing for public attention.
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB84/)

Secrecy comes in many small steps, leaving us increasingly ignorant of what our supposed officials are doing. Our place is to be quiet, ignorant, and obedient - patriotism, Bush style.

For Bush, secrecy is a one way street. Citizens have no such rights. The so-called "Patriot" act, the proposed "Victory" act, and the "Total Information Awareness" project all promised to give Bush and his officials almost complete knowledge over the activities of any citizen that comes to their attention. And to have it secretly. All this snooping is supposedly to fight terrorism, but as has been demonstrated, the government already had the information they needed to prevent 9-11. What they did not have was the competence. There is no need for such an intrusion into our affairs.

And who should Bush put in charge of the government's efforts to know everything about us but Admiral John Poindexter, a man who lied under oath and in uniform. He avoided prison on a technicality. Interestingly, among Poindexter's crimes was destroying government records. Poindexter likes secrecy too, so long as it is in his favor.

In a nation of 280 million citizens and tens of thousands of loyal officers, Bush could find no one more in keeping with his values to oversee the government's ability to investigate every American's private life than a man who dishonored himself, his country and his uniform. Quite a message to send the American people. Rather the opposite from the lie he told us during his campaign: "I'll bring in a group of men and women who are focused on what's best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will see service to our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house." (1/15/00)

By encouraging perpetual fear among us, Bush creates an environment where we are afraid to question him because he claims to be all that stands between us and destruction. By demonizing everyone who disagrees with him as disloyal, his henchmen imply again that the safety of the nation depends on our agreeing with George Bush.

Why The Lies? Crony Capitalists
Part of the explanation for this unprecedented dishonesty rests on George Bush's character, or rather lack of it. But this is not all of the explanation, nor is it the most important part of it.

Underneath George Bush's earnest visage lies a blind allegiance to two powerful forces, both deeply aware they are not supported by most Americans. One of these groups we and others call the "crony capitalists." Pretend businessmen who speak the language of free enterprise while never turning down an opportunity to profit at the expense of taxpayers, share holders, or employees. American capitalism is not supposed to be a zero sum game, but where crony capitalists dominate, it has become one. They are parasites on our creative spirit, and like all successful parasites, they have taken on the coloration of their host, even as they drain its vitality.

The most egregious example is Halliburton, which continues to pay Cheney while he holds office, even though his contract did not require it. Once this would have been called conflict of interest, but that was before Bush brought "decency" into the White House. Halliburton has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion out of Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, according to newly available documents. Other companies were not allowed to bid. These contracts were "cost plus" meaning Halliburton cannot lose money. Free enterprise, Bush style.

Due to unfavorable publicity when this favoritism first came to light, the Army Corps of Engineers explained that the sole award to Halliburton subsidiary Brown and Root would be replaced by a competitively bid contract. But the Washington Post reported "the deadline for announcing the results of the competition has slipped from August to October, causing rival companies to complain that little work will be left for anybody else. Bechtel, one of Halliburton's main competitors, announced this month that it would not bid for the corps contract and would instead focus on securing work from the Iraqi oil ministry."
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56429-2003Aug27.html)

Bechtel also has benefited from crony capitalism, but doesn't have a recent CEO still on the pay roll sitting in the Vice President's office. American big business is less and less a matter of success in the market place, and more and more a matter of corruption and favoritism.

How bad is this? A recent blog out of Iraq helps us see how capitalism Bush style puts the lie to all the "free market" types who still say he's on their side:

"Listen to this little anecdote. One of my cousins works in a prominent engineering company in Baghdad- we'll call the company H. This company is well-known for designing and building bridges all over Iraq. My cousin, a structural engineer, is a bridge freak. He spends hours talking about pillars and trusses and steel structures to anyone who'll listen.

"As May was drawing to a close, his manager told him that someone from the CPA [Coalition Provisional Authority] wanted the company to estimate the building costs of replacing the New Diyala Bridge on the South East end of Baghdad. He got his team together, they went out and assessed the damage, decided it wasn't too extensive, but it would be costly. They did the necessary tests and analyses (mumblings about soil composition and water depth, expansion joints and girders) and came up with a number they tentatively put forward- $300,000. This included new plans and designs, raw materials (quite cheap in Iraq), labor, contractors, travel expenses, etc. . . .

"A week later, the New Diyala Bridge contract was given to an American company. This particular company estimated the cost of rebuilding the bridge would be around- brace yourselves- $50,000,000 !!"
(riverbendblog.blogspot.com; 1 August 2003)

No wonder Bremer is running out of money and asking for more funding by American taxpayers. But getting rich off taxpayers is nothing new to George Bush, who relied on eminent domain to force people to sell their homes so he could build a tax subsidized baseball stadium. This was the first time in Texas history that a city used eminent domain to enrich one group of private citizens at the expense of another.

Bush's personal business practices set the moral tone that is followed by so many in his administration, and among his crony capitalist allies. For example, the corporate scandals of 2000 where CEO's and crooked accountants were ripping off shareholders were in perfect harmony with Bush's actions while on Harken's board of directors. The SEC has refused to release its reports on Bush's insider trading, saying it needs his permission, which it will never get. ( See for example, Joe Conason, Big Lies, pp. 146-170) Cheney's work at Halliburton seems to have sunk to a similar ethical depth, with the same slick accounting practices that deceived Enron's employees and share holders. With rot like this at the top, we should not be surprised it has spread so far through our society.

Why the Lies? The Religious Right
The other key element in this un-American Coalition of the Corrupt is the so-called Christian Right. Most Americans have religious faith. So does this author. But for most of us our faith is personal, and we do not seek to impose it on others. We do not seek to seize political power to further our religious views.

To the extent they are sincere and not just cynical manipulators, the radicals in the Christian Right have forgotten the long history of suffering and violence that inevitably comes when church and state come together. America consistently ranks as the most religious modern nation. It also has the longest history of separation of church and state. These two traits are connected. Nothing breeds disillusion over religion faster than corrupt preachers enjoying the privileges of power and wealth.

Because the Christian Right is aware that most of us share neither their values nor their goals, they operate through stealth. Because they regard their opponents as Satanic, any attack, any slander, is permitted so long as it furthers their cause. For Pat Robertson the Satanic forces he battles include even "Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists." Small wonder that Ralph Reed, one of the politically most astute Christian Rightists, compares his methods to guerilla war, praising deception and deceit: "I want to be invisible. I do guerilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag." (http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~dionisio/queer/Origins/reed.html)

This paragon of Christian virtue argues "The first strategy and in many ways the most important strategy for evangelicals is secrecy. Sun Tzu says that's what you have to do to be effective at war and that's essentially what we're involved in, we're involved in a war. It's not a war fought with bullets, it's a war fought with ballots."(Joseph L. Conn, "Judgment Day," Church and State, September, 1996)

And in war, unlike politics, the target is the destruction of your opponent. There is no loyal opposition."

The man most responsible for the rise of genuine conservatism in the Republican Party, Barry Goldwater, put it about right: "I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson, and all the rest of the political preachers. They are a detriment to the country." (Barry Goldwater, The Advocate)

Goldwater, unlike Robertson, Falwell, DeLay or Bush, spoke in the finest tradition of American Constitutionalism. We would do well to remember James Madison's wise words on the subject, for they are as true today as they were when he wrote them:

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

And:

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821)

These two groups, the crony capitalists and the Religious Right, are now the dominant factions in the Republican Party. They control positions of leadership through stealth, manipulation, discipline, and money. True conservatives and adherents to limited government and fiscal responsibility are silenced, bullied into submission by the claims that they need to support these liars and thieves to defeat the "liberals". Under the leadership, partly symbolic and partly real, of George W. Bush, they have hijacked the Republican Party's institutions, creating a unique blend of great wealth, great ferocity and smug self-righteousness. Using the trust many Americans had in the Republican Party, they rode it to power. Never has an American government spoken so much of compassion and morality and practiced it so little.

And Neo-Cons Make Three
The Radical Right's Coalition of the Corrupt is allied with a third group, now called "neo-conservatives."

Like the others, there is nothing particularly conservative about them. They also repudiate the basic principles of the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers, and, infatuated by our military power, would replace the timeless principles of the Declaration of Independence with the dream of American hegemony over all the peoples of the earth. Bill Kristol and others fantasize about all the good that can come from a "benign hegemony" of the Americans over everyone else. In the name of freedom they take our country along a road that undermines freedom here while failing to establish it abroad.

We have had a taste of this already, for opposition to American hegemony is described as lack of patriotism, even though the principles our country was founded on denied the right of hegemony to anyone. There is little that can be more alien to our founding principles and constitution that equating the country with the government, and the government with a leader. That fallacy is what we fought a revolution over in 1776.

Among the men who lust after the ring of power are Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Elliott Abrams, and Richard Perle. Because they want us to rule over others, they have made a convenient alliance with the crony capitalists, who wish to rule over our pocket books, and the religious Right, which wishes to rule over our souls. Together, they have divvied us up as a people, ready to be plucked, basted, and roasted.

Assault on democracy
Polls and focus groups continually tell these people that most Americans disagree with their real aims. Because democracy thrives on robust public debate which explores competing ideas and values, and exposes crooked and corrupt leaders, this presents a problam. Their solution is of unusual cynicism: to deliberately destroy reasonable political discussion in this country, turning every issue into a battle of "good" versus "evil" and then claim the mantle of "good".

For example, Republican strategist Newt Gingrich's campaign committee, GOPAC, published a handbook for Republican candidates. One section was titled "Language, a Key Mechanism of Control." Please note his use of the term "control." Gingrich recommended that Democrats always be described in words such as anti-flag, anti-family, anti-child, bizarre, cheat, coercion, corrupt, decay, destructive, devour, hypocrisy, intolerant, liberal, lie, pathetic, selfish, sick, they and them, and even traitors. Such people are not to be reasoned with, they are to be crushed. When there was a loud protest, Gingrich later withdrew the "traitors" term. It is a sign of the continuing degeneration of political debate that DeLay and other Radical Right draft dodgers have shown no such hesitations.

For Republicans, Gingrich urged continual association with words such as care(ing), children, choice/choose, citizen, commitment, common sense, courage, crusade, dream, family, freedom, liberty, moral, peace, pro- (issue): flag, children, environment, reform, strength, success, tough, truth, vision, we/us/our. Dichotomize, then seize the good words, and people find it difficult to think clearly about what you are saying.

See:
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~breslin/texts/gingrich_GOPAC.html

In a guideline written for Republican members of Congress, Frank Lutz, Republican pollster and tactician, writes "Women consistently respond to the phrase 'for the children' regardless of the context.

From balancing the budget to welfare reform, 'for the children' scores highest of all arguments offered. Therefore, rather than creating a 'Compassion Agenda,' Republicans need to create a communication framework that involves children . . . ." (Deborah Tannen, Let Them Eat Words, American Prospect, Sept. 2003) It is no accident that Bush referred to children 11 times in a speech on tax cuts and in a speech on "faith based initiatives" -- the count was up to 35. (http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=11134)

People who fall for this ruse are easily manipulated into thinking Bush and the radical Rights share values similar to theirs. For example, Bush says "I am a fiscal conservative and a family conservative. And I am a compassionate conservative, because I know my philosophy is optimistic and full of hope for every American."

Bush's fiscal conservatism has led to lop sided tax cuts for the wealthy and incredible deficits that our children will be paying off for decades to come. Under Clinton our average deficit was 4.4%. Under Bush it is 21% and rising with each new estimate by the Congressional Budget Office.

Bush's family oriented conservatism has certainly been demonstrated for wealthy families. But for many of the rest of us, Bush has undermined family leave, overtime, the 40 hour week, and family protection pay for soldiers - the kinds of measures that matter for most families, but are irrelevant for the wealthy.

Compassionate conservative? Give us a break. The rate of poverty is rising for the first time in a decade, Bush raised the number of hours mothers on public assistance need to work a week, without increasing payments for child care, tightened the earned income tax credit for the working poor - a measure initiated by Reagan and supported by Clinton, and I have already described what Bush did for his "No Child Left Behind" ruse.

As governor of Texas Bush deprived 200,000 children from poor working families subsidized health insurance, while simultaneously giving $2 billion in tax cuts to the Texas rich and another $45 million in tax breaks to oil interests. Texas was left with the highest number of uninsured low income children in the United States.

For more on the utter meaninglessness of Bush's talk about "compassion" see http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/26/politics/26MEMO.html?hp

Radical Right sympathizers in the media have picked up this vocabulary of deceit, continually assaulting those they oppose as moral degenerates, cowards, traitors, and the like. Avoiding ever dealing with competing ideas and arguments, they wrap themselves in claims of virtue and patriotism, claims that evaporate in the light of clear thinking. Check out the manipulators and hypocrites in our Hearts suit to see how.

But all this falls on deaf ears if you accept the Radical right demonizing of those with whom they disagree. The key to understanding the dishonesty and ruthlessness of the Radical Right is freeing ourselves from seeing every issue and struggle in either/or terms. Bush's "with us or against us" approach to politics is the ethic of the bully, concerned with no one but himself. One either uncritically loves America and equates it with George Bush, or one hates it. Either one is moral or immoral. Either one is responsible, or irresponsible. As soon as we accept these dichotomies, our capacity to think for ourselves is undermined. As soon as we accept this extremist thinking, manipulative people can wrap themselves in the language of the good side, and attack their opponents as allied with the bad. People who fall for this approach are reduced to thinking in slogans.

Conclusion
Bit by bit, the Radical Right is destroying the possibilities for political discussion among well meaning citizens. They lie, manipulate, and debase the meanings of words, and attack, attack, attack all who question them. "Liberals" are now described by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Tom DeLay and other radicals in terms close to how Nazis described Jews. Other times liberals are equated with communists, even though it was liberals who created NATO laying the foundations for winning the Cold War without a major conflict and the millions of lives it would have cost. You are probably alive today because of a foreign policy based on containment, designed by Democrats and accepted by Republicans for decades. Far more major Democratic leaders in the government have served in the military than is true for the Radical Right. They walk their talk at least some of the time, the Radical Right just talks and talks, and seeks power.

Radical Rightists are systematically undermining the most important principle that makes democracy workable: that opposition can be loyal and legitimate. Mainstream TV now broadcasts threats and slander from the likes of Coulter, Horowitz, and O'Reilly that would never have been heard 20 years ago. Once people believe their neighbors are disloyal and illegitimate, it is easy to approve, or at least not oppose, violence against them. At the rate the Radical Right is escalating its rhetoric and tactics, that point is not far away. The leaders will have clean hands, but their tactics will have pushed their most extreme supporters to violence against other Americans. Their hands will be clean, but their souls will be filthy.

The message of this site and these cards is that the Radical Right's assault on America is rooted in lies, hypocrisy, and greed. It attacks all who disagree as morally reprehensible, to avoid having to deal with their ideas. But just as Ann Coulter's Slander is more self-description than analysis of her opponents, in moral degeneration and hypocrisy, the leaders of the radical Right are far worse offenders than most they attack. Our site prove it.

Radical Right political, moral, and media leaders wrap themselves in the flag of patriotism, but it is those they attack who far more often wore their country's uniform in time of war. The Radical right gives patriotism a dirty name. They besmirch the heritage of all of us.

Radical Right political, moral, and media leaders preach democracy abroad, and kill in its name, while undermining it at home.

Radical Right political, moral, and media leaders piously proclaim their "Christianity," but their hypocrisy and dishonesty stink to the heavens. They preach the virtues of private charity, but in practice mostly enrich themselves, usually at the expense of others.

Radical Right political, moral, and media leaders claim devotion to the "free market," while using government and legal privilege to stuff their pockets at taxpayer and share holder expense.

Radical Right political, moral, and media leaders use ideas not to seek truth or the common good, but as weapons of deceit and division, tools to win power and wealth.

Let's let one of the most prominent spokespeople for the Radical Right have the last word, though we think he will not enjoy it in this new context. Bill Bennett wrote in The Wall Street Journal on October 11, 2000: "If the Clinton years have taught us anything, it is that character matters in a president. . . . As the public considers for whom it will vote on Nov. 7, it should recall the old adage: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."