Like many Kossacks, it seemed to me that the Disney/ABC mockumentary flap was just another chess piece being moved on the board as part of the ruthless Republican drive for the election. Let's not forget, whoever wins power has control over the issue of war and peace, and access to the "football," so we are talking major stakes. One of the things that was remarkable about this, however, is that this one piece was basically a $40 million in-kind election gift to the Republican Party. Only, as they are still temporarily in power, the watchdog agencies supposed to protect the public are instead busying themselves with investigating political opponents.
In looking at past elections, however, I think I stumbled across a pattern that will help understand (jump!)
that the old playbook is still in use, and that if you want to anticipate some of the next moves, it is very helpful to look at the role of billionaire televangelist (there's a world-class oxymoron) Pat Robertson.
Let's refresh some memories first. We know that the mockumentary came out of the Disney/ABC corporate production machine, and had a Republican stalwart in a key position. It is even more helpful to remember that Pat Robertson made a bunch of money selling part of his television production companies to Fox (Fox Family), which ended up in the hands of Disney. Here, thanks to Wikipedia, it is real helpful to remember that part of the contract of sale REQUIRED the owner (now Disney) to carry the 700 club (infamous as a launching pad for political gaffes by Robertson--like calling for the assasination of Venezuela's elected leader Hugo Chavez).
It is also helpful to remember that, in the "election" of Bush 41, a race in which Robertson himself was a candidate--almost of the scale of George Wallace as a potential spoiler in an earlier time--one of the key moves in getting Poppy Bush into the Oval Office was that, at convention time, Robertson bowed out (he wasn't going to get enough votes), but found it expedient to throw his delegate support, and public endorsement, over to George H.W. Bush. Naturally, W. Bush was a key political force in that campaign, and that has to be something that W surely would not forget.
So now let's remember another quote from one of W's own campaigns (2004, I think). I.e., the infamous "You don't introduce a new product before September." This being September, it seems a relatively safe assumption that whatever we're seeing this month IS the "new product."
Only thing is, like the GM X-cars of old, it seems like the same old frame, with just cosmetic styling changes on the outside.
My key point here is that the "X-frame" seems remarkably like Pat Robertson's vision of what the theocrat would like to see imposed on the American electorate.
According to the Anti-Pat Robertson website, Preacher Pat is "adamantly opposed to a moderate agenda" politically. He and the Christian Coalition have been hard-line anti-abortionists, and push hard for religious symbols in public places, and prayer in public schools. Not to mention tax dollars to subsidize religious organizations. Guess a billion dollars doesn't go as far as it used to.
Just how hard line Pat can be can be gleaned from his involvement with dictators, getting him riches from a diamond mine in Zaire while grinding poverty abouds in parts of the country, working with dictator Charles Taylor in Liberia, former dictator Jorge Serrano of Guatemala (where Army death squads executed in excess of 2,000), and dictator Frederick Chiluba, ruler of Zambia, which Tele-Pat praised on his 700 club as a good exemplar for the world, as it declared itself "a Christian Nation." (The Anti-Pat Robertson site gives major research credit to original work done by Rob Boston, author of book "The Most Dangerous Man in America," and I want to be sure to do the same).In Pat's opinion, a proper "X-body" for a nation would be a "Christian nation."
Conspiracy theory, you say? Well, let's remember that Tele-Pat said that Israel's Sharon's stroke was God's vengeance for trying to give more land to the Palestenians, and that US-Israel policy in Lebanon was to bomb and invade to prop up a regime that by constitution requires a Marionite Christian to be president. Actions speak louder than words.
How Christian? Well, Pat has had a very public fight with Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists, even saying famously "I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Anti-Christ." Let me repeat that, in slightly different words (for emphasis)--Tele-Pat considers several prominent Christian religions to Not (split infinitive for effect) be Christians. This would come as a rude surprise to Christians seeking to be admitted to Pat's "Christian" theocracy.
Well, you say, Pat's lost a lot of support, etc., according to news reports, so why should that affect this years mid-term elections. Great question.
Let's look at the frame of the X body coming out of the Repub policy machine:
* Stay the course (Pro-war). If you go to the website of United for Peace and Justice, you will see that a good many major religions came out against the war effort before W. went into Iraq, and are currently involved in efforts to STOP the threatened war in Iran. See especially UPJ release on 11-26-2002 for the absolutely eloquent release starting with the words "Religions opposed to War in Iraq." Sufficient for our purposes here is to quote two sentences: "It is a long-held Christian Principle that all governments and citizens are obliged to work for the avoidance of war." Doesn't sound like the anti-Christ to me. It also doesn't look at all like current Repub policy of all war all the time.
* Swiftboat your opponents. Call it the Max Cleland effect, supersliming of John Kerry. Strategy and tactics seem lifted wholesale from the CIA playbook of rigging elections overseas, and if they don't like the result, the constant undertow and sabotage until the Repubs can actually change results to their liking, by any means necessary. The media campaign against LaMont, Clinton (both Bill and Hillary), and others well covered in Daily Kos, are all part of a piece. My only contribution here, IMO, is to merely (did I mention I like to split infinitives just to upset the grammar gestapo?) point out that the Repub strategy seems DESIGNED to deliver the same vision of America that Pat Robertson has. IMO, Tele-Pat's key role in the election campaign of Bush pere still exerts some gravitational pull on Bush (square root of) 43's political strategy. And W is much more serious about political campaigns than, say, reading.
*Storm the legal process, if necessary. Kossacks hardly need to be reminded that John Bolton and other white collar Republi-felons violated campaign law by their white collar "riot" in the Florida elections. If you follow the X-frame analogy, then it seems logical that this is where the next nasty street fight will emerge. IMO, chances are that the Repub lawyers have already worked out a "legal strategy" that would ostensibly justify the Supreme Court dumping its "one time" decision in the Florida 2000 installation of Junior Bush. Skull and Bones wants W. in power, and so does Pat Robertson. They have a vision of America that is entirely different than all of you Anti-Christs.