Yet more insightful insight....

Finally someone from the 'left' talks about our collective dark side..
check it out on Commondreams.org:

Why Bush Hasn’t Been Impeached
by Gary Kamiya
Published on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 by Salon.com

to which the Xthplanet spoke from on high....

"Congratulations Gary, what a great article!!!
Alas, from the many and predictable responses ( A- the angry rejectionist,B- the dreamer …”…but we must keep impeachment alive”, C- I’m moving etc.) I can see I’m in a minority in seeing value in this article’s perspective. I think that the constitutional process requires a commitment to the ‘rational principle’ which should consist in A) accepting the reality of the ‘world we encounter’ while not being trapped in the ‘world we want’ and B) being willing to evaluate our actions and reactions as if we were a third party, like a ‘martian’(see Noam Chomsky). I think this article does both in a timely way. Too many critics of the president are forgetful that he did win a democratic election in which a certain segment of OUR fellow Americans were swayed to vote for him and, as this article so delicately points out, he did, in effect, simply do what many (of OUR fellow) Americans wanted him to, which was enact revenge on…whoever. I think that coming to terms with the darker side of OUR collective ‘Americaness’ is a healthy step towards resolving pickle we’re in (a prez that America disapproves of and no one willing to do anything about it).
I especially like how this article ends. It reminds me of what I’ve felt is Achilles heal of the whole wonderful Rovian universe which I call the McCarthy moment when Joseph Welch shamed Senator Joe on live TV to raucous applause. It’s clear to me that the ’spectacle’ of such an event can steer the ship of our public debate but that it is better for us all to revive the rational principle upon which OUR amazing nation was founded."

Sentiments worth reading

-According to the Xthplanet....

FROM COMMON DREAMS:

Conservatism is Dead. Long Live Fictional Conservatism!
--xthplanet says-I’m in agreement with kivals(above) especially in divining the force which drives the right. I think there is a general effort by the right to hide that force out of an accurate sense that the public would not support them if they saw them in the way the right sees themselves. Defining this force should be a central effort of those who wish the public to vote another way.

or this gem--

Bush Team Is Adept Only at Bungling

by Andrew Greeley

Published on Friday, March 30, 2007 by The Chicago Sun Times

to which xthplanet replied:

I think the article is right on in its story of a lack of serious minded ‘deliverers’ of policy but the ‘frame’ is not useful for distinguishing the heart of ‘Bushism’. ‘Incompetence’ has a useful meaning only in relation to the expectation of ‘competence’ or, more bluntly, the expectation that someone who ‘cares’ and is more loyal to the ‘nation’ and its Constitutional ‘ideals’ than to the image of their boss is in each top job posting in the Executive. The belief that this is the case is supposedly strengthened by the reality that each of the Cabinet positions is confirmed by a supposedly deliberative process in the Senate and those ‘deliberators’ are each accountable to their electorates.
The middle point between this article and the points listed above is to realize that being competent in the job in the sense that most liberals, let alone Americans expect, is not the goal. In the most loving way possible and without rancor I wish more of those who disagree with the Bush administration would just notice that it CANNOT help people who are not their patrons. I mean this in the most objective and observational way I can muster. It’s the style of government that ‘they’ practice. It is a government of special interest. A natural consequence of power unconstrained. Those who disagree with this administration only undermine the impact of their own message when they get upset, emotional, surprised, etc. at the policies, actions or rhetoric of the ‘Bushies’. By this point (6.5yrs) it should be non-controversially evident that: ‘they’ exhibit a type of pettiness (or lack of concern for the value of actual (non-fetal or brain dead) human life which arises from the style governing ‘they’ practice which precludes ‘them’ from enacting any action which helps ‘non-patrons’ i.e. the general public. Helping America see this should be a central goal of progressive rhetoric. The world of Karl seems to be divided into those who paid (contributed to the ’cause’) and those who didn’t.
By being angry, surprised, etc. we hide this basic reality from the third party public. We also fool ourselves because their seemingly endless ability to cause pain for others should be an obvious end point of the style of governing they practice.