A Republican with A Conscience—What A Concept!

So Scott McClellan has a conscience. What a concept—a member of the take-no-prisoners-Republican party has a conscience. It would be refreshing if it wasn’t so pathetic.

McClellan is a Texan. He knew George W. Bush. I don’t buy that “out of the loop,” “I was a poor innocent,” pap. That’s as believable as George Bush, Sr.’s claim he was out of the loop on Iran-Contra, or Ronald Reagan playing dumb on the same scandal.

Why do the majority of the American people believe these scoundrels? Or if they don’t, why do they let them get away with it? Why was getting to the “truth” so important to the GOP when the priapic Bill Clinton engaged in an assignation with an intern that resulted in no harm to anyone else, while Bush’s lies which have brought about the deaths of over 4000 American troops, not to mention thousands of Iraqis, have been unquestioned? Where has their pursuit of truth been?

Some have said that McClellan is to be lauded for showing some human conscience, even at this late date; he could have made much more money on the lecture circuit than publishing a book. Obviously, now he can publish a book, clear his reputation especially since, prompted by a petition drive on Moveon.org he is now giving part of the proceeds to the families of those killed in Iraq, AND still grow rich from a tour on the lecture circuit. His former friends are expressing outrage over his betrayal of their administration but none of them are screaming about the betrayal of the American people.

George W. Bush frightened me long before he set foot in the White House; long before, in fact, he ran for the White House. When he cheerily stated he never lost any sleep over the people he sent to be executed, his lack of doubt was alarming. Scarier than his vaunted clean conscience was his plain inhumanity. What if he’d made a mistake? What if one over-zealous prosecutor pushed too far; what if one hanging-judge was too willing to disregard exculpatory evidence? Who cares? So what if Texas has become the charnel house of the United States and of the industrialized world? He looked tough and that was all that mattered.

When 9-11 changed the course of American history, his demeanor set all my alarms ringing. He likes this, I thought to myself; now he has the perfect excuse to impose his agenda on this country. He has surrounded himself with the conniving Cheney and a collection of sycophants while punishing anyone who opposed him. Bush has a mean streak that will not stop at mere denunciation. Given W’s nasty habit of destroying those who cross him—just ask Valerie Plame—McClellan should watch his back.

Who can forget the debate when he was asked to name a mistake he might have made and could not think of a single one? Or his obfuscation of his so-called military service? Or his lies about his drunk-driving arrests, and cocaine use before he became president? Now we’re told that he privately weeps over the Americans killed in Iraq. Give me a break! How stupid do they think we are?

Much has been made of Bush and Cheney’s determination to restore powers to the president that had been lost since Nixon’s failure. But no one party keeps the presidency forever: The GOP must know that eventually a Democratic president will come to power and all those imperial powers will then be at the fingertips of that Democrat, unless there is something off-stage that we do not see. Will they steal yet another election? Will the elderly McCain run with a stealth neo-con; somehow beat the Democrat, and then be disposed of, replaced by his uber-conservative running mate?

Am I paranoid? After almost eight years of lies, theft, graft, subterfuge and chicanery, you would have to be Candide not to look over your shoulder and feel the hot breath of the GOP’s menacing presence on your neck. The American people have reason to be alarmed, alert, and even paranoid but they are so easily distracted by all the garbage floating on the airwaves that we could end up with a so-called maverick who swears never to surrender in Iraq as president.

Why do people consider McCain a maverick? Isn’t “conservative maverick” an oxymoron? The dictionary tells us that the original Maverick was Samuel A. Maverick, an American pioneer who died in 1870 and refused to brand his cattle. In every way that matters, McCain is a true-blue Republican. In most cases where he has broken with the party, including his criticism of Bush’s tax cuts, he has backpedaled: Now he says that he’ll support them. Yet people call him a maverick because he has occasionally crossed party lines. .

In less politically-charged times in our history, senators and representatives routinely crossed the aisle to join with the other party to pass legislation. Ted Kennedy has even joined with George Bush on an educational bill and has worked with many Republicans on any number of issues. Is Kennedy too liberal to be thought a maverick? Or is the Republican range of movement so minuscule that when it occurs, it is thought to be a great aberration: One thing is sure; since George W. Bush came to Washington claiming to be a “uniter,” the functioning of representative democracy has been undermined by his actual “my way or the highway” tactics, for which the prodigal McClellan was a spokesman.

Americans have to take responsibility for the future of our country and the planet. That means reading and thinking, and acting, not just swallowing whole the rhetoric of the presidential campaigns. Words have meanings; politicians have histories. Change, real change, is uncomfortable. America is no longer young but neither is it mature politically. It is too late for feckless youth. This time, we must make real change and that means recognizing the consequences of our history, of our irresponsibility, and of our lazy acceptance of the lies fed to us by politicians.