Ariane Huffington, another Republican who has been outraged by Bush & Co. and their contempt for "reality-based" analysis, posted the following, with an apposite quotation from another Republican (who supported invading Iraq at the beginning but changed his mind before the 2004 election). (Following it is a news report on Haggard's connections to the Bush White House).
IMO, she cuts to the fundamental problem:
Let's face it, the Bush administration is sick. The fall of Ted Haggard is just the latest manifestation of the central disease of President Bush and his cohorts: the pathological refusal to accept reality, and the delusion that reality can be changed by rhetoric.
As Andrew Sullivan said last week on CNN, "this is not an election anymore, it's an intervention."
But while it's the administration that's sick, it's the whole country that's suffering.
How many more examples of this disease do we need? The insurgency is in its "last throes," we've "turned the corner" in Iraq, gutting Social Security would "save" it, global warming doesn't exist, evolution is just "a theory," Rumsfeld and Cheney are "doing a fantastic job" etc., etc., etc.
Mark Foley and Ted Haggard are textbook examples of how the relentless denial of reality perverts judgment and rots the soul. Same with the Bushies.
Was Ted Haggard's absurd claim this week that, yes, he saw Mike Jones, but only for massages and that, yes, he bought meth from Jones but never used it, really that different from Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld continuing to claim we're winning in Iraq?
That both the Reverend's and the administration's claims were made with the expectation that the public would buy them shows what the chronic refusal to acknowledge reality does to one's judgment.
I have little doubt that Haggard's homophobia was, and that his desire to not be gay was real too. But facts are stubborn things. Instead of accepting those facts, Haggard chose to deny them, suppress them, and attack those who exposed them.
Sound like a familiar M.O.? Just before the Haggard hit the fan, the New York Times broke the story about a classified briefing that included a PowerPoint slide, prepared by U.S. Central Command, showing that Iraq was edging closer to "chaos." It's not like that's something the entire world didn't already know. But what was Rumsfeld's response? To start an investigation into who leaked the document.
Doesn't the public have the right to know how close Iraq is to chaos? If Rumsfeld were summoned to Capitol Hill and asked if Iraq were closer or farther to chaos than a year ago, would he lie? I guess we have to assume he would, since, to Rumsfeld, to tell the truth would be giving away "classified" information.
But the larger point is this: it ultimately doesn't matter if Rummy would fess up or not, because facts are facts. That Iraq is in chaos is a fact, and no amount of denying or spinning will change that any more than Ted Haggard's gay bashing will magically make him into a heterosexual.
The refusal by the Bush administration, its supporters in Congress and its "spiritual advisers" to acknowledge reality is sick -- and potentially lethal to the well-being of our country. But it's clear they're not going to get better, because to do so would require they acknowledge reality enough to know they're sick in the first place. And they're not going to do that. They actually believe there's an alternative to the "reality-based world," and that they live in it.
Yesterday, the New Life church fired Ted Haggard as its pastor because they felt it was "proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct."
Those darn facts again, coming home to roost.
---
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976831453
And from The Rocky Mountain Times, the following reporting that Haggard used to be briefed weekly on Bush's agenda by Lee Bowman:
As president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the Rev. Ted Haggard has advised the White House on issues ranging from judicial appointments to steel tariffs.
But he also sought to widen the agenda of Christian evangelicals into areas the Bush administration - and many of his Christian brethren - would rather avoid.
Haggard resigned as president of the association, which says it represents about 30 million evangelical church members, and took a leave as senior pastor of the 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs amid allegations that he paid a gay former escort for sex and drugs.
Although he had been active in lobbying for conservative Christian causes before, Haggard's profile rose after he became head of the NAE early in 2003.
He made frequent visits to the White House and was included in a select group of religious leaders briefed on the administration's agenda during a weekly teleconference with White House staff, a session meant to "feel the evangelical pulse," he's said.
"We have direct access (to the White House)," Haggard told a Wall Street Journal reporter shortly before the last presidential election, adding that he could take a concern to the president through staff and get a response within 24 hours.
...
Haggard was naturally on the "A" list of evangelical Christians invited to the Bush White House for the signing of a bill banning late-term abortions or to be called in advance of any announcement for a chat about pending Supreme Court nominees.
|
by
Stephen Murray
Member since:
September 1, 2006 Bush and Haggard, living in denial
November 06, 2006 01:01 PM EST
(Updated: November 11, 2006 07:40 PM EST)
views: 60
|
comments: 25
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
|
|
More by Stephen Murray |
|||||||
About Gather |
Engagement Marketing |
Make New Friends |
Gather Points |
Advertise on Gather |
Gather Press |
Privacy |
Terms of Service |
Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16961, "Pacino"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.


Comments: 25
Ted Kennedy kills a woman and is elevated to leadership of the Democratic Party for 30 years.
Bill Clinton cheats on his wife, lies about it in a Federal Court and is elevated to the Vahala of Liberal Heroes.
I would say that "denial" is far more apparent among those who make heroes of immoral people.
Clean up Kennedy and the Clinton's then feel free to complain about the opposition.
But I was astounded and extremely angered yesterday when I read the Miami Herald and the fact that they endorsed all the republican candidates...I want to move to another state!!!...it's the Cuban influence here that contributes to this blindsighted approval...Show them any candidate visiting Castro for whatever reason and forget about him ever winning anything.....oy
Haggard has resigned, Kennedy still sits in a position of power, Bill Clinton is paid to speak at Democratic fund-raisers and his wife is a senator.
If Mr. Haggard still had his job there would be cause to complain. My point is dead-on, when conservatives cross the line, they get fired. When Democrats cross the line, they get promoted.
Excuse me?
He drove drunk off a bridge and ran away. He was driving, she was drowned. If he was not a Kennedy (and a liberal) he would be in jail.
Congressman Bill Janklow blew a stop sign and the ensuing crash killed a man; HE stayed on the scene of the accident. As a result of the accident he spent 100 days in jail and resigned from Congress.
Janklow was a Republican.
Notice the difference? Republican Janklow.....Democrat Kennedy....fatal accident?
Clinton did not make a career based on denouncing infidelity or fellatio. Teddy Kennedy's negligence nearly 40 years ago (and his brother's many infidelities earlier still) are not relevant to discussion of the blatant hypocricy of Foley and Haggard or to the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq that are partly the result of negligence, but primarily of the hubris of Bush & Co. and their congressional rubber-stampers.
People in glass houses frequently throw stones, and relatively few Christians abide by the exhortation to "judge not."
These blind folks always want to toss up the past, when it is the present that we should be gravely concerned about right. Should Kennedy have been drawn & quartered? Hell yes. Was Clinton an asshole? Another hell yes.
Does either of those facts have ANY berring on whether or not Bush, et al, should also be drawn, quarter and drug through the town square? No. Not in the slightest. Entirely different subjects. When the NEOcons cannot find any way to defend the cirrent regime, they resort to past bullshit.
Awesome content! Thank you! Anonymously yours! ; - )
A few words of inspriation for you...you know so little and know it so fluently.
I graciously accept your kind invitation! ; - )
R O N R. above..........since when is Bush 4th largest deficit in the history of United States of America a brilliant idea? Ron R. above I'm want to reach your mind - where is it currently located?
Everyone wants government out of the bedroom until they begin demanding that the government (and the taxpayers) assume complete responsiblity for the consequences of what goes on in the bedroom.
That is only half the equation. The other half is when Congress votes to oust or censor a member for events that occured outside of Congress.
Mr. Foley a Republican resigned for what technically was legal behavior.
Mr. Jefferson, a Democrat who was filmed by the FBI taking cash and was found to have $90,000 in his freezer.....is still in Congress.
People who live in glass houses........
Democrats (except for Lieberman who lost the Democratic primary) mostly don't live in glass houses. I wouldn't vote for Jefferson or Foley or Lieberman. And most of the Abramoff money went to Republicans. He has been let off lightly for agreeing to sing and then not being asked questions.
The "products of the bedroom" that are costly are mostly fetuses who many Republicans insist have a right to be born, but no rights after that--or a "right to life that ends at birth."
I would hardly suggest that "a right to a social worker", a right to a high-rise ghetto run by a Democratic operatives and the right to an empty suit goverment job are "rights" enshrined in the constitution.
Gee, even the right to know and live with a biological father......might be a right that the left would stop fighting tooth and nail against one of these days....
Don't hold your breath though.
That there is a "left" and one that is "fighting tooth and nail" against fathers being known to their children and being supported by them is typical squid-ink obfuscation when threatened with truths about Christianist leaders.
Despite unprecedented gerrymandering of congressional districts and that only a minority of Senate seats voted on yesterday were occupied by Republicans, to polling of voters even more than the results were slaps at "staying the course." 2/3rds of independents condemned Bush's handling of Iraq AND thought that it had DECREASED American security. That conclusion, which was also that of the NIE, has been reached far too slowly, but better late than never.
I was glad to see that arrogant Santorum lose as well, Stephen.