“While he acknowledges that some past Presidents were also hated..”

Yes, Berkowitz did mention “John Adams hatred” but what he didn’t mention was just who John Adams hated: Thomas Jefferson.

“If there is a law about progressive presidencies it is not that they run in recurring cycles like a regular alignment of the planets, but that in their efforts to create a new consensus they become the object of intense opposition. The opposition fails to distinguish between hatred of the man and hatred of his politics. And an attack on morals has always gone hand in hand with an attack on politics. Members of what became Thomas Jefferson's party were hounded, fined, and imprisoned under the Alien and Sedition Acts signed by President John Adams--"the reign of witches," Jefferson called it. Jefferson himself was assailed as a godless anarchist, a sexual mauler, an adulterer, a betrayer of friends, a chronic liar, and, lastly, a keeper of a black concubine.” ~ The Clinton Wars, Sidney Blumenthal

Now if I was imprisoned for supporting Thomas Jefferson, I suppose I could work up a good case of “John Adams Derangement Syndrome” - on a good day, anyway.

Berkowitz’s attempt to paint “Bush hatred” as something “new” or different does not withstand even a cursory glance at history.

http://hnn.us/articles/1473.html

While Mitt was over in France doing his missionary gig, his father, George Romney, was running for president and made the mistake of being honest about the Vietnam War. Young Mitt watched his father’s campaign collapse because of an “honest” assessment that the press turned into a scandal. I wonder what lessons Mitt learned from this?

George Romney, then governor of Michigan who strongly supported the war after a visit to South Vietnam in 1965 but later he declared it a “tragic mistake.” When he did, support among Republicans began to fade. I wonder what lessons young Mitt learned from this?

When asked about his changing views on the War, this was the interview exchange that ended his candidacy:

“Gordon: Isn't your position a bit inconsistent with what it was? And what do you propose we do now?

Romney: Well, you know, when I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get. When you -

Gordon: By the generals?

Romney: Not only by the generals but also by the diplomatic corps over there. They do a very thorough job. Since returning from Vietnam, I've gone into the history of Vietnam all the way back into World War II and before. And, as a result, I have changed my mind...."

So, what today Jim Webb calls “dog and pony shows” to refer to military propaganda techniques, Romney referred to as “brainwashing” – a term he used to describe the campaign to get him to support the war.

The media (and the right-wing pro-war Nixon-type politicians), of course, ran with this term, implying that it had all kinds of sinister “Communist” meanings that questioned his very sanity. So, come out against the war and you’ll be considered insane no matter what the facts. I wonder what lessons young Mitt learned from this?

The lessons, sadly, are ones that are being played out once again:

Don’t ever question pro-war propaganda by the military and always agree that we’re “winning” or that there’s “light at the end of the tunnel” and don’t turn against the war. And for gosh sakes, don’t be honest and face the reality of what’s happening – it will kill your political career. Always be macho, pro-war and proud – it will work every time.

http://tinyurl.com/yrlbr2

From the NYT article:

“I was surprised,” Mr. Romney recalled, “when I heard my father, then running for president, say that we were wrong, that we had been told lies by our military, that the course of the war was not going as well as we thought it was and that we had been mistaken when we had entered the war. It obviously caused me to reconsider what I had previously thought.”

He added, “Ultimately, I came to believe that he was right.”

So, Mitt now admits that the dirty hippies were right?

I wonder how that’ll play among “the base” of the today’s GOP?

Why hasn’t that statement received more attention?

It certainly is at odds with much of the thinking of the pro-war crowd today who still believe we were “this close” to winning Vietnam and then the media lost the war by biased liberal reporting.

While I couldn’t make it all the way through the video (it is Jonah Goldberg after all), it’s becoming quite clear just how “terrorism” has changed conservatism.

The term “fighting terrorism” is no longer about just abstract “foreign policy” but it has now entered into the realm of “religion” – and Giuliani is now the “most religious” of the Republican candidates -- hence his endorsement from Pat Robertson.

Yes, “fighting terrorism” has indeed “reshaped conservatism” and it has done so by becoming a “religious value” – a religious value more important than abortion, gay marriage and all the other issues the GOP used to use to scare “the base” of the religious right.

By re-defining “fighting terrorism” as our most important “religious value” the neo-cons have overcome the most vociferous objections to Rudy among the Christian Right.

In the fight for civilization, Rudy is now not only a “religious leader” -- he will soon become “their” religious leader. Very soon he will be anointed as the only one – “the one” -- to “save us” and our civilization.

Conservative Christians across American will be “praying for Rudy” to save us.

Let us pray.

http://tinyurl.com/3dybzb