Strange Bedfellows: Republicans ❤ Putin?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Sep 7, 2013.


This new love affair ...

Poll closed Nov 1, 2013.
  1. ... is abnormal, perverse, and wrong.

    0 vote(s)
  2. ... is just more right-wing political theatre.

    0 vote(s)
  3. ... is exceptional right-wing political theatre.

  4. ... actually makes genuine sense. Really. I'll even explain why.

    0 vote(s)
  5. ... is there an "Other"?

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Putin, Former Number One Geopolitical Foe, New Idol of American Right Wing?

    Is a tyrannical closet homosexual, the leader of a nation recently described by the Republican Party presidential nominee as the foremost geopolitical foe of the United States, really all that and a feed bag of chips to American conservatives?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Putinstroka: A real He-man, according to one retired U.S. Army officer.

    It is, of course, easy enough to disagree with Eric Boehlert's foundation:

    Casting a wide net and always willing to promote whoever will mount attacks against President Obama, conservative commentators have recently reached out all the way to Moscow to embrace their latest champion, Russian president Vladimir Putin. The more he criticizes Obama for wanting to mount military strikes against the Syrian government for gassing its own citizens, the more Putin's comments are cheered by conservatives here.

    The newfound affection is downright bizarre considering Russia, and the former Soviet Union, has for decades been the epicenter of right wing suspicion and hostility; the proverbial Evil Empire. And in terms of the current debate regarding Syria, Putin is isolating himself from the international community. As USA Today noted this week, "Russian President Vladimir Putin's strident defense of a Syrian regime that has killed tens of thousands of its people in a civil war that has divided him from many world powers viewing Syria as a humanitarian disaster that demands intervention."

    Nobody's quite certain what Drudge meant when he responded to President Obama's August 31 address regarding Syria, "Putin is the leader of the free world."

    One should not be indicted for taking the tweet at face value; after all, it seems the Republican Ministry of Disinformation is going to give this one the ol' college try.

    Rush Limbaugh: "Who do I believe, Vladimir Putin or Barack Obama and John Kerry?"

    It's not a rhetorical question. "Now, I don't know about you, but what does it feel like to have to agree with a former KGB agent?" Well, okay, it was rhetorical. A setup. But, hey, Putin says the Syrian rebels have the chemical weapons, and who is Rush going to believe? Well, for whatever reason, he seems to think that he and his audience must ("have to") side with Putin.

    Retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a FOX News analyst? Not only is "the world on Vladimir Putin's side", but this is a good thing because, "He's a thug, but he's defending the Christians and the other minorities in Syria."

    After all, as Peters explained, he doesn't like Putin, but he respects him. "He presents himself as a real He-Man," he continued, "but he lives up to it!" And then he went on to call Barack Obama "gutless".

    Which is interesting, given how dramatic a change it represents since August 29:

    Fox News strategic analyst Ralph Peters cautioned Republicans and others against criticizing President Obama if he decides not to attack Syria, believing that it would be the "right thing."

    "You shouldn't back a guy into a corner for doing the right thing, however belatedly. If the signs are that Obama isn't gonna do it, you shouldn't pile on and then say 'oh, look he's weak or indecisive' or 'he has a red line, he doesn't mean it.' When somebody does the right thing, it's time to hold your peace," said Peters.

    But, you know, he needed to sign on with the GOP ❤ Putin movement.

    As Boehlert notes, it goes on and on and on:

    The Putin admiration has been growing for weeks now. In August, when the leader helped cracked down on gays in Russia by banning the positive depiction of homosexuality as well as the adoption of Russian children by any foreign couples from countries with marriage equality, the American conservative media cheered the former KGB agent as a righteous champion.

    Syndicated columnist Patrick Buchanan toasted Putin's move and praised him for trying to restore Russia's "moral compass" by implementing anti-gay policies. (Limbaugh had previously praised Putin's stance on gay adoption, conceding it was "ironic" for him to be agreeing with a Russian leader.)

    But ... but ... but ... he's a real He-man.

    No, seriously, what the hell is this new Putinstroka going round the right-wing circles? Sure, it's clear that Republicans are long past chucking kitchen sinks at the president, but this is hilarious.

    Political reporter Molly Ball joked, earlier today, "I thought it was impressive when Obama turned Republicans against Golf. But now he's even turned them against war."

    And onto Vladimir Putin, apparently.


    Boehlert, Eric. "A Right-Wing Media Star Is Born: Vladimir Putin". Media Matters for America. September 6, 2013. September 6, 2013.

    FOX News. "Peters to Obama Critics: Not Attacking Syria Would Be 'Right' Move". FOX News Insider. August 29, 2013. September 6, 2013.

    Ball, Molly. "I thought it was impressive when Obama turned Republicans against golf." Twitter. September 6, 2013. September 6, 2013.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    and how would you describe Obama? Toilet pooper who is high on rhetoric and low on actions? A hesitant little sissy boy with a dildo in his ass? Stop pretending this is a "love affair" in any of your fantasizing shapes or forms, stopping a pointless war based on lies from happening, is the least the republicans can do now.

    cozy in northwest, praying for war elsewhere to feed the children while thousands of other children die elsewhere?

    A house build on blood and bones and lies will crumble, no matter how catchy the titles of newspaper articles are.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    What is that old adage about birds of a feather flocking together? I think it applies here. Republicans are antidemocratic and so is Putin. Republicans like cronyism, so does Putin. Putin and Republicans have a lot in common. So it makes perfect sense.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    so you consider yourself a democrat, than?
  8. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Well for starters, I don’t recall any mention of Obama or Democrats in the OP. It was all about Republicans taking up Putin’s positions. And if you are calling President Obama a “sissy boy with a dildo in his ass”, then you really must be out of it. That sissy boy has been the most aggressive president ever in hunting down terrorist, in securing the border, winning and withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan and in dealing with the worst economic disaster since The Great Depression and getting the nation’s finances back in order with Republicans constantly throwing dirt in his face and obstacles in his way. President Obama has done a pretty good job cleaning up Republican economic and military messes. I know that must be annoying as hell for you Republicans. But it is what it is. If you Republicans had an ounce of patriotism in you, you would be applauding what President Obama has done and doing what is right for the country rather than trying to advance the Republican Party at the expense of the nation. And you Republicans wouldn’t be trying to suppress voting or manipulate voters with misinformation (i.e. lies) and deceptions if you had even an ounce of patriotism in you.
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    No I consider myself an Independent. In the past I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats. Back in the 70's and 80's the Democrats went way too far and Republicans were moderate. Now Republicans have gone way too far and Democrats have become moderate.
  10. Balerion Banned Banned

    This actually scares me a little bit. Okay, more than a little bit. Are they really trying to make Putin look like a good guy? WTF?
  11. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    No just in the government everyone is so full of lies and deceptions to sway public opinion that they have started liking the very thing they were mocking.
  12. Bells Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    "Not the face.. Don't hurt the pretty botox.."

    Does the thought of Putin and man-love offend you?
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Parenthetic Poetry (or, A Lack Thereof)

    I have a number of potentially arguable theses in my quiver having to do with conservative political rhetoric and capitalism. The common thread among them is usually myopia, but occasionally there is something of mean spirit to be found in this form of conservative behavior.

    Just start with the idea of Capitalism. No, not capitalism as explained by Adam Smith, but Capitalism as Americans tend to see it.

    Variant 1: Everyone has a price; everyone has a currency. If money isn't what one is after, power is certainly an excellent currency. But, where the Jhereg might kill for money, the Dragon kill for pride, and the Dzur kill because they can. Okay, fantasy novel social classes probably don't help, but I hope you get what I mean. In the end, this variant would suggest that conservatives, being more prone to capitalistic influence (remember, we liberals are the ol' commies, and all), will pursue their imagined or contextual profit (votes for office, office for influence, &c.) just as they would a ruthless corporation securing its market share.

    Variant 2: Ends justify the means. It doesn't matter how one makes the profit, as long as it is made. Here, such behavior faces the challenge of Thelema. The difference between the ancient Law of Thelema and the modern Witches' Rede is an explicit phrase that, apparently, needed to be stated. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law? Or, An' thou harm none, do what thou will? See, according to the legend of Thelema, that seemingly functional limitation was not implicit.​

    The second variant, in this case, seems a bit closer to what's going on. The first is one of those things where someone sublimates their racism into a law-and-order platform, or something similar. And in the current Putinesque circle jerk going on in right-wing American media, last year, when they defended Romney's assertion that Putin's Russia was our number one geopolitical foe°, is irrelevant. The static they gave Obama a couple years back as he worked with Medvedev to secure an arms treaty is irrelevant. The idea of integrity itself is only a matter of appearances in American capitalism; as long as they can get people to repeat their argument, it doesn't matter if the sound bite has any real logic or honesty to it.

    And listen to the last four and a half years. I grew up at the end of the Cold War. My father had me believing the Soviets would arbitrarily nuke us. Whenever I heard a jet airplane in the night, I went cold, expecting the apocalypse. And even then, the stuff they said about the Commies? Well, that's nothin' compared to what we've heard from Republicans about the President of the United States over the last several years.

    The Birther thing? How is that still going on? Have you heard the latest? That Republicans are upset because they would impeach the president except for the partisan Democrats in the Senate? Impeach? What for? Uhhh ... er ... um ... ah ... well, that isn't exactly clear.

    But in the last couple weeks, we've heard Reps. Flores (TX), Bentivolio (MI), Farenthold (TX), Rokita (IN), and Chaffetz (UT), as well as Sens. Cruz (TX), Inhofe and Coburn (OK), proposing the president's impeachment. The thing is that none of them actually want to make any specific claims. Despite their alleged friendship, even Coburn wants to loosely and casually accuse President Obama: "I think there's some intended violation of the law in this administration, but I also think there’s a ton of incompetence, of people who are making decisions." Sure, he doesn't really need to tell us what that intended violation would be, or whatever, but he will remind us that, "Barack Obama is a personal friend of mine."

    This is crazy. Remember: The Bush Administration's calculated and coordinated lies to foment war were not grounds for impeachment.

    As liberal commentator Jed Lewison suggested of Rep. Bentivolio and Sen. Cruz: "At least Bentivolio utters the word 'evidence,' but neither of them have the guts to tell their constituents that the real reason Republicans aren't impeaching President Obama is that President Obama hasn't committed an impeachable offense, or anything close to it."

    To get back to the theme, though, it's a sales job. I mean, true, it's supposed to be a sales job; that's how Americans want it. But at the same time, the political critique against Obama even includes the bit about the Negro with is feet on the desk.

    I frequently mock one of our conservative neighbors for a statement he once made that, "Race is absolutely not the motivation for opposition to Obama, but it is used by some as a tool in the fight against him." Okay, okay, I get it. Not that I believe it, but I get it. One need not be specifically racist to buy into the feet-on-the-desk thing, or the jacket-and-tie thing, or the let's-sack-the-Constitution Birther thing, or any of it, you know? But even granting, against any rational assessment of the evidence, the proposition that it really isn't about racism, one might reasonably observe that these nonracist critics aren't really putting much thought into the implications of their behavior.

    And that's the thing: If you look at Republican politics through an American-capitalistic eye, it sort of makes sense. To them, the Birther thing isn't about race. It's no different than the illogic of unhealthy food products. Okay, fine. People should control their own selves. And if you're the freakin' Cheesecake Factory, that means you're going broke. (I mean, seriously, thirty-five hundred calories ... for the appetizer?)

    (I mean, that's one of my BS detector's screening processes: What happens if everyone takes that advice?)

    (To wit, I get that there is 'demand' for partially hydrogenated oils, such as my favorite margarine-type product in history, which shall remain nameless, despite the fact that I don't use it anymore, choosing butter as the healthier alternative. However, there doesn't really need to be that demand. PHOs are an innovation allowing longer shelf life, therefore larger production batches, therefore lower overhead, and therefore better profits. Really, if the U.S. made PHOs go away from our food products tomorrow, by next week nobody would notice the difference.)

    (The common thread is that, sure, these things fill a certain niche, but that doesn't need the niche needs to exist. True, margarine and restaurant menus aren't heroin, and cigarettes come with a built-in market stability. But our food habits are part of how Americans are destroying themselves. The short-term profit is nice. The long-term costs are irrelevant.)

    (It's not quite parenthetic poetry, is it?)

    There is, in American society, an acquisitional spirit that tends toward insufficient consideration of later terms. Sure, I can imagine that Lorillard didn't know it would be a bad idea to make cigarette filters from asbestos, but they never really thought to check.

    And, sure, I can see why it makes sense for Apple to produce iPhones overseas, but that's sort of the point; it isn't profitable for them to take labor rights abroad seriously.

    We loathe poverty and its toll, but we need poor people. Lots of 'em. It's the American way.

    Now, then, the point of this odd rant is allegorical, metaphorical, though not quite phantasmagorical.

    It makes a certain amount of sense to hit Obama with everything they've got, but they are clearly not thinking these things through.

    Putin? I mean, come on, I would think on this occasion the ramifications would be obvious; to the other, though, they're irrelevant to the conservative outlook. It's just like big business°.

    It's the kind of idiocy we've seen out of the Republican factions over the last several years, and are normally accustomed to. The striking application of that idiocy, however, is, well, yeah, it's impressive.


    ° number one geopolitical foe — Incidentally, the former Team Romney is really hung up on all that. A former campaign spokesman wishes Syria had gassed a bunch of children during the campaign, because then Mitt Romney would have won the election.

    ° just like big business — And as a rhetorical quota for those who have such special needs, I will note that Democrats often act just like big business, as well, albeit in other ways. On this occasion, the question is, after all, conservative behavior.

    Works Cited:

    Benen, Steve. "There's that 'I' word again". The Maddow Blog. September 6, 2013. September 6, 2013.

    Kaczynski, Andrew. "Tom Coburn: Obama 'Getting Perilously Close' To The Standard For Impeachment". BuzzFeed. August 22, 2013. September 6, 2013.

    Lewison, Jed. "House GOPer says impeaching Obama would be 'dream come true' but there's just one little problem". The Jed Report. August 21, 2013. September 6, 2013.

    Strzemien, Anya. "Bush Jacketless In Oval Office: Photo Uncovered After Bush Chief Of Staff Slams Obama's Informal Appearance". The Huffington Post. March 8, 2009. September 6, 2013.
  14. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    O-bomb-a also walks on water, feeds the world's poor with a single basket of bread and fish, flies in space, jailed the most whistleblowers in US history, murdered a teenage citizen for the sins of his father, bailed out the top 0.1% who paid for his election and lied to the "electorate" about NSA spying. Yes, O-blah-blah is truly a POTUS.

    As for "Republicans" loving up to Puke-in, it wouldn't surprise me, he probably aligns well with their Sky-Daddy gay-hate, even though he's atheist and more than likely a Sociopath. As such he actually couldn't care one way or the other about gays. See, this is the way sociopaths "think", they don't 'feel' one way or the other. Puke-in and Oblahma have no genuine 'feelings' the way most people do. It'd be more apt to say they feel nothing. To them the word gay elicits no more or no less emotion than the word cloud. But, if you want to ascribe YOUR feelings to their emotive, go for it - if it makes YOU feel better. About the only thing that doe elicit a response from a sociopath is control and power over other people. The fact we're here talking about them, is probably the best thing they could ask for.

    The 'Republicans' want this war just as badly as the Democrats (both parties are most made up of sociopaths). They're both salivating at a chance to murder. It's been a few years since they could openly revel in the deaths of women and children and the blood lust is building in the American psyche. Time for murder and plunder.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    NOTE: Was this thread another one of those "Civil" discussions we're supposed to be having? Because I was serious about sociopathy, it afflicts 1 in 25 Americans and Canadians.
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Have you been spending too much time in the medicine cabinet Michael?
  16. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    I didn't vote in the poll, because it's not an honest question at all. It's already been pre-loaded with Tiassa's political obsessions.

    If people could just get away from America's incessant red-blue gang-war for just a moment, they might observe that this Syria issue is politically interesting precisely because it cuts across partisan lines.

    We see Barack Obama and his administration alongside John McCain and much of the Republican establishment. And we see many of the back-benchers in both parties, from both the anti-war left and the 'tea-party' right, coming together in opposition to the adventure.

    Attributing Republican reservations about a new Syrian adventure to that party's supposed love affair with Vladimir Putin (Democratic opposition is presumably more principled than that) is simply foolishness. It isn't unlike right-wing ideologues attributing widespread Democratic party opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures to a supposed love affair with the Taliban and al Quaida. (Obama opposed those wars and his middle name is 'Hussein'...)

    I think that a real case can be made that this Syrian fight isn't a battle that we need to be a part of. Assad is a dictatorial jerk. (At least he's a secular jerk.) And the rebels seem to be increasingly dominated by radical Islamists. (Religious jerks.) Distinguishing the stereotypical 'good guys' from the stereotypical 'bad guys' isn't nearly as clear-cut as some people seem to think. Putin might actually be right that an Assad victory would be preferrable to the alternative. It's a defensible point of view.

    Syria is basically a lose-lose situation for our country and for our values. Even if the US military succeeds in overthrowing the Assad regime, we will either be handing the country over to the Islamists, or else putting ourselves into the position of having to fight our own erstwhile allies. That's a recipe for another endless Afghan-style insurgency.

    One argument for war is that Assad needs to be hit because he used chemical weapons. That basically turns the whole thing into a moral issue. (I suspect that's why many Democrats are comfortable with it, since Democrats are nothing if not moralistic.)

    As for me, I don't see a whole lot of difference between gassing somebody to death, and burning them to death with fire or ripping them to shreds with sharp pieces of metal. It's all nasty as all hell, but ending war entirely isn't exactly realistic right now. I'm perfectly willing to condemn Assad for his use of chemical weapons, but I'm still not sure why it demands a military response from our country.

    What does demand a military response from us are real existential threats to our own and our allies' security. I'm inclined to put certain regimes acquiring nuclear weapons into that category. Conceivably, the Iranian Islamic Revolution acquiring them might rise to that threshhold. It's a matter of a dispassionate assessment of the perceived danger that certain events represent, as opposed to a cathartic expression of our moral outrage at those events.

    So another argument made in favor of a Syrian adventure is that it needs to happen in order to send a message about our own determination to Iran. If we let Assad get away with using gas, Tehran is apt to think that there's no real downside to their acquiring nuclear weapons.

    That's a weak argument in my opinion, because it overestimates the leverage that Washington has over Tehran. The Iranian leadership wants nuclear weapons. They want to be a new Islamic super-power, dominating the Persian Gulf and much of the world's oil supplies. I agree that if the US does nothing in Syria, Iran will push ahead towards that goal.

    The problem is that if we do get ourselves into a new war in Syria, that's unlikely to intimidate Iran. They will still push ahead towards their goal. If we get bogged down, Iran will conclude that it's less likely that we will take them on in yet another war, and will feel emboldened. Alternatively, if we effortlessly kick Assad's ass, that will just be proof to the Iranian mullahs that they need a nuclear deterrent so as to avoid a similarly humiliating fate, and they will simply accelerate their nuclear program.

    The bottom line is that when it comes to Iran, Syria is just a diversion. The only thing that matters is whether the United States is willing to go to war with Iran in order to stop their nuclear program. If we aren't willing to do that (and I don't believe that Barack Obama is) Iran will acquire nuclear weapons in a year or so. That's the more important ball that Washington needs to keep its eye on.

    So nothing here is about Vladimir Putin at all. We shouldn't be afraid to agree with him, if doing so is the right decision. And we shouldn't be afraid to disagree with him, either. But whatever they are, our decisions need to be made on their merits.

    I'll add that the references to homosexuality in this thread seem to be gratuitous. I don't think that Putin is gay. But if he was, that would be a private matter with him and it wouldn't have any relevance to whether his opinions on Syria are correct or defensible.
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Barebacking for Bear Backing

    This is where you went off the rails. Indeed, the statement is so pre-loaded with political idiocy that it pretty much blows your credibility on this subject entirely.

    Of course, we shouldn't be surprised.

    For the record, the process under consideration is not that Republicans love Putin therefore they oppose the Syrian adventure; rather, it is that Republicans are so desperate in their reflexive opposition to Barack Obama that they'll support Putin.

    And in truth, until you completely barebacked that point, I hadn't realized it was so hard to comprehend.
  18. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Great post Yazata!

    I may not always agree with your take but you always bring a good dose of common sense and insight whenever you do post.
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, we don't. The Republican fringe is not "coming together" with anybody like that.

    The only people who think we have been looking at a "red-blue gang war" are people in the red gang, projecting unto their imagined enemies of "the left".

    He's not secular. He's an Alewite Muslim, and fairly hardcore about it.

    That actually argues for a strike - if we are anticipating an Assad win, it's fairly important that he be discouraged from routinely using nerve gas on his enemies. If he is going to lose, it matters less.

    As far as Putin and the US fascistic political wing finding themselves with much in common, the only preliminary necessary was the discovery of a common enemy - in this case the government and people of the United States - and the fact of a US vacuum where the strong manly leadership is supposed to be in such political groups. The essential desperation that latched unto W is still there, and Jeff Gannon was not a suitable alternative.
  20. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    The reasonable Republican went by the wayside as soon as Obama was elected POTUS, it seems. Really, how can any of the Republican leadership say with a straight face that this is just the usual party politics? Hmmm. maybe they prefer the Russian vote over the black vote!
  21. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Much of the Republican leadership seems to be supporting Obama. (Presumably with a straight face.)

    That doesn't mean that either party is guaranteed majority support from their respective caucuses. In both parties, a large number of back-benchers, congresspeople who aren't part of their party's leadership, remain skeptical. Along with most of the country's voters, it seems.

    I'm certain that when these war resolutions come up for a vote, support will be bipartisan and opposition will be equally bipartisan. That's one of the reasons why this issue is interesting from a domestic political perspective. Obama's administration people and the Republican leadership seem to be loosely allied in one pro-intervention camp, while the Democratic party's anti-war left and the Republican party's 'tea-party' small-government conservatives seem to be joining together in order to vote no.
  22. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    I think you will find at the end of this vote there will be more than just a smattering of moderates from both sides of the aisle voting no. Let me take that back, there are not enough moderates on the Republican side in the House to even matter. The No's will have it in the House.

    The Republican leadership may be loosely allied with Obama now, but let this go to the No's and the finger-pointing will begin!
  23. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    I agree. As I explained up above, I'm inclined to favor the 'no' side myself.

    It's hard to discuss policy thoughtfully and dispassionately when each side is trying to reduce the other side to a dismissive caricature.

    That's one reason why I was interested in how this war resolution is shaping up. It's breaking with all the stereotypes. Yesterday I was watching Dennis Kucinich making his 'no' case on Fox News, which was kind of cool.

    Oh, that's absolutely certain. If this thing gets voted down, like happened to David Cameron in the British Parliament, there's going to be a whole orgy of recriminations and finger pointing, in both parties. It would be a tremendous blow not only to the Republican leadership, but to the Democratic leadership and to the White House as well.

Share This Page