基因决定奥巴马是社会主义者？

chrisxsy

　　参议院民主党领袖哈里·雷德（Harry Reid）与搞怪女星Lady Gaga在微博上的互动吸引了不少眼球，（译者注：9月14日，Lady Gaga在twitter上呼吁粉丝给雷德打电话，要求废除公开的同性恋者在军中服役的禁令。雷德立即通过微博回应，表示所有合格的人都应被允许为国家服役，并会尽快安排相关投票。）而共和党大佬纽特·金里奇（Newt Gingrich）近日则彻底走起了“gaga”路线，格外疯癫（译者注：gaga一词还有“疯疯癫癫”之意）。
　　这位67岁的前众议院院长在夸大其词方面很有一套。现在他更加肆无忌惮，打定主意，为了竞选，不惜发表任何言论、采取任何行动，甚至将自己“佩林化”--常常口出狂言、信口雌黄，借此吸引某些激进的民众。
　　这位保守主义者认为自己既是历史学家，又是预言家。他不去批判党内的愚蠢行为，而是无耻地向其张开热情的怀抱。由“男版安o科尔特（译者注：Ann Coulter，美国著名女性时评作家）”迪内希o杜泽（Dinesh D'Souza）提出的极不负责任的非基督理论也得到他的高调支持。
　　金里奇盛赞杜泽在最新一期《福布斯》发表的文章，该文预告了杜泽即将问世的新作《奥巴马的愤怒之源》。
　　纽特告诉国家评论在线（The National Review Online），“这是我最近六年来读到的对奥巴马最深入的解读”，并认为杜泽揭示出总统先生是“如此难懂”，只有“了解肯尼亚人的反殖民主义行为才能读懂奥巴马”。
　　纽特补充道：“奥巴马和现在世界的运转方式完全脱节，刚好他又是个大忽悠，无怪乎能登上总统宝座。”
　　如此一来，诽谤大师们不仅给总统扣上了社会主义者的帽子，还声称这源于他身体里的社会主义基因。
　　“我们的总统被困在他父亲的时光机里了，”杜泽在《福布斯》上提出了意识形态的基因理论。“难以置信，美国正在按50年代非洲卢奥族土著人的梦想进行治理。这位喜欢勾搭女人、成天醉生梦死的非洲社会主义者对阻碍他实现反殖民主义宏图大略的世界恨之入骨，而现在，他托梦给儿子，正在支配我们国家的议程设置。”
　　与怀疑奥巴马美国公民身份的“出生阴谋论者”和仇视奥巴马并将其视为“非我族类”的人相比，杜泽兼具了二者的自以为是。他写道，奥巴马是在海外长大的，“他生命中的头17年，也是塑造其人格最关键的时期，都在远离美国大陆的夏威夷岛、印度尼西亚和巴基斯坦度过，期间还频繁造访非洲。”
　　这段乍听之下不太讨巧的巴基斯坦时光实际只是奥巴马大学期间的一次普通旅行罢了。
　　金里奇自己曾抛弃过两任妻子（第一任妻子在癌症病魔缠身时被他抛弃，第二任妻子因第三者插足--他在弹劾克林顿时邂逅了他的现任妻子，一位众议员--而惨遭抛弃）。现在金里奇笃志成为一名合格的天主教徒。当然，他对两位前妻的所作所为不能计较在内，因为那时他还没有皈依天主教。虔诚的他甚至与第三任妻子卡利斯塔（Callista）一同邀请8名牧师，3名主教，举行盛大的天主教弥撒。
　　但当他不加思索地将父亲的“罪名”扣在儿子头上时，他是个不折不扣的非基督徒。
　　一些纽特的保守派故交忧心忡忡，用其中一个人的话说，他“已经走上悬崖”。
　　如果这种做法不那么令人作呕，它还是挺搞笑的。它比出生阴谋论更恶劣，原因在于这次仅仅是拿一个死人做文章。说40、50、60年代一个肯尼亚男人从事反殖民主义运动是非法的，这种观点未免愚蠢。抨击一个大力打击巴基斯坦、索马里、也门恶棍的总统继承了反殖民主义意识形态，也有些牛头不对马嘴。
　　而且这也太“低端”了。杜泽和金里奇不止贬低总统父亲的意识形态，还诋毁其品格，并影射奥巴马不仅遗传了父亲恶劣的意识形态，还继承了他的不良品格。
　　纽特的作秀总是让人印象深刻。谁能忘记他在国会的巅峰时期发表的豪言壮语--他是“文明的卫士、文明规则的教授者、缔造文明之人的召集者以及文明力量'可能'的领导者”。
　　他认为奥巴马太把自己当救世主了，而自己在1994年却说：“像我这样的人是站在我们与奥斯威辛集中营之间的。我每天都看见各种罪恶在身边萦绕。”
　　这种制造恐慌的伎俩丑恶至极。杜泽和金里奇用的正是小布什当年成功将我们骗入伊拉克战争的套数，即在论证中专挑对自己有利的证据，含沙射影，真真假假，连蒙带骗。
　　如果保守派如此热衷做父子关系的精神分析，为何不在小布什急于复仇、并将其父对萨达姆的打击更进一步的时候使出这招呢？
　　卡利斯塔和纽特在其网站上大力推荐“金里奇制作”。他们还热捧一部配有福克斯电视专用恐怖音乐、宣扬世界末日的电影，意在说明奥巴马政府在对抗“极端伊斯兰主义”的战役中表现疲软。影片和网站有一个共同的名字--“危机四伏的美国”。（“America at Risk”）。
　　但真正将美国推向险境的正是纽特、杜泽之流。

英文原文：
Op-Ed Columnist
Who’s the Con Man?
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: September 14, 2010
Harry Reid tweets Lady Gaga while Newt Gingrich is truly gaga.
The 67-year-old former speaker, who has a talent for overreaching, is more unbridled than ever. He’s decided he’ll do or say anything to stay in the game — even Palin-izing himself by making outrageous, unsubstantiated comments to appeal to the wing nuts among us. 、
The conservative who fancies himself a historian and visionary did not use his critical faculties to resist his party’s lunacy but instead has embraced it, shamelessly. He has given a full-throated endorsement to a dangerously irresponsible and un-Christian theory by Ann Coulter-in-pants Dinesh D’Souza.
Gingrich praised D’Souza’s article in Forbes, previewing an upcoming book called “The Roots of Obama’s Rage.”
Newt told The National Review Online that it was the “most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama” and said D’Souza shows that the president “is so outside our comprehension” that you can only understand him “if you understand Kenyan, anticolonial behavior.”
Newt added: “This a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president.”
So the smear artists are claiming not only that the president is a socialist but that he suffers from a socialism gene.
“Our president is trapped in his father’s time machine,” D’Souza writes in Forbes, offering a genetic theory of ideology. “Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.”

Playing into the bigotry of birthers and haters who paint Obama as “the other,” D’Souza writes that the president was raised offshore, spending “his formative years — the first 17 years of his life — off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa.” The ominous-sounding time in Pakistan was merely a visit when Obama was a college student.
Gingrich, who ditched two wives (the first when she was battling cancer; the second after an affair with the third — a House staffer — while he was impeaching Bill Clinton), now professes to be a good Catholic. Evidently the first two wives don’t count because he hadn’t converted to Catholicism. He even had a big Catholic conversion Mass here with his third wife, Callista, celebrated by a retinue of eight priests and three bishops.
But he is downright un-Christian when he does not hesitate to visit the alleged sins of the father upon the son.
Some of Newt’s old conservative friends worry that he has gone “over the ledge,” as one put it.
If it wasn’t so sick it would be funny. It’s worse than a conspiracy theory because this conspiracy consists of a single dead individual. The idea that there’s something illegitimate about anticolonialism on the part of a Kenyan man in the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s is stupid. And it’s inconsistent to accuse a president who’s raining drones on bad guys in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen of having an inherited anticolonial ideology.
It’s also really low. D’Souza and Gingrich are not merely discrediting the president’s father’s ideology. They’re discrediting his character and insinuating that the son inherited not just his father’s bad ideology but a, too.
Newt has always displayed an impressive grandiosity. Who can forget the time during his Congressional heyday when he declared himself a “defender of civilization, a teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who form civilization ... and leader ‘possibly’ of the civilizing forces”?
And he who thinks Obama is too messianic said in 1994: “People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz. I see evil all around me every day.”
This fear-mongering is ugly. D’Souza and Gingrich employ the tactics the Bush administration used to get us into Iraq — cherry-picking, insinuation, half-truths and dishonest reasoning.
If the conservatives are so interested in psychoanalyzing father and son relationships, why didn’t they do so back when W. was rushing to avenge and one-up his father by finishing what daddy started with Saddam?
On their Web site, Callista and Newt tout “Gingrich Productions” and promote an apocalyptic movie with the same kind of scary music that Fox uses, suggesting that the Obama administration is weak in the war against “radical Islam.” The movie and the Web site are called “America at Risk.”
It’s Newt and D’Souza and their ilk who put America at risk.
(转载本文请注明“中国选举与治理网”首发)

明子舟

谢谢

hanbaoluri

感谢分享