Questioning Bush’s Masculinity

Discuss this on our boards!

Questioning Bush’s Masculinity
by Linda A. Prussen-Razzano, Dallas Bureau Chief

July 25, 2003

"Candidly Yours"

Linda A. Prussen-Razzano If you haven’t caught the “pattern” of the Democrats, lately, then you haven’t been paying attention. Like the “gravitas” virus that infected everyone during the 2000 election cycle, the latest verbal tic is “pattern.” Bush’s inclusion of the now beaten-beyond-a-dead horse 16 words, which have been misrepresented by almost every liberal talking head in America, suddenly constitutes a “pattern” of deception.

Oooh, I’m so alarmed.

Thankfully, I have a working mind, a set of working eyes, and the ability to cruise the internet. With just these tools, I have been able to determine that the only pattern of deception here is coming from the Democrats. The most egregious deceivers are the contenders for the Democrat Presidential nomination, all of whom except Howard Dean saw fit to endorse, co-sponsor, or approve legislation that recognized Saddam Hussein as a threat, acknowledged his weapons of mass destruction program, called for his removal, and even authorized the use of force.

Moreover, the media is involved in a pattern of deception. Scant few liberal pundits dare to mention that President Bush received Congressional approval to go to war months before the State of the Union speech. I guess all those elected officials who viewed the evidence and voted for military action were active participants in the “pattern of deception,” too.

Then there is the ridiculous assertion that Bush should be impeached for lying to the American people, because Clinton was impeached for lying to the American people. This analogy is like comparing apples to race cars. President Clinton lied under oath about inappropriate sexual activity, in front of a judge, in a case where the cause of action was brought because of inappropriate sexual activity. He wasn’t asked whether some foreign agent in a distant country was having sex, he was asked if he had sex.

President Bush, on the other hand, was repeating what he believed to be credible British intelligence suggesting that a known monster, who had repeatedly lied to investigators only to later be caught, who used chemical weapons against others and who had them in his possession, and who in the past pursued a nuclear weapons program, was attempting to jump start that program again. He was not under oath, not testifying about his personal activities, and was relying on intelligence gathered by others.

Nevertheless, some people are too obtuse to recognize the difference.

But the latest “pattern” of verbal attacks against the President is the most humorous to date. Gravitas didn’t stick, liar didn’t stick, and pattern isn’t sticking, either. So what are they attacking now? His masculinity.

Bush’s candid remarks, such as “bring it on,” reveal an anger that he customarily keeps quietly in check. Unlike some men, who need female coaches to teach them how to act like an “alpha male,” Bush is an alpha male. In antiquated, alpha male fashion, he assumes responsibility for his family. Upon becoming President, the whole of America became his family. When terrorists dealt us such a horrendous blow, his willingness to fly in the face of criticism and do what he felt he must stemmed from a fierce, masculine instinct to protect and defend those he holds dear.

A recent editorial in the Dallas Morning News assured liberal readers that this type of behavior would not resonate well at the polls. All this machismo would be scoffed at as nothing more than Neanderthal knuckle-dragging. Liberal women who clamor for equality and rage against the oppressive white male (only to turn to Uncle Sam, the proverbial white male, to take care of them) will not be swayed by President Bush’s alpha-ness.

Of course not. They already learned from their icon, Clinton, that a caring man “honors” his partner by repeatedly cheating on her, continually lying to her and everyone around him, and uses subordinates as humidors. Any other type of behavior must be suspect.

Still, if liberals are going so far as to raise this issue, it must be a concern to them. And I know why. No one else may be willing to say it, but I will. When your child is lying in a hospital bed with tubes running out of their limbs and monitors beeping continually, you don’t care about the cost of the bill. When a tornado siren is wailing, God could reduce every one of your material possessions to the size of matchsticks, just so long as those you love get out alive.

And when people start leaping out of burning skyscrapers and landing in thunderous, fleshy explosions on the street, you don’t give a tinker’s darn about some politician’s pet social program. You want the most magnificent army the world has ever seen, full of ferocious, dedicated, and intelligent alpha males and females, to swiftly hunt down whoever was responsible and destroy them, with extreme prejudice. And when they do, you get down on your knees and thank God that an alpha-male was in charge, instead of another slick politician who talks a good talk but is impotent when it comes to action.

So go ahead, I say. Bring it on. ***

Photo of Linda Prussen-Razzano courtesy of staff files