What would someone from a another planet

make of the crazy world of republicanism?

During this week's mash-up in South Carolina,

there were so many mouth-open/what

the fuck moments upon which to ruminate,

it's hard to pick the most bizarre

This time the talk was all about who's the toughest

Who likes torture the most

And who likes terrorists the least

Fox News moved things along in this direction

nicely with questions that sounded like

they were written by the right-wing script doctors

at "24" in return for promotional considerations

The biggest swindle is America's vaunted "Two Party" system.

Hate the repulsive Republicans if you like. There is more than sufficient reason for that. But don't ever think that the Democrats are really different.

On ALL major issues they are identical. Only on minor issues that are drummed up into big talking points do they differ at all.

Why? Well, simply put, they are owned by the same masters.

Neither party will ever oppose anything the global corporations want.

Neither party will ever oppose in any real sense, anything Israel demands.

The problem is that America's media is controlled by only a few hands. Those in control have NO interest in the wellbeing of the common American, nor in justice for any weak people anywhere; they only care for advancing their own special issues.

Most Americans believe themselves educated but they are only indoctrinated and possibly given a little training.

They believe themselves informed when they have only been fed a lot of propaganda most of which is bunkum.

Why? Because the educational system is owned by the same special interests that control the media.

No (hypothetically) honest politician could stand up to that. (Howard Dean was shot down for daring even to utter one sentence that implied that justice might be for all people.)

So, when the Bush gang goes their way, after the shouts of 'good riddance' have died down, we'll see more of the same old same old.

(Weren't the Democrats almost unanimous in their support of the Bush invasion of Iraq? Well, there was Kucinich but the media I spoke of keep making him out to be one of Santa's elves. He hasn't a snowball's chance in Hell of ever winning the Presidency!)

By the way, why a two party system? Well, it is cheaper to buy two than more than two. And it is easier to have a limited number give our only blurred views; with more some might tend to become really differentiated.

What we see there is not truly a two party system but, as some wise soul has expressed it, "one party with two right wings."

Republicans in Bizzaroland

Whenever I watch a group of Republicans do almost anything, I find myself imagining someone from a sensible planet, or even a sensible country, watching and wondering what in fuck they would make of it.

This is particularly true of debates, and during this week's Republican mash-up in South Carolina, there were so many mouth-open/what the fuck moments upon which to ruminate, it's hard to pick the most bizarre.

Recall that this debate follows the one where all the candidates vied with one another to claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan, a politician so simultaneously clueless and ideological that, to this day, nobody knows where his faculties ended and his Alzheimer's began - whether before or after he left the presidency.

Much of this nutty Reagan nostalgia is inspired by the fact that to any sentient human being, Reagan actually looks good compared to George Bush.

Some of his aides were competent. And he didn't take this Christianism stuff too seriously, skipping church religiously even allowing gay guys to have sleepovers in the White House.

This time the talk was all about who's the toughest; who likes torture the most; and who likes terrorists the least.

Fox News moved things along in this direction nicely with questions that sounded like they were written by the right-wing script doctors at "24" in return for promotional considerations.

This is me on a blog, not Joan Didion in The New York Review of Books, so we don't have the time or space to do justice to the myriad bizarre tributaries the debate took.

Perhaps the most emblematic one occurred when ex-New York mayor Rudy Giuliani went all ballistic on congressman Ron Paul, asserting that the latter had "blamed" the United States for the 9-11 terrorist attacks or even "invited the attack".

Rudy was widely hailed for having "won" the debate for exactly this charge; that and the fact that the exchange helped draw attention away from the fact that his social views are at variance with virtually everything the Republican (primary voting) base believes, as well as the fact that he's, well, nuts.

Paul did not make any sense in the first place. He asserted that 9-11 happened "because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years.

We've been in the Middle East." When asked by co-moderator and Fox News White House correspondent Wendell Goler if he was suggesting that "we invited the 9-11 attack". Paul replied: "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it."

Well, I think you have be some combination of crazy, ignorant, dishonest or ideologically obsessed to believe that Islamic fundamentalists want to kill us because of "who we are" rather than "what we do", but on their lists of grievances, the never-ending presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, coupled with US support for the Israeli occupation of the West Bank would rank one and two.

Iraq, well, yes, but not quite so much. And read the 9/11 commission report if you disagree. (Repeat after me, people: "To Explain is not to excuse; to understand is not to condone...")

Giuliani reacted as if shocked, not by Paul's strange prioritisation of the inspiration for the attacks, but by the fact that anyone, anywhere would consider Americans to be blameworthy for anything, anytime.

He demanded a retraction for Paul's "extraordinary statement ... that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq." Giuliani added: "I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th."

Paul continued with his strange explanation, somehow bringing Reagan into it in a way that implied that Reagan smartly withdrew from Lebanon - attacking Grenada the same day - to avoid this kind of thing, though of course he couldn't say that either:

PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East - I think Reagan was right.

During a post-debate interview, Fox News host Sean Hannity asked Paul a series of obvious questions that sound controversial only in a Republican debate for the presidency.

"Are you suggesting the United States of America caused the attack on 9-11? ...Are you suggesting that our policies are causing the hatred of people that would cause them to want to kill us?"

Still, as reported by Media Matters, a progressive media-monitoring group in Washington, Guiliani's performance won him the award for meanest, toughest Republican on the block. They note:

For example, on the May 16 edition of CNN's American Morning, Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei said that 'Rudy Giuliani came off terrific' during the debate, 'mostly because he got that softball, where Ron Paul lobs it to him and basically blames the U.S. for the 9-11 attacks.'

In response to VandeHei, co-host John Roberts mimicked a baseball swing with his arms and said, 'Ron Paul - lob ball, and boom.' VandeHei then concluded: 'You dream of those moments when you're a candidate, that's for sure.'

Later in the program, Roberts said that Paul 'did kind of stick his foot in it, though, when he suggested last night that it was U.S. intervention overseas that was responsible for the 9-11 attacks.'

A May 16 Politico.com report on the debate by Jonathan Martin mentioned the dispute between Paul and Giuliani and uncritically quoted Giuliani campaign manager Mike DuHaime's claim that Giuliani 'is not going to sit there and let somebody say that [9-11] was our fault.'

So there you have it. One candidate says something that is obvious to those of us living in the "reality-based community", gets it wrong, but also adds that Ronald Reagan would have supported him.

Another candidate, known to be nuts by some who know him best, goes nuts, misinterprets the misguided assertion, and "wins" the debate because of it - putting off the day of reckoning when the people who vote in the primary realize that he disagrees with everything they hold dear in the first place.

I'm not a real big fan in truth, but we really could use a Hunter S Thompson on this campaign....

Also, what about this? "I must admit I cannot imagine anything more awful than polygamy." Mitt Romney.

Um, ok, I'll play. Mass murder, child molestation, lying to get the country into a destructive and counter-productive war.... Eric Alterman @ CIF