In one of the most disingenous op-eds I’ve ever read, Seth Swirsky attempts to make the weak case that Democrats somehow have George Bush to thank for the rise of Barack Obama’s candidacy.

His logic, flawed from the start, goes like this: Because George Bush has made us feel safer, we in turn feel free to elect a ‘liberal’. Let’s unpack that, starting with this:

Americans simply will not elect a liberal when they feel fear. Since President Bush deserves the credit for our security (through the countless actions he’s initiated: tough FISA laws, winning in Iraq, taking on The Taliban in Afghanistan, etc.), he’s made the Obama candidacy palatable.

I am shocked – SHOCKED – that anyone would dare to claim in one sentence that we have won in Iraq, that having our email, internet use and telephone calls routed through the Central Government Tracking facility in Northern California, and completely destabilizing the Middle East would somehow cause us to feel safer.

I felt much safer the day after 9/11 than I do today.

Swirsky then goes on to try to tie Obama to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Gee, under Bill Clinton we managed to have a country with a thriving economy and no significant wars, at least none where our military was so stretched that our own security on our own soil was at risk.

But, if the current, general atmosphere of everyday life remains as calm through November as it does today — and Senator Obama is elected — his first “thank you” note should be addressed to the man who currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

On this, I agree. But for exactly opposite reasons. George Bush and his bulldog Cheney highlight everything that is evil about the neocon approach to authoritarian government and its danger to democracy. Barack Obama represents a change and movement back to a government that does not subvert the constitution and fundamentals of democracy, respects the people of this country, and celebrates the diversity that comes from a country which has so much to offer its citizens.

The only value in Swirsky’s screed is to demonstrate how intellectually bankrupt and utterly corrupt neocon thinking has been and will continue to be.

Andy Ostroy is all het up over the right wing framing of Barack Obama as a “radical”.

Radical, defined: of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs

The fact that the right is trying to frame Barack Obama as a ‘radical’ is not a bad thing. Anyone other than the very few who are profiting from the war, the dying economy, the rape of the US Constitution, lying politicians, and a government owned by Halliburton, Blackwater, Lockheed Martin and a few others should support a radical change, not reject it.

By his very appearance, Obama represents radical change. The pathetic attempt of the pundits on Faux News to frame that as a bad thing shows their desperate gasps and grasps for relevance.

As their ratings drop and viewers flock to less idiotic choices for news, their rhetoric becomes shrill and off-key, because somewhere deep down they know the truth: Barack Obama represents change — radical change — that will turn this country back from the dark place their boys Bush and Cheney have led us.

While Faux News may try to frame Obama as a ‘radical’ and paint him as a country-wrecking throwback to the rebellious sixties, the reality is that the only way to put this country back on track is through radical change. Here are some of the changes Obama will bring:

• Respect for the United States Constitution
• Responsible fiscal management
• Ending the war in Iraq
• Responsible diplomacy
• Restoring accountability in government

What REALLY scares the Hannitys of the world is the possibility that the crimes that have been wrought upon each and every citizen of this country will be exposed, and those who extolled their virtues will be irrelevant.

Of course, to me, Hannity is already irrelevant. So is Faux news. One radical change I’m looking forward to is seeing the FCC hold them responsible for their irresponsibility.