Ah, there’s that embittered rant again… Upset because he struggled so long to understand an ideological system that’s as consistent and without contradiction as it is disconnected from the annoying complexities of human nature in large social systems that get in the way of its implementation. Crippled by his n dimensional world view in an n+1 dimensional world, everything looks like a contradiction. Just as a ball dissecting a plane simply looks like a circle to the creature living only on the plane, politicians promoting ideals while behaving in such a way as to be electable simply looks like they’re doublespeaking to him.
And we see that any use of the phrase “real word” triggers a pavlovian response to claim the speaker simply doesn’t posses the intellect to understand the imaginary system he promotes.
And so he stews in his anger, recognizing that his supporters are unpersuasive, powerless and loosing ground in a political system running away without them.
So you still can't admit that doublespeak is doublespeak? Does it "look" like doublespeak or "is" it doublespeak? No anger here, just insisting that words mean something. So which is it? Getting back to the points made in the article, if we can try to steer it back there, how is the author's characterization of Bush's doublespeak wrong?
And we see that any use of the phrase “real word” triggers a pavlovian response to claim the speaker simply doesn’t posses the intellect to understand the imaginary system he promotes.
No, huh-uh. Not sure why you felt personally attacked on that one. It's not that the speaker (i.e. you) doesn't possess the intellect (though you may not, but I'm not drawing conclusions on that at all). I'm objecting to your magical creation of a totally arbitrary collective, true for each speaker, known as "the real world", used to somehow justify what you believe. Again, how can that argument not be used by anyone seeking to justify, say, rape?
...recognizing that his supporters are unpersuasive, powerless and loosing ground in a political system running away without them.
My supporters???? If I can now speak for "the real world", I submit that the ones with the power are the ones in office, not me, and not you or "your supporters" who may have voted for them. Unfortunately, an election is not a lottery, and you didn't win a prize for picking the winner. I have ideas, and you have ideas, and that's all we have, though I suspect you feel special for belonging to a winning team.
Question is, did you win? I know you have your team's jersey, but G.W. proposes taking your money and sending it to Africa for humanist causes. He's talking about a hydrogen car. He's expanding the scope of the federal government, and it has been expanding since the early part of last century. So isn't the "political system running away without you", too?