Bush’s victimological view of America as seen in his first inaugural address

In his disgraceful speech in Senegal about American slavery, President Bush portrays America as under a permanent racial guilt. He essentially takes the liberal line that America can only be seen as a moral and legitimate country to the extent that it raises up blacks and makes them equal—and “equality,” if we are to take Bush’s recent statements on diversity as a guide, means that blacks must have guaranteed numerical equality of results in every area of life. Since that can never happen, America is condemned to permanent guilt and permanent racial blackmail. His Senegal speech therefore seems of a piece with his support for the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.

The speech also brought to mind Bush’s inaugural address. While regular conservatives were ecstatic about it at the time, I was appalled, as it portrayed America as a big collection of victims needing succor. So, in order to understand the mind of this liberal president whom conservatives adore, here is Bush’s inaugural along with the contemporaneous comments I wrote about it, bolded and bracketed throughout. My commentary may have something of an unfinished quality, but I am leaving it as is to provide the original flavor of my response. (See also my discussion of Bush’s Jacobinist second inaugural address.)

George W. Bush
Inaugural Address
January 20, 2001

Thank you all. Chief Justice Rehnquist, President Carter, President Bush, President Clinton, distinguished guests and my fellow citizens. The peaceful transfer of authority is rare in history, yet common in our country. [The old American myth: we still act as though we are the only country in the world with constitutional government, with the rest of the world residing in an eternal night of tyranny and superstition.] With a simple oath, we affirm old traditions and make new beginnings. As I begin, I thank President Clinton for his service to our nation. And I thank Vice President Gore for a contest conducted with spirit and ended with grace.

I am honored and humbled to stand here, where so many of America’s leaders have come before me, and so many will follow.

We have a place, all of us, in a long story, a story we continue, but whose end we will not see. It is the story of a new world that became a friend and liberator of the old. The story of a slave-holding society that became a servant of freedom. The story of a power that went into the world to protect but not possess, to defend but not to conquer. It is the American story, a story of flawed and fallible people, united across the generations by grand and enduring ideals.

The grandest of these ideals is an unfolding American promise: that everyone belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, that no insignificant person was ever born. Americans are called to enact this promise in our lives and in our laws. And though our nation has sometimes halted, and sometimes delayed, we must follow no other course.

[Everyone belongs??? You mean, the whole world belongs in and to America? Everyone deserves a chance? Meaning, we have the obligation to everyone in the world to give them a chance? This is gobbledygook.]

Through much of the last century, America’s faith in freedom and democracy was a rock in a raging sea. Now it is a seed upon the wind [here’s he’s alluding to that ineffably silly line in his father’s inaugural—“freedom is a kite flying higher and higher”], taking root in many nations. Our democratic faith is more than the creed of our country, it is the inborn hope of our humanity, an ideal we carry but do not own, a trust we bear and pass along. And even after nearly 225 years, we have a long way yet to travel.

While many of our citizens prosper, others doubt the promise—even the justice—of our own country. [Are they justified in that doubt? Those are the same ranting extremists who insist that they were “stopped from voting” in Florida because of their race, without a shred of evidence to back it up. Do the “doubts” of such people deserve respect and solicitude?] The ambitions of some Americans are limited by failing schools, and hidden prejudice and the circumstances of their birth. [What evidence is there that “hidden prejudice” is actually seriously preventing anyone in this country from realizing his ambitions? Bush simply accepts the left’s myth of ubiquitous racism holding blacks down. And what does it mean to say that a person’s ambitions are limited by the circumstances of his birth? You mean, if a person is very stupid, and has very stupid and disordered parents, that that will affect his circumstances? Yes, of course it will. But how is that a violation of America’s ideal to allow each person to try to realize his ambitions?] And sometimes our differences run so deep, it seems we share a continent, but not a country. [What differences? He’s implying that the divide is mutual. But it is Bush’s enemies who tried to steal an election, calling properly counted non-votes “uncounted votes” and saying that he deliberately “stopped the voting” so that he could win. It is Bush’s enemies who are calling him a racist. It is the nation’s number one black organization that linked him with a racial murder in an incendiary tv ad. Yet he is tacitly accepting the charge that he is responsible for dividing the country, and is therefore responsible for healing it.]

We do not accept this, and we will not allow it. Our unity, our union, is the serious work of leaders and citizens in every generation. And this is my solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. I know this is in our reach, because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves, who creates us equal in his image. And we are confident in principles that unite and lead us onward.

America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. [Oh, great, we have to hear the number-one neocon slogan in Bush’s inauguration.] We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens. Every child must be taught these principles. Every citizen must uphold them. And every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American.

Today we affirm a new commitment to live out our nation’s promise through civility, courage, compassion and character.

America, at its best, matches a commitment to principle with a concern for civility. A civil society demands from each of us good will and respect, fair dealing and forgiveness.

Some seem to believe that our politics can afford to be petty because in a time of peace the stakes of our debates appear small. But the stakes for America are never small. If our country does not lead the cause of freedom, it will not be led. If we do not turn the hearts of children toward knowledge and character, we will lose their gifts and undermine their idealism. If we permit our economy to drift and decline, the vulnerable will suffer most.

We must live up to the calling we share. Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism, of community over chaos. And this commitment, if keep it, is a way to shared accomplishment. [I take this as a genuine expression of Bush’s personality and approach.]

America at its best is also courageous. Our national courage has been clear in times of depression and war, when defeating common dangers defined our common good. Now we must chose if the example of our fathers and mothers will inspire us or condemn us. We must show courage in a time of blessing, by confronting problems instead of passing them on to future generations. [A whole paragraph on courage? What empty verbiage.]

Together, we will reclaim America’s schools before ignorance and apathy claim more young lives. We will reform Social Security and Medicare, sparing our children from struggles we have the power to prevent. And we will reduce taxes to recover the momentum of our economy and reward the effort and enterprise of working Americans. We will build our defenses beyond challenge, lest weakness invite challenge. We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors.

The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake, America remains engaged in the world, by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom. We will defend our allies and our interests. We will show purpose without arrogance. We will meet aggression and bad faith with resolve and strength. And to all nations, we will speak for the values that gave our nation birth.

America at its best is compassionate.

In the quiet of American conscience, we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy of our nation’s promise. And whatever our views of its cause, we can agree that children at risk are not at fault. Abandonment and abuse are not acts of God, they are failures of love. And the proliferation of prisons, however necessary, is no substitute for hope and order in our souls.

Where there is suffering, there is duty. Americans in need are not strangers, they are citizens; not problems, but priorities; and all of us are diminished when any are hopeless. [The whole thing is about our duty to help those in deep, persistent poverty—by which he’s really referring to poor blacks. But is there “deep persistent poverty” in this country? How many people are there without clothing food and shelter? That’s what poverty is. America’s blacks are the most prosperous in the world, yet none of that finds its way into his speech. He needs them as victims so as to assert America’s—and his—guilt.]

Government has great responsibilities, for public safety and public health, for civil rights and common schools. Yet compassion is the work of a nation, not just a government. And some needs and hurts are so deep they will only respond to a mentor’s touch or a pastor’s prayer. [Gosh, he’s acting as if these “needs” and “hurts” and “deep persistent poverty” and “limited ambitions” are the biggest issues facing us; this whining constitutes almost his whole domestic agenda!] and Church and charity, synagogue and mosque, lend our communities their humanity and they will have an honored place in our plans and in our laws.

Many in our country do not know the pain of poverty. But we can listen to those who do. And I can pledge our nation to a goal: When we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the other side. [How many people are in this “pain of poverty”? What in the world is he talking about?]

[He doesn’t realize how he’s setting up his own demonization by the left. He makes “deep poverty” and “limited ambitions” and all the rest of it the primary fact about America, and then all he proposes to do about it are testing schools and vouchers and volunteerism. His opponents can easily say he’s not doing anything serious to address these horrible problems that he has identified as the most important thing in the country (just as they can say, whenever he does something that makes his opponents unhappy, that he is violating his pledge to be a uniter not a divider). However, from the conservative point of view, the one welcome thing in the speech is that he really does not seem to be proposing government do anything about all this supposed poverty and misery and injustice. He’s just calling on everyone to be a kind of full-time freelance social-gospel worker.]

America at its best is a place where personal responsibility is valued and expected. Encouraging responsibility is not a search for scapegoats, it is a call to conscience. And though it requires sacrifice, it brings a deeper fulfillment. We find the fullness of life, not only in options, but in commitments. And we find that children and community are the commitments that set us free.

Our public interest depends on private character, on civic duty and family bonds and basic fairness, on uncounted, unhonored acts of decency which give direction to our freedom. [Once again, the image of America he presents is of this vast social welfare crisis that all of must walk around in looking to help the unfortunate. It is an liberal Episcopalian vision of America.]

Sometimes in life we are called to do great things. But as a saint of our times has said, every day we are called to do small things with great love. The most important tasks of a democracy are done by everyone. [This totally feminized vision of everyone in America running around looking to help someone out is sickening.]

I will live and lead by these principles: to advance my convictions with civility, to pursue the public interest with courage, to speak for greater justice and compassion, to call for responsibility and try to live it as well. In all these days—ways—I will bring the values of our history to the care of our times.

What you do is as important as anything government does. I ask you to seek a common good beyond your comfort, to defend needed reforms against easy attacks, to serve your nation, beginning with your neighbor. I ask you to be citizens. Citizens, not spectators. Citizens, not subjects. Responsible citizens, building communities of service and a nation of character.

Americans are generous and strong and decent, not because we believe in ourselves, but because we hold beliefs beyond ourselves. When this spirit of citizenship is missing, no government program can replace it. When this spirit is present, no wrong can stand against it.

After the Declaration of Independence was signed, Virginia statesman John Page wrote to Thomas Jefferson: “We know the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?”

Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years and changes accumulate. But the themes of this day he would know: our nation’s grand story of courage, and its simple dream of dignity. We are not this story’s author, who fills time and eternity with his purpose. Yet his purpose is achieved in our duty and our duty is fulfilled in service to one another.

Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today: to make our country more just and generous, to affirm the dignity of our lives and every life.

This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.

God bless you all, and God bless America.

[Interesting allusion to the conclusion of Lincoln’s first inaugural: “the chorus of the Union will rise … when touched by the better angels of our nature.” But Lincoln, by contrast, was telling the seceders that they were wrong; wrong in their assumption that Lincoln had designs on their domestic institutions; wrong in their belief that secession was a right under the constitution and not an insurrectionary act. After he made that powerful argument, he called on the better angels of our nature; meaning, he was hoping that his foes and demonizers would hear those angels and drop their secession. Bush, by contrast, takes it as given that the people who “doubt the justice of our country”—i.e., the protesters in the street yelling “Hail to the thief”—are right to feel that way, and that it is his duty to show them that he “cares.”]

[Overall, he uses a Christian concept of higher truth to advance a social welfare view of America, a place where “caring for the unfortunate” is the number one job and the primary meaning of life. The Christian part appeals to conservatives, the social welfare part appeals to the left. I don’t like it at all.]

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 08, 2003 05:56 PM | Send


Mr. Auster,

I followed the link from Paul Cella’s blog (where mine is now linked from) to this blog. I have only looked through the entries for today, but I really like what I see. This appears to be a good site, and I am glad that there are principled conservatives like yourself and Paul in the Blogosphere - we need more people who are willing to take a firm stand on the issues, and not just regularly toe a party or administration line. Thank you for your commentaries, and keep up the good work!

Posted by: Aakash on July 8, 2003 8:03 PM

Thank you. Be sure to check out some of the “recent featured articles” and the articles in the “From VFR’s Archives” list on the right side of the main page. And remember to explore our archives page (the link for it is at the bottom of the main page), which has links to every article that’s been published at VFR.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on July 8, 2003 9:36 PM

And the only real choice we had in 2000 was between Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore. (Bad and worse.) And what kind of a choice will we have next time?

The old mantra about how are vote matters rings hollower with each election. How does our vote matter when we have no real selection to make?

Next year’s election cycle will probably be nothing more than a commentary on the dwindling spiral our country is caught in.

Posted by: Joel on July 8, 2003 9:53 PM

The “choices” in a liberal polity are always liberals, naturally.

Posted by: Matt on July 9, 2003 12:32 AM

Good points, Joel and Matt. I agree - our choice of candidates has become something akin to Henry Ford’s choice of color for the Model T: “You can have any color you want as long as it’s black.”

Posted by: Carl on July 9, 2003 12:48 AM

“You can have any color you want as long as it’s black.”

Now instead of Model T’s this applies to law students.

Posted by: Matt on July 9, 2003 1:41 AM

I know this is off-topic, but I had to say that Matt’s final comment (1:41 AM) has started my day gloriously.

Posted by: frieda on July 9, 2003 8:06 AM

Lawrence Auster’s remark that George Bush’s image of America is an Episcopalian one gets to the heart of the matter. How interesting to see mainline Protestantism give itself over entirely to therapeutic evangelical sociology, instead of Christianity. And then to see it work in tandem with radical Roman Catholic social agencies. While the mainline Protestants work the assembly line of domestic racial guilt, the Roman church is busy importing Third Worlders, mainly illegals from central and south America, in order to keep the raw material of racial grievance in plentiful supply.

By the way, am I correct in that something particularly noxious is brewing in establishment Methodism? If I remember correctly, Hillary Clinton traces her “moral activism” to her days in Methodist Sunday School. And wasn’t Laura Bush a one-time Methodist Sunday School teacher? The same Laura Bush credited with turning the wanton George W. from women and drink to a more noble cause? Sublimation, such an interesting process to watch at work in our leaders.

Posted by: Paul on July 9, 2003 12:15 PM

My latest comment in Mr. Auster’s first thread about President Bush’s regrettable Senegal speech applies here, too. What I said about Bush (that he is essentially a “self-hating WASP”) applies, of course, with equal force to Al Gore, Bill and Hillary Clinton and, almost certainly, Laura Bush.

Kudos to Mr. Auster for again piercing the conservative veneer of GW Bush to show us the liberal void within. HRS

Posted by: Howard Sutherland on July 9, 2003 12:24 PM

Mr. Auster marvels, as well he should, that conservatives welcomed Mr. Bush’s inaugural address. There are reasons, however, if not good ones.

The first is the general relief real and soi-disant conservatives felt after the election - and the attempted high-jacking in Florida - that Clintonism was ending. (Would that that were true! We are very far from hearing the last of Clintonism; HILLARY! treads heavy on the stage, and Bush himself borrows more and more of the emotional and pandering aspects of the Clinton style every day. Karl Rove has learned more than he would admit from Clinton’s handlers.)

The second is also relief: that they would not have to endure the insufferable Prince Albert Gore as our president.

The third is that many who think of themselves as sort-of conservative (especially if they find the “compassionate conservative” moniker attractive) are actually liberals, albeit too unthinking to recognize themselves as such. They really agreed with what Bush said, and thought that - because Bush was saying it - it must be compassionately conservative, somehow.

Bush’s tacit acceptance in the speech of all of his detractors’ complaints against him and the election was typical of the tactics of preemptive surrender that have rendered the Republican Party so useless since the days of Herbert Hoover. Those echoes in his speech alarmed me at the time. If I had known about the Miami campaign speech that Mr. Auster has written about elsewhere, I would not have been surprised (and I wouldn’t have voted for W, as I regret to admit I did). HRS

Posted by: Howard Sutherland on July 9, 2003 1:52 PM

Yes, but Mr. Sutherland’s first two reasons also applied to me: I had had an incredible sense of relief when the post-election controversy was resolved; and I was glad Bush was elected over Gore, though I had not voted for him. Also, in the days leading up to the inauguration, I had good will toward Bush, as is natural to feel toward someone about to become president. But despite all these pre-existing positive feelings, his inaugural address so appalled me that it pretty much ended any positive views I may have had toward him politically, even as all the conservatives were raving about how wonderful the speech was.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on July 9, 2003 2:30 PM

I am in the same position as Howard Sutherland. I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and now regret it. It is worth mentioning that George Bush, the Elder, was following the same course in 1991 that his son is pursuing in 2003.

GHWB was hoping victory in Gulf War I would keep Middle America on his side. At the same time he was supporting the “1991 Civil Rights Act.” It’s “not a quota bill,” GHWB said. Bush I hoped appointing Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court would give additional help in increasing black support. GHWB was jacking up the immigration numbers to unprecendented levels, as well.

This policy, plus a slight ecomomic downturn, drove away much of GHWB’s Middle American support. Some went to Buchanan in the primaries. Most later went to Ross Perot. Bush went down to humiliating defeat to one Bill Clinton in November 1992. It is worth noting that many GOP pundits were predicting a Bush landslide in 1992, as they are predicting easy victory for GWB in 2004.

Well, GWB is following the same kind of policies his father did.

Posted by: David on July 9, 2003 2:30 PM

Why did/do conservatives believe George W. Bush is conservative? It must have been wilfull blindness, because the truth was plainly evident for all who looked at it. And nobody needed to wait for the presidential campaign of 2000. His record as governor of Texas was a perfect guide to how the Bush team would rule over America.

One of Bush’s first acts as governor was to purge the state Republican Party of “extremists”. Bush/Rove were not about to tolerate anyone who might make them unpopular with that demographic that loads up on Dr. Phil and Oprah in the afternoon. And then there was illegal immigration. It was Bush who drew a comparison between Texas and California, declaring that “his” state would never countenance anything like Prop. 187. I personally saw the shenanigans that began to play out with Rovian Republicans, academe, and Vicente Fox. For Fox’s eventual director of Mexico’s Office for Mexicans Abroad, Juan Hernandez, had his office at the University of Texas at Dallas just across the lobby from mine. The seeds of Texas’ $10 billion budget deficit were planted as Bush was already pandering to middle class racial guilt in the late 1990s.

Bush has avoided or, worse, opposed cultural conservatives his entire career, the only exception, perhaps, being his commitment to the death penalty. And that might be the reason so many conservatives across the country thought he was one of them. Because, when you look back, it was the death penalty issue that was highlighted so often during his presidential campaign. And Bush cashed in on it, whether it be the “tough” judgment on Karla Faye Tucker or his personal favorite, the application of the death penalty to the murderers of James Byrd, Jr.

Posted by: Paul on July 9, 2003 2:48 PM

Paul wrote:

“Bush has avoided or, worse, opposed cultural conservatives his entire career, the only exception, perhaps, being his commitment to the death penalty.”

That’s a text book example of Matt’s theory, as stated in a recent thread:

“This is how liberalism has always moved forward. Mr. Bush makes a few unprincipled exceptions to his fundamental liberalism, sucks in the ‘natural’ conservatives who don’t have a strong intellectual defense against liberalism, and moves the entire country to the left, cha cha cha….

“Mr. Bush has apparently gotten Shawn’s support across the board just by taking physical threats to America seriously, even while expressing that seriousness in liberal terms and refusing to name the actual enemy. All of the other issues Shawn raises have been betrayed terribly by Mr. Bush and the Republicans. But by making one unprincipled exception they’ve signed up a whole slew of otherwise natural conservatives.

“… All a liberal has to do to build a coalition of right-wing suckers is provide them with one little unprincipled exception; then he moves them all further to the left. The reason he can do that is because his useful idiots on the right have not fully repented from liberalism.”

Here is my gloss on what Matt said:

“Ok. The right-liberal politician takes a few non-liberal positions, gains the support of conservatives on the basis of those positions, and thus drags them into accepting a more and more liberal agenda. Thus conservatives end up accepting Bush’s vast expansion of liberal federal involvement in education, his support for race preferences as a fundamental national principle, for multiculturalism, for language rights, and so on. This is a good analysis.”


Posted by: Lawrence Auster on July 9, 2003 3:02 PM

matt’s unprincipled exception is standard form for all heresy. many a catholic has been drawn away from the Faith by one bad argument they were incapable of resisting.

Posted by: abby on July 9, 2003 3:08 PM

An unprincipled exception isn’t a bad argument though. Often enough the unprincipled exception to liberalism is the reasonable, commonsensical, and even traditional thing to do. It appeals to common sense and decency, and the fact that it directly contradicts liberalism is not immediately apparent (well actually it is, but people are well trained not to see it) so it makes the particular form of liberalism in which it is expressed look reasonable. Without these unprincipled exceptions the liberal order would collapse immediately into anarchism.

As Mr. Auster notes, the Bush death penalty UE is a textbook example of the failure of “issues conservatism.” Nothing discriminates with authority, and therefore violates the liberal principle of equal freedom, like the death penalty.

Posted by: Matt on July 9, 2003 3:19 PM

“Matt’s unprincipled exception is standard form for all heresy. Many a Catholic has been drawn away from the Faith by one bad argument they were incapable of resisting.”

I think Abby is misconstruing the point. The “unprincipled exception” is a CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLE, which, from the point of view of liberalism, is an unprincipled exception. Conservatives in supporting Bush for, say, his pro gun rights stand, are acting consistently on their principles. It is Bush, as a liberal (or right-liberal) who is making an unprincipled exception from liberalism, and thus sucking conservatives into supporting him, along with his liberal agenda.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on July 9, 2003 3:22 PM

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on July 9, 2003 03:22 PM
“I think Abby is misconstruing the point.”

i was simply pointing out it works both ways in leading someone into error. either by using something which is true with a lot of error, or with heresy something which is false, with a lot that is true. either way someone can be lead astray into accepting a false doctrine.

Posted by: abby on July 9, 2003 3:31 PM

the point is, someone bites on a particular argument for what ever reason while ignoring the rest of the doctrine and where it leads.

seventh day adventists for example, hit on the saturday/sunday arguement, and from it they get a person to buy into the rest of the doctrine.

Posted by: abby on July 9, 2003 3:50 PM

I think Matt’s model of the right-liberal ‘rope-a-dope’ scheme of using UE’s to suck in unwitting conservatives is quite accurate. If one looks back to the administrations of Bush I, Reagan, and especially Richard Nixon, the same dynamic is evident. After all, it was under the ‘conservative’ Richard Nixon that monstrosities like abortion on demand and affirmative action had their beginnings.

GW Bush is simply the latest incarnation of the right-liberal flim-flam artist. This is at least one of the reasons that lberalism/leftism appears to be such an inexorable force regardless of its brazen hypocrisy and incoherence.

Posted by: Carl on July 9, 2003 5:14 PM

To Abby,

Good answer.

To Carl,

No one ever called Nixon a conservative.

On the larger point Carl raised, it occurs to me how mainstream conservatives reading this discussion could think, oh, boy, here are these “unassuageables” who are never satisfied with anything, who are so ideological and extremist, who think everything is a liberal plot or something. However, the fact that the phenomenon Matt described is happening is absolutely proved, not by Bush’s own policy choices, but by the fact that so many conservatives have, as Matt pointed out, gone along with liberal positions coming from Bush that they would have resisted if it were a Democrat. They’re excited by his Christian demeanor, his support for capital punishment, his strong military stand and so on, and they drop their former opposition to all the left-liberal things he’s actually doing.

To repeat, the proof of Matt’s theory is not in Bush’s own behavior; the proof is in the actual leftward shift occurring among his conservative supporters as they follow him to the left.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on July 9, 2003 5:39 PM

The idea of a cooperation between liberals and conservatives is a staple of right-wing thought. For example, I once wrote: “Today’s conservatives are the right wing of the same revolution of which the left is the left wing. The revolution needs both wings to fly.” But Matt’s articulation has put more meat on this idea, showing in precise terms the way the process actually works.

Which is neat, given the fact that Matt is usually thought of an abstract thinker. :-)


Posted by: Lawrence Auster on July 9, 2003 6:08 PM

What is the Saturday/Sunday argument, and what makes it attractive to Catholics?

I am laughing even harder today at Matt’s “cha cha cha.”

Posted by: P Murgos on July 9, 2003 7:10 PM

Mr. Murgos wrote:
“I am laughing even harder today at Matt’s “cha cha cha.””

Its part of the Hegelian Mambo:

Thesis step to the left,
Thesis step to the left,
Grab Antithesis on your right and step to the left,
Twirl around
cha cha cha
And step to the Left…

Posted by: Matt on July 9, 2003 8:43 PM

Omigod. That’s great, Matt! :)

Posted by: Bubba on July 9, 2003 10:04 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):