That 80s Show

So here we are, practically overnight, back to the future, sort of. It's all here again, from Reaganomics to ReaganFashion, but with that 21st-century, better-wool-blends twist. On The Morning After?Wednesday morning after Election Day to be precise?I turned on CNN to get the latest up-to-the-minute depressing "news alert" on the returns. There was Paula Zahn, in a bright red suit. It wasn't just any old suit. It was fancy, smart and very special for our Ms. Zahn. It was a Republicans-are-now-in-control-of-the-government-and-I'm-celebrating-in-a-Republican-red-suit suit. Very Nancy Reagan/Betsy Bloomingdale, slick and with a frilly flap on the front. I guess during the 2000 election there was no moment like this?no red suit moment?since we were in the recount and the court battle for more than a month, and we then just sort of eased into the Republican White House. No one dared to truly celebrate?the Bushies were lucky enough just to be in office, thank you Sandra Day O'Connor.

So, here was our so-called "liberal media" finally celebrating. Soon they went to Daryn Kagan, who was in some other CNN studio, in Atlanta or wherever. And what do you suppose she was wearing? Yes, a very dressy, bright, Republican red suit. And she, too, had a big smile.

Maybe it was the 80s throwback with the futuristic spin, but it all suddenly had me thinking about The Handmaid's Tale?the 1986 Margaret Atwood sci-fi novel set in the future, when a fascistic, pro-life coup takes over the government and masses of women are forced to wear red smocks, living as baby vessels for the more privileged women, who've become infertile because of environmental catastrophes. In the 1990 film version, Natasha Richardson is our heroine while Faye Dunaway plays the hard-right, big-haired Phyllis Schlafly clone who's married to the Commander?in the over-the-top way that only Dunaway can play it. The sex scenes are pretty perverse, in which handmaid Richardson has to lie on top of a veiled Dunaway while the Commander performs "the Ceremony" on the handmaid (after first reading Bible passages).

Okay, things won't get that bad that fast?hey, we're allowed to be drama queens in these moments?but with the judges that Bush & Co. are intent on ramming through (and I shudder to think about the Supreme Court), and with Trent Lott saying he's going full speed ahead on anti-abortion legislation, it does look pretty dicey. Gary Bauer is already making demands, telling George W. Bush not to take the religious right for granted, not now that the Republicans have total control of the government. Some pundits say that veering further right (as if they haven't been far right as it is) could jeopardize the Bushies and ultimately be their downfall. That could be true, but in the process a lot of damage will be done.

That's the mess we're in, and it's now going to take a fierce opposition?in Congress and, yes, on the streets, make no mistake. From abortion rights, gay rights and affirmative action to the environment, foreign affairs (including the upcoming war) and taxes, we're in for some major and very nasty battles. The recriminations have been coming fast and furiously since Election night; I don't think I have anything new to say in terms of the faults of Democratic leaders. It's a little too easy to pile on and it's a tad disingenuous anyway. I've read so many brilliant analyses from liberals in the newspapers, and more online. Many were satisfying, blistering critiques. But I couldn't help but think: Why didn't we hear all of this before it was too late? Why didn't we give the Democrats a good thrashing while it still mattered? I'm not letting myself off the hook in that regard either; we all saw the handwriting on the wall. New York Times columnist Frank Rich and a few others always kept the Dems' feet to the fire, but they were few and far between. Now that we're back to those Reaganesque years, maybe we should take to heart the old ACT UP slogan of the time: Silence equals death.

The Sniper Pundits Fizzle

Last week I wrote about the right-wing sniper pundits' grand theory about the Beltway snipers being some kind of brainwashed agents of Islamic terrorists. I also wrote about National Review writer Jonah Goldberg's "nagging feeling" that the snipers must be leading an "alternative lifestyle," too. Implicit in Goldberg's claim, of course, is the idea that "sexual deviancy" just has to be tied to these monsters. And that's why Goldberg (son of that grand dame of sexual inquisitors, Lucianne of Lewinsky fame) works at that bastion of conservative morality, the National Review. This reminded me of when similar rumors were floated last year claiming that 9/11 hijacking ringleader Mohamed Atta just had to be gay, too, something that eventually broke in the National Enquirer, which?surprise, surprise?also now has a story about the sniper suspects being lovers. For all I know it could be true in both cases, and it would be interesting to know for a variety of reasons. But why do right-wingers like Goldberg run with tabloid-inspired rumors without any evidence when the subjects are murderers, while being reticent, to say the least, when it comes to speculating about someone they actually like? Goldberg just had to get this off his chest, but when the Enquirer starts running the interesting rumors that have come to my attention about a couple of those newly elected Republican members of Congress, I somehow doubt Goldberg's going to tell us about his "nagging feeling" about them.

Anyway, last week Goldberg, in NRO's blog called "The Corner," responded to my criticism by stating that he, well, didn't have "the time or the interest in responding," but did have the time and the interest in sharing a letter he received from a fan who defended him. In other words: "I've been caught red-handed and have nothing to say, but here's what someone who worships me has to say about the matter."

Now, in a front-page interview in The Washington Post last week, sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad's ex-wife not only further portrays Muhammad as a nasty, macho heterosexual womanizer who was psychologically damaged by his experience in the Gulf War (including by racism within the military), but she also says that the Beltway murders occurred all because of hatred not of America, but of her?a fellow Muslim.

"They all died because of me," Mildred Muhammad said, claiming that John Muhammad came to DC to kill her. As she describes it, her ex-husband hated her for taking custody of their children, among other things, and had threatened to kill her. The Beltway murders, she says, were part of an elaborate and twisted plan to get her attention. She frequented Michaels crafts shop and Home Depot, both sites where several murders took place, and she says the letter sent saying "your children are not safe anywhere anytime" was literally meant for her.

Of course, I wouldn't put it past the sniper pundits to claim that Mildred Muhammad is part of the massive scheme by Islamic terrorists and the coverup by those wretched liberals. But more likely, they'll drop this one now?it's unraveling too much?and no doubt move on to some new conspiracy they can hawk.

Michelangelo Signorile can be reached at [www.signorile.com](http://www.signorile.com)