Wow. Rendered (not) speechless.
And I thought Republicans were the "national security" party?
If you listen to the Republican candidates and their bigoted vitriol towards Stephen Hill, there are two points that have been made immediately clear.
First, this crop of Republicans and their public would have opposed racially integrating the U.S. military in 1948. They are dead-enders, on the wrong side of history.
Of this fact I have not doubt.
Second, the Republican Tea Party GOP is playing for a very narrow share of the electorate. Students of politics know that you run for the fences in the primaries and then go back to the center for the general election. But, and here is the dysfunction of American politics in the Age of Obama, at present the Right-wing rage machine is driven by more than mere partisanship: they hate the symbol of social change and inclusive citizenship that is Barack Obama. There are no apologies or embarrassment for this sentiment.
Moreover, while the pundit classes may talk about how the American electorate may appear to be increasingly "sorted" and "polarized," the embrace of the monster's ball antics of (now counting) the last three Republican debates signals to a divide that is even greater than what the Culture Wars portended in the early 1990s.
A thought. During the Civil Rights Movement and the radical 1960s it was well known that the U.S. government infiltrated Left and Progressive organizations with agent provocateurs who radicalized those groups into taking actions--often violent ones--they otherwise would never have considered.
As I watch the Tea Party GOP further devolve in each of their primary debates, I have to wonder if there are not outside forces pushing them towards the cartoonish levels of political thuggery and mean spiritedness they have demonstrated to this point. Or is the Tea Party GOP just showing us who they are and always have and will be?
I am happy for what I saw as the reveal is an important one. I also weep for what I saw and what it signals about the health of our democracy.
4 comments:
Santorum... Stanorum... Oh, wait, isn't he the one with the frothy anal sex problem?
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/rick-santorum-google-problem-dan-savage
And why didn't he serve? Should I ask? Will he tell?
But anyway, shouldn't these rancid assholes, if they really are conservative, express the view that sexual orientation is none of the government's business? And if they can't find evidence that sexual orientation somehow adversely effects fighting ability at the group or individual level (and history suggests not), then shouldn't they just mind their own fucking business and shut the fuck up? Or better still, step aside for better qualified leaders, like, oh, I don't know, pretty much ANYONE ELSE?
John. Be nice. The Google monster is mean to him enough. More seriously, the populist Conservatives have not interest in what those "experts" say. They don't believe in science, and God tells them the gays are bad. That qualifies as enough evidence with which to make policy. At this point, I don't know how any self respecting person could align themselves with these anti-intellectual thugs.
It's such a sad statement about the new lows that are becoming a norm in our society, especially for those how claim to ask WWJD. If only they would practice what they preach.
Post a Comment