08 March, 2009

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

We're on quite the roll today. It seems the Cons' batshit insanity's even getting to David Brooks:

Just yesterday I argued that respectable figures of the political establishment are reluctant to call obvious stupidity "stupid," especially when it comes to truly painful ideas like a spending freeze in the midst of the economic crisis.

To his credit, the NYT's David Brooks said on ABC's "This Week" today what many are of his colleagues have been unwilling to say.

Describing Republican leaders, Brooks said, "The problem with them and the problem with Limbaugh in terms of intellectual philosophy is they are stuck with Reagan. They are stuck with the idea that government is always the problem. A lot of Republicans up in Capitol Hill right now are calling for a spending freeze in a middle of a recession/depression. That is insane. But they are thinking the way they thought in 1982, if we can only think that way again, that is just insane."

On this, Brooks couldn't be more correct. But what I'm especially impressed with is his willingness, in this case, to lay it on the line. There's no sugar-coating -- what Republican leaders are proposing is "insane." There's no defense for such madness, and Brooks did the audience a service by saying so.

My goodness. And this is coming from a man whose head is usually so far up his ass he can't see reality for the colon polyps. This is the same man who thinks Michelle Obama should start covering her arms. You know the Cons are crazy when an MSM figure that vapid starts to use the "i" word in regards to them.

And over on CNN, a man not afraid to use the L word comes into play:

D.L. Hughley talks to Crazy for God author Frank Schaeffer, whose father was one of the founders of the religious right. Schaeffer discusses his articles at the Huffington Post Why Obama Must Not Work With Republicans and Why Are the Republicans Such Anti-Obama Liars?.

From the latter:

Today the Republican Party is rooting for doom. And since the Republicans are now anti-American members of an Obama-must-fail insurgency, lies become a self-fulfilling prophecy: talk doom, and keep the economy in a panic and we may get what we wish for.

Don't conservative Republicans object to the lies? No, because the Republicans don't have any actual and traditional conservative followers left. The Republican base is now made up of religious and neoconservative ideologues, and the uneducated white underclass with a token person of color or two up front on TV to obscure the all-white, all reactionary all backward -- there-is-no-global-warming -- rube reality. Actual conservatives, let alone the educated classes, have long since fled.

That wasn't in the show, but this gem was:

HUGHLEY: Why -- why then are men like Rush Limbaugh and a woman like Ann Coulter so tremendously popular? Why then? It makes me as an American go, this is how a large percentage of the country feels.

SCHAEFFER: No, don't think so. I think if people read my book, they're going to see that the religious right started with good intentions. And then was manipulated by very crass people who have taken it in a different direction for personal gain. Today you have about 20 million people who buy all of Ann Coulter's books, watch Rush Limbaugh. Send money into the televangelists. It's all the same people.

The fact of the matter is, there are 300 million of us. There's no 20 million of us. The truth is I failed every math class. But somebody in the audience will tell us what the percentage of 20 million of 300 million. It's not a big percentage. It's just a loud percentage. This is the drunk on the subway making trouble in the car for all of the people on the subway. There are 100 decent citizens on there, there is one ass in the front that's molesting women. That's the Republican Party now in terms of the loud car.

HUGHLEY: I'm going to get in trouble again, aren't I?

SCHAEFFER: The difference is, I'm not apologizing or kissing Rush Limbaugh's butt. Though there is quite a bit to kiss.


Meanwhile, on yet another talk show, Lindsey "Mental Recession" Graham manages to prove himself a gargantuan dumbfuck:

On Meet the Press this morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) urged President Obama to veto the $410 billion FY09 omnibus budget because it has too many earmarks. Host David Gregory quickly pointed out that Graham’s friend and colleague, John McCain, has been highlighting Graham’s own $950,000 earmark for a convention center in Myrtle Beach, SC. Graham then pivoted from attacking earmarks to defending them:

“I voted to take all earmarks out, but I will come back in the new process and put that back in,” Graham insisted, saying that the convention center is important to stimulate the local economy. “I think I should have the ability as a United States senator to direct money back to my state as long as it’s transparent and it makes sense.”

Um, Lindsey? That is the very definition of an earmark, you dumbshit.

And, over at the NYT, we have reporters who strive to be as ridiculous as the Cons:
President Obama chatted with a couple of New York Times reporters aboard Air Force One yesterday, and the interview covered quite a bit of ground. I was taken aback, though, by the NYT approaching this nonsense in a serious way:

Q. The first six weeks have given people a glimpse of your spending priorities. Are you a socialist as some people have suggested?

A. You know, let's take a look at the budget -- the answer would be no.

Q. Is there anything wrong with saying yes?
A. Let's just take a look at what we've done....

Let me get this straight. Unhinged and hysterical Republicans have engaged in an absurd red scare, in large part because the White House supports a 39.6% top rate. The very idea that the president's agenda is similar to "socialism" is demonstrably ridiculous. So, given an opportunity to interview with president, the New York Times, arguably one of the world's most prestigious news outlets, asks, "Are you a socialist?"

No wonder this country's so fucked up.

1 comment:

Cujo359 said...

That David Brooks gets what the problem is should demonstrate just how easy it is to see. I wonder how long it will be before he has to apologize to Rush - I think I'll go with Monday evening.

To some people socialism is any government spending or taxing that they don't like. Is the NYT taking that seriously, or are they feeding the President an easy question?