September 11, 2009

The ridiculously hyperbolic remain in the M.S.M.

As if on cue from yesterday's post about the ridiculous "outrage" at Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" comment to President Obama during the latter's speech Weds. night, the Philly Daily News' Elmer Smith opines with "It's a small leap from 'You lie!' to 'You die!'"

I THOUGHT THAT the gun-toting goobers who waved their misspelled signs outside the president's speeches represented a new low.

Until Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer warned parents to prevent their children from hearing a speech by the president for fear he would "use our children as tools" to spread what Greer calls President Obama's "socialist ideology"

Then it was Wednesday night in the Capitol, where President Obama addressed the nation and a divided House and Senate. A fool named Joe Wilson, who represents the people of South Carolina, demonstrated his acute lack of impulse control and home training.

"You lie!" the fool shouted as the president pointed out that his health-care plan would not cover illegal aliens.

He was not the lone fool in the chamber of our divided house.

Others booed, hissed and laughed derisively as the president spoke. Still others twiddled their thumbs, folded their arms and worked on pocket computers to demonstrate disdain for the president.

I kept hoping that one of these juveniles would hold his breath until he turned blue in the face and spit up his pablum.

So what's next?

Well, based on the title of Smith's column you can probably guess. Yep, he's worried that all the "nasty" rhetoric from these "goobers" might lead to something worse for our president. To which I ask:

How in the f*** does Smith even manage to function?

I mean, he actually says the following at column's end:

This is about hatred, a visceral, personal and poisonous hatred on a level we haven't seen since Abe Lincoln was president. And we know how that ended.

A certain guy named George W. Bush would beg to differ, you idiot. Do I even need to mention why? But for lunkheads like you, Mr. Smith, that doesn't count -- for, as fellow delusional, radical partisan Joe Klein said earlier today, behavior such as that towards President Bush is justified because ... wait for it ... it is based on "substance" and "if they (Democrats) have a bias, it's towards policy, it's toward undue idealism."


OK. Now that I got that out of my system, this ... "attitude" seems to be popping up more and more often as I look around the political media. It mirrors that which regular DE Politics commenter "noman" recently wrote about conservatives/Republicans:

We are not polarized; we are corrupted.

Polarized implies two equal and opposite points of view. We donít have that.

We have a traditional American center that is trying to solve problems and make progress through history in a typically American way - and then we have the wingnuts, driven by greedhead corporations and investors, who are doing their best to pervert the process with lies and propaganda.

I can accept if you are not on board with a center-left, socially liberal agenda. Honest people can disagree about that, and there are honest ways to do so.

But death panels, indoctrinating children, birth certificates, socialist, authoritarian - all that crap is dishonest. Go ahead and disown a few of those wacko ideas, and there are more where that came from. You canít disown them fast enough.

I think the only reason the Repubs disowned the birther crap is because they were quite surprised to find it was blowing back on them. They went too far and actually got called out on it. If not theyíd still be pushing it.

OK, suppose you leave all the fringe stuff behind and try to form a rational oppostion argument, focusing on spending perhaps. You still canít do it, because you have never come clean about the failure of Republican economic theories, and you are not willing to acknowledge the hole the Republicans dug for us. Todayís CBO projections are no worse than projections at the beginning of the Reagan or Clinton administrations - and we dealt with them.

Itís not the disagreement - itís the dishonesty with which Repubs do it. Nearly every right-wing argument I read is pre-debunked before they even utter it - and in many cases they even know they are repeating material that was debunked.

Knowingly repeating a lie for political effect = Propaganda.

For people like Smith, Klein and noman, there just IS NO ROOM for disagreement (despite what noman, in this case, actually says above). Conservatives/Republicans are inherently bad; therefore, they are dangerous. And since they are dangerous, they should be dealt with. (Which, when you think about it, is quite ironic considering the title of Smith's column.) By "dealt with" I don't mean anything like "killed" (although some actually advocate that), but something more akin to what we see regularly attempted on American campuses -- things like speech codes, ridiculous expansion and interpretations of "hate crimes," and kangaroo-style hearings based on the presumption of guilt.

You can see it with Smith: Since he believes a representative calling the president a "liar" will lead to a serious threat on the chief exec's very life, something must be done about folks like Joe Wilson and those who would emulate him.

You can see it with Klein: He says

But the arguments against Bush and Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthy and so on were based on substance. The argument on this health-care plan is all fantasy. But the fact is that those kind of heinous arguments I think are a minor chord in the Democratic party, and they have been in the Republican party, but they are far more of a major chord. And I think that a lot of this, especially out in poor middle class white American is based in racial fears.

No rational disagreements on healthcare. "Heinous" arguments are a majority among the GOP, ultimately leading to (or led by) racial fears. And what is that but pure "hate," then? A "hate crime!"

And you can see it with noman: There's absolutely NO comparison between rightist and leftist crackpot theories (Birther vs. Truther), nor between calling Bush a "fascist" and Obama a "socialist," nor any room to prove the benefits of "Republican" economic theory.


Think about that.

And then think about, as I told noman in the comments at DE Politics, why those on the other side "bring up the names of famous authoritarians of the past" when folks like noman/Smith/Klein say what they do.

Posted by Hube at September 11, 2009 07:10 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)