Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Cretinous Republican politics

Liz Cheney, taking a momentary break from her role as designated media defender of her father's complicity in war crimes, took some time to say that Birther conspiracy kooks - specifically like this one - have a legitimate reason to question whether President Obama is a real American.

CHENEY: But setting that aside, I think that — you know, one of the reasons I think you see people so concerned about [whether or not Obama is a US citizen], I think that, you know, this issue is people are uncomfortable with having, for the first time ever, I think, a president who seems so reluctant to defend the nation overseas; a president who sits through completely venomous screed by Daniel Ortega and then his only response, when the United States has been hostilely attacked, is to say, hey, you know, basically, I was only there at the time.
Is there anything too malicious for prominent Republicans to say? The Republican Party, by not ostracizing and denouncing persons like Cheney, or Dobbs, Hannity, Limbaugh and others for spreading and kindling such hate, is really turning into a party of villains.

And as to Obama being "a president who seems so reluctant to defend the nation overseas," as Joan Walsh points out, I guess not everyone can be such a bad ass chickenhawk warrior like Liz's dad, who himself got 5 deferments from the Vietnam war, but as VP was more than willing to send thousands of US soldiers off to die in an unnecessary war sold with his lies.


malcontent said...

Just make sure you don't blame these thugs for stoking the fears of the most volitile among us.

Even though these authoritarian lunatics (leaders and followers) have been conditioned to crave rage through their regularly scheduled programming, we have the first amendment to shield these culture warriors from accountability when liberal hatin' yahoo's pop their corks.

I found this article fascinating:

C2H50H said...

Something was bothering me about the title, until I finally realized it was the redundancy in "Cretinous Republican".

I observe a trend, by the way, in which the Blue Dog Democrats have basically co-opted that portion of the GOP base which has most of the money. Looks like evidence that the predictions of a future in which the GOP becomes exclusively the party of wackoes and the Democrats split, forming a new party, were right.

The question is, if that happens, which part of the Democrats will keep the name, and what will the other part be named?

Personally, I'd like the progressives to desert the Democratic party and form the Progressive party. Sure, inertia will mean that the Blue Dogs will get an outsize vote, especially from that segment of the Democratic voter base which is too stupid to understand what happened -- but I'm OK with that, if it means having more clearly delineated representation.