rhetoric

E.J. Dionne has a really interesting article up today and one I totally agree with. He finishes with this:

Obama will thus be the conservative in 2012, in the truest sense of that word. He is the candidate defending the modestly redistributive and regulatory government the country has relied on since the New Deal, and that neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush dismantled. The rhetoric of the 2012 Republicans suggests they want to go far beyond where Reagan or Bush ever went. And here’s the irony: By raising the stakes of 2012 so high, Republicans will be playing into Obama’s hands. The GOP might well win a referendum on the state of the economy. But if this is instead a larger-scale referendum on whether government should be “inconsequential,” Republicans will find the consequences to be very disappointing.

Read E.J.s whole piece as it is really an eye opener to how far off the tracks today's Republican Party has gone.

Just like deciphering the start of a problem in grade school, you always got to look deep into the facts to distill rightwing rhetoric. Since the Tucson shooting the right has strummed up the chorus to scream and shout that the left needs to stop politicizing the event. While there was some politicization from the left, none of it has been as vitriolic as that coming from the right. It’s the old “practice what I preach, not what I do” rhetoric we have sadly become used to.

I pointed some of this out earlier this week when wingnut blogger Jim Hoft started a big stink saying that President Obama lied at the memorial service when he said Gabby Giffords first opened her eyes. It got so bad that the doctors actually had to stop treating patients to go out and answer questions about it, backing up what the President said. Of course to the right these doctors are nothing but leftist liars, which is really ironic when you think about how the right always says doctors hate Obama because of health care reform.

Sadly though that smear was just the start of it. Jim Hoft is continuing to point out the evils of the memorial event:

Just when you think popular right wing blogger Jim “Dim” Hoft (Gateway Pundit) couldn’t possibly post anything more stupid than his last post, he finds a way to take it to the next level of numbskullitude.

Today’s entry in the “Hoft Chronicles of Sheer Stoopit” has him trying to claim that the White House prompted the audience to applaud at the “Together We Thrive” memorial (with his usual taste and class, Hoft calls it a “pep rally”): If White House Was Surprised by Applause at Tucson Pep Rally… Why Did They Ask For It On Jumbotron?

Following up on my last post about the debate we need when talking about yesterday’s incident, this statement from Senator John Kyl, when talking about last night’s remarks from Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, are not helpful:

First, I didn't really think that that had any part in a law enforcement briefing last night. It was speculation. I don't think we should rush to speculate. I thought that the report that we just saw from Tucson seems to have it about right: We really don't know what motivated this young person except to know he was very mentally unstable as was pointed out in the piece.

It's probably giving him too much credit to ascribe a coherent political philosophy to him. We just have to acknowledge that there are mentally unstable people in this country. Who knows what motivates them to do what they do? Then they commit terrible crimes like this. I would just note Gabrielle Giffords, a fine representative from Tucson, I think would be the first to say don't rush to judgment here.

George Will has bestowed upon himself the duty to name America’s “worst politician”, and declares Alan Grayson the winner:

There are hundreds of plausible nominees for the title of America’s Second-Smarmiest Politician, but surely the top spot is un-contested. Americans of all political persuasions can come together in affirming one proposition: Public life would be improved by scrubbing Rep. Alan Grayson from it. This act of civic hygiene probably will be performed Nov. 2 by voters of Florida’s Eighth Congressional District. Polls indicate that a majority of them plan to deny Grayson, 52, a second term by electing his resonantly named opponent, Daniel Webster.

Grayson, never missing an opportunity to live down to his reputation, ridicules Webster’s “18th-century name.” Given Grayson’s relentless advertising of his intellectual shortcomings, it is surprising that he recognizes the name.

I’ll admit that Grayson does go over the top in the rhetoric against his opponents at time, but to be labeled the “worst politician” – really? He is worse than Stephen Broden who thinks a violent overthrow of the U.S. government should be on the table?

I have to think that George Will is the worst columnist in America and one that uses his pen to push intellectual dishonesty.

Meet Tim Randal. He is now the former leader of the Big Sky Tea Party in Montana. Here is what lead to his fall from power:

Tim Ravndal: "Marriage is between a man and a woman period! By giving rights to those otherwise would be a violation of the constitution and my own rights"

Keith Baker: "How dare you exercise your First Amendment Rights?"

Dennis Scranton: "I think fruits are decorative. Hang up where they can be seen and appreciated. Call Wyoming for display instructions."

And while people might be quick to commend the Tea Party on firing him, they must also ask themselves “how did he get in power?”.

Randal isn’t the first high profile Tea Party person to make such vile comments. Remember back in July when Tea Partier in Chief wrote a rather racist filled letter to Abraham Lincoln, acting like he was the President of the NAACP? That lead to Williams falling from power within the party (as far as we know), but yet he was also able to gain a position of power before showing his true, hate-filled side.

So with stories coming out every week exposing the extremist views of the Tea Party, the kind of views that would make the Taliban proud, America should stop and ask if this is the kind of views we want our country to be recognized for. Do we really want political leaders echoing the same kind of rhetoric that we are used to hearing from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? This American sure as hell don’t want that.

Jonathon Weisman at the WSJ echoes something I have been saying all along:

Islamic radicals are seizing on protests against a planned Islamic community center near Manhattan's Ground Zero and anti-Muslim rhetoric elsewhere as a propaganda opportunity and are stepping up anti-U.S. chatter and threats on their websites.

One jihadist site vowed to conduct suicide bombings in Florida to avenge a threatened Koran burning, while others predicted an increase in terrorist recruits as a result of such actions.

"By Allah, the wars are heated and you Americans are the ones who…enflamed it," says one such posting. "By Allah you will be the first to taste its flames."

White House homeland security adviser John Brennan told reporters Friday that he had seen no evidence that the debate over the proposed Islamic center in Lower Manhattan, other mosque protests or the planned Koran burning had affected U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

Of course hatred trumps common sense for so many in this country. It’s easy to burn a Koran or say no to a Mosque, but its hard to comprehend that these actions are alienating the second largest religion in the world. Does America really want a billion Muslims pissed off at us, instead of a few hundred radicals? 

It looks like the U.K. has a "to big to fail" problem also, except this time it's in the oil industry:

In that atmosphere, the stream of condemnations from Washington has stirred a protective backlash, even in this closest of American allies. Boris Johnson, the Conservative mayor of London, said Thursday that he was worried about “anti-British rhetoric” and “name-calling” from American politicians.

“When you consider the huge exposure of British pension funds to BP, it starts to become a matter of national concern if a great British company is being continually beaten up on the airwaves,” Mr. Johnson told BBC radio’s Today program.

First off, I haven't heard any 'anti-British rhetoric". Anti-BP yes, but not against the country as a whole. I'm sorry, but it's not our fault that you put all your eggs in one basket. If your conservative government don't like it, then start using your taxpayer dollars to help out BP.

And then there's this:

With all the Rand Paul news going on, I think it’s time to put his anti-government rhetoric into some perspective.

When people think government regulation, especially after you hear some Republican talk about it, you never think about the things that really keep us safe – things like fire safety codes. They are just there and they work to protect us. As a former fire inspector, I can tell you first hand that these “government regulations” save lives, but don’t take my word for it. Let’s go back a few decades to the biggest disaster that ever struck Kentucky. I think that’s appropriate, since Rand Paul just so happens to be running for Senate from the Bluegrass state.

On May 28, 1977, almost 33 years ago to the day, Southgate, Kentucky saw a fatal fire at The Beverly Hills Supper Club. The fire claimed 165 lives and injured over 200 others. It’s the third deadliest nightclub fire in U.S. history.

The cause of the actual fire was never fully determined, but the belief is that it was from faulty aluminum wiring (as was all too common in that era). But the cause isn’t what’s important here. What is important is the other findings of the investigation. Here is a list of violations inspectors uncovered: