Posted by: Rick | Monday, October 5, 2009

Rotting From The Head Down

Rightly disgusted at Republican glee over the failure of Chicago to secure the Olympics, Paul Krugman asks:

How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?

One reason is the absolute refusal of Republican leaders to ever rein in the angry, ill-informed mob that is its base. 

Take Newt Gingrich.  Sad to say, but in wingnut circles, he is regarded as an intellectual demigod — this, despite the fact that no one has ever managed to piece together his endlessly cascading bullet points into anything resembling a coherent policy.  He’s a giant bag of hot air who sounds smart only in relation to his acolytes and their dimwitted radio leaders.  (Sean Hannity, anyone?)

Despite his lack of substance, Gingrich is in a perfect position to provide moral leadership to the Republican masses.  Unfortunately, he insists on racing them to the bottom of the barrel.  Who can forget this golden oldie:

In 2004 . . .delegates at the GOP convention wore band-aids on their cheeks with little purple hearts drawn on them in magic marker (one of the many despicable lies Republicans were circulating about John Kerry was that he didn’t really deserve the three Purple Hearts he was awarded in Vietnam). When asked by reporters about them, they said giggling that they had cut themselves shaving, so they awarded themselves a purple heart. At one point, Peter Jennings asked Newt Gingrich, “Did you squirm a little when you saw the guy wearing the purple heart?” Gingrich replied, “No. I think it’s funny.”  [Emphasis added]

It would seem that the only thing Newt Gingrich is more afraid of than a tour of duty in Vietnam is confronting the more reprehensible elements of the Republican party.  I guess he needs them to buy his books and attend his speeches.

And common decency?  That’s for losers.



  1. I fail to see the so-called “Republican Glee”. If the rancor over the Olympics issue comes from anywhere, let me call attention to the media on the left and their talking heads who foment that view.

    • Ten seconds ago, while listening to Stephanie Miller, I heard Rush Limbaugh cry, “It’s the worst day of Obama’s presidency! The ego has landed!” He sure sounded gleeful.

      I guess I could be wrong, though. Try a Google search and see what you find.

  2. I just read (most) of Paul Krugman’s editorial. He bases his view upon
    1.)the blog posting of a supposed employee of Weekly Standard.
    2.)Rush Limbaugh an entertainer and nothing more
    3.)a Drudge Report headline which HE labels as gloating

    Does anyone else here see the bias oozing out of this fabricated story?

    Paul is guilty of fomenting a distortion which he attributes to all of the Republican Party.

    Hardly in-depth news reporting but after all it is nothing more than his opinion.

    I choose to stick with facts rather than dreamed up hear-say. If I want that I’ll tune in to watch The View.

  3. RE:Stephanie Miller

    She’s a comedian!!!

    Let’s make a distinction here:

    Stephanie Miller, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Keith Olberman are nothing more than entertainers. That’s all. They are not the official mouth piece of any party.

    It must be realized that to build audience they must engage in hyperbole from time-to-time. Sometimes their egos get the best of them and they engage in outrageous hyperbole. Ratings soar. They like that. A lot. It means money to them.

    Their programming consists of personal opinion based upon their analysis of current events. But it’s still nothing more than personal opinion. Ultimately it is left to the reader or listener to determine if the content is relevant to reality.

    Stephanie Miller is guilty of what she is accusing Rush and others of doing; Inflaming. …

    … which sort of makes her out to be a hypocrite.

    • Rush Limbaugh speaks for the vast majority of Republican activists. That’s just a fact. If you’re among the minority who disagree with him, I congratulate you, and I suggest you work to take back your party from the crazies who currently call the shots.

      Republican politicians aren’t stupid enough to gloat over Obama’s Olympic “failure.” Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the delegates who will attend the Republican National Convention in 2012 and nominate a presidential candidate. That’s scary.

      As for Keith Olbermann and Stephanie Miller: They’re liberal, but on an “influence” scale, they’re about a 2 to Limbaugh and Beck’s 10. (Too bad for my side.)

      • RE:Rush Limbaugh speaks for the vast majority of Republican activists. That’s just a fact.

        No, it is not fact. At best, it is supposition on your part.

        To make it a fact you would have to quantify the listening audience, quantify “Republican activists” and make some determination about how many of them listen to and then follow Limbaughs advice.

        Your statement attempts to paint with a broad brush and labels everyone involved in politics as incapable of thinking on their own and must run to the radio for guidance.

        That’s tantamount to saying all supporters and voters for Obama were mesmerized by his smooth oratory skills and promise for some kind of unquantified hope and change only to be shocked, dismayed and disappointed over his “sudden” show of colors which paint him out to be the very socialist so many others warned about and who now watch as he spends the country into historical oblivion.

        Oh… Wait…

        Never mind.

      • RE:Rush Limbaugh speaks for the vast majority of Republican activists. That’s just a fact. If you’re among the minority who disagree with him…

        White House officials are the ones who are characterizing Limbaugh as “the head of the Republican Party”. It is not a fact. Again, supposition on their part. The only fact which remains is that the White House is engaging in propaganda designed to both discredit Limbaugh and to influence your thinking about him. In essence. it is brain washing. It is more hyperbole.

        You really make too many suppositions. You believe that a large majority of voting Republicans listen to this entertainer. It’s only an appearance. It just looks that way. Limbaugh, Olbermann, et. al. are just rabble-rousers; they make a lot of noise.

        Limbaugh’s audience is radio-bound. They have to be able to listen to the guy while everyone is at work. Where you work, can people actually get an AM reception in that building? If they can, do they listen to him or music? Yea.

        There are crazies on both sides. Ignore them. I do.

        Here’s one; you remember the town hall meeting where someone showed up with an Obama sign and it had a Hitler style mustache on him? Lots of people blamed that on the Republicans. Fact is, the woman, and the signs, where from the Democrat side of the isle….. Lyndon Larouche (Democrat) to be exact.

        RE:Republican politicians aren’t stupid enough to gloat over Obama’s Olympic “failure.”

        There is no political advantage to do so. Here’s a reality; Everyone loses when we lose out on an opportunity to host an Olympics. The only body gloating are the talking heads trying to increase viewing or listening ratings. No politician anywhere that I know of is pointing an accusing finger at Obama and saying “Failure”. If there is one he/she is an idiot. Wait… maybe Shela Jackson Lee.. no… wait… she’s a Dem….. wait…. we’re talking about idiots…. ok… Shela Jackson Lee might be.

        RE:As for Keith Olbermann and Stephanie Miller:
        Yea, I know and I’m sorry for your side, too, because without a credible voice there is no conversation between viewpoints In my opinion, Olbermann’s ability to deliver thoughtful content is terribly eclipsed by his dark and sick hatred for anyone, mostly conservatives, who do not believe what he does. It’s ok to disagree, but to do so while spewing hateful vomit as he does goes over the line. If he were on my side I would slam him at every opportunity…. like I slam Limbaugh (sometimes).

        (Shocker: I slammed Bush alot and I voted for him. He turnout not to be the conservative I hoped. He acted more like a liberal in many instances. Case in point: open border philosophy; letting Saudi Arabian company be in charge of port security, etc.)

        Stephanie is still a comedian at the end of the day and really has no credibility…. and as with Limbaugh she delivers just another opinion about national events.

        I started to watch Beck only this past month. His content does not rest on hatred “for the other side” nor does he engage in rants (that I’ve see). What he DOES do is present facts (I check them) and uses those facts to deliver a specific point of view. His commentary, as does Limbaugh’s, (I can’t say Olbermann) and others like Limbaugh make listeners think. That is always a very, very, good thing.

        At the end of the program, listeners have the freedom and the brains to allow them to dismiss the particular point of view as outrageous and unworthy of further thought, or, if the content has merit, they can dig deeper into the subject on their own. Hell, they might learn something about government, disinformation from certain groups (Larouche) and might even decide that they viewed something wrongly. Always be ready to change your mind based upon the presented facts. If you cannot do that, then you have been corrupted, unwilling and incapable of processing truth.

        To me, that is the measure of a valuable story or presentation … fact based, no rants, no dark hatred, no vile and above all else, no editorializing. I just want a thoughtful presentation of facts which make me go “hmmm”.


%d bloggers like this: