An insightful excerpt from this article:
And right now the Republican Party accommodates too much quackery, belligerence and misplaced moralism to play a fully credible part in a vital, essential debate about the size and scope of government.
I make special note of the phrase "right now" because the Republican Party was not always that way. The editorial also notes that there’s hope, which is encouraging.
In yesterday’s Republican debate, Michele Bachmann made an uncharacteristically lucid comment regarding Newt Gingrich’s claim that “I did no lobbying of any kind for any organization.” (Freddie and Fannie)
Said Bachmann…
You don’t need to be within the technical definition of being a lobbyist to still be influence-peddling.
Gingrich comes off as very Clinton’esque when he makes his “I didn’t lobby” claims.
Of course, at another point during the debate, Bachmann headed back to her comfortable but loopy world of sunshine and rainbows.
I think it’s just outrageous to continue to say over and over throughout the debates that I don’t have my facts right, when it as a matter of fact, I do. I’m a serious candidate for president of the United States, and my facts are accurate.
Ummmm…
That sounds very much like, “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.”
I’m really ashamed that this woman is even electable in this country.
“The media wants you to believe that tea party patriots are toothless hillbillies,” said Bachmann, who instead cast the tea partiers as intelligent, educated and professional people. “This is a very sophisticated crowd. And then these charges from Democrats that they were spit upon, that there were racial epithets — there’s no one who saw anything.”
– Michele Bachmann
(source)
Sure, “toothless hillbillies” is over the top (and I haven’t seen the media make that accusation, anyway), but to say that they are “intelligent, educated, and professional people” is just as over-the-top as the hillbilly comment.
I’m sure there are some intelligent, well-educated tea partiers (well… I assume there are), but if there are, they are being grossly overshadowed by their ignorant (and sometimes bigoted… and sometimes borderline psychotic) counterparts… and it’s not the fault of the media.
Michele Bachmann fits neatly in the “ignorant” slot, though at the risk of being accused of ad hominem attacks, she’s been said to fit neatly in the “bat-shit crazy” slot, too. Bachmann’s ignorance, lies, and misguided rhetoric combine to demonstrate a perfect example of one of the big problems in our country.
That she actually got elected is equally dire.
(via)
From Obama’s Nobel acceptance speech (emphasis mine)…
The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
Thanks to M. Duss at the Wonk Room for pointing out the highlighted text. Duss says about the highlighted bit…
That’s a wonderfully succinct description of the simplistic and destructive ideology that drove George W. Bush’s foreign policy, and which Bill Kristol is still trying heartily to convince himself and others hasn’t been discredited. This isn’t to say that Obama hasn’t retained some troubling elements of Bush’s national security policy, which progressives will continue to challenge and debate. But I think it’s hugely important to recognize that the key foreign policy conceit of the Bush years, the idea that America is in an existential struggle with a monolithic, undifferentiated Islamofascist other, has been discarded. And America — and the world — is safer for that.
I’ll go a step further and say that it applies to many of the “Tea Party Patriots” and their vitriolic outrage toward anything and everything surrounding Obama, non-Christian religions, homosexuality, abortion, and a number of other issues. Their arguments and manufactured controversies, mostly vapid, provide for them the “satisfying purity of indignation” that rational thinking and critical analysis do not.
Hardly befitting someone claiming to be a “patriot.”
From John Moltz comes a link to an interesting perspective of the recent Washington, DC “Tea Party” protest march. He links to Matthew Yglesias’s website with the following quote.
As was the case with the bulk of the protesters, there was very little sense that anyone had any actual specific complaint with Obama’s health care proposals. That one woman loves the confederacy. This guy thinks guns are great and diversity is stupid. Many protesters feel that abortion is murder and/or that Barack Obama is in league with terrorists. But nobody had a sign urging the president to adopt more stringent cost control measures, or slamming the concept of regulations to require insurers to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions.
I don’t know if that’s valid criticism or not since protests (on pretty much any issue by any group) generally tend to be more about displaying slogans than offering solutions.
The signs I’ve been seeing in the photos I’ve viewed seem to express opinions on a pretty wide array of issues… including taxes, the deficit, ACORN, lies, socialism, Hitler, health care, and God. Some signs seemed to be well thought out by intelligent people. Some signs were obviously not. Some were absurd.
Again, I think that’s probably the case with almost any protest. You’ll find signs by sincere, intelligent, knowledgeable people alongside signs by folks who have good intentions, but are just running on pure emotion and don’t really know too much about the issues… alongside signs by people who are certifiable whack jobs. The signs will run the gamut from concern to anger to disgust to outrage to blind hate.
Most of the reports I’ve read about the protest this past weekend are saying that the crowd was exceptionally well-behaved. I haven’t read anything about any “incidents” occurring that would mar the gathering. That (in my book anyway) is a real plus for this protest.
Whether I agree with some or all of the protestors is another issue altogether, but I’m glad I live in a society where this kind of gathering is allowed to happen. There are some things about this country I think are wonderful and some things I think are pretty messed up, but freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are two of the great things.
I’m sure President Obama would agree with me.