Why the tea party cons hate us
To the extent that he goes, Frank Rich makes an apt comparison. The rage around the passage of the health care reform bill bears an eerie resemblence to the reaction to civil rights laws and desegregation of schools. But as Steve M points out, it's not as simple as that. This goes beyond racism and sexism.
The cons hate everything about liberals and Democrats beyond any reasonable thought or logic. Decades of GOP wedge politicking has conditioned them well to accept absolute hate of "the other" on every level as normal and acceptable conduct.
[More posts daily at The Detroit News]
The cons hate everything about liberals and Democrats beyond any reasonable thought or logic. Decades of GOP wedge politicking has conditioned them well to accept absolute hate of "the other" on every level as normal and acceptable conduct.
[More posts daily at The Detroit News]
Labels: dangerous idiots, Wingnuts
posted by Libby Spencer at 1:34 PM
4 Comments:
worth your attention;
'...the Republican Party now has taken some of the worst elements of Tea Party anger and incorporated them into its own identity. They are ticked off, red-faced, frothing — and these are the men in suits. '
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/house-of-anger/?ref=opinion
Thanks Ruth.
I find the response to Frank Rich’s Mar. 27 column “The Rage Is Not About Health Care” as illuminating as the column itself.
In the very same string of comments, while some on the right were playing the victim and bemoaning Rich’s characterizations (which were based on plenty of examples and evidence) as unfair or dismissive, Sarah Brown of California wrote in the right’s defense that “except for the bullet to Rep. Cantor's office, there has been no real hard physical threat of violence” – the exact inverse of reality, where police have concluded the bullet that struck Rep. Cantor’s field office was a stray rather than an intended shot.
Meanwhile, “Starman” of Minnesota wrote that the Congressional Budget Office numbers are “near-universally a lie” – the exact inverse of reality, where rational actors do not rely on government accounting conspiracies.
And “Releggneh” of Iowa questioned “why Fidel Castro endorses this take over if it isn’t a socialistic move” – a classic guilt by association cry rather than a discussion of health care on its merits.
Why is it so hard to explain to the far right that they can’t have it both ways? One can be rationally opposed to particular proposals on policy grounds – but one can not simultaneously be frothing at the mouth with propaganda and half-truths and expect to be taken seriously.
When Republicans suggest such fringe hatred is “unacceptable” but “understandable” and just needs to be focused toward the ballot box – that’s not good enough! Bigotry and rage are never “understandable,” and the current brand of "conservative" opposition will remain unacceptable until it returns to a realm of reality and legitimacy.
You're so brave to wade into the comments. I've come to believe there's really no way to reach a certain percentage of these people. Facts just don't penetrate. They in opposite world. Empirical evidence is lies and their delusions are facts.
Post a Comment
<< Home