how are people allowed to get away with saying this? and why are the democrats not leveraging this? i know why fox news and the other sensationalist outlets are not covering it, but why not others?
essentially calling for a military coup to solve the "Obama problem" is not something that should be allowed.
i had always heard about Nixon's anti-semitism, paranoia, and underhanded political machinations. but i don't think it ever was clear until i read analysis and transcripts dealing with his theory of a "Jewish cabal" designed to damage him politically. frankly, the man was a monster, and why anyone would idealize him is beyond me. we'll put aside his liberal social agenda; negative income tax, health care reform, anyone?
choice quotes:
President Nixon: All right. I want a look at any sensitive areas around where Jews are involved, Bob. See, the Jews are all through the government, and we have got to get in those areas. We’ve got to get a man in charge who is not Jewish to control the Jewish . . . do you understand?
President Nixon: Second, most Jews are disloyal. You know what I mean? You have a—you have a [White House Consultant Leonard] Garment and a [National Security Adviser Henry A.] Kissinger and, frankly, a [White House Speechwriter William L.] Safire, and, by God, they’re exceptions. But, Bob, generally speaking, you can’t trust the bastards. They turn on you. Correct? Am I wrong or right?
could the noticeable uptick in vitriol and demagoguery, breaking news and frenzied rants, emanating from glenn beck have anything to do with his new book, to be published on Tuesday? no, of course not. surely it has to be a coincidence.
if the product description on amazon wasn't laughable enough as it is, enjoy this gem: "Idiots...can be found only by looking for people who hide behind stereotypes, embrace partisanship, and believe that bumper sticker slogans are a substitute for common sense."
sound familiar?
lesson #1 from obama's administration: post-partisanship does not work in the current political environment, or it at least requires a firmly defined and achievable set of specific policy priorities. attempting to split the difference (triangulate, as it may be) on policy issues results in your base begin upset and the opposition continuing to oppose your initiatives, in essence irregardless of content. and if you are going to try to claim the middle ground, you need to lay out a specific set of legislative proposals, rather than let congress tackle the brunt of crafting the proposals. this latter insight applies mainly to the health care debate, but is certainly applicable in other areas as well.
further proof that a well-organized and effective campaign does not necessarily translate into productive and effective governance.
egregious moderation is such an unbelievable pet peeve. middle aged moderators with nothing better to do than sit around patrolling comment threads need to chill with the power trips.
what is the point of the internet if policing decorum devolves into simple censorship?
