March 13, 2010
The Republican Cult's Propaganda and "Argument"*
This blog has proven that the Republican Party is a cult
, and therefore, has absolutely no intention of governingHow does the GOP get tens of millions of followers to angrily oppose health care reform when it's in everyone's interest? How does the GOP get tens of millions of followers to denounce "government run health care" while they're enrolled in Medicare or the V.A. health system? How does the GOP get tens of millions of followers to attack "government run health care," and call for "less government" in health care, when there's thousands of private health insurance horror stories but few, if any, Medicare and V.A. horror stories? How does the GOP get tens of millions of followers - pro-life followers - to mock and make fun of "cradle to grave" health care? How does the GOP get tens of millions of followers to go along with polices that only benefit the rich, the powerful and the wealthy (at the expense of the followers)? How does the GOP get tens of millions of followers to continue to believe in "less government" and "letting the free market decide" when "less government" and "letting the free market decide" caused Wall St., the economy, and their own 401k's to collapse? How does the GOP get tens of millions of followers to go along with government handouts and largess (Socialism!) given to the oil, coal, gas, timber, insurance, pharmaceutical, banking and finance industries? How does the GOP get tens of millions of followers to believe that George Bush's eight years never happened? How does the GOP get tens of millions of followers to be for "less government" only when a Democrat is President? How does the GOP get tens of millions of followers to care about deficits only when a Democrat is President? How does the GOP get tens of millions of followers to embrace a mountain of spin (here, here, here and here) and totally ignore a bigger mountain of hypocrisy (here, here, here, here, here, here and here)? How does the GOP get tens of millions of followers to mobilize, in unison, against all threats? How does the GOP get tens of millions of followers to say what they tell them to, no questions asked? How does the GOP get tens of millions of followers to not think for themselves?
The short answer is that the GOP's a cult. The longer answer has to do with what makes cults thrive. And that's A) propaganda B) "argument" and C) confrontation with anyone who dares question that propaganda and "argument."
Politically, the left and the right will disagree. Obviously. But it's gotten to the point where conservatives must oppose everything a liberal believes. Always. No matter what. Because if they agreed with a liberal, it would contradict decades of GOP propaganda. And they can never admit their propaganda is wrong. This is why the right is stubbornly opposed to the public option, or any kind of health care reform. Because if they supported it, it would be admitting that the "free market" didn't work, and therefore, their "argument" was wrong and (gulp) liberals were right. And they can't admit that. Ever.
This is why Republicans despise Medicare. They said it was "socialized medicine" and wouldn't work. But it does work, proving them wrong. So they have to despise it, attack it, and propose cutting it. If they didn't, it would mean their propaganda - their argument that "big government doesn't work" - was wrong and liberals were right.
Global warming, which shouldn't even be considered liberal or conservative, is another example. Conservatives have a vested interest in global warming being a hoax because if it isn't, then liberals would be right. And liberals can't be right because, well, they're liberals.
So conservatives will never truly admit to global warming. On the contrary. Their mission is to prove that it is a hoax, or at least spin the "argument" in their favor (they will also not go out of their way to overly support conservation, green technology or mass transit because liberals overwhelmingly support them. Don't take my word for it, take theirs: "Drill baby, drill!")
This is what political discussion and "debate" has come to. The right would rather look foolish, and be impractical, then agree with a liberal. But that's what cults get you to do.
Another example would be George Bush practically dismantling FEMA so it couldn't respond to a natural disaster properly. Because if it did, then it would prove conservatives wrong about "big, bad, incompetent government." And the GOP certainly can't have any of that.
And the fact that FEMA wasn't able to come to New Orleans's rescue showed that government is "big, bad and incompetent," proving the GOP's propaganda "correct;" and in the process, produced more cynical, anti-government Republican voters.
Sick way to govern, huh? But who said the GOP's intentions are to govern? But wait, there's more.
Despite what deregulation did to Wall St. and the
So the right hasn't exactly staked out their policy positions based on fact, logic, reason, practicality or history. Instead, they're based on arcane propaganda and deliberate disagreement with Democrats, liberals or whoever the "enemy of the
The New York Times Paul Krugman:
Why are Republicans reluctant to sit down and talk? Because they would then be forced to put up or shut up. Since they’re adamantly opposed to reducing the deficit with tax increases, they would have to explain what spending they want to cut. And guess what? After three decades of preparing the ground for this moment, they’re still not willing to do that.
...At this point, then, Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they’re not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they’re not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan — and there isn’t any plan, except to regain power. (bold mine)
All this Republican obstruction, deliberate disagreement and lack of any cooperation, ever, inevitably leads to confrontation. And with the right, it's contentious, argumentative and vicious. It has to be because the Republican "Party" knows that the more hostile the confrontation gets, A) there can't be a mature, responsible, honest and intelligent policy debate (which the right can not have because they'd lose) and B) the more followers will come to their aid and protect their propaganda and defend their "arguments" against those evil liberals. No questions asked.
Krugman:
...in our current political culture, the background noise is overwhelmingly one of conservative platitudes. People who have strong feelings about politics but are intellectually incurious tend to pick up those platitudes, and repeat them in the belief that this makes them sound smart. (Ezra Klein once described Dick Armey thus: "He’s like a stupid person’s idea of what a thoughtful person sounds like.")
Inevitably, then, such people react with rage when they’re shown up on their facts or basic logic — it’s an attack on their sense of self-worth. (Bold mine)
Since it's counter to the right's propaganda about "big government" and the "free market," the followers - who I'm sure have a pile of medical bills themselves and need health insurance as much as anyone - were right there, at the town hall meetings, screaming against "death panels" and "Obamacare." Why? Because A) they needed a reason to oppose/scream at Obama, Democrats and liberals so they had to come up with something, and B) that's how they've been trained: to rally against their own self-interests as well as their countries. And they don't even realize it. But that's what cults get you to do.
What the Republican "Party" does, is get the followers to ignore facts and believe lies, that at times stands logic on its head, and reshapes the truth to conform to their neanderthal right-wing ideology. This is how the GOP protects their propaganda, defends their "arguments" and at the same time keeps their brainwashed base brainwashed and in a perpetual state of anger at everyone non-conservative.
All this because their propaganda and talking points have to be protected at all costs because they can never admit that liberalism is right and conservatism is wrong. Ever.
But even if the GOP wanted to behave like mature adults and take their responsibilities seriously (insert Republican joke here) they still wouldn't be able to because they're stuck on the wrong side of the issues. You can tell by the way they argue their case.
As this blog has proven, their "arguments" come down to nothing but blame, lies, fear (of Democrats, liberals, government and anyone who dares question their propaganda or "argument"), upside-down logic, childish ridicule, redundant and unimaginative talking points, (such as "less government," "lower taxes," "liberal media," "Socialized medicine," "Democrats are soft on [fill in the blank]," "Obama's a Socialist" and "Obama's going to take your guns away"), a mountain of spin and hypocrisy, and a nasty, pugnacious temperament (designed to instill that same nasty, pugnacious temperament in their brainwashed base to, again, keep their brainwashed base brainwashed and in a perpetual state of anger at everyone non-conservative).
Anyone with facts, logic, reason, practicality and history on their side, doesn't have to lie, insult, bully and "dumb down;" unless of course you're a cult trying to keep the mindless, gullible and ignorant as members.
But there's another way to prove that Republicans never have a leg to stand on. It's when they're right; or at least when they think they are.
On the few occasions when there's news or "information" that appears to back up their argument (but really doesn't), just look at how loud and obnoxious they are in promoting it and bragging about it.
For instance, conservatives and their moronic base made a big deal - a very big deal - about all the snow the country got, especially in Washington, and using it as proof that global warming's a hoax. "You see? We've been right all along!"
They were so confident that the snow proved conservatives right and liberals wrong, that they went out mocked global warming and Al Gore. "Na-na-na-na-na-na..." (I haven't seen such immaturity since kindergarten last fall).
This isn't the first time Republicans have made a big deal out of a bit of "news" that backs up their side of the argument.
Last fall, hacked e-mails at the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the United Kingdom suggested that climate scientists were pushing an "agenda." The right, naturally, pounced. "Ah-ha! We told you global warming's a hoax! We're right and liberals are wrong! Na-na-na-na-na-na..."
Naturally, the e-mails were misinterpreted . But that, naturally, didn't stop the GOP or their moronic base. The truth never does. So they covered their ears and screamed "la-la-la-la-la-la!...Global warming's a liberal conspiracy!..la-la-la-la-la-la!...Global warming's a liberal conspiracy!..la-la-la-la-la-la...Global warming's a liberal conspiracy...la-la-la-la-la-la...!"
For Republicans, this is what goes for a mature, honest and intelligent debate (July insert: More proof that "Climategate" was made up is here).
(March 29 insert: Ironically, this winter/year could go down as the warmest yet, here and here. April 15 insert: March was the warmest on record.)
Another example: In a desperate attempt to highlight whatever "good news" that came out of Iraq, Republicans waved purple fingers prior to President Bush's 2005 State of the Union speech to celebrate the "free" elections that had just taken place (why do I get the impression that if it was Bill Clinton that lied the country into a disastrous war, Republicans would have waved an entirely different finger?).
Since when do Republicans care about Iraqi's...voting? If if only they cared half as much when Americans are disenfranchised (heck, if only they cared half as much about Americans who lack health insurance!).
So this exaggerated public display of joy (sick as it was when you consider what it cost in American blood to have those elections) had absolutely nothing to do with free elections and everything to do with spin and damage control. In fact, this parade of "good news" proved what a disaster the war was because if the war was worthwhile and such a success, then all the "good news" (if there was any) would have spoken for itself and they wouldn't have had to go through this charade.
But they weren't through.
In their struggle to justify the war, in 2006, Republicans Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra declared:
...we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons. Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.
But the "weapons" were 20 years old. And:
(Santorum and Hoekstra) pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.
The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. (Bold mine)
Of course that didn't stop the GOP or their moronic base. It was, "You see! Bush was right! There were WMDs in Iraq! The war is justified! Liberals were wrong! Na-na-na-na-na-na...I'm going to cover my ears...la-la-la-la-la-la!...There were WMD's in Iraq!...la-la-la-la-la-la!...There were WMD's in Iraq!...la-la-la-la-la-la!..There were WMDs in Iraq!...la-la-la-la-la-la...!"
The fact that conservatives worked so hard and used a loud speaker to trumpet the slightest "evidence" of the existence of an Iraqi WMD program, or WMD's themselves, proves there weren't any. Because if there were, again, they wouldn't have to work so hard and scream so loud to prove it.
(The right, naturally, blames the so called "liberal" media for not reporting "Saddam Hussein's WMDs." Well, of course they'd say that. How else do you expect them to spin non-existent WMDs? You think it's an accident that this cult brainwashed their mindless and gullible base into believing the media's liberal [and then bullied the media into being conservative]? They had to because the GOP needs to insulate their followers from the truth. That's what cults do. Sure is a convenient to have a crutch like the "liberal media" lying around isn't it? By the way, if the media's so liberal, I'd like to see how the right explains this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this [July insert: and this]. Oh wait, they won't be able to because they don't have the facts on their side. So they'll lie, spin, blame, accuse, scream, shout and finish by calling me a "liberal." Never mind.)
But wait, there's more of this.
Last year, Republicans made a big deal over Nancy Pelosi's apparent 2002 briefing on "enhanced interrogation techniques" (waterboarding). But Pelosi denies she was briefed on the EIT program and it's not clear whether she was or not. Didn't matter. Just like the snow, the hacked e-mails, the 20 year old "WMDs" and Iraq's elections, the right played it up big (as a way to cover up Bush's war crimes).
Anyone see a pattern here?
I guess when you're "right" - assuming you can even call these instances being "right" - five times out of every 100 200 500 1000 times, I'd make a big deal out of it too. Sort of like a perennial F student getting a D on a test.
So Republicans are predictable. When they can't argue the facts (which is always) they use their lies, fear, spin, tantrums, ridicule, belligerence, intimidation, duplicity, crackpot accusations, blatant hypocrisy and talking points because A) that's all they got B) they must prevent a mature, honest, intelligent debate from taking place, and with the help of the conservative media, C) can protect their propaganda and defend their "arguments" by D) keeping their enraged brainwashed base, enraged, brainwashed and in a perpetual state of anger at everyone non-conservative so they'll E) come running to the Party's cult's defense, no questions asked, so the GOP can F) create gridlock, blame the Democrats and get (re)elected with G) votes from their enraged, brainwashed base.
And the few times when a "fact" comes out on their side - after it's been manipulated, misreported, misinterpreted, exaggerated or just plain laughable (i.e., Washington's blizzards) - they make such a big deal out of it, that it makes you wonder why they're making such a big deal out of it.
Govern responsibly? Why bother? Throwing stones are so much easier then picking them up.
Bottom line, when you have the facts and logic on your side, you don't have to lie, manipulate, insult, bully and shout the same unimaginative talking points over and over again to prove your point.
And on that rare occasion when a single "fact" comes out that seems to support your argument, you shouldn't have to scream, act like a child and make it out to be a bigger deal then it is...unless you're exaggerating. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Legitimate facts speak for themselves. So the more argumentative they get and the louder they scream (see last summer's town hall meetings, or this) the more wrong they are. And Republicans have certainly proven that.
But at least they've got tens of millions of followers, not only protecting their propaganda and defending their "arguments," but attacking liberals all their manufactured enemies as well. And that's all that matters to this cult.
What should also matter to this cult, is that, even for them, this anti-liberal, anti-government sentiment is getting even more inflamed (also see the undated insert below).
Note: Conservatives will say that liberals exaggerate "news" that benefits their side of the argument. Well, of course they'd say that; they have to spin this accusation somehow. What do you expect them to say when they can't argue the facts?
But with incessant screaming, ranting and intimidation coming from the right (see last summer's town hall meetings) what liberal exaggerations have there been?
But liberals don't have to act like spoiled children to prove their point. The problem is that no one can hear them above the right's screaming, ranting and intimidating (see last summer's town hall meetings). And that's exactly how the GOP wants needs it. Gee, I wonder why.
Note: When you consider what the right did with some snow, elections in Iraq and misinterpreted e-mails, can you imagine what they would have done if Medicare denied brain surgery for say a 90-something year old with terminal cancer? My God, our ears would still be ringing from their rants and raving over that. Because with Fox "News," talk radio and the rest of the conservative media, all the right needed was just one case like that to counter the thousands of horror stories coming out of the private health insurance/health care system (hundreds of thousands if bankruptcies and the uninsured are included).
But the right didn't come up with one. And I'm sure they looked just as hard as they did looking for "good news" from Iraq (I'm shocked the right just didn't make up, or um, exaggerate a Medicare horror story).
This not only shows that Medicare - "big government-run health care" - works, but is probably too generous.
Perhaps the reason why it is so generous is because if it wasn't, conservatives would be right there screaming about "death panels."
If only they held the insurance industry to the same (right-wing imposed) impossible-to-meet standards. Then again, guess who meets those (right-wing imposed) impossible-to-meet standards: Socialist big government-run health care!
Imagine what we'd hear from the right if Medicare slipped up...just once.
Imagine what we would hear from the right if when insurance companies slip up thousands of times...
Crickets.
Note: President Obama has cut taxes, increased military spending, called for freezing discretionary spending (in a recession), sent more troops to Afghanistan, twice, is conducting a secret war in Pakistan that includes dropping bombs by drones, has swept Bush Administration war crimes under the rug, has either continued or gone further with Bush's policies on detainees that includes indefinite and preventative detention, and using the "states secrets" excuse to keep public information on torture and administration law breaking secret, has continued Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, will renew the Patriot Act without privacy protections, nominated a moderate for the Supreme Court, took "single payer" of the table, allowed the public option to flounder, supported tort reform, cut a deal with Big Pharma, in secret, signed the credit card bill that had a provision allowing guns in federal parks and has endorsed off shore drilling and nuclear power.
(May insert: Ian Welsh lists Obama's conservative actions, here.)
I'd list all of Obama's liberal actions, but other then allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire (December insert: well, at least that's what he said), there really haven't been any (bailing out the auto industry, like Bush bailing out Wall St., had to be done). And if just pushing health care reform - legislation that, ironically, turns out to be "Republican" and very similar to what Republican Governor Mitt Romney enacted in Massachusetts in 2006 - is considered "liberal," then we're in more trouble then I thought (but it goes to show, A) how much Obama and the Democrats cave to Republicans, B) that Republicans will distort, oppose and block any Democratic legislation even if it includes almost everything the GOP asked for and means voting against "life" [and with the "evil baby killers"] on an abortion procedural measure, and C) the GOP cons their own base into opposing legislation they very well could use. Why? For petty partisan political reasons. How? The base has been stripped of the ability to think for themselves [assuming they had the ability to begin with]. So they go along with it, no questions asked [what a way to govern, huh? But again, who said the GOP's intention is to govern?]).
So you'd think the right would be quite pleased with such a moderate conservative Democratic President. But they're not. They still attack him, relentlessly. And not on legitimate policy differences either. For example, the right has attacked Obama because he uses a teleprompter, because he put his feet up on the Oval Office desk, because he didn't have his jacket on in the Oval Office, once, because he bowed to the Japanese Emperor, because he waited three days to speak publicly about a terrorist attack and because he had the nerve to speak to school children (all things, by the way, Republican Presidents have done).
If that's not enough, they're still hung up on nonsense like this.
So their attacks are petty, silly, hateful, hypocritical, made up, exaggerated, reprehensible and designed to do nothing but divert attention, waste time, block legislation, make intelligent debate all but impossible, drive Obama's/Democrat's poll numbers down and - most important - rile up the base to keep them in a perpetual state of anger (March 22 insert: don't take my word for it, take George Bush's former speech writer, David Frum's word). And since they believe every word of it (here too), no questions asked, they always are.
What does it tell you that the GOP would rather repeat inciteful propaganda ("Obama's a Socialist!"), create a mob mentality and spark political street fights then have a mature, honest, factual policy debate that proves Obama wrong? Heck, when the health care "debate" begins with "death panels" and ends with "You lie" - my God, when the right won't even admit that Obama's a United States citizen for Christ's sakes! - what the hell does that tell you?
This is what we're dealing with here.
So the fact that Republicans never raise policy concerns responsibly, substantively and maturely, and behave like school yard bullies instead, it goes to show, again, A) they're unable to argue the facts, B) they wouldn't if they could (because they don't and they can, despite Obama being a conservative), and C) what this cult's priorities are and how important it is for the GOP to be on the attack every minute of every day against those who are...this is where I'd say "non-conservative," but Obama's a conservative...would dare question their propaganda and "arguments."
Note: More proof that the GOP has done an excellent job getting their followers to A) not think for themselves and B) oppose anything a Democrat's for, no questions asked. From Salon's Joe Conason:
Reading their posts on (Sen. Scott) Brown’s (R-MA) own Facebook page, it is clear that many of them have no idea what is in Reid’s jobs bill, nor do they much care. Cutting taxes for small businesses and helping governments pay for bonds to build infrastructure is denounced as akin to communism -- solely because the bill is sponsored by the Democratic leadership. Of course, the Senate minority leader and all but four of Brown’s fellow Republicans essentially adopted the same position (which indicates that they are eager to obstruct any Democratic legislation, even if it simply mirrors their normal policy preferences). (bold mine)
And in regard to the right's shouting, ranting and immaturity, here's Conason quoting conservative Andrew Breitbart, who was behind the bogus "undercover" ACORN videos:
"ACORN was caught red-handed and all they can do is the politics of personal destruction. No accountability! At the end of the day, three people exposed this thing ... They don't care about the rotten corpse of the Great Society being exposed ... They don't care! They don't care! They don't care about these people! They don't care! It's disgusting!"
When asked whether any actual prostitution was involved in the incidents taped by Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe at various ACORN offices, Breitbart replies, "They posed as a pimp and a hooker." Then he swiftly becomes infuriated. "I don't understand what you're talking about!" He shakes his head wildly: "Why do you think that's a point?
"Why don't you care about ACORN?" He repeats, more loudly, with his voice shrilling into a higher register: "Why don't you care about ACORN? Why do you care about the nuances? Did you see the tapes?"
Not waiting for a reply, he continues: "Are you insane? ... Is your ideology so strong that when ACORN, in almost every office except for one" -- holding up a finger -- "are you so insane, that they helped them create 501C3s for this underage prostitution ring where we're gonna get 14-year-old girls, it's called sex slavery, you're supposed to be liberal and care about this shit, you don't care!" Here he starts shaking his head again, like an enraged toddler. "You don't care!" (bold mine)
March 18 insert:
Whenever the right is proven wrong - dead wrong - in a manner that makes them and their position on a particular issue look even worse, they mobilize and go on the attack to counter it. They have to because they can not allow the proof to resonate around the country - even it it means going after an 11-year old boy that just lost his mother.
From McClatchy:
Conservative talk show hosts and columnists have ridiculed an 11-year-old Washington state boy's account of his mother's death as a "sob story" exploited by the White House and congressional Democrats like a "kiddie shield" to defend their health care legislation.
They called in the right's heavy hitters for this one. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin all went after this poor kid. Hard.
A one-time occurrence? Not at all. In 2007, the right, including Rep. John Boehner, attacked a 12-year old. Hard.
In 2006 Rush Limbaugh mocked Michael J. Fox and his Parkinson's disease when he appeared in a political ad. Of course he did because the ad was going to hurt Republicans.
Again, this isn't about honest, mature disagreement over policy. This is about a cult that can not, under any circumstances, have their propaganda and "arguments" questioned, ever. Or else, they fear, the truth will come out, they'd lose members (fat chance as it is) and the cult will dissolve (for America's future, I wish).
But with tens of millions of mindless, gullible, ignorant and brainwashed followers, that will never happen - unless the Democrats take them on. And I mean take them on.
I won't hold my breath.
Insert (since I'm sure I'll be adding links to this insert, there's no sense in dating it): This is how right acts when they don't get their way: here, here, here, here, here (and then John McCain will pick up his marbles and go home), here, here, here, here, here, here (even spoiled, selfish, rotten children all over the world would think that's immature!), here...
At the behest of Republicans, right-wing bullies are threatening and intimidating Democrats that include incidents of vandalism. And where is President Obama on all this? Yes, I know he can't give these thugs and vandals attention by responding, personally...but Mr. President, wake up! The Republican Party is not a political party! They're a political terrorist cult that last summer hung a Congressman in effigy, joked about lynching Democrats and are now practically condoning threats, intimidation and vandalism against members of our government! Show your own rage and call them out on it!
I won't hold my breath on that one either.
March 28 insert: Prior to the effigy and joke about lynching, The New York Times Frank Rich remembers:
...the current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. The first signs were the shrieks of “traitor” and “off with his head” at Palin rallies as Obama’s election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since — from Gov. Rick Perry’s kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to “You lie!” piercing the president’s address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot.
March 27 insert: RNC Chairman Michael Steele won't even sign a statement that advocates civility and rejects violence.
Again, this is what we're dealing with here.
Continuing with the undated insert: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here
March 26 insert:
As I pointed out, the health care legislation that was passed last weekend was very similar to what Republican Gov. Mitt Romeny passed in Massachusetts. A key component to both plans is the individual mandate that forces everyone to buy insurance.
Since it's a key portion of "Obamacare," Romney is now trying to justify his mandate (of course, he has to), but not Obama's.
In 1993 Republican Senators Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley came up with their own health care legislation to counter "Hillarycare." And guess what? Their plan also had an individual mandate. Meanwhile, they tried to sabotage "Obama's Socialized health care plan" that had an individual mandate. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow explains this, and their hypocrisy, here.
So you see? Republicans must oppose whatever a Democrat's for, even if it was their idea!
So just because the Democrats are for something, Republicans have to oppose it, even if they agree with it. And then they're forced to defend their opposition, which makes them look foolish because they can't.
Cults make you do things like that.
April 1 insert: The Republicans were for closing Guantanamo Bay, offshore drilling, a bipartisan deficit panel and "Paygo"...until President Obama came out for them. Now they're not. Rachel Maddow explains, here.
April 3 insert: Rachel Maddow does an excellent job of detailing how the right manufactures fake news, so they can get outraged over it, and then bury the facts when they emerge, here. I recommend viewing that clip.
April 16 insert:
Conservatives not only believe that tax cuts can solve every problem (from the economy to health care to budget deficits) but they're always screaming - screaming! - for "less taxes".
So let me see if I have this straight:
When Bush cut taxes on the very wealthy (during wartime) and left the crumbs for the middle class, and exploded the deficit in the process, we didn't hear a peep out of the right. But when Barack Obama cut taxes for 95% of Americans - thus giving the right exactly what they're always screaming for - they hold anti-tax protest rallies where they exhibit their rage, anger and hatred of Democrats...for being "over taxed"...even though taxes are at their lowest in 60 years.
Seriously, only a cult can twist your logic that much, get you to believe blatant, obvious lies, get you to mobilize against those lies, and angrily protest against those lies and your own self-interests.
Either that or these anti-tax tea baggers are incredibly, incredibly mindless, gullible and stupid.
Hey, conservatives, which one is it? Are you a cult or that mindless, gullible and stupid?
May 3 insert:
Since BP's rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico made the right's "drill, baby, drill" manta look even more ignorant and foolish, they weren't about to let it resonate and prove them even more wrong then we knew they already were.
So Rush Limbaugh put up a firewall to at least "protect" this cult's most mindless, gullible and brainwashed by insinuating that the explosion was an inside job by environmentalists:
...what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I'm just noting the timing here.
By using Rush's cynicism and, um, "logic", we should assume that he was behind the attempted car bomb attack in New York's Times Square. Because had the bomb gone off, resulting in hundreds of casualties, that would have taken the media attention away from the oil spill, which is exactly what Limbaugh and the right needs (not to mention that it would have also made Obama look bad by "allowing" a terrorist attack.).
Limbaugh continued with his nauseating spin by saying:
I'm not advocating don't care about it (the oil) hitting the shore or coast and whatever you can do to keep it out of there is fine and dandy, but the ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and was left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is.
Put the spin aside. It's why they're spinning, how hard they're spinning and the illogical ignorance behind the spin that's important because it's just more proof they're a cult.
June insert: The right opposing what the left does because they have to for petty, partisan political reasons isn't new. As I pointed out in this post about the 9/11 attacks, the outgoing Clinton administration warned the incoming Bush administration about the al-Qaeda threat. But if Bush acted on it, it would have looked like he was doing what Clinton told him to do. And there was no way that Bush, Cheney and Rove would allow that, even if it meant compromising the nation's security. So Bush ignored the al-Qaeda threat.
June insert: Surprise, surprise. Fox "News" is not only supporting/defending BP, but they're blasting the $20 billion escrow fund, set up by BP to assist those who have been financially harmed by the oil. Of course they are because A) they're fronting as Obama's "opposition party", B) they have to blast Obama to water-down his "victories" (can't have his approval numbers go up a single point for a single day!) and C) there's no freakin' way they'd ever give Obama credit for securing this money anything. So besides blasting him when things go wrong, they also have to blast him when he does something right. Insane, isn't it?
You'd think that Fox "News" wouldn't want to look foolish and risk their journalistic credibility by blasting Obama for getting BP to set up this fund (oh wait, they don't have any journalistic credibility). But A) stop me if you've heard this: that's what cults get you to do! and B) What do they care? Their mindless and gullible viewers believe it. And that's all that matters to this cult.
August insert: Here's another example of the right cutting off it's ignorant, stubborn nose because they have to disagree with the left.
Net Neutrality is complicated but it means that internet (or cell phone) providers would be allowed to "tier" Internet access speeds without it. So some web sites would have faster speeds, while others would have slower speeds, unless you paid extra for the faster speeds. And that's a form of censorship because some big corporation is inhibiting the free flow of ideas and information, especially to and from little-known web sites. You know, sites put up by the Tea Party.
So who could possibly be against net neutrality? The Tea Party!
You see, the left knows what net neutrality is, so they support it, obviously. Therefore, conservatives have to come up with a reason to oppose it so they can scream at liberals (as if they need another reason to scream at liberals). And I'm sure the right-wing propaganda machine gave them the reason to oppose it: big government (December insert: or a liberal conspiracy to silence conservatives). Go figure.
Hey, if it means coming down on the side of big corporations, if it means allowing big corporations to tell us what web sites to visit and not visit, and if it means big, powerful web sites would have faster speeds, while access to Tea Party web sites could be a lot slower, just so they can oppose liberals and scream at liberals, then so be it. Cults will make you do that.
September insert: I wanted to add something, but since it was important, I wanted to make a separate post out of it. So please continue here.
September insert: Another reason why the right incessantly attacks Obama, is to make him out to be evil and worse then George Bush (which is next to impossible; I say "next to" because with Republicans there's always a chance they can be worse). The right has to do this to make the country, or at least their base, hate and despise Obama so much that they'll forget George Bush's eight years, or at least deflect negative attention away from Bush and onto Obama.
September insert: The 1988 Presidential election between George Bush and Michael Dukakis was a turning point in electoral politics because it wasn't just the beginning of ruthless attack politics, but showed what would happen to a candidate and his campaign if those attacks went unanswered. The Bush campaign bombarded Dukakis with one attack after another but he didn't respond to any of them. And the rest is history.
The Republican "Party" and their propaganda machine learned a lot from that. Not only that candidates must respond to every single attack, but that you can use the same strategy to keep the truth from resonating. For example, if someone believes the world is flat, and you want them to continue believing that, you can by attacking and tearing at the credibility of anyone who says the world is round.
Because facts and the truth aren't unfair attacks based on lies, it's not entirely like responding to an unfair political attack based on lies because in this case you're firing the first salvo as if it was an unfair attack based on lies. And that's the key. It's an offensive attack against the truth, not a defensive response against lies.
The leaders of this cult knows that they won't convince everybody. But remember, this is a cult whose members were/are weak-minded to begin with and that's all they need.
Here's a great example of this. The other day the National Bureau of Economic Research, a non-profit, non-partisan organization from Cambridge, MA, announced that the recession, technically, ended in June 2009. Since the economy isn't much better then what it was when Obama took office, no one would believe it. So it's not that big of a deal, and you can only give Obama so much credit for ending the recession. But Meghan Kelly of Fox "News" mocked this economic technicality and this organization for no other reason then to tear its credibility down. Of course she did. She had to, to make sure that not a single Fox "News" viewer gave Obama an ounce of credit (as if there was a chance of that) which would last all of a few seconds.
The right basically did the same thing when Al Gore won the Nobel Peace prize in 2007. They mocked him, and the award, because the right couldn't allow the Democratic Party's poll numbers to go up half a point for a day (as if it really would). And they did the same when Obama won his prize (I'd say Republican politicians can only win Nobel prizes in their dreams but I don't even think they want to win one. I'm serious. And that's how sick this "Party" has become.).
Nothing is too petty for this cult. They will never, ever, allow a bit of good news that benefits Democrats, or any fact that contradicts the right's propaganda or talking points go unanswered. It will be severely attacked, along with the credibility of whoever is saying it.
Lee Atwater's legacy is alive and well. Unfortunately.
October insert:
As I've proven, whenever a Republican is on the hook for something going wrong, the leaders of this cult have to make up something to show their followers that it was the right thing to do, not his fault, or was a Democrat's fault. I just thought of a couple more of these instances:
In the main body of this post I brought up how the right told their base that WMDs were found in Iraq, which would justify the war, and the "liberal" media just wasn't reporting it. But what was also gobbled up by the right-wing base was that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. That too would "justify" the war. But it was a lie that George Bush barely tried to correct even though he never used it as the reason for the invasion (if Hussein was behind 9/11, then why did the right approve of the war in Afghanistan?). But hey, as long as you can make up a reason to justify the war after it turns into a disaster, that's all that matters.
The other thing was the 2008 stock market/economy crash. We all know it was caused by deregulating the banks, investment banks and insurance companies (for "competition" reasons) and also a lack of regulation of the derivative markets (credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations). So the right took a big hit because it was their entire mantra - "competition," "free markets," "less government," "deregulation," "no regulation," and "let the industry police itself" - that was responsible for bringing the global economy to its knees. So they had to come up with something to deflect that blame and pin it somewhere else. And that's exactly what they did when they blamed it on the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act which required banks to lend money in low income neighborhoods. So the financial collapse was all Jimmy Carter's fault. And Bill Clinton's (even though he strengthened the CRA). And ACORN's!
But the CRA, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and ACORN (obviously) had nothing to do with the crash. The right made it up. (December insert: Now, they're saying it was all the government's fault.) In fact, the "big government" CRA was working fairly well and doing what it was designed to do until George Bush weakened its enforcement by making it harder for investigators to go after loans that shouldn't have been made. (July, 2011 insert: Democrats voted for the deregulation in the late 1990s and Bill Clinton signed the legislation. So in that sense, Democrats are just as responsible for the collapse as Republicans.)
This just goes to show how the right will always come up with a lie to not only deflect blame from themselves - and put it on the left - but most important, to protect their propaganda. And in this case, they had a lot to protect. Heck, it's everything they got. So there was no way the leaders of this cult were going to allow their rhetoric and everything they're always calling screaming for to be held responsible for crashing the economy and stock market, even though it was. And when you have brainwashed followers that will believe everything they're told, it's very easy to do. And it worked because Republicans are campaigning on - you guess it - "competition," "free markets" and "less government."
After what those five words did to the global economy, you'd think the "liberal" media wouldn't allow Republicans to get away with it. But it does.
November insert:
While the health care legislation didn't go nearly far enough, one of its better provisions "big government" regulations is that insurance companies can't deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Who can disagree with that? Rush Limbaugh.
I'll let Digby take it from here:
Although it sounds ridiculous, Rush is in the process of making his followers believe that the pre-existing condition provision in the health care reforms is something bad and shameful. The reason he's doing this, of course, is because this is the most popular piece of the bill and the one on which the rest of it hinges. If they can divide people on that, the repeal of the plan will be much easier.
Again, the right has to attack everything that comes from the left, even if it makes a lot of sense and is long overdue, because they can not, under any circumstances, allow anything from the left that makes sense to succeed.
How much more proof do you need?
Note: Don't pat Obama and the Democrats on the back for this pre-existing/non-denial of coverage regulation. Since health insurance will be mandatory, it had to be in there for obvious reasons.
November insert:
When it comes to national security, Republicans go overboard trying to show how tough they are. So they probably go too far. And when it came to Russia's nuclear weapons, "trust but verify" became a GOP repetitive talking point. So when the recent nuclear weapons treaty was about to expire, it was very important to negotiate and ratify a new one, not only so on site inspections of their nuclear arsenal can continue, but to ensure that "loose nukes" don't end up in the hands of terrorists. Even Republican Senator John Kyl was on board with this...at least until Obama negotiated a new treaty with Russian President Medvedev last spring. Kyl and the Republicans have held up a vote to ratify the treaty all year.
Despite the White House chasing after Kly with "29 phone calls, letters (and) briefings" that gave him "everything he wanted," he's still blocking it. He wants to wait until next year when there will be more Republicans in the Senate and therefore, that much harder to pass (which is Republican logic for ya since they wanted this all along).
They're blocking this because - stop me if you've heard this - they have to oppose everything that Obama's for, even if they agree with it, even if it damages our credibility, and even if it compromises our national security because God forbid Obama get a victory; a "victory" no one would even notice.
Rachel Maddow explains all this, here.
But there's more to this. Last I checked the Democrats have a 59-41 majority in the Senate. Why is the White House kissing John Kyl's feet here? Where the hell is the leadership? Can you imagine if a Republican President negotiated this treaty and 41 Democratic Senators were blocking its ratification? No, I can't. Can you imagine a Republican President kissing a Democrat's feet to get it through? Hell no.
If the minority Democrats did block it, the GOP and Fox "News" would be asking, "Why do Democrats hate America?"
So why do John Kyl and the GOP hate America? I guess IOKIYAR.
November insert: Even though the GM bail out worked and tax payers are getting their money back, Republicans are saying it didn't work and GM should have been forced to declare bankruptcy. And Republicans don't mind looking foolish doing so. According to their, um, logic, it would have been a better alternative for the industry to collapse, a million Americans to lose their jobs, and benefits, and for businesses, big and small, up and down the line, to be wiped out, then give Obama credit and admit you were wrong (as usual). So once again they have to attack and put a negative spin on great news because the alternative to that can not happen.
Rachel Maddow explains, and shows Republicans looking terribly foolish, here.
December 16 insert: Paul Krugman gives examples of conservatives re-writing history (to protect conservatism), here.
December 24 insert: Here's Paul Krugman giving a perfect example how the right manipulates facts and makes stuff up, knowing their base will believe it.
If you listen to the recent speeches of Republican presidential hopefuls, you’ll find several of them talking at length about the harm done by unionized government workers, who have, they say, multiplied under the Obama administration. A recent example was an op-ed article by the outgoing Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, who declared that “thanks to President Obama,” government is the only booming sector in our economy: “Since January 2008” — silly me, I thought Mr. Obama wasn’t inaugurated until 2009 — “the private sector has lost nearly eight million jobs, while local, state and federal governments added 590,000.”
Horrors! Except that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, government employment has fallen, not risen, since January 2008. And since January 2009, when Mr. Obama actually did take office, government employment has fallen by more than 300,000 as hard-pressed state and local governments have been forced to lay off teachers, police officers, firefighters and other workers.
So how did the notion of a surge in government payrolls under Mr. Obama take hold?
It turns out that last spring there was, in fact, a bulge in government employment. And both politicians and researchers at...conservative think tanks quickly seized on this bulge as evidence of an exploding public sector. Over the summer, articles and speeches began to appear highlighting the rise in government employment and issuing dire warnings about what it portended for America’s future.
But anyone paying attention knew why public employment had risen — and it had nothing to do with Big Government. It was, instead, the fact that the federal government had to hire a lot of temporary workers to carry out the 2010 Census — workers who have almost all left the payroll now that the Census is done.
Is it really possible that the authors of those articles and speeches about soaring public employment didn’t know what was going on? Well, I guess we should never assume malice when ignorance remains a possibility.
Or flat out making stuff up so you can throw red meat to your base, knowing full well they'll gobble it up.
...And this isn’t the only case of a claimed huge expansion in government that turns out to be nothing of the kind. Have you heard the one about how there’s been an explosion in the number of federal regulators? Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute looked into the numbers behind that claim, and it turns out that almost all of those additional “regulators” work for the Department of Homeland Security, protecting us against terrorists.
Still, why does it matter what some politicians and think tanks say? The answer is that there’s a well-developed right-wing media infrastructure in place to catapult the propaganda, as former President George W. Bush put it, to rapidly disseminate bogus analysis to a wide audience where it becomes part of what “everyone knows.” (Bold mine.)
And it’s a very effective process. When discussing the alleged huge expansion of government under Mr. Obama, I’ve repeatedly found that people just won’t believe me when I try to point out that it never happened. They assume that I’m lying, or somehow cherry-picking the data.
Of course, Paul, because you're part of the "liberal" media. And we know what a bunch of liars they are. So they won't believe you. The truth and facts don't matter. That's how well they've been trained.
+/- show/hide this post
