Magnifying Glass and Old Map wallpaper

Magnifying Glass and Old Map wallpaper

 

Is there a contest underway to see who can be the biggest wing-nut dipstick. Gateway Pundit (Jim Hoft) seems to be ahead on points just judging from the last few days. The last we heard from Hoft he was scarfing up any web page he could find to prove Tucson murderer Jared Loughner was a liberal ( or a leftist. Hoft, like most right-wingers think they’re the same thing). In his desperation he posted a fake web page, Shameless: Jim Hoft Falls For Fake Facebook Profile In Attempt To Link Loughner To Obama. Hoft has since pulled that down, but MM has a screen shot. Which proved that conservative bloogers show the same standards for nutroots citizen journalism they display on the opinion page of the Wall St Journal. With the lesson in such recent memory most bloggers might have learned to take a breath and do a tiny bit of research before rushing to the latest smear. For that, one would have to have qualities like integrity and humility. These are not highly esteemed virtues among most conservatives, so true to form Hoft is back, Wingnut Blogger Jim Hoft Mistakes Closed Caption for Applause Prompt at Tucson Memorial ( screen shots at link). So the Right is trying to politicize the Tucson memorial the way they did with the Senator Paul Wellstone memorial service. L,G, and M has a good post on the Right’s latest freak out over how one should mourn, Who taught you how to mourn?

I can only imagine what critics of the memorial might do if they attended a Jewish one: “Why are these people screaming and ripping off their clothes?  Why is everyone pinning shreds of ripped cloth to their suits?  Who organized all these pins?”  If you actually have been close enough to someone of a different religion, race or class to attend a service for or with them and are still criticizing this execution of this one, you reveal the emptiness of your criticisms and the baseness of your convictions.

What did the queen of right-wing bed wetting take away from the memorial service? Obama is dying his hair and that is very ….something conservative folks with values like Jim Hofts find distasteful, Late Night: Obama’s DIE JOB!

The latest outrage is that the President of the United States may be dyeing his hair, which is wicked and conniving and wicked, for obvious reasons, these reasons being, well because. Anyone who dyes their hair is worse than Hitler, who didn’t dye his hair, but murdered millions of innocents.

Open Salon has a note from a closed captioner about the applause prompt – We Reject Your Reality and Substitute Our Own! It should go without saying that the same people who think President Obama is part of the greatest presidential hoax in history – his Hawaiian birth certificate – are not going to let some evidence change their lizard brains about an applause sign. They need urban myths like this the way an addict needs their crack. And MM has done a post on the closed captioning, No, Jim Hoft, The White House Did Not “Ask For” Applause On Jumbotron

President Reagan’s son Ron has stated in a new book that his dad’s Alzheimer’s may have come on as early as 1984 – Michael Reagan Rips Half-Brother Ron Over Book and Alzheimer’s Claim. Ron is a liberal as is his sister Patti Davis. There has been some speculation about the time frame in which Reagans’ Alzeimers started to appear. Such as Lesley Stahl of CBS News, in her 1999 book, Reporting Live. We may never know for sure. There are still mysteries and theories about Abraham Lincoln. Such are curses of being a public figure. According to the Reagan worship club this Alzheimers talk is going to reap great benefits for liberals. Conservative blogger Moe Lane, Trying to erase ‘tear down this wall.’( linked to as a great post by several other nutbars),

It is my first instinct to treat this report of Ronald Reagan Jr’s… commentary… by simply letting it pass by without a response.  For those not wishing to click through, the boy (use of term deliberate) is indulging elderly liberal fetishists everywhere by making the claim that his father was suffering from Alzheimer’s as far back as the 1984 debates*, as well as ‘details’ regarding a supposed operation in 1989 that had even the US News & World Report doing some fancy footwork in order to avoid having to declare it a lie.  It’s the Left; it’s pornography; it’s Left-porn.  Outside of that particular niche market, its utility is… low.

The problem with that simplistic analysis is that if Ronnie had been suffering from some kind of medically determined diminished mental capacity during his presidency than the Right can claim Reagan bears no responsibility for his disastrous administration. Reagan gave us Iran-Contra, the HUD scandals, the lobbying scandals, the EPA scandals and Reagan playing socialist( by conservative standards) with the Savings and Loans collapse and subsequent take-overs. The Reagan administration had more felony convictions than any presidential administration. Would diminished capacity also mean Reagan does not get credit for single handily bringing down the Soviet Union. Well, he didn’t and does not deserve credit anyway. That myth is a Conservative spit in the face to all the people who actually contributed, often in blood, to bringing down the Berlin Wall. Reagan was president at a time the Soviet Union was collapsing. An event predicted by economists and CIA analysts since the late 70s. Does he deserve credit for being at the right place at the right time, than stepping into the spot light to claim credit. He does deserve some credit, but in historical context. Imagine millions of people had been tearing down a great wall for fifty years. Reagan comes along and knocks over the stone. It is sad and ironic the Right wants to take credit for Reagan’s liberal legacy in regards to the Soviets, Tear Down That Myth

Though no evidence has turned up to corroborate the Rohrabacher account, the triumphal storyline has endured. What’s more, it has done so even though it runs counter to Mr. Reagan’s actual policies toward the Soviet Union at the time. From the autumn of 1986 through the end of his presidency in January 1989, Mr. Reagan was in fact moving steadily closer to a working accommodation with Mr. Gorbachev, conducting a series of summit meetings and signing a major arms control agreement — steps that were strongly opposed by the American right.

The opposing perspective on the Reagan speech is that it was nothing but a stunt. The adherents of this interpretation include not just Democrats or liberals but many veterans of the George H. W. Bush administration.

In a 1995 book about the end of the cold war, “Germany United and Europe Transformed,” two former officials of the first Bush administration, Condoleezza Rice and Philip Zelikow, minimized the significance of the Berlin Wall address and its role in the events leading up to the end of the cold war. They argued that after the speech was given there was no serious, practical follow-up. No one pursued any policy initiative with respect to the Berlin Wall. “American diplomats did not consider the matter part of the real policy agenda,” they wrote.

Others agreed. “I thought it was corny in the extreme,” Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to George H. W. Bush, told me. “It was irrelevant, that statement at that time.”

Even some of Mr. Reagan’s own senior foreign-policy officials seem to think the speech was not particularly noteworthy. In his 1,184-page memoir, former Secretary of State George P. Shultz does not mention the speech at all. Similarly, Jack C. Matlock, who served as Mr. Reagan’s Soviet adviser and then as United States ambassador to Moscow, does not discuss the speech in his own book about Mr. Reagan’s relations with the Soviets.

But those who dismiss the speech as insignificant miss the point, too. They fail to see its role in helping the president line up public support for his foreign policy.

Conservatives have been in search of a political messiah since the FDR administration. Historians still rate FDR and Lincoln ahead of Saint Ronnie. After Bush 43, who may go down as the worse president in the nation’s history, the Right seems even more determined to find a conservative savior. Ultimately Regan’s triumph’s were his liberal legacy of engagement with the Soviets and backing off the scorched earth conservative economic policies which he started in his first term. Bill Maher recently joked the Founders would have hated the tea baggers. As far Right as Reagan was there is no way Reagan would be elected today, in light of the far Right shift advocated by the likes of the tea baggers and Bush 43.

About these ads