Oh, Man!

Can there be a more clear demonstration of the insanity of the right wing than this?

If Kagan genuinely believed that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law was "a profound wrong--a moral injustice of the first order," why would she make herself complicit in implementing the grave evil? Yes, of course, it's true, as the article points out, that "barring the recruiters would [have] come with a price." But, as George Bernard Shaw would have said to Kagan for selling out her supposedly deeply held principles, "We've already established what you are, ma'am. Now we're just haggling over the price."

Here's what this guy is talking about: Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, evidently disagrees with the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Yet, as president of Harvard Law School, she allowed military recruiters on campus. I repeat: SHE ALLOWED MILITARY RECRUITERS ON CAMPUS. And this conservative pundit is offended. He thinks it's terrible that a potential justice would be able to put her personal beliefs aside in making an important decision. I repeat: .... no, I don't. It's just too amazing, too unbelievable, too obviously stupid and UNCONSERVATIVE (so they'd usually claim) a statement from a so-called conservative to take up more ink (or whatever this stuff is) than it already has. Discounting pragmatism or open-mindedness, in his article, which appeared in NRO, a reflexive organ for negativism no matter the issue as long as Obama is involved, the writer suggests the decision was only about money. Really?

It will, of course, get worser and crazier. And the cynicism will have no bounds.

The bony anorexic believes, and the unrepentantly stupid prevaricator agrees, that a fight over any Supreme Court nominee by Obama is a good deal for Republicans. This, of course, was said without knowing the pick. (My best advice is: don't watch the clip if your head isn't well-glued onto your neck. "Everything Obama has done is radical..." Gimme a break.) Consistent much?

So here we are. The objection to Sonia Sotomayor was that she might insert her personal beliefs into her judicial reasoning (yeah, like Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas don't. I only know of one judge who never did. There might be others.) And now it's gonna be that Kagan won't?!?!

If you repeat a lie often enough, people begin to believe it. That piece of political truth and social realism has never been more overtly adhered to than by the current cabal of Republican leaders, their house organ, and the right-wing screamers. (Ironic, isn't it? The freedom-loving anti-communists have adopted the seminal strategy of the Bolsheviks, the sine qua non of totalitarianism: lying. In print, on the air, everywhere, all the time.) There's no question that lying is the agreed-upon response to Barack Obama. The only question is whether it will continue, forever, to find the receptive and malleable audience that is so far has, in teabaggers, whether out of or in their cups.* Is there any point at which even they might say, "You know, events simply don't support the crap they're feeding us?"

Doubt it.

[Reality-based fact: as usual with most of Obama's actions, which, predictably, are anything but radical, there's some unhappiness on the left with his nominee.]

______________________

*Some will get that.