Excellent.  Love your posts.

I remember being struck dumb with fear and loathing back in the late 1970s when I accidentally flipped on the 700 Club, thought “Hmm, that’s interesting: a Christian talk show,” until 30 seconds later when the crazy toad (Pat Robertson?) smilingly proposed the death penalty for homosexuals.

Oh, they’ve always been nuts and bigoted and crazee, and irrational, and totally frightening. And dangerous.

I was having a conversation with a conservative friend of mine who had no idea Glenn Beck existed until this summer - he’s simultaneously appalled and fascinated by the fact that a man so terrible could become so influential.

The level of willful blindness among the few remaining rational conservatives to the state of their movement continues to astonish me.  Several weeks ago, I was conversing with a former Republican politician who is now sitting on the federal bench (still fairly conservative but, IMO, definitely non-crazy).  You would think that such person would at least have a vague opinion regarding Michelle Bachmann, but he honestly had no idea who she was.

Seriously?

He compares Obama to 9/11 hijackers in a fucking Christmas book?

GAH.

I’ve reached the point where I can’t tell if Glenn Beck is a madman or a genius.

Obviously, as a public persona, he’s a complete lunatic, but his lunacy resonates with a large enough audience that he’s been able to parlay it into a fairly lucrative brand.

I was listening to Stephanie Miller on XM Radio the other day, and a caller asked her if her personal experiences with the rightwing screamers on the radio at industry conventions revealed them to be as crazy as they sounded on the air.  And she said that very few of them were as actually unhinged in person as they sounded on the air.  She went as far as saying that while she absolutely detests his political beliefs, she thought Sean Hannity was one of the most friendly and amicable people in the business she had ever encountered outside of the public eye.  The essential gist of what she was getting at is that a lot of these folks are consciously playing it up bigtime for the cameras and the microphones, and they know that they are nothing more than millionaire rodeo clowns who don’t even believe half the shit that flies out of their mouths, but they know it gets ratings, so that’s why they do it.

That said, as charming as someone like Sean Hannity may be in a one-on-one off the record private encounter, it doesn’t excuse him and his ilk from the damage that their words cause.  True believer or not, many of the sycophants who tune in to listen to his bile ARE true believers, and see the so-called “culture war” as an actual war and a call to arms, literally.  And when we see people like Scott Roeder taking up arms and gunning down abortion doctors in cold blood after listening to assholes like Bill O’Reilly referring to Dr. Tiller as “Tiller the Baby Killer” several hundred times in one year, blood is on their hands.

In a wierd way, I have to believe that Rupert Murdoch was privately happy to see Barack Obama elected, because he probably knew that Fox News ratings would be boosted as a result, and in turn, he stood to personally profit from the vitriol that he could produce over it.  Hell, Rush Limbaugh never disappeared from the public eye, but his public prominence hasn’t been this big since Clinton left office in 2001.  And without Bill Clinton, Limbaugh might never have made it bigtime… he was nationally syndicated in 1988, but he didn’t become the #1 national political talk radio host until Clinton came into office.  It’s part of why I don’t worry too much about Roe being overturned completely, because these people have made millions off of its politicization, and Republican candidates have raised fortunes by continually promising to get it overturned, despite being unsuccessful in achieiving that goal for more than 35 years now.

Even if these people got everything they claim to want, I don’t know if they would be happy.  They would just find something new to be angry about.  They don’t know how to live without their anger.

I don’t know if Glenn Beck is a true believer or not.  It doesn’t really matter one way or the other, because enough people who listen to him ARE true believers.  And they are scary fucking people.

So…a legitimately elected President is somehow the same as murderous hijackers?

And treasonous traitors who want to kill the legitimately elected President in a coup and install some new form of government are somehow the same as people fighting to save their lives from murderous kidnappers/hijackers?

The crazy train?  Left the station LONG TIME AGO.

It’s part of why I don’t worry too much about Roe being overturned completely, because these people have made millions off of its politicization, and Republican candidates have raised fortunes by continually promising to get it overturned, despite being unsuccessful in achieiving that goal for more than 35 years now.

I’ve felt this way in the past, but I worry now, because there are too many under-informed or ignorant regular people who’ve bought into the anti-choice crap, at least in the sense that there’s no downside for a politician to be anti-choice anymore. I think this is a case where the anti-choicers might have done their job too well, and that we’ll actually see some sort of abortion ban (thanks to right-wing SCOTUS appointments) and the resultant horrorshow before we get anywhere near the rights women had in the years immediately following Roe v. Wade. I think that in the long run, we’ll get better legislation—hopefully a constitutional amendment codifying the right to privacy explicitly—but in the meantime there will be a lot of pain, all of it unnecessary.

How stupid is this conservative friend of yours, who knows absolutely nothing about the country in which he lives? Is he your friend out of pity?

I’ve felt this way in the past, but I worry now, because there are too many under-informed or ignorant regular people who’ve bought into the anti-choice crap, at least in the sense that there’s no downside for a politician to be anti-choice anymore. I think this is a case where the anti-choicers might have done their job too well, and that we’ll actually see some sort of abortion ban (thanks to right-wing SCOTUS appointments) and the resultant horrorshow before we get anywhere near the rights women had in the years immediately following Roe v. Wade. I think that in the long run, we’ll get better legislation—hopefully a constitutional amendment codifying the right to privacy explicitly—but in the meantime there will be a lot of pain, all of it unnecessary.

I don’t know… it seems that any attempt to overturn Roe with the current SCOTUS would result in a 5-4 decision upholding it.  Kennedy would be tenuous, but I can’t see him actually joining the 4 total wingnuts in a reversal decision.  Otherwise, I think it would already have been a done deal once Roberts and Alito were confirmed.

Sotomayor may not be the progressive dream pick, but I don’t think she’s necessarily ideologically to the right of the justice she replaced, David Souter - who was appointed by Bush 41, incidentally.  I realize she’s Catholic, but a big chunk of American Catholics are opposed to overturning Roe (while claiming to be “personally pro-life”), particularly Christmas & Easter Catholics, which is most of them.

Now, if a Republican becomes POTUS in 2012 or 2016 and either Stephens and/or Ginsburg are still on the bench, then I might get a little worried.  But with the current court?  I just don’t see it happening.

“I was having a conversation with a conservative friend of mine who had no idea Glenn Beck existed until this summer…”

Jesse, if he was a Real Conservative™ he wouldn’t even talk to you.  You’re one of those left-of-the-left hippie liberals who supports healthcare for females and thinks we shouldn’t have the Death Penalty.

Your friend is probably one of those scummy Moderate RINOs like Scozzafava or Crist. 

(Has your friend ever said anything good about Sarah Palin?...)

Of course, Marshall’s buying into the right’s delusions of victimization too: “largely shut out of power”? Really? When the President won’t shut up about “bipartisanship” and “common ground”? Formally, perhaps (perhaps!), but I’m not sure Stupak would even have been proposed if no one gave a shit what Republicans thought.

DTG (4):

Republican candidates have raised fortunes by continually promising to get it overturned, despite being unsuccessful in achieiving that goal for more than 35 years now.

Demcrats do the same thing, of course. “We’ll extend equal rights to LGBT Americans real soon now.”

Democrats do the same thing, of course. “We’ll extend equal rights to LGBT Americans real soon now.”

Unfortunately, yes.  I’ll make no attempt to defend what is becoming a more and more indefensible record of bait and switch on this issue by the Donkey Party, including our current POTUS.

Just to clarify - that 9/11 comparison quote is NOT in fact from Glenn Beck’s book, or even Glenn Beck’s lips (that I know of, but I bet he wishes he’d said it).

It’s a tweet from CO State Sen. Dave Schulthies of Colorado Springs.

He who opposed a bill funding (or mandating, can’t remember) testing pregnant women for HIV, because, if a baby grows up with HIV, develops AIDS, and lives a tough life, that will get people thinking about the consequences of their promiscuity.

(He did somewhat soften his stance after visiting a school for pregnant teens/teen parents. But still.)

most psychopaths are rather charming and quite rational sounding, if you ignore the fact that they’re, well….........psychopaths.

i keep hoping for a latter day jonas salk, who develops an effective vaccine for these people.

I have a moderate conservative friend who believed in many of the things George W. Bush preached against and tried to destroy, and opposed most of what GWB tried to do. And yet, he WOULD NOT HEAR any criticism of the man. He took it as a personal insult. I still don’t get it.

Glenn Beck is no different than Father Coughlin
And who could forget Palins speech: “We grow them good in small towns.” Echos of Father Coughlin for sure. It implies that anyone from the Burbs or urban areas in Not a Real American(tm). I am so very tired of the culture wars.

I don’t think it’s conceptually possible for a rational extreme right to exist, or a rational extreme political anything to exist for that matter.  To be at the extreme of any political spectrum, one has to have rejected rationality and any fact-based existence and gone off to dwell in a nether region of fear and myth.

...a fashionable LED Christmas sweater…

I’m SO gonna get me one of those…

The level of willful blindness among the few remaining rational conservatives to the state of their movement continues to astonish me.  Several weeks ago, I was conversing with a former Republican politician who is now sitting on the federal bench (still fairly conservative but, IMO, definitely non-crazy).  You would think that such person would at least have a vague opinion regarding Michelle Bachmann, but he honestly had no idea who she was.

That shouldn’t amaze you. That kind of willful blindness has been a part of right-leaning belief systems for most of the 20th century. Before then, they were more open about their misanthropy, and declared that it was god’s will for poor infants to be gnawed by rats. But the right-wing position has slowly morphed since then, from arguing that it’s bad but the parents’ fault, to arguing that something ought to be done and it’s someone’s job to form a study commission about it, to denying that it ever happens. (Albeit we’re heading back to the first two positions among some “conservatives”.)

Think of it as an abusive family relationship. The only way the nominally-rational conservatives can get along is by not seeing all the stuff that the wingnuts say and do, or discounting it as “just entertainment”.

I think the ability to be amiable and personable in private settings removes the last vestige of moral excuse from the wingnut broadcasters. If they were clinically insane and really went 100% for what they spout, at least you could pity them. Instead they’re killing people for money.

“He asked me if Glenn Beck made people crazy, or if crazy people found Glenn Beck.”

Salon published an excellent biography of Beck that would seem to indicate that the answer is neither. Beck found the crazy people.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/21/glenn_beck/index.html

The guy, somewhat like Rush, got his start as a non-political radio DJ. In Beck’s case, it was as a wacky morning man. Something analogous to the Bob and Tom Show, but, naturally, crazier and meaner.

To hear the Salon story tell it, Beck’s career as a wacky morning man was pretty much over, as he was mired in personal problems and he wasn’t the sought-after innovator he had been. In the late ‘90s he started to become more political and migrated to that part of the dial. The article has an anecdote about Beck trying to figure out how to pronouce Bin Laden’s name on the air (for comic effect? Or maybe not)after the embassy bombings.

You basically have a guy that spent his life and career completely immersed in radio, as he was a teenaged radio DJ. He’s now become a political force, but he’s not a political creature. He doesn’t give the impression of knowing much or understanding the world outside of a booth. Someone who doesn’t understand much of the context of the news, or politics got himself a job of opining about news and politics. Add that to his conversion to Mormonism and you get the Glenn Beck we see now, who I tend to believe is mostly sincere. I think in a lot of ways his selling himself as ‘a regular guy’ is true, though he clearly has more personal problems and demons than the average suburban dad. He does seem like an average guy. The sort of strange tangents he goes off on, with the blackboard and such, seem like the kind of thing an uninformed person who’s becoming self-taught in something would do. (The shocking revelation that left-wingers know each other!)But he understands how to rile people up on the radio. He’s been learning to do so since before he could grow facial hair.

He found a market and knew how to exploit it.

Now, I don’t listen to the guy. My impressions are based mostly from the Salon article, a some listens and views of Beck over the years, and his howlers that get highlighted at places like Pandagon, but that’s my sense.

I think the ability to be amiable and personable in private settings removes the last vestige of moral excuse from the wingnut broadcasters. If they were clinically insane and really went 100% for what they spout, at least you could pity them. Instead they’re killing people for money.

Agreed.  Though I do believe that it is possible for some super-wealthy conservative people to so insulate themselves from the consequences of what they preach that they really, truly, just don’t get how bad their policies make the lives of the poor in this country.

Case in point, Shepard Smith’s visceral reaction to the devastation and despair he saw up front and personal in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  I don’t know Smith’s political bias, though he is employed by Fox News, so it is doubtful that he could be considered anything remotely progressive.  At the same time, he’s certainly distanced himself from the flaming wingnuts of his network, and has on several occasions caused controversy by calling out the wingnuts.

In any case, Smith was deployed to report directly from the Ernest Morial Convention Center in the heart of NOLA after the storm, and he went completely ballistic on Sean Hannity for his unwillingness to acknowledge the utter incompetence of the Bush Administration in their handling of the disaster.  It got quite a bit of attention from Fox’s competitors and the liberal blogosphere, because it was the first major instance in which one of FNC’s on-air personalities had gone completely off message and blasted the Bushies for their callous attitude towards the poor.  The general reaction was like, “Wow, somebody on Fox News actually called out the Bush Administration for fucking over poor black people.”

Anyway, the point is that Smith is a multi-millionaire (his last contract with FNC was for $8 Million per year), and probably lives 99.9% of his life insulated from the harsh realities caused by conservative policy.  But when he was placed in a situation in which he was not able to look away, he was absolutely horrified by what he saw.

I think this is precisely how so many conservatives are able to live with their ideology, because they take conscious steps to avoid looking at its impact directly in the face.  It explains the callous nature of chickenhawks perfectly, because those who have gone into active combat and have had to see dead bodies around them often don’t have nearly as capricious an attitude towards the horrors of war as people like Dickface Cheney do.  The man epitomizes true cowardice - he would have no problem whatsoever pressing a button thousands of miles away that would annhilate an entire population, but if he had to actually go there and see the devastation up close, he wouldn’t have the stomach for it.

Flight 93, eh?  Little did they know that that hero pilot’s other name was Uncle Dad.

DTG:

Not sure on Cheney. The shotgun incident suggests he has no problem with blood and guts as long as there’s no risk any might be his. (Which is a step worse than the conservative we’re talking about.)

@ #19 - Demonstrably untrue.  To be a left-wing extremist in America, all you have to do is believe in things like equal rights for women, gays, and ethnic or racial minorities.  That’s enough to put you at the extreme end of acceptable political discourse.  If you further think that maybe we should provide health care like the Canadians or British or French do (or, you know, like the VA or Medicare systems do) you’re so incredibly crazy un-American that you’re completely outside of the acceptable political spectrum.  If you don’t believe in the Christian god*, you aren’t even welcomed as a citizen of this country, according to George H. W. Bush.  Yet, all of those positions are not only rational, they’re shared by a good chunk of the civilized world (including a good chunk of Americans, though you’d never know it if you observed American politics solely via the traditional media).

*Not directly a political stance, but in this country it might as well be.

@ #26 - yes, except none of those positions could rationally be considered “extreme leftism”.  Sure, the MSM villagers and right-leaning power brokers may characterize those positions as belonging to the realm of the “extreme left” positions, but that doesn’t make it so.

An example of an “extreme leftist” position would be a call for the total dissolution of all private property rights.  Nobody with any serious clout in America is expressing such a viewpoint, nor would such a viewpoint be particularly popular among most people.  And while most people who post here are of the progressive bent, I haven’t heard anyone calling for anything that far to the left.

An example of an “extreme leftist” position would be a call for the total dissolution of all private property rights.

Which is why the teabaggers like to use the descriptive terms “Socialist” and “Communist” for their opponents and conflate that with the well-known tendency of the Left to seek government solutions to problems with “government control”.