Just a couple of quick hits:

1. The Washington Post's resident 1950s schoolmarm / right-wing scold / skeksis (Jennifer Rubin, not Charles Krauthammer, and how sad is it that it's necessary to clarify which skeksis) says that "the GOP has to get over Ronald Reagan." Briefly sidestepping the hilarious irony of one of Romney's biggest cheerleaders chiding the party for Reagan Idolatry, the problem is that she does not explain which Reagan the party needs to get over. Is it the imaginary one Republicans started worshiping in the 1990s or the actual one who was president for eight years?

2. Conservative media favorite Rep. Jason Chaffetz (you know, that one House Republican who's under 55 and does not have the appearance and mannerisms of a gargoyle) is officially off the Benghazi deep end. No, not because he repeats the word "Benghazi" like he has a unique form of Tourette's. We know he's off the rails because the hard-hitting journalists at Fox & Friends don't appear to be buying his shtick. The lesson to learn here is that when fawning right-wing media made by and for Authoritarian-Follower personality types has to choose between sucking up to their chosen political party and high-ranking military leaders, the medal-wearing men in uniforms win. Although, we can assume that there was no small measure of cognitive dissonance involved. Steve Doocy – torn!

11 thoughts on “SERVING TWO MASTERS”

  • Technically speaking, Tourette's is a tic disorder. Many people with it have great difficulty in holding back from saying things that are wholly inappropriate for the social situation they are in.
    The Tourrette's in question would not actually be all that unique.

  • Middle Seaman says:

    Ronny worship follows a generic behavior common to political parties, media and Joe Blow. W was the guy everyone wanted to have a beer with. Obama is a liberal. Bill Clinton caused all the financial problems we are facing now (by creating a surplus he wanted to invest in social security).

    In reality, St. Ronny was to the left of Obama. W was a boring former drunk. Bill Clinton was the only intelligent president since Nixon. Read all about it!

  • c u n d gulag says:

    Look, President-wise, who else they gonna idolize?

    Hoover was George W I – only he was, in reality, a nice and smart man, unlike our sociopathic doofus.

    Ike was so far to the left by today's standards, that he was practically french-kissing FDR in public, going for a reach-around.

    Nixon was smart, but he was also a paranoid crook, who was impeached and should have gone to jail, along with all of his cronies.

    So, it has to be Reagan, whom they idolize – and in the "Cult of Personality" they have developed, in their minds about him, he never raised taxes 11 times, never cut-and-ran after over 200 Marines got killed in Lebanon, or created more debt that all of the previous Presidents before him – COMBINED!!!

    "Papa" Bush is persona-non-grata, because, after they read his lips, he still raised taxes!

    And, though the mythologizing and "culting of personality" for "Young Churhill," George Dumbaya Bush, started early, the imbecile did a non-stop series of pratfalls the Keystone Kops would envy, and so, after he left in disgrace, they had to say that the most Conservative President in my lifetime, was insufficiently Conservative, because everything he touched that was supposed to turn to gold, instead, turning into watery poo.
    (Of course, things worked out exactly as planned, since the middle class in this country is tiny, and hanging on by a thread – but, they can't acknowledge that that was their goal).

    And so, it's Reagan.
    Thought they're now trying to ressurect Calvin Coolidge – don't ask me why, I don't think they know themselves.

    And, at least to me, the reason they keep flogging Benghazi is simple.

    Because of the looming threat of Hillary Clinton, who, if she decides to run for President, according to current polls, will kick any of their potential candidates butt’s nine ways to Sunday, and back – even in white Appalachia – they’re pre-emptively trying to minimize her, by turning “Benghazi” into either “Whitewater,” or “Monica,” and hoping that it can stick for the next 3+ years.

    They want the public to focus on the fact that she was the SoS at the time, and not that the previous Republican House cut the security budgets for our embassies – because, if people remembered that it was Congress that cut the budget for security at our embassies, it would be embarassing for Republicans in the Congress.

    Republicans politicize every single damn thing.

    And by continuing to keep the tragedy that happened in Benghazi in the forefront, they hope it will be a huge stain on her record – and never mind the deaths at embassies under Reagan, Bush I, and W, this, THIS, was some really serious sh*t, because… well… uhm… FreeDUMB & LiberTEA, shut up, THAT'S WHY!!!

    But, LOL, if you can't sell Benghazi to the mopes, the dopes, and Doocy-doofuses on FOX 'n Sucks, then you ain't griftin' right.

  • Don't worry about #2: In a short time, everyone will have agreed to compromise by splitting the difference and believing both Mr Chavez and Our Glorious Military Heroes(TM). It's easy when you know how!

  • Dick Nixon says:

    Was Reagan an 'amiable dunce'? Not exactly.

    He was a hollow man, in the way that many old actors are hollow. They become a sort of walking compendium of old characters and bad scripts, a jumble of the odd situations in which they have had to subsume their own character to the needs of the SHOW.

    He played the part of President quite well,with faux determination and wit–and the details, well, they were best left to others.

    This allows infinite projectability for current Republicans.

  • If there's one thing that can be said for St Ronnie is that he was honest.

    Because when he said he couldn't recall anything about Iran-Contra, it was true…

  • Nail on the head on #1… I have been saying that in 30 years we will look back and compare Obama and Reagan as two peas in a pod…


  • I might personally favor Google. Both FB and Google would benefit from it, but we would probably benefit more from Google taking it over. In the case of Google+ it is just a matter of time. Facebook was lucky it didn't genuinely truly have to compete with some factor as "good" as facebook, the competition was just lacking a lot of features along having a global approach.Google+ is exceptional to Facebook, but it has a bigger challenge to get popular.Just take a look at VHS and Betamax. Betamax was better but lost due to bad marketing/licensing.Danny recently posted..Black & Decker NPP2018 18-Volt Cordless Electric Pole Chain Saw

  • Thank you for an additional great post likeplusmy. Where else could anybody get that kind of information in such a perfect way of writing? I have a presentation next week, and I'm on the search for this kind of info.

Comments are closed.