Why I Left the Right, John Birch Society at CPAC Edition

The Hatewatch blog has a report on this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), probably the most extreme right wing version of the event ever held, featuring creationists, Birthers, nativists, militias, Glenn Beck, the re-ascendant wackos of the John Birch Society — and many top Republican politicians: Conspiracy Central: Beck, Birchers to Converge at Conservative Conference.

The John Birch Society, whose conspiracy theories eventually became so fantastic that it faded into irrelevance, has edged back toward the mainstream – or at least the mainstream of conservative thought. It’s listed as one of 87 co-sponsors of next month’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference [CPAC] in Washington, D.C. The conference is “the year’s must-attend event for the Republican establishment,” says politico.com. Speakers at the Feb. 18-20 conference include Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty – all potential GOP presidential candidates in 2012.

The fanatically anticommunist John Birch Society was founded in 1958 by Robert Welch, who declared that President Dwight Eisenhower was a “dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy.” By 1961, when John F. Kennedy was president, the U.S. government was 50 to 70 percent communist controlled, Welch claimed. The Birchers have long maintained that the United Nations aims to establish a “one-world socialist government.” Today’s conspiracy zealots call it the New World Order.

The Birch Society also opposed the civil rights movement in the 1960s, in part because of a belief that communists had infiltrated it. The organization was against fluoridation of municipal water systems, claiming it was a communist plot to poison America. …

The Birch Society isn’t the only far-right, conspiracy-minded group or individual invited to CPAC. Another co-sponsor is Oath Keepers, the antigovernment organization composed mostly of active-duty law enforcement and military, as well as veterans. Its members pledge to defy 10 orders, including orders to place U.S. citizens in detention camps and orders to confiscate food or property.

Another CPAC sponsor is Eagle Forum, founded by Phyllis Schlafly. Among other things, she has promoted the North American Union conspiracy theory that claims the United States will forsake its sovereignty in a merger with Canada and Mexico. She also wrote a book, A Choice, Not an Echo, that suggested a conspiracy theory in which the Republican Party was secretly controlled by elites who were dominated by members of the Bilderberger banking conference. [The annual, secretive, invitation-only Bilderberger conferences are attended largely by politicians, bankers and business moguls].

Yet another CPAC sponsor is Accuracy in Media, a far-right media watchdog that claimed Vince Foster, deputy White Counsel to Bill Clinton, was murdered and that it was covered up. Many prominent conservatives who were hardly fans of Clinton said there no evidence of murder. Foster’s death was ruled a suicide. AIM also has asserted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has Marxist ties and that the United Nations is planning to impose a one-world government. More recently, AIM’s editor, Cliff Kincaid, promulgated the unfounded theories of the “birther movement.” The birthers claim President Obama is not a U.S. citizen and is, therefore holding office illegally.

Then there is CPAC’s keynote speaker: Fox News personality Glenn Beck.

And still people try to tell me that the bad craziness hasn’t gone mainstream.

When leading GOP politicians aren’t concerned about political damage from associating with extreme groups and ideas like this, it’s more evidence that the fringe really has become the base.

Jump to bottom

281 comments

1 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:09:51am

The Stupid is strong with many conservatives, it seems. Which is sad, because I tend towards the conservative side both socially and fiscally, but I don't want to associate or be associated with the whackjobs like these.

2 Soap_Man  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:11:09am

Of all the shit in that story, it was the last line that really gave me the shivers.

"Then there is CPAC’s keynote speaker: Fox News personality Glenn Beck."

3 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:13:07am

Ah, but I've been told that I shouldn't worry about who's in the GOP, because I'm not a GOP member, and that not letting these people have 'control of the party' is all that's necessary.

So I'm sure it'll all be fine for the GOP. There's no possible long-term ramifications from courting dubiously aligned groups. Look how well courting the religious right turned out!

4 The Left  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:14:57am

re: #2 Soap_Man

Of all the shit in that story, it was the last line that really gave me the shivers.

"Then there is CPAC’s keynote speaker: Fox News personality Glenn Beck."

I'm not as worried about Glenn Beck being there as I am their sponsors and the other people speaking or appearing, many of whom are elected GOP officials.

The john birch society? isn't that enough?
CPAC has been mainlining extremist rhetoric for years and pushing it into the conservative and Republican system.

5 Kragar  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:15:22am

On the bright side, its kind of convenient when you get all your fruits and nuts together in one place.

6 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:15:52am
And still people try to tell me that the bad craziness hasn’t gone mainstream.

And they will continue to do so. Either "this isn't bad craziness" or "this isn't mainstream" or both.

7 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:17:53am

As far as the politicians go isn't it sort of incumbent upon them to show up at conferences and events even if they don't endorse all of their views? I seriously doubt Romney is going to go full bore Bircher any time soon but the political cost of skipping out on these meetings prior to the primaries even starting could be high for any viable candidate.

As far as Birchers going mainstream... Most people aren't as familiar with their full slate of craziness as they are with populist slogans like avoiding debt and patriotic jingoism. At first blush I've found many groups to resonate with my views on some issues until I've looked under the covers and run away.

Shedding light on these activities is good- but don't go as far as guilt by association for those candidates and representatives who are only doing the obligatory PAC circuit in a warm up to 2010 and 2012.

8 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:18:18am

re: #2 Soap_Man

Of all the shit in that story, it was the last line that really gave me the shivers.

"Then there is CPAC’s keynote speaker: Fox News personality Glenn Beck."

Oathkeepers does that to me.

9 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:18:52am

Was the guy who stole the grenade launcher an Oath Keeper?

10 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:19:12am

I re-watched "Dr. Strangelove" a couple of weeks ago, so I'm prepared, at least.

11 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:19:24am

re: #7 DaddyG

No, not necessarily. A politician is not beholden to show up at any given conference or event, if they feel that the views expressed therein would not reflect their own view or would otherwise be detrimental to their political career. There is no reason any of the attendees should feel obligated to go to CPAC.

12 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:19:28am

re: #7 DaddyG

As far as the politicians go isn't it sort of incumbent upon them to show up at conferences and events even if they don't endorse all of their views?

No.

13 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:19:30am

re: #9 Obdicut

Was the guy who stole the grenade launcher an Oath Keeper?

I think he was a law breaker.

14 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:20:59am

re: #11 thedopefishlives

No, not necessarily. A politician is not beholden to show up at any given conference or event, if they feel that the views expressed therein would not reflect their own view or would otherwise be detrimental to their political career. There is no reason any of the attendees should feel obligated to go to CPAC.

Agreed. Even if there is a political cost to missing it, in the long run, I'm hoping that the political cost of attending will be higher.

15 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:21:05am

re: #9 Obdicut

Was the guy who stole the grenade launcher an Oath Keeper?

Yes, he was an OathKeeper.

16 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:21:12am

re: #11 thedopefishlives

In fact, the only reason many of them probably DO feel obligated to go to CPAC is because it represents a large portion of the rabid Republican base, which they feel they have to court in order to secure the Presidency in 2012. This is, arguably, not the case, especially with the base shifting ever more quickly to the extremist right.

17 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:21:41am

re: #10 wrenchwench

I re-watched "Dr. Strangelove" a couple of weeks ago, so I'm prepared, at least.

Are you diligently guarding your precious bodily fluids?

18 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:22:02am

re: #12 Obdicut

No.


Really? So Obama could have attended a Church outside of the community he served in order not to be smeared with guilt by association in the case of Rev. Wright? Or perhaps he could have chosen to associate with academics other than William Ayres in order not to be accused of loving terrorists?

Fair is fair- there is a certain amount of generic pandering politicians will do to cover all constituents who will hear them.

19 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:23:33am

re: #12 Obdicut

On the left we see associations of Democrats, communists and anarchists. WTO protests for example...

20 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:23:41am

re: #17 Alouette

Are you diligently guarding your precious bodily fluids?

Drinking rainwater right now! Grain alcohol has to wait until 5:00 PM.

21 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:23:43am

re: #18 DaddyG


Fair is fair- there is a certain amount of generic pandering politicians will do to cover all constituents who will hear them.

Partially addressed in my #16 above. While it is true that it's generally wise to try to gain as wide an audience as you can, showing up at a nutjob convention usually winds up alienating more people than you gain by being there. These politicians are taking a calculated risk, and I for one hope it backfires.

22 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:23:51am

well the jigs up...I might as well move to New Mexico, enjoy the peace and quiet and watch from a distance...who you gonna vote for?....hahaha!

23 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:23:58am

When leading GOP politicians aren’t concerned about political damage from associating with extreme groups and ideas like this, it’s more evidence that the fringe really has become the base.

24 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:24:17am

re: #18 DaddyG

Tu quoque is not a responsible game for conservatives to be playing right now.

Obama repudiated Wright for his statements. He's repudiated the terrorist actions of Ayers, and Ayers himself has repudiated violent terorrism.

Here, we have currently active crazies being embraced by the GOP in large numbers. Not repudiated.

If Obama was still going to Revered-Wright hosted fundraisers, your point would be valid. As it is, it is a tu quoque with a basis in the past, not the present-- and even then, it's a false comparison.

How many conferences did Obama attend during the campaign that had Revered Wright or Ayers speaking at them?

25 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:24:50am

re: #18 DaddyG

Really? So Obama could have attended a Church outside of the community he served in order not to be smeared with guilt by association in the case of Rev. Wright? Or perhaps he could have chosen to associate with academics other than William Ayres in order not to be accused of loving terrorists?

Fair is fair- there is a certain amount of generic pandering politicians will do to cover all constituents who will hear them.

oh no you don't!...that's not fair!

26 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:24:56am

re: #19 Rightwingconspirator

Please see my #24.

27 Only The Lurker Knows  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:25:36am

re: #7 DaddyG

"As far as the politicians go isn't it sort of incumbent upon them to show up at conferences and events even if they don't endorse all of their views?"

Nope. They should do as Charles did with the anti-terror meeting. Refuse to attend due to the nature of some of those also attending, while at the same time shining the large bright spot light of truth upon them.

28 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:27:21am

re: #27 Bubblehead II

"As far as the politicians go isn't it sort of incumbent upon them to show up at conferences and events even if they don't endorse all of their views?"

Nope. They should do as Charles did with the anti-terror meeting. Refuse to attend due to the nature of some of those also attending, while at the same time shining the large bright spot light of truth upon them.

In fact, a public statement of non-attendance, with a clear and coherent reason explaining why he/she is not attending, would be certain to garner media attention and may even be more beneficial from a public-exposure standpoint than attending the convention and pandering to the base.

29 AK-47%  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:27:33am

re: #23 Charles

When leading GOP politicians aren’t concerned about political damage from associating with extreme groups and ideas like this, it’s more evidence that the fringe really has become the base.

Politicians know that these right-wingers have a solid 20-30% of the vote locked up, and they cannot afford to ignore it: their trick will be to pander to it while still maintaining some sort of distance from it in order not to scare off the middle-of-the-road voters.

30 Kilohana  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:27:58am

We're in desperate need of vocal, militant moderates. This fringe rhetoric is becoming impossible to counter. BOTH sides dominate the airwaves, giving the terribly false impression that being a fringe kook is somehow 'mainstream.' It's depressing and frustrating. Can't you love your country without hating half of its inhabitants? First post - from a former (extremely disgusted) Kos reader, proud member of DAR.

31 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:28:03am

re: #27 Bubblehead II

Well said. They could use this meeting as a chance to draw comparisons between responsible, sane conservatism and reactionary nonsense. They could educate, explain what the Birch society is and why this is so bad. They could, in short, treat the people of the US as though they were intelligent and aware.

32 _RememberTonyC  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:29:36am

I think this "mainstreaming of bad craziness" is real, but I also think it is temporary. IMHO, there was a sense of shock among many GOP members after the elections of 2006 and 2008 that resulted in these formerly fringe groups pouncing on an opportunity to co-opt the Republican party. And while it was surely a bad thing, people like Charles have done a great job shining the light of truth on these creeps. I think that over the next few months, many in the GOP are going to wake up and see how damaging these associations are. I believe there are still smart people in the GOP like Mitt Romney who are going to play the game and attend conferences like this, but will not become one of these extremists. Because by the time the 2012 election rolls around, there is a very good chance that we'll be in a period of job growth and Obama's job approval will be better than it is today. And in order to defeat a possibly resurgent incumbent predident, a message of extremism will not work with Independent voters. And we all know that Independent voters decide most elections.

33 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:30:00am

re: #24 Obdicut

Tu quoque is not a responsible game for conservatives to be playing right now.

Obama repudiated Wright for his statements. He's repudiated the terrorist actions of Ayers, and Ayers himself has repudiated violent terorrism.

If "Guilty as hell - free as a bird" and "I would probably do the same things again" is a repudiation I'll buy that for Ayres.

And I was not engaging in "they did it too" I was illustrating the fact that politicians can't help getting involved at some point or another with a wide variety of characters and "guilt by association" is an easy game to play.

Mind you I'm not a fan of what is happening on the far right, but I also don't thing CPAC represents the mind and spirit of the average conservative or even Republican voter. You saw in New York how the middle-right split with the far Right. I can't see that as the mainstream getting into bed with the wingnuts.

34 Ericus58  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:30:01am

re: #29 ralphieboy


Good point... and as much can be said of the Democrats and the left-wingers.

35 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:30:10am

re: #29 ralphieboy

Politicians know that these right-wingers have a solid 20-30% of the vote locked up, and they cannot afford to ignore it: their trick will be to pander to it while still maintaining some sort of distance from it in order not to scare off the middle-of-the-road voters.

middle of the road people don't even vote...if they did, it's unlikely they'd vote for extremist whackos....but that's neither here nor there...a few control the many and we end up with inferior govt

36 Soap_Man  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:30:37am

re: #32 _RememberTonyC

I think this "mainstreaming of bad craziness" is real, but I also think it is temporary. IMHO, there was a sense of shock among many GOP members after the elections of 2006 and 2008 that resulted in these formerly fringe groups pouncing on an opportunity to co-opt the Republican party. And while it was surely a bad thing, people like Charles have done a great job shining the light of truth on these creeps. I think that over the next few months, many in the GOP are going to wake up and see how damaging these associations are. I believe there are still smart people in the GOP like Mitt Romney who are going to play the game and attend conferences like this, but will not become one of these extremists. Because by the time the 2012 election rolls around, there is a very good chance that we'll be in a period of job growth and Obama's job approval will be better than it is today. And in order to defeat a possibly resurgent incumbent predident, a message of extremism will not work with Independent voters. And we all know that Independent voters decide most elections.

Very well said. Up-ding.

37 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:30:59am

But, but it's ok because ACORN won't be there---except of course for the disguised minions of their Special Operations Directorate 666 (Surveillance, Wiretapping, and Dirty Tricks).
I heard the 666ers have laid in a big supply of racist and batshit conspira-loon signs, t-shirts, and bumperstickers to discredit the patriots, as well as some primo weed and lots of Oreos for the slack periods.

38 Only The Lurker Knows  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:31:07am

re: #28 thedopefishlives

So true. And if enough of them did that, it might even wake up the GOP leadership to the fact that the crazies are trying to take over the asylum and for the most part, succeeding.

39 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:32:01am

re: #27 Bubblehead II

"As far as the politicians go isn't it sort of incumbent upon them to show up at conferences and events even if they don't endorse all of their views?"

Nope. They should do as Charles did with the anti-terror meeting. Refuse to attend due to the nature of some of those also attending, while at the same time shining the large bright spot light of truth upon them.


With all due respect Charles isn't running for public office and the endorsement of a political PAC with accompanying $.

I am not defending the system. I just can't see tarring Romney or some Republican representative for showing up and giving a speech to a group where they obviously don't agree with all of the groups positions.

40 cliffster  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:32:06am

re: #32 _RememberTonyC

A voter scorned will say "hell yeah!" to anyone who yells loudly.

41 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:32:18am

re: #32 _RememberTonyC

let's hope you're right...2012 will be an interesting year

42 Kragar  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:32:50am

The rate the CPAC is going, I'm expecting them to begin offering tickets to truckasaurus, nitroburning funny cards and free face painting for the kids all included with admission. Its turned into a fucking joke.

43 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:32:51am

re: #32 _RememberTonyC

Just wait until the economy improves. The extremists influence will fall to nothing.

44 Randall Gross  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:33:14am

Here's the worst part:

Speakers at the Feb. 18-20 conference include Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty – all potential GOP presidential candidates in 2012

.

Time to start pressuring these people to boycott the Birchers if you are a Republican who cares anymore.

45 MandyManners  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:33:40am
She also wrote a book, A Choice, Not an Echo, that suggested a conspiracy theory in which the Republican Party was secretly controlled by elites who were dominated by members of the Bilderberger banking conference.

When does her gig at David Icke's site begin?

46 cliffster  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:33:43am

re: #41 albusteve

let's hope you're right...2012 will be an interesting year

2012?? 2010 is already interesting enough.

47 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:33:47am

re: #28 thedopefishlives

In fact, a public statement of non-attendance, with a clear and coherent reason explaining why he/she is not attending, would be certain to garner media attention and may even be more beneficial from a public-exposure standpoint than attending the convention and pandering to the base.


I can see that- but it is also not without risks. Look what happened when candidtates chose to show up or not to show up at Bob Jones U.

48 Achilles Tang  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:34:56am

Next thing you know, someone will point out that the "left" has even more nutcases./

49 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:36:04am
CPAC 2010 Awards

1. CPAC 2010 Award Survey

*
1. Who should receive the CPAC 2010 Blogger of the Year Award?
Erick Erickson, RedState.com
Michael Goldfarb and John McCormack, Weekly Standard Blog
Stephen Green, VodkaPundit
Jim Hoft, GatewayPundit
Ed Morrissey, HotAir.com
Thomas Peters, American Papist
PowerLineBlog.com (as a group)
*
2. Who should receive the CPAC 2010 Journalist of the Year Award?
Andrew Breitbart
David Brody, Christian Broadcast Network
Tim Carney, Washington Examiner
David Fredosso, Washington Examiner
Ronald Kessler, NewsMax.com

50 AK-47%  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:36:04am

re: #34 Ericus58

Good point... and as much can be said of the Democrats and the left-wingers.

There are a lot of Americans who, for example, oppose abortion on principle but want to know that is available as an option in the event that their promise-keeper daughter does not live up to her promise and gets knocked up by some complete loser.

And there are people who do not support or condone homosexuality but do not see gay marriage as a threat to the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and the family.

These people are going to be attracted to whichever candidate addresses their concerns, which these days are a lot less ideological and a lot more practical, and I believe they can be listed roughly in order as: jobs, education, housing, health care and security, from domestic criminals and foreign terrorists

51 Randall Gross  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:36:07am

re: #39 DaddyG

JBS has deep Mormon roots, and it will be all to easy to Smear Mitt pretty seriously if he actually attends this just due to appearances rather than the probable reality you portray.

52 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:36:11am

re: #43 Rightwingconspirator

Just wait until the economy improves. The extremists influence will fall to nothing.

an entire mainstream voting bloc of untold millions, fall to nothing?...I doubt that

53 jvic  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:36:35am

Lech Walesa has endorsed, and will campaign for, an Illinois GOP gubernatorial candidate.

I'm guessing that this is the more-or-less innocuous tip of the camel's nose. Once the precedent is established, see what other "defenders of the West" CPAC, the buchananites etc import to taint our politics.

(The report about Walesa has set hearts aflutter in the Right blogosphere. Fools and hypocrites: imagine how they'd react if Mandela came to campaign for Obama.

Foreigners shouldn't participate in our politics. Period. Politicians who bring them in should be defeated without a second thought. That the practice is bipartisan is one more indication the country is in serious serious trouble.)

54 # 17  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:36:40am

I recently asked my friends' little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President of the United States. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there. So I asked her, "If you were President, what would be the first thing you would do?" She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.."...

Her parents beamed.

"Wow...what a worthy goal," I told her. "But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my driveway, and I'll pay you $50... Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

Her parents still aren't speaking to me.

55 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:36:51am

Oh, for Pete's sake.

The president of the John Birch Society is one of the "top political commentators" in a discussion about Obama's state of the union speech tonight, at The Hill: The Big Question: What should Obama NOT say in tonight's speech? - The Hill's Congress Blog.

Things are beginning to get weird enough.

56 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:36:52am

re: #47 DaddyG

I can see that- but it is also not without risks. Look what happened when candidtates chose to show up or not to show up at Bob Jones U.

Of course it's not without risk. Political campaigning is all about managing risk. You want to balance the probabilities so as to give you the best possible chance of swaying the largest possible audience. The question is, will you be better served by almost certainly alienating the far-right fringe kook base, or by possibly alienating a much wider range of moderate voters spanning center-left to center-right?

57 Ericus58  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:37:18am

re: #44 Thanos

Here's the worst part:

.

Time to start pressuring these people to boycott the Birchers if you are a Republican who cares anymore.

I would say let's wait and hear what these gentlemen say to the groups in attendance. I'm in a wait-n-hear mode - I think that's fair.

58 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:38:13am

re: #33 DaddyG

If "Guilty as hell - free as a bird" and "I would probably do the same things again" is a repudiation I'll buy that for Ayres.

Those quotes are entirely out of context, and I hope you know that. And again:

What conferences, fund-raisers, etc. did Obama attend during the campaign where Ayers or Wright were speakers? That would be an actual comparison.

Mind you I'm not a fan of what is happening on the far right, but I also don't thing CPAC represents the mind and spirit of the average conservative or even Republican voter. You saw in New York how the middle-right split with the far Right. I can't see that as the mainstream getting into bed with the wingnuts.

How is it happening on the far right, if the mainstream candidates are attending? How is this not mainstream?

59 bratwurst  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:39:01am

re: #32 _RememberTonyC

I think this "mainstreaming of bad craziness" is real, but I also think it is temporary.

I am a leftist and while I think the lunatic fringe running the right is ultimately good for us at the ballot box, I sincerely hope you are correct.

60 AK-47%  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:39:04am

re: #53 jvic

Lech Walesa has endorsed, and will campaign for, an Illinois GOP gubernatorial candidate.

I'm guessing that this is the more-or-less innocuous tip of the camel's nose. Once the precedent is established, see what other "defenders of the West" CPAC, the buchananites etc import to taint our politics.

(The report about Walesa has set hearts aflutter in the Right blogosphere. Fools and hypocrites: imagine how they'd react if Mandela came to campaign for Obama.

Foreigners shouldn't participate in our politics. Period. Politicians who bring them in should be defeated without a second thought. That the practice is bipartisan is one more indication the country is in serious serious trouble.)

If this foreigner is participating, it is at the behest of the candidate, who is free to campaign however he wishes. If he thinks that having Walesa stump for him will gain him votes, that is his decision.

61 Ericus58  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:39:46am

re: #50 ralphieboy

Very good points, agree.

Could have kept the 'promise keeper' dig out though.

62 jeremy0114  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:40:19am

OT -- But lurking on the new iPad is going to be a lot nicer :)

63 filetandrelease  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:40:21am

re: #42 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The rate the CPAC is going, I'm expecting them to begin offering tickets to truckasaurus, nitroburning funny cards and free face painting for the kids all included with admission. Its turned into a fucking joke.


Hell if they did that I would go.

64 Randall Gross  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:40:51am

re: #57 Ericus58

I would say let's wait and hear what these gentlemen say to the groups in attendance. I'm in a wait-n-hear mode - I think that's fair.

Sorry, if you speak at a Bircher sponsored convention you are shit in my eyes ever after.

65 AK-47%  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:41:22am

re: #61 Ericus58

Very good points, agree.

Could have kept the 'promise keeper' dig out though.

50% of all Promise Keepers fail to keep their vows, which, incidentally, is about the overall rate. If they want to make a solemn ritual out of making a personal choice, then let them, I will reserve the right to scoff at them.

66 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:41:29am

Now that I'm done defending the indefensible ;-)

I have an additional take on the extreme views that comes from an organizational behavior framework.

When teams are defeated in a contest the members of that team often try to reform the social order. They spointer into factions and often shout louldy and test extreme positions to see if they can get the group to "do it the right way" according to each of the lobbying participants.

The parallel is the loud shouting and posturing of the far right end of the political spectrum. The middle-right is being shouted down because they are seen as having lost the fight in the last election. This should settle down by the time the general election comes around because the majority of voters don't share the loud extreme viewpoints.

When teams win a contest they tend to solidify around the victory but they can also be victims of hubris and not critical enough of their own performance.

The hubris of the Democrats in assuming they had a mandate on all of their core issues is a symptom of that. This will moderate as they see events like the Mass election of Brown.

All of what I see is within the normal scope of the body politic and I do expect a large but silent critical mass of American voters will show up at the ballot box more moderate than they do on the pages of the Drudge Report.

67 vxbush  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:41:41am

re: #62 jeremy0114

OT -- But lurking on the new iPad is going to be a lot nicer :)

Depends on the price point...watching over at Gizmodo...

68 Kragar  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:41:50am

re: #63 filetandrelease

Hell if they did that I would go.

Funnel Cakes and Fried Twinkies.

69 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:41:57am

re: #59 bratwurst

I am a leftist and while I think the lunatic fringe running the right is ultimately good for us at the ballot box, I sincerely hope you are correct.

dems will need all the help they can get for sure....they are doing a seriously miserable job of running the country now...politics in America is so fucked up that it hardly matters which party is in control...but there are some nice nuances posted here, regardless it's all a waste of time...interesting entertainment...take care of your money and it matters a whole lot less

70 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:42:17am

re: #57 Ericus58

I would say let's wait and hear what these gentlemen say to the groups in attendance. I'm in a wait-n-hear mode - I think that's fair.

Why ignore everything they've already said?

71 Girth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:42:21am

re: #57 Ericus58

I would say let's wait and hear what these gentlemen say to the groups in attendance. I'm in a wait-n-hear mode - I think that's fair.

They could start with a wag of their finger to those who threw a hissy fit over GOProud being a sponsor.

72 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:42:38am

re: #48 Naso Tang

Next thing you know, someone will point out that the "left" has even more nutcases./


Teh Crazy is bipartisan. It's like arguing which inlaws are crazier.

73 MrSilverDragon  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:42:38am

re: #68 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Funnel Cakes and Fried Twinkies.

Worse.

Deep fried butter.

/shudder.

74 jeremy0114  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:42:50am

re: #67 vxbush

Agreed, watching it as well...

Between that and reading comments at lgf NO work is getting done!

75 MandyManners  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:43:26am

re: #57 Ericus58

I would say let's wait and hear what these gentlemen say to the groups in attendance. I'm in a wait-n-hear mode - I think that's fair.

I've known about the Birch Society for years. It is rather vile. I have no interest in ANYTHING anyone in JBS has to say.

76 vxbush  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:43:36am

re: #74 jeremy0114

Agreed, watching it as well...

Between that and reading comments at lgf NO work is getting done!

Why be doing work, when we can dream about technology?!?

77 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:43:44am

re: #5 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

On the bright side, its kind of convenient when you get all your fruits and nuts together in one place.

Easier to deal with a Medusa than a Hydra.

(Quick upding drive-by. I'm in the middle of a roofing day.)

78 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:43:45am

re: #55 Charles

Oh, for Pete's sake.

The president of the John Birch Society is one of the "top political commentators" in a discussion about Obama's state of the union speech tonight, at The Hill: The Big Question: What should Obama NOT say in tonight's speech? - The Hill's Congress Blog.

Things are beginning to get weird enough.

They are absolutely mainstreaming the birchers.

79 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:46:05am

re: #51 Thanos

JBS has deep Mormon roots, and it will be all to easy to Smear Mitt pretty seriously if he actually attends this just due to appearances rather than the probable reality you portray.


I've met 1-2 Birchers in almost every ward I've lived in accross 5 states and they are not treated very seriously. They have a presence but to say they have Mormon roots is overkill. Even Ezra Taft Benson who flirted with them in the 50's repudiated political ties before becoming President of the LDS Church.

To say that Romney is LDS is Bircher is a monolithic sterotype. However you are correct politicos and pundits deal in monolithic sterotypes all the time.

80 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:46:37am

re: #19 Rightwingconspirator

On the left we see associations of Democrats, communists and anarchists. WTO protests for example...

How many Dem nominees among the WTO ninjas?

81 Kragar  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:46:51am

re: #73 MrSilverDragon

Worse.

Deep fried butter.

/shudder.

On a stick

82 Ericus58  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:46:52am

re: #64 Thanos

Sorry, if you speak at a Bircher sponsored convention you are shit in my eyes ever after.

wow... guess there's no reconciliation, huh?

So, would it be preferred to make those that politically differ from us outcast - never to be engaged or approached? No attempt at reaching them?

I thought the liberal positions was to engage in dialougue... reach out to make a connection. Could be wrong it seems.

83 Ericus58  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:48:23am

re: #70 wrenchwench

Why ignore everything they've already said?

Not a clue to what you mean... ignore the speakers?

84 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:48:41am

Boss is calling - lunch is over - BBL

85 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:49:04am

re: #80 Decatur Deb

How many Dem nominees among the WTO ninjas?

All of them, of course, you just can't tell as they were wearing hoods.

86 Achilles Tang  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:49:14am

re: #54 # 17

You got that in a chain email, I'm sure, and worth an upding anyway; but what I would like to know is whether you would want that person working around your place, given that at least half of them are considered mentally ill in one way or another.

87 jvic  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:49:41am

re: #60 ralphieboy

If this foreigner is participating, it is at the behest of the candidate, who is free to campaign however he wishes. If he thinks that having Walesa stump for him will gain him votes, that is his decision.

I'm saying that if having foreigners campaign here works, that's a bad sign for the country.

I'm not saying the practice should be outlawed. That cure would be worse than the disease, IMO.

88 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:50:03am

re: #82 Ericus58

So, would it be preferred to make those that politically differ from us outcast - never to be engaged or approached? No attempt at reaching them?

How do you make that leap in logic from what Thanos actually said?

89 Ericus58  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:50:34am

re: #75 MandyManners

I've known about the Birch Society for years. It is rather vile. I have no interest in ANYTHING anyone in JBS has to say.

Whoa - I haven't advocated listening to JBS - perhaps a missunderstanding of who I was referring to as to the 'gentlemen'. I thought I was clearly meaning Romney and such as speakers.

90 Randall Gross  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:50:45am

re: #82 Ericus58

wow... guess there's no reconciliation, huh?

So, would it be preferred to make those that politically differ from us outcast - never to be engaged or approached? No attempt at reaching them?

I thought the liberal positions was to engage in dialougue... reach out to make a connection. Could be wrong it seems.

No, there is no reconciliation. Keep in mind that I used to call myself a conservative until they invited the Birchers and NWO kooks back into the ever-diminishing tent out of desperation.

If they keep up with these moves then instead of voting straight ticket R I will flip after 2010. That said I am here to fight for the soul of the Republican party, and Birchers don't belong in my life long party.

91 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:51:34am

An inadequate grilling, Geithner gets away too easily.
[Link: www.reuters.com...]

Both Democrats and Republicans questioned whether Geithner, who led the New York Federal Reserve Bank at the time, could have been in the dark over the decision not to disclose details of $62 billion AIG paid to banks to settle swaps contracts.
SNIP

92 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:52:43am

re: #88 Obdicut

How do you make that leap in logic from what Thanos actually said?

I think the "shit for ever more" = "never to be engaged or approached" iced it....pretty simple

93 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:53:23am

re: #54 # 17

You didn't ask your friend's little girl. This is an old joke. I heard it years ago.

94 filetandrelease  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:53:24am

re: #90 Thanos

No, there is no reconciliation. Keep in mind that I used to call myself a conservative until they invited the Birchers and NWO kooks back into

the ever-diminishing tent out of desperation

.

If they keep up with these moves then instead of voting straight ticket R I will flip after 2010. That said I am here to fight for the soul of the Republican party, and Birchers don't belong in my life long party.

Recent elections belie the shrinking conservative meme.

95 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:53:27am

re: #49 wrenchwench

Guess we didn't make the cut.

96 AK-47%  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:54:09am

re: #89 Ericus58

Whoa - I haven't advocated listening to JBS - perhaps a missunderstanding of who I was referring to as to the 'gentlemen'. I thought I was clearly meaning Romney and such as speakers.


I can only assume that he is hoping to gain support among Polish-Americans. Of course, how much does America invest in promoting "regime change" among foreign governments?

97 filetandrelease  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:54:12am

re: #93 Alouette

You didn't ask your friend's little girl. This is an old joke. I heard it years ago.

Don't be so sure, I have used it myself.

98 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:54:19am

re: #91 Rightwingconspirator

An inadequate grilling, Geithner gets away too easily.
[Link: www.reuters.com...]

Both Democrats and Republicans questioned whether Geithner, who led the New York Federal Reserve Bank at the time, could have been in the dark over the decision not to disclose details of $62 billion AIG paid to banks to settle swaps contracts.
SNIP

when is the Charlie Rangle trial?...LOL!

99 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:54:49am

re: #93 Alouette

You didn't ask your friend's little girl. This is an old joke. I heard it years ago.

so did I...typical

100 AK-47%  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:55:10am

re: #96 ralphieboy

I can only assume that he is hoping to gain support among Polish-Americans. Of course, how much does America invest in promoting "regime change" among foreign governments?


oops that was a reply to #87

101 tradewind  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:57:32am

re: #48 Naso Tang

No need to include the nutroots.
Their speakers are way more credible...//

Netroots Nation San Francisco: October 14
Grassroots activists and environmental leaders gathered at the newly opened Academy of Sciences in support of Van Jones' new book, "The Green Collar Economy." Guests heard from Jones, the founder and president of Green For All, and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom
102 Randall Gross  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:57:45am

re: #94 filetandrelease

Don't fool yourself. Toomey, Norquist, and the rest of that crowd will be calling Brown a RINO within two years.


Here's the real map, read it and weep.
[Link: innovation.cqpolitics.com...]

103 MandyManners  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:57:46am

re: #89 Ericus58

Whoa - I haven't advocated listening to JBS - perhaps a missunderstanding of who I was referring to as to the 'gentlemen'. I thought I was clearly meaning Romney and such as speakers.

Oops! I apologize for the miscommunication.

JBS gives me the creeps. I don't know how old you are but, I heard of them when I was growing up. To me, they were the KKK without the cross lightings and hoods.

104 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:58:11am

drain the swamp!
transparency!
Hopeandchange!

105 filetandrelease  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:58:23am

re: #102 Thanos

We will see.

106 Ericus58  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:58:34am

re: #90 Thanos

Thanos, if we took the position that once a person was part of a political/religeous whatever organization and because of it they will always not be welcomed back is not healthy imo. Thus the word I used 'reconciliation'.

If there's no chance or opportunity to change and be accepted, then what is the reward for doing so? Where is the incentive?

107 tradewind  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:58:39am

re: #104 albusteve

Let Us Be Clear///

108 Randall Gross  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:59:16am

re: #105 filetandrelease

We will see.

If you hang in the dumpster with the trash you are going to end up smelling bad.

109 keloyd  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:59:38am

I'm trying to remember... someone on the Sunday morning news shows or maybe the Wall Street Journal or NPR found a repeating pattern amid all this nonsense.

This mystery person said the party in power will have the relevant left-right factions battling over for taxes, foreign entanglements, civil rights, etc. Compromise will always be only among the factions within the party in power. The party out of power has almost always resorted to wingnuttery/moonbatification. Apparently it is true of the Republicans now, the Democrats in 1995 (to a lesser extent, and covered with less glee by the media), all the way back to the 19th century anti-Catholic, anti-Freemason zealots and know-nothings. Surely some lizard with more spare time and a longer memory than me can figure out who said this? I will pay One. Million. Dollars. an upding.

110 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 10:59:50am

re: #92 albusteve

I think the "shit for ever more" = "never to be engaged or approached" iced it...pretty simple

The part I'm objecting to is the completely silly assertion that Thanos was talking about anyone who is 'politically different', rather than total goddamn lunatics.

111 RogueOne  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:00:44am

re: #110 Obdicut

The part I'm objecting to is the completely silly assertion that Thanos was talking about anyone who is 'politically different', rather than total goddamn lunatics.

We still talk to you//

112 MandyManners  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:01:15am

re: #109 keloyd

I'm trying to remember... someone on the Sunday morning news shows or maybe the Wall Street Journal or NPR found a repeating pattern amid all this nonsense.

This mystery person said the party in power will have the relevant left-right factions battling over for taxes, foreign entanglements, civil rights, etc. Compromise will always be only among the factions within the party in power. The party out of power has almost always resorted to wingnuttery/moonbatification. Apparently it is true of the Republicans now, the Democrats in 1995 (to a lesser extent, and covered with less glee by the media), all the way back to the 19th century anti-Catholic, anti-Freemason zealots and know-nothings. Surely some lizard with more spare time and a longer memory than me can figure out who said this? I will pay One. Million. Dollars. an upding.

Alex Jones hated Pres. Bush during his two terms.

113 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:02:28am

re: #110 Obdicut

The part I'm objecting to is the completely silly assertion that Thanos was talking about anyone who is 'politically different', rather than total goddamn lunatics.

why does any of it really matter?...go have a cookie and enjoy the show

114 filetandrelease  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:02:36am

re: #108 Thanos

If you hang in the dumpster with the trash you are going to end up smelling bad.

We have no disagreement here, my disagreement is that the GOP is shrinking. There is absolutely no evidence to bolster that. All evidence is contrary.

115 Ericus58  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:04:53am

re: #103 MandyManners

All good, I read your post and saw the thought process.
I'm 51, and growing up in my family which had history in having past family members in the KKK - I know very well the hate and pain.

But I also know that people can and sometimes do change. My sister and I broke from many of my mothers family in our teens and haven't looked back. And my wonderful son is the result of a mixed marriage.

116 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:05:31am

re: #112 MandyManners

Alex Jones hated Pres. Bush during his two terms.

As he did with the Clinton admin. before him. He has been very consistent in his bat-shit insanity.

117 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:05:38am

re: #113 albusteve

Steve, what is the point of posting that? If you're going to transform into a circa 1930s French existentialist, that's your choice, but those of us who are not nihilists like to actually comment on things posted here.

118 Randall Gross  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:06:07am

re: #106 Ericus58

Thanos, if we took the position that once a person was part of a political/religeous whatever organization and because of it they will always not be welcomed back is not healthy imo. Thus the word I used 'reconciliation'.

If there's no chance or opportunity to change and be accepted, then what is the reward for doing so? Where is the incentive?

You are ill informed if you think the Birchers have "changed".

119 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:06:44am

re: #94 filetandrelease

Recent elections belie the shrinking conservative meme.

There are a lot of people out there who would probably respond big time to a limited government fiscal responsibility platform and shed the wingnuts really really fast. A good sample blog here. Any candidate who can tap that will go very far in 2010 and possibly get into the White House in 2012.

120 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:06:45am

re: #52 albusteve

I said the extremists, not the mainstream. The Birchers will get kicked to the curb.

121 AK-47%  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:07:25am

re: #114 filetandrelease

We have no disagreement here, my disagreement is that the GOP is shrinking. There is absolutely no evidence to bolster that. All evidence is contrary.

The Republicans and Democrats have a solid 30% of the electorate locked up who are going to vote their party no matter who leads it.

Their success lies in their ability to reach the 40 percent in the middle.

Clinton appealed to it and won. Dubya appealed to it and won. Obama appealed to it and won. Who will be the most appealing to them next time?

122 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:08:34am

re: #117 Obdicut

Steve, what is the point of posting that? If you're going to transform into a circa 1930s French existentialist, that's your choice, but those of us who are not nihilists like to actually comment on things posted here.

the never ending quest...which politicians to serve?

123 keloyd  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:08:59am

The quote from the Bircher Grand Poobah was pretty amusing. He did not mince words at all. You know how our Klan or the British BNP tries to polish a turd and have their spokesmen whitewash everything they say to the general public? Not so for the JBS. Devil his due, you know exactly what they are about when you read good, clear, concise, witty nonsense like that.

124 Ericus58  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:09:14am

re: #110 Obdicut

The part I'm objecting to is the completely silly assertion that Thanos was talking about anyone who is 'politically different', rather than total goddamn lunatics.

so... no change possible. No coming back.
Got it.

125 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:10:12am

re: #110 Obdicut

The part I'm objecting to is the completely silly assertion that Thanos was talking about anyone who is 'politically different', rather than total goddamn lunatics.

Anyone who thinks differently than me is a total lunatic. /

126 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:10:31am

re: #122 albusteve

the never ending quest...which politicians to serve?

Go for the tasty, well-marbled ones. We'll eat Kucinich last.

127 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:10:59am

re: #112 MandyManners

Alex Jones hated Pres. Bush during his two terms.


That would make him mainstream according to the MSM. /

128 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:12:33am

re: #120 Rightwingconspirator

I said the extremists, not the mainstream. The Birchers will get kicked to the curb.

that would be nice...by who, and how does that work?...popular opinion?...I can easily see how they would become a long term fixture in the GOP....hardly a whisper against them as they entrench themselves...all of this point to the next election cycle, but I have my doubts the GOP is suddenly clean house just on principle....there is no principle in politics imo

129 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:12:54am

re: #124 Ericus58

so... no change possible. No coming back.
Got it.

No, you don't. But if you would prefer to believe that and not engage with what I'm actually saying, that's your prerogative.

Reach out to people who are politically different = absolutely fine.

Reaching out to people who are outrageous extremists = not fine.

Is that clear?

130 filetandrelease  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:13:05am

re: #121 ralphieboy

The Republicans and Democrats have a solid 30% of the electorate locked up who are going to vote their party no matter who leads it.

Their success lies in their ability to reach the 40 percent in the middle.

Clinton appealed to it and won. Dubya appealed to it and won. Obama appealed to it and won. Who will be the most appealing to them next time?

The independents flocked to the R in the recent elections. As to who specifically for the Presidential election, the Republicans need to put forth a better candidate if they are going to win the big one.

131 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:13:10am

re: #126 Decatur Deb

Go for the tasty, well-marbled ones. We'll eat Kucinich last.

mmmm...good one!

132 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:14:49am

re: #130 filetandrelease

The independents flocked to the R in the recent elections. As to who specifically for the Presidential election, the Republicans need to put forth a better candidate if they are going to win the big one.

mark my word...the candidate with the best hair will win the nomination

133 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:14:58am

re: #129 Obdicut

* Unless that reaching out consists of explaining to them how incredibly wrong they are, of course. And telling them to cut the shit.

134 Randall Gross  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:15:13am

re: #114 filetandrelease

We have no disagreement here, my disagreement is that the GOP is shrinking. There is absolutely no evidence to bolster that. All evidence is contrary.

Obama's approval at this point is as low as RR's was first term, I expect as much. If they table HC, which it appears they are, and if the economy improves a bit that's going to change.
The D's are shrinking a bit, the R's are growing a bit, but the biggest increase is in I's if you look at the polls. Something is causing that.

135 filetandrelease  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:15:24am

re: #132 albusteve

mark my word...the candidate with the best hair will win the nomination

Well, Rudy is out.

136 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:15:43am

The JBS is usually characterized as a "radical anti-communist organization," at least by liberal and mainstream media, but that is really only the tip of their nutberg.
I have a copy of a 1960s book called The Hidden Hand (not to be confused with Daniel Pipe's more recent book of the same title). At the time, The Hidden Hand was practically the Bible of JBS conspiracism. It centered on monetary conspiracy theories, particularly involving the Federal Reserve. However, it treated the FR as only the latest manifestation of a unified conspiracy that it traced all the way back to the 18th century and the first Rothschilds. This financial conspiracy, in turn, is merely the chosen tactic of the real conspiracy, whose objective is to destroy Christianity and Christian civilization. Jewish villains of one kind or another abound in this account and there are strong antisemitic overtones elsewhere.
Much of its take on history and monetary policy would be familiar from the recent writings and speeches of Pat Buchanan, though Buchanan does not claim an overt conspiracy as the cause.

137 Ericus58  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:15:58am

re: #118 Thanos

You are ill informed if you think the Birchers have "changed".

Who said that they had? Not me. Hell, the "organization" never will... but the individuals that might atm think that the Birchers are singing their song might not tomorrow.

Just as many have pointed out here at LGF, perceptions and beliefs change with knowledge and time.

138 MandyManners  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:16:44am

re: #115 Ericus58

All good, I read your post and saw the thought process.
I'm 51, and growing up in my family which had history in having past family members in the KKK - I know very well the hate and pain.

But I also know that people can and sometimes do change. My sister and I broke from many of my mothers family in our teens and haven't looked back. And my wonderful son is the result of a mixed marriage.

I just don't see JBS having changed.

139 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:16:55am

re: #136 Shiplord Kirel

Yes. The Birchers are wildly anti-semitic.

140 MandyManners  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:17:18am

re: #116 Slumbering Behemoth

As he did with the Clinton admin. before him. He has been very consistent in his bat-shit insanity.

So, why is he being painted as a die-hard Republican?

141 filetandrelease  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:17:41am

re: #134 Thanos

I am inclined to think that similar to the last Presidential election, the economy will be the harbinger of the next one. If it improves, the Dem's will be ok, if not .......

142 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:17:50am

Question - late in the thread. This applies to Dems and Reps

Does one define "mainstream" as the loudest voices, the most elected representatives, the most publicized characters, or the critical mass of voters?

I am hearing a lot of mainstream Republicans are like _____ and mainstream Democrats are like ____. Usually the blank is more radical when the opposition describes the party.

That is what I take issue with. Declaring that so and so is mainstream without defining what the critical mass of nutroots vs. adults is. If the definition is provided by opponents or proponents only then of course the definition becomes a partisan label.

143 MandyManners  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:18:32am

re: #127 DaddyG

That would make him mainstream according to the MSM. /

As SB noted in No. 116, he hated Clinton, too.

144 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:19:03am

re: #139 Obdicut

Yes. The Birchers are wildly anti-semitic.

Indeed. Monetary conspiracism very much like that in The Hidden Hand was a very prominent component of the Third Reich's propaganda.

145 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:19:11am

re: #142 DaddyG

Given that Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty are all attending this conference, do you feel that there is any way to describe this conference as not mainstream?

146 Randall Gross  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:19:20am

re: #137 Ericus58

It matters not: IMHO if you are foolish enough to speak at a convention sponsored by JBS, then ever after you are too foolish to hold public office. I gave Mitt money last round, he won't see a nickle if he speaks at this and tries to run in 2012, indeed he will see continual broadsides coming from my direction against him.

147 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:19:39am

re: #129 Obdicut

Reach out to people who are politically different = absolutely fine.

Reaching out to people who are outrageous extremists = not fine.

Is that clear?

Clear - and I will remember that when the Dems are out of power and their more liberal factions are grasping for influence and power.

148 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:19:39am

Any political movement that embraces the JBS deserves to fail. Miserably.

149 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:20:37am

re: #142 DaddyG

Question - late in the thread. This applies to Dems and Reps

Does one define "mainstream" as the loudest voices, the most elected representatives, the most publicized characters, or the critical mass of voters?

I am hearing a lot of mainstream Republicans are like ___ and mainstream Democrats are like ___. Usually the blank is more radical when the opposition describes the party.

That is what I take issue with. Declaring that so and so is mainstream without defining what the critical mass of nutroots vs. adults is. If the definition is provided by opponents or proponents only then of course the definition becomes a partisan label.

If you've ever won an election, or voted for somone who did, you would be at least locally "mainstream" for your party. Then there's RP.

150 cliffster  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:21:19am

re: #146 Thanos

It matters not: IMHO if you are foolish enough to speak at a convention sponsored by JBS, then ever after you are too foolish to hold public office. I gave Mitt money last round, he won't see a nickle if he speaks at this and tries to run in 2012, indeed he will see continual broadsides coming from my direction against him.

That's true for you. Do you honestly think that your average american is going to go back and say, "Wow, Romney spoke at a convention 2 years ago and the John Birch Society Sponsored it, no way I'm voting for him"? Do you think your average american knows who JBS is?

151 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:21:23am

re: #147 DaddyG

Clear - and I will remember that when the Dems are out of power and their more liberal factions are grasping for influence and power.

It's got nothing to do with more liberal or conservative. It's got to do with more crazy.

The Birchers aren't more conservative than you are. They're just crazier.

152 filetandrelease  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:22:00am

re: #142 DaddyG
I agree completely. Defining main stream conservatives as troothers or in general wackos, is, ..... well wacko.

Just because the squicky door gets the oil doesn't mean the room on the other side is full of rust.

153 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:22:46am

re: #147 DaddyG

Clear - and I will remember that when the Dems are out of power and their more liberal factions are grasping for influence and power.

by then they will be radical Independents

154 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:23:17am

re: #145 Obdicut

Given that Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty are all attending this conference, do you feel that there is any way to describe this conference as not mainstream?


Conference - Red meat Right
Romney - Blue State Republican
Gingrich - Republican Revolutionary out to pasture
Pawlenty - Minnesota Balanced Budget Baptist

Any more questions Socrates?

155 filetandrelease  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:23:18am

re: #153 albusteve

by then they will be radical Independents

Yeah! Free radicals!

156 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:24:06am

re: #140 MandyManners

So, why is he being painted as a die-hard Republican?

By whom? Certainly not me. I've always painted him as a non-partisan, die hard lunatic.

157 Randall Gross  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:24:19am

re: #150 cliffster

That's true for you. Do you honestly think that your average american is going to go back and say, "Wow, Romney spoke at a convention 2 years ago and the John Birch Society Sponsored it, no way I'm voting for him"? Do you think your average american knows who JBS is?

They might not, but I'm going to be sure to remind them at the precinct meetings here, and on my blog. The average republican has traditionally voted for reasonable candidates who are honest and Adult. Speaking to Birchers doesn't fit that profile.

158 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:24:59am

re: #154 DaddyG

Yes, the same one. You didn't actually answer it. Do you feel this conference is mainstream?

159 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:26:17am

re: #157 Thanos

They might not, but I'm going to be sure to remind them at the precinct meetings here, and on my blog. The average republican has traditionally voted for reasonable candidates who are honest and Adult. Speaking to Birchers doesn't fit that profile.

I agree with you 100% on this matter..if public figure cannot stand on principle, no matter what, they are dirt...you have to draw the line somewhere...which is exactly why I don't fit in to these discussions

160 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:26:49am

re: #151 Obdicut

It's got nothing to do with more liberal or conservative. It's got to do with more crazy.

The Birchers aren't more conservative than you are. They're just crazier.

Clear - and I will remember that when the Dems are out of power and their more liberal crazy factions are grasping for influence and power.

Better?

161 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:26:54am

Back to work, while we have sunlight.

162 filetandrelease  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:27:19am

re: #158 Obdicut

Sorry to insert,

To me the question is misleading, a conference is neither main stream nor in left field. The people attending on the other hand can be. In this example, most attending will be mainstream, others, not so much.

163 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:27:36am

re: #150 cliffster

That's true for you. Do you honestly think that your average american is going to go back and say, "Wow, Romney spoke at a convention 2 years ago and the John Birch Society Sponsored it, no way I'm voting for him"? Do you think your average american knows who JBS is?

Dem campaign managers and advertising strategists are unlikely to miss the connection.

164 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:28:19am

re: #142 DaddyG

Question - late in the thread. This applies to Dems and Reps

Does one define "mainstream" as the loudest voices, the most elected representatives, the most publicized characters, or the critical mass of voters?

I am hearing a lot of mainstream Republicans are like ___ and mainstream Democrats are like ___. Usually the blank is more radical when the opposition describes the party.

That is what I take issue with. Declaring that so and so is mainstream without defining what the critical mass of nutroots vs. adults is. If the definition is provided by opponents or proponents only then of course the definition becomes a partisan label.

I'm not up to a thorough definition, but I would include participation in the usual events and activities of political life, like primaries, and like CPAC.

165 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:28:42am

"more evidence that the fringe really has become the base."

No I and others like me are the base! I don't know who those others fools are!

166 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:28:46am

re: #158 Obdicut

Yes, the same one. You didn't actually answer it. Do you feel this conference is mainstream?

No. I would have thought that inference wasn't too difficult when I described it as Red meat Right.

I also implied that does not make all f their attendees and speakers Red Meat Right. If guilt by association works for you then go right ahead but I remember being scolded quite soundly for doing the same in the last election cycle.

167 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:30:07am

re: #162 filetandrelease

Why do you assert a conference can't be mainstream?
re: #160 DaddyG

Yes. That's absolutely fine.

re: #166 DaddyG

If guilt by association works for you then go right ahead but I remember being scolded quite soundly for doing the same in the last election cycle.

And again: How many conferences did Obama attend where Ayers or Wright were speaking?

168 cliffster  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:30:17am

re: #157 Thanos

They might not, but I'm going to be sure to remind them at the precinct meetings here, and on my blog. The average republican has traditionally voted for reasonable candidates who are honest and Adult. Speaking to Birchers doesn't fit that profile.

I'm glad you're standing up for what you believe. 95% of the voting population just doesn't get worked up about this sort of thing. I can't say I disagree with them. The standard this sort of thing sets is a little weird, my take. Don't be in the same conference with that guy, he's a . Don't be in the same room. Don't have friends that are friends with him. It seems a little bit radical in and of itself.

169 cliffster  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:30:41am

re: #163 Shiplord Kirel

Dem campaign managers and advertising strategists are unlikely to miss the connection.

And most voters are unlikely to care.

170 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:31:21am

re: #163 Shiplord Kirel

Dem campaign managers and advertising strategists are unlikely to miss the connection.

They're quietly laying in the cut, taking detailed notes of all the crazy. They're gonna be rubbing our (republican's) faces in it come the next election.

171 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:31:28am

re: #1 thedopefishlives

The Stupid is strong with many conservatives, it seems. Which is sad, because I tend towards the conservative side both socially and fiscally, but I don't want to associate or be associated with the whackjobs like these.


You are still conservative. Where can you go?
Pick the people who you will vote for very carefully and we the true base will run the fools OUT!

172 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:31:53am

re: #168 cliffster

So why is Romney going to this conference?

173 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:32:40am

re: #167 Obdicut

Why do you assert a conference can't be mainstream?
re: #160 DaddyG

Yes. That's absolutely fine.

re: #166 DaddyG

And again: How many conferences did Obama attend where Ayers or Wright were speaking?

If you limit it to conferences I don't have that data. 20 years attending a Church and several years as a Grad student qualifies as decent exposure.

174 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:33:38am

re: #172 Obdicut

So why is Romney going to this conference?

Lack of good sense if you ask me. He is probably looking for exposure to the right side of the base. That does not make him radical or the conference mainstream. (I'm not in complete disagreement with you).

175 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:34:12am

re: #7 DaddyG

As far as the politicians go isn't it sort of incumbent upon them to show up at conferences and events even if they don't endorse all of their views? I seriously doubt Romney is going to go full bore Bircher any time soon but the political cost of skipping out on these meetings prior to the primaries even starting could be high for any viable candidate.

As far as Birchers going mainstream... Most people aren't as familiar with their full slate of craziness as they are with populist slogans like avoiding debt and patriotic jingoism. At first blush I've found many groups to resonate with my views on some issues until I've looked under the covers and run away.

Shedding light on these activities is good- but don't go as far as guilt by association for those candidates and representatives who are only doing the obligatory PAC circuit in a warm up to 2010 and 2012.


Thank you for your good common sense!

176 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:34:32am

there are not enough informed voters in this country to presume any one thing will happen..for the most part voters are ignorant or apathetic, usually both...if BO can get elected, John Birch himself could...this is America

177 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:34:47am

re: #168 cliffster
Yup. The "mainstream" isn't in the papers, at conferences or running for office.

178 cliffster  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:35:28am

re: #172 Obdicut

So why is Romney going to this conference?

It's a big conservative conference. And yes, there are some weirdos there. And no, I'm not worked up about it and neither are most people. It doesn't make Romney a weirdo, and it seems absurd to me that people would expect him to boycott it because they are there.

179 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:35:45am

re: #11 thedopefishlives

No, not necessarily. A politician is not beholden to show up at any given conference or event, if they feel that the views expressed therein would not reflect their own view or would otherwise be detrimental to their political career. There is no reason any of the attendees should feel obligated to go to CPAC.

Well I suppose the Dems don't have crazies. /

180 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:36:00am

re: #174 DaddyG

Lack of good sense if you ask me. He is probably looking for exposure to the right side of the base. That does not make him radical or the conference mainstream. (I'm not in complete disagreement with you).

therefore not presidential imo

181 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:37:02am

re: #14 wrenchwench

Agreed. Even if there is a political cost to missing it, in the long run, I'm hoping that the political cost of attending will be higher.

We'll see who shows up.

182 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:37:29am

re: #178 cliffster

It's a big conservative conference. And yes, there are some weirdos there. And no, I'm not worked up about it and neither are most people. It doesn't make Romney a weirdo, and it seems absurd to me that people would expect him to boycott it because they are there.

then how do you reduce the radical right when you engage and associate with them?

183 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:37:52am

re: #179 Blueheron

Well I suppose the Dems don't have crazies. /

Well not "mainstream" Dems anyway. Just the speaker of the House. /

184 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:38:29am

re: #18 DaddyG

Really? So Obama could have attended a Church outside of the community he served in order not to be smeared with guilt by association in the case of Rev. Wright? Or perhaps he could have chosen to associate with academics other than William Ayres in order not to be accused of loving terrorists?

Fair is fair- there is a certain amount of generic pandering politicians will do to cover all constituents who will hear them.


Hang in there because you are right.

185 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:39:20am

re: #173 DaddyG

I really, really think that you're trying very, very hard to make a comparison between Obama's friendship with Wright and attendance at his church-- even though Obama repudiated statements from Wright and cut off contact-- and high-profile GOP members continued move towards the Birchers.

186 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:39:31am

re: #178 cliffster

Why is absurd to boycott a conference because a group of crazy anti-semite conspiracy theorists will be there?

187 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:39:37am

re: #180 albusteve

Lack of good sense if you ask me. He is probably looking for exposure to the right side of the base. That does not make him radical or the conference mainstream. (I'm not in complete disagreement with you).

therefore not presidential imo


If we eliminated everybody who lacked good sense and had questionable polical associates and was ambitious we'd end up with a regular old joe/jane as President. How horrible would that be? /

188 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:40:39am

re: #19 Rightwingconspirator

On the left we see associations of Democrats, communists and anarchists. WTO protests for example...

Gotta say I could have gone w/o the Birchers showing up again in my life. I thought those folks were swept into the bin of history :((

189 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:40:53am

re: #169 cliffster

And most voters are unlikely to care.

Sure, I knew about Swift boats before the '04 election, and ACORN before '08, but most voters didn't. The JBS, otoh, has been heavily publicized, and criticized, for more than 50 years. Anyone with any political awareness at all is likely to have at least heard of it. I think you're underestimating the voters' average knowledge, particularly when we will have a major political machine working hard to inform them.

190 filetandrelease  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:41:36am

re: #11 DaddyG

If we eliminated everybody who lacked good sense and had questionable polical associates and was ambitious we'd end up with a regular old joe/jane as President. How horrible would that be? /

Sarah Palin?

191 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:43:17am

re: #185 Obdicut

I really, really think that you're trying very, very hard to make a comparison between Obama's friendship with Wright and attendance at his church-- even though Obama repudiated statements from Wright and cut off contact-- and high-profile GOP members continued move towards the Birchers.

BOs repudiation of Wright meant nothing...as phony as a 3 dollar bill...how do you know contact was cut off?

192 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:43:23am

re: #23 Charles

When leading GOP politicians aren’t concerned about political damage from associating with extreme groups and ideas like this, it’s more evidence that the fringe really has become the base.

BALONEY Charles! (err it's alright I yelled at you? )

193 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:44:10am

re: #187 DaddyG

If we eliminated everybody who lacked good sense and had questionable polical associates and was ambitious we'd end up with a regular old joe/jane as President. How horrible would that be? /

you'd do just fine, if you ask me

194 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:44:38am

re: #24 Obdicut

Tu quoque is not a responsible game for conservatives to be playing right now.

Obama repudiated Wright for his statements. He's repudiated the terrorist actions of Ayers, and Ayers himself has repudiated violent terorrism.

Here, we have currently active crazies being embraced by the GOP in large numbers. Not repudiated.

If Obama was still going to Revered-Wright hosted fundraisers, your point would be valid. As it is, it is a tu quoque with a basis in the past, not the present-- and even then, it's a false comparison.

How many conferences did Obama attend during the campaign that had Revered Wright or Ayers speaking at them?

Enough until we caught onto it?

195 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:45:09am

re: #185 Obdicut

I really, really think that you're trying very, very hard to make a comparison between Obama's friendship with Wright and attendance at his church-- even though Obama repudiated statements from Wright and cut off contact-- and high-profile GOP members continued move towards the Birchers.

Obama's association with Wright or Ayers or anyone else who I disagree with and think is comparable only in that it does not define who Obama is or make him a radical. As Romney's association with CPAC does not define him a Bircher or a radical.

196 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:45:13am

re: #137 Ericus58

Who said that they had? Not me. Hell, the "organization" never will... but the individuals that might atm think that the Birchers are singing their song might not tomorrow.

Just as many have pointed out here at LGF, perceptions and beliefs change with knowledge and time.

yeaah...maybe...but not in a million years would I attempt to inherit-then-change the banner of a society as tainted as Birch. let that flag burn in the ashes of history and start anew. so we don't have to give them the benefit of that doubt, because if they really wanted distance from the old Birchers, they wouldn't have started there.

you follow?

197 cliffster  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:45:16am

re: #186 Obdicut

Why is absurd to boycott a conference because a group of crazy anti-semite conspiracy theorists will be there?

I just don't get that worked up about the whole this-guy-knows-that-guy-who-spoke-at-a-conference-with-some-other-guy stuff. I care a lot more about his philosophies on taxation, entitlements, national security, etc.

198 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:45:57am

re: #194 Blueheron

Enough until we caught onto it?

whatever happened to the secret fundraiser tapes the LAT has?...why are they secret?

199 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:46:30am

re: #186 Obdicut

Why is absurd to boycott a conference because a group of crazy anti-semite conspiracy theorists will be there?

I agree - they should not attend and legitimize an organization that has moved too far out of bounds of decency. That is where we have common ground.

Their decision to do so makes them unwise not born again Birchers. That is where I differ.

200 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:47:32am

re: #193 albusteve

you'd do just fine, if you ask me

Thank you - when I have a spare $20million to throw away I'll give you a call.

201 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:48:39am

re: #29 ralphieboy

Politicians know that these right-wingers have a solid 20-30% of the vote locked up, and they cannot afford to ignore it: their trick will be to pander to it while still maintaining some sort of distance from it in order not to scare off the middle-of-the-road voters.

Sad but true :(

202 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:48:53am

re: #192 Blueheron

BALONEY Charles! (err it's alright I yelled at you? )

I think you are about to serve as proof that Charles tolerates a wide range of dissent on his blog. Heh.

203 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:49:04am

I've always thought of the Birchers as nuts, but entertaining ones. They're so gosh-darned serious about their paranoia.

I also don't recall them being mixed up with anything illegal.

When this first broke, I got a kick out of CPAC's official statement. Paraphrased: "a few days ago, someone asked us why we accepted a gay conservative group as a sponsor. At that time, we said that if a group has at least some conservative beliefs and their check clears, they're welcome to give us money. The same applies to the Birchers."

Personally, I like it when the nuts are out in the open. They do the most harm when they're in the shadows. They get a lot fewer recruits at these events than they do in one-on-one meetings, in bars, and the like. Plus it lets us keep an eye on them.

Sarah Palin had the best reason for skipping CPAC: the head tried to shake down FedEx for a couple of million bucks in exchange for CPAC backing FedEx in a fight with UPS in Congress. That's a reason to not attend.

Gay conservatives or John Birchers there? I'd be tempted to show up just for the laughs.

Especially if those two were placed in close proximity.

204 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:50:09am

re: #30 Kilohana

We're in desperate need of vocal, militant moderates. This fringe rhetoric is becoming impossible to counter. BOTH sides dominate the airwaves, giving the terribly false impression that being a fringe kook is somehow 'mainstream.' It's depressing and frustrating. Can't you love your country without hating half of its inhabitants? First post - from a former (extremely disgusted) Kos reader, proud member of DAR.


I like you! Very sensible first post also.

205 Ericus58  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:51:27am

re: #196 Aceofwhat?

yeaah...maybe...but not in a million years would I attempt to inherit-then-change the banner of a society as tainted as Birch. let that flag burn in the ashes of history and start anew. so we don't have to give them the benefit of that doubt, because if they really wanted distance from the old Birchers, they wouldn't have started there.

you follow?

I can respect that view. I don't think JBS will ever go away completely but they can get ever smaller.

206 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:51:54am

re: #194 Blueheron

Okay. Name one, then.

207 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:52:40am

re: #199 DaddyG

Where do you see me saying they're born-again Birchers? What the hell?

208 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:52:53am

Gotta' run, gang. Duty calls. Stay scaly.

(Sheesh, this "work for a living" stuff cramps my style. I've been trying to figure a way out of it for 40 years and have yet to come up with one that meets my needs.)

209 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:54:01am

re: #203 BunnyThief

There's a big difference between conspiracy mongering antisemites and conservatives who happen to be gay. Just sayin'.

210 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:54:13am

re: #187 DaddyG

If we eliminated everybody who lacked good sense and had questionable polical associates and was ambitious we'd end up with a regular old joe/jane as President. How horrible would that be? /

My neighbors and co-workers are all regular Joes & Janes. Most of them are good-hearted people with the best of intentions. I wouldn't want 90% of them in charge of a middle-school field trip, never mind at the helm of the US government.

211 filetandrelease  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:55:10am

re: #34 negativ

My neighbors and co-workers are all regular Joes & Janes. Most of them are good-hearted people with the best of intentions. I wouldn't want 90% of them in charge of a middle-school field trip, never mind at the helm of the US government.

Have you thought about getting a new job somewhere else?

212 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:55:16am

re: #207 Obdicut

Where do you see me saying they're born-again Birchers? What the hell?

Pardon my hyperbolic illustration. "It does not take Romney's positions and policy decisions out of the mainstream just because he spoke to a conference with radical attendees and organizers. Better?

It really is no fun to have my statements picked apart because I'm not always literal.

213 cliffster  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:56:13am

re: #208 Shiplord Kirel

Gotta' run, gang. Duty calls. Stay scaly.

(Sheesh, this "work for a living" stuff cramps my style. I've been trying to figure a way out of it for 40 years and have yet to come up with one that meets my needs.)

The alternative is not that appealing either.

214 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:57:02am

re: #188 Blueheron

Agreed.

215 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:57:27am

re: #39 DaddyG

With all due respect Charles isn't running for public office and the endorsement of a political PAC with accompanying $.

I am not defending the system. I just can't see tarring Romney or some Republican representative for showing up and giving a speech to a group where they obviously don't agree with all of the groups positions.

We the conservatives have to vote for someone. We can't roll over. God help us that we have the choice Massachusetts had.

216 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:59:10am

re: #212 DaddyG

How am I supposed to tell when you're using hyperbole? I'm not picking apart your statements, I'm trying to understand them.

Pardon my hyperbolic illustration. "It does not take Romney's positions and policy decisions out of the mainstream just because he spoke to a conference with radical attendees and organizers. Better?

Yes. That is, in fact, my point. It doesn't take him out of the mainstream. It brings those groups closer into the mainstream.

217 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 11:59:43am

re: #44 Thanos

Here's the worst part:

.

Time to start pressuring these people to boycott the Birchers if you are a Republican who cares anymore.

I don't like any of those folks so I don't give a damn. They wouldn't get my vote never no how.

218 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:01:14pm

re: #215 Blueheron

We the conservatives have to vote for someone. We can't roll over. God help us that we have the choice Massachusetts had.

The liberals did quite well for 40+ years practicing incrementalism and loose confederacies. If the right insists on political purity or single issue litmus tests we're screwed. Especially if those single issue views allow increasingly radical segments to hold the movement hostage.

I can sense a difference between conservaties who want to take the party back and liberals who are hoping that the (R)s drive right off the cliff and are eager to portray them as having already done so.

219 filetandrelease  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:02:47pm

re: #40 Obdicut

How am I supposed to tell when you're using hyperbole? I'm not picking apart your statements, I'm trying to understand them.

Yes. That is, in fact, my point. It doesn't take him out of the mainstream. It brings those groups closer into the mainstream.

A good point. IMO, these groups are attempting to hitch a ride on a conservative coat tail and have done nothing to elevate it. It is like attaching a bowling ball to your cape.

220 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:03:54pm

re: #219 filetandrelease

An anti-semitic bowling ball that steals grenade launchers.

We need The Dude's help.

221 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:04:05pm

re: #216 Obdicut

How am I supposed to tell when you're using hyperbole? I'm not picking apart your statements, I'm trying to understand them.


Yes. That is, in fact, my point. It doesn't take him out of the mainstream. It brings those groups closer into the mainstream.

I only disagree in that this particular conference is not likely to get press beyond a few specialized interest groups. They should not legitimize it but that is a few degrees shy of making it "mainstream" republicanism.

222 filetandrelease  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:05:01pm

re: #44 Obdicut

An anti-semitic bowling ball that steals grenade launchers.

We need The Dude's help.

It is such a drag. (no offence to those gay Republicans attending)

223 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:05:44pm

re: #220 Obdicut

An anti-semitic bowling ball that steals grenade launchers.

We need The Dude's help.


Is Robert Edwards speaking at CPAC too? That changes things. /

224 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:06:47pm

re: #221 DaddyG

I'm not sure why you're focusing on the attention this will or not will receive in the press.

225 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:06:59pm

Its been fun - I'm going to attempt to get work done again. I'm easily distracted and find myself spending way to much time every time I plan to pop by for 15 minutes. Upding for Obdicut for a fascinating debate.

226 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:07:50pm

re: #225 DaddyG

No problem. Thank you for saying that-- was worried I'd pissed you off. Have a good one.

227 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:08:17pm

re: #224 Obdicut

I'm not sure why you're focusing on the attention this will or not will receive in the press.


Substitute circulation or acceptance for the word press. You are taking me too literally again. I'll have to remember you are a concrete linear thinker the next time we "engage" (and I don't mean to marry). ;-)

228 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:08:53pm

re: #226 Obdicut

No problem. Thank you for saying that-- was worried I'd pissed you off. Have a good one.


What would be the fun if we didn't piss each other off now and again. Heh.

OK I'm really going now - stop responding to me!!!! /

229 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:10:25pm

re: #220 Obdicut

An anti-semitic bowling ball that steals grenade launchers.

We need The Dude's help.

Don't F with the Jesusman...

230 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:14:09pm

re: #227 DaddyG

I do make an effort to read between the lines, but... when I ask a question, it's a real question. I actually am looking for clarity. I'm saying, "Here's my literal interpretation, is it right?"

231 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:25:50pm

re: #178 cliffster

It's a big conservative conference. And yes, there are some weirdos there. And no, I'm not worked up about it and neither are most people. It doesn't make Romney a weirdo, and it seems absurd to me that people would expect him to boycott it because they are there.

I understand what you are saying. I cut people out of my life who do nasty mean things.
It would be nice if Romney would do the same.
I would vote for him then.

232 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:30:26pm

re: #19 Rightwingconspirator

On the left we see associations of Democrats, communists and anarchists. WTO protests for example...

And like I keep repeating like a broken record, the Democratic party doesn't pander to them, hold fundraisers where they organize and phonebank and so on.

The reason Dems are in power is they rejected their fringe. The GOP is embracing it.

233 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:31:43pm

re: #231 Blueheron

I understand what you are saying. I cut people out of my life who do nasty mean things.
It would be nice if Romney would do the same.
I would vote for him then.

Romney is the Republican I wouldn't mind being President (Condi is great, but she won't run) But he has big issues in the party because of his religion, and cozying up to the Birchers might be the way that he polishes his bonafides.

Still won't happen though, the Dominionist crowd will primary him into the ground.

234 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:32:36pm

re: #232 WindUpBird

And like I keep repeating like a broken record, the Democratic party doesn't pander to them, hold fundraisers where they organize and phonebank and so on.

The reason Dems are in power is they rejected their fringe. The GOP is embracing it.

WindUp, might I introduce you to the Yearly Kos?

235 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:32:46pm

re: #195 DaddyG

Obama's association with Wright or Ayers or anyone else who I disagree with and think is comparable only in that it does not define who Obama is or make him a radical. As Romney's association with CPAC does not define him a Bircher or a radical.

They both stink tho G.

236 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:33:13pm

re: #221 DaddyG

I only disagree in that this particular conference is not likely to get press beyond a few specialized interest groups. They should not legitimize it but that is a few degrees shy of making it "mainstream" republicanism.

This is an irrelevant statement. CPAC is for peddling influence, not for mainstream exposure.

When the power brokers of the GOP are having long thoughtful conversations with Birchers on how to work together, damn skippy it's mainstream. It's THE PARTY.

237 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:33:43pm

re: #234 BunnyThief

WindUp, might I introduce you to the Yearly Kos?

Um, what's that supposed to mean?

238 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:34:54pm

re: #202 DaddyG

I think you are about to serve as proof that Charles tolerates a wide range of dissent on his blog. Heh.

Thanks G :(((

239 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:36:48pm

re: #216 Obdicut

How am I supposed to tell when you're using hyperbole? I'm not picking apart your statements, I'm trying to understand them.

Yes. That is, in fact, my point. It doesn't take him out of the mainstream. It brings those groups closer into the mainstream.

Seems pretty obvious to me, especially since it's a major topic of LGF lately. But people just want to deny, deny, deny.

240 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:39:39pm

re: #234 BunnyThief

WindUp, might I introduce you to the Yearly Kos?

It's dead, Jim. Died in 2007.

241 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:40:10pm

re: #206 Obdicut

Okay. Name one, then.

You made me scroll all the way back so I could read a throw away line?

242 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:41:21pm

re: #240 Slumbering Behemoth

It's dead, Jim. Died in 2007.

Oh man, THAT'S RIGHT, there's something different now. Netroots Nation? I dunno.

243 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:42:06pm

re: #241 Blueheron

You made me scroll all the way back so I could read a throw away line?

Not a throwaway line at all. A very good question that you don't have an answer to.

244 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:45:40pm

re: #242 WindUpBird

Something like that. Haven't heard a lot about it since.

245 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:48:20pm

re: #240 Slumbering Behemoth

It's dead, Jim. Died in 2007.

Thanks for the correction, SB. It's now Nutroots Nation. The KOSsacks are now just major participants instead of the hosts.

Attendees: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean.

And it all started from "Screw them" Kos and his merry band of psychopaths.

Do we really need to discuss the history of the Kos Kiddies? I'd argue they're worse than the Birchers -- both present day and in total heinousness.

246 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:50:19pm

re: #243 WindUpBird

Not a throwaway line at all. A very good question that you don't have an answer to.

Okay someone else answered it for me but that isn't good enough. How could someone sit in a pastors church and not know him well. Plus how do we know Obama has no contact with him anymore? Please.

247 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:53:02pm

CYA when Charles puts SOTU up.

248 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:54:31pm

re: #245 BunnyThief

Do we really need to discuss the history of the Kos Kiddies? I'd argue they're worse than the Birchers -- both present day and in total heinousness.

Maybe I don't know enough about the Kos Kiddies to judge--but I have a hard time believing that they are worse than Birchers.

249 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:55:14pm

re: #245 BunnyThief

Do we really need to discuss the history of the Kos Kiddies? I'd argue they're worse than the Birchers -- both present day and in total heinousness.

That's kind of like comparing apples to apples, isn't it?

250 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:55:31pm

re: #246 Blueheron

Okay someone else answered it for me but that isn't good enough. How could someone sit in a pastors church and not know him well. Plus how do we know Obama has no contact with him anymore? Please.

Oh, here we go again. Do you actually know how often Obama sat in Wright's church? If he was always spouting this stuff, why did it take so long for political operatives whose specialized skill it is to do exactly that, to dig up the Wright nastiness?

There's no there-there, man. There never was. Wright was a small time political power broker in Chicago who used some firey language, like every single preacher or protestant megachurch android that was courdted by Republicans for the last fifty years. Par for the course, Wright is no different (in fact far less influential and dangerous) than James Dobson, than Pat Robertson, than any of these people who blame 9/11 on queers and want to rewrite history.

CPAC is a national convention where right-wing big-wigs meet. And pointing and going "they did it too!" just minimizes the real threat from real vile people like the John Birch Society. it gives them cover, helps them grow, and they'd thank you for it.

Tu Quoque, enjoy with a smile!

251 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 12:58:20pm

re: #245 BunnyThief

Thanks for the correction, SB. It's now Nutroots Nation. The KOSsacks are now just major participants instead of the hosts.

Attendees: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean.

And it all started from "Screw them" Kos and his merry band of psychopaths.

Do we really need to discuss the history of the Kos Kiddies? I'd argue they're worse than the Birchers -- both present day and in total heinousness.

Yeah, that's actually not true. They are in no-way worse than Birchers, they're not organized like Birchers. I don't read Kos, I don't like the tone of Kos, but to claim that Kos is the equivalent of Birchers? Ludicrous, and minimizes and gives cover to the rising star that is the John Birch Society. I don't agree with the activist far left, but they are not even remotely in the same league. They're not playing the same sport, on the same continent.

252 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 1:03:17pm

re: #245 BunnyThief

Thanks for the correction, SB. It's now Nutroots Nation. The KOSsacks are now just major participants instead of the hosts.

Attendees: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean.

And it all started from "Screw them" Kos and his merry band of psychopaths.

Do we really need to discuss the history of the Kos Kiddies? I'd argue they're worse than the Birchers -- both present day and in total heinousness.

This is actually all you have, isn't it? That one pissed off statement Moulitsas made. It's totally the equivalent of all the research, all the posts about the rise of paranoid, racist extremists that threaten to become the entrenched base of the GOP. I'm sure everyone that actually works hard to find all this information to bring to you will be overjoyed to learn that it's all not as significant or interesting to you as one nasty thing Kos said years ago. Your tribalism is showing, friend. You can elevate yourself above the fray and look at what is really going on in the GOP from a strategist perspective, or you can continue to adopt them as your local football team and root for them even when they rot from the inside with vile populism, apocalyptic rhetoric and bigotry.

253 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 1:04:34pm

re: #251 WindUpBird

Yeah, that's actually not true. They are in no-way worse than Birchers, they're not organized like Birchers. I don't read Kos, I don't like the tone of Kos, but to claim that Kos is the equivalent of Birchers? Ludicrous, and minimizes and gives cover to the rising star that is the John Birch Society. I don't agree with the activist far left, but they are not even remotely in the same league. They're not playing the same sport, on the same continent.

This is the problem. Arguing that the Birchers are not as bad as people make them out to be, don't really have much influence, no one really knows what they are about etc., only gives them cover and makes them more acceptable. It's not the path to take with an anti-Semitic, lunatic fringe.

254 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 1:07:25pm

re: #250 WindUpBird

Oh, here we go again. Do you actually know how often Obama sat in Wright's church? If he was always spouting this stuff, why did it take so long for political operatives whose specialized skill it is to do exactly that, to dig up the Wright nastiness?

There's no there-there, man. There never was. Wright was a small time political power broker in Chicago who used some firey language, like every single preacher or protestant megachurch android that was courdted by Republicans for the last fifty years. Par for the course, Wright is no different (in fact far less influential and dangerous) than James Dobson, than Pat Robertson, than any of these people who blame 9/11 on queers and want to rewrite history.

CPAC is a national convention where right-wing big-wigs meet. And pointing and going "they did it too!" just minimizes the real threat from real vile people like the John Birch Society. it gives them cover, helps them grow, and they'd thank you for it.

Tu Quoque, enjoy with a smile!

Wright was Obama's minister for 20 years.

Wright performed Obama's marriage.

Wright baptized both of Obama's daughters.

Obama bought tapes of Wright's sermons and listened to them while in DC.

Wright gave the title to Obama's book.

Once they became widely known, Obama denounced Wright's words, but said he could no more disown Wright than he could disown his own grandmother.

Shortly thereafter, Obama disowned Wright and Obama's grandmother started getting very nervous.

255 Ericus58  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 1:12:35pm

The role of agitator is not becoming of you, my feathered friend.

If Robertson equals Wright for "nastiness" and extreme dogma.... Then who of the Republicans equal Obama?

256 generalsparky  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 1:13:45pm

re: #254 BunnyThief

Wright was Obama's minister for 20 years.

Wright performed Obama's marriage.

Wright baptized both of Obama's daughters.

Obama bought tapes of Wright's sermons and listened to them while in DC.

Wright gave the title to Obama's book.

Once they became widely known, Obama denounced Wright's words, but said he could no more disown Wright than he could disown his own grandmother.

Shortly thereafter, Obama disowned Wright and Obama's grandmother started getting very nervous.

Last line, comedy gold! And she should have been getting nervous, she already had the marks left from the bus she was thrown under as a "typical white person."

257 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 1:14:21pm

re: #252 WindUpBird

This is actually all you have, isn't it? That one pissed off statement Moulitsas made. It's totally the equivalent of all the research, all the posts about the rise of paranoid, racist extremists that threaten to become the entrenched base of the GOP. I'm sure everyone that actually works hard to find all this information to bring to you will be overjoyed to learn that it's all not as significant or interesting to you as one nasty thing Kos said years ago. Your tribalism is showing, friend. You can elevate yourself above the fray and look at what is really going on in the GOP from a strategist perspective, or you can continue to adopt them as your local football team and root for them even when they rot from the inside with vile populism, apocalyptic rhetoric and bigotry.

Let's start off with comparing the political influence of the Birchers and the Kossacks since 2000. The Kossacks have done a hell of a lot more.

The Kossacks were also the breeding grounds for some of the most vile lies from the last election. I'll wager that you're no Sarah Palin fan, but I'd like to think that even you were appalled at the Kossacks cheerfully making up dirt on her and spreading it far and wide -- "Palin cut funding to special education students," "Palin cut funding for pregnant teens," "Palin isn't Trig's birth mother," "Palin had an affair with her husband's business partner," and the like.

No, I don't have links to them. The Kos Kommunity deletes things when they get too embarrassing, and pretends they never happened. It's called deniability.

On the other hand, when was the last time the Birchers had more of an influence on things than making people point and laugh at them? I used to read their newsletter at the library purely for giggles. And they say some crazy-funny stuff.

There really isn't much difference between the Birchers and the Kossacks. The most significant one is that the Kossacks actually wield power and influence in the currently-dominant political party, and the Birchers are considered a joke.

258 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 1:18:27pm

re: #257 BunnyThief

On the other hand, when was the last time the Birchers had more of an influence on things than making people point and laugh at them?

Dude, they're co-sponsors at CPAC. Glenn Beck is pimping their propaganda on Fox News. They are being brought back into the mainstream by some on the right.

259 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 1:23:48pm

re: #258 Slumbering Behemoth

Dude, they're co-sponsors at CPAC. Glenn Beck is pimping their propaganda on Fox News. They are being brought back into the mainstream by some on the right.

"Co-sponsors at CPAC" means they paid money to get a table and a listing in the program. They weren't sought out; they went to CPAC with a check and, once it cleared, were allowed in.

And the Beck angle is Beck using them, not a sign of their power and influence.

When the Birchers have top GOP leaders flocking to a Bircher-organized national event, or reshaping a single major political race (like Connecticut's Senate race in 2006), then you MIGHT have something.

260 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 1:30:01pm

re: #259 BunnyThief

If Rudy Giuliani can tell a Saudi prince to fuck off with his $10M check, then CPAC can sure as hell tell the JBS to fuck off with their piddly little check.

There's no excuse for taking money and giving a cosponsor space to a conspiracy mongering, antisemitic organization.

261 Blueheron  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 1:33:29pm

re: #250 WindUpBird

Oh, here we go again. Do you actually know how often Obama sat in Wright's church? If he was always spouting this stuff, why did it take so long for political operatives whose specialized skill it is to do exactly that, to dig up the Wright nastiness?

There's no there-there, man. There never was. Wright was a small time political power broker in Chicago who used some firey language, like every single preacher or protestant megachurch android that was courdted by Republicans for the last fifty years. Par for the course, Wright is no different (in fact far less influential and dangerous) than James Dobson, than Pat Robertson, than any of these people who blame 9/11 on queers and want to rewrite history.

CPAC is a national convention where right-wing big-wigs meet. And pointing and going "they did it too!" just minimizes the real threat from real vile people like the John Birch Society. it gives them cover, helps them grow, and they'd thank you for it.

Tu Quoque, enjoy with a smile!

Down ding for being snarky.

262 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 1:34:02pm

re: #260 Slumbering Behemoth

*ww deletes vague, windy post in Preview. Updings Slumbering Behemoth.*

Wow. Preview really is my friend!

263 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 1:41:44pm

re: #260 Slumbering Behemoth

If Rudy Giuliani can tell a Saudi prince to fuck off with his $10M check, then CPAC can sure as hell tell the JBS to fuck off with their piddly little check.

There's no excuse for taking money and giving a cosponsor space to a conspiracy mongering, antisemitic organization.

Guiliani didn't tell the prince to shove his check until he said "America was asking for it."

And we're all better off with the Birchers spending their money on worthless PR like CPAC than on more successful recruiting tactics.

And I repeat: the Birchers are nuts, but so far have never been DANGEROUS nuts. They're not scary, they're laughable.

What do you have against laughter?

Of course, that could change in the future, so we better keep an eye on them. And what better way to keep an eye on them than allowing them to hang out on the fringe, instead of going full-blown underground?

OK, making them pay for the privilege of hanging out on the fringe. That's even better.

If I was going to CPAC, my main reason would be to visit the Birchers. To take their free swag. And laugh at them.

If I went to Nutroots Nation, I'd make sure I had all my shots first. And my insurance card handy. And possibly a bodyguard.

Fortunately, I'm going to neither...

264 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:02:36pm

re: #263 BunnyThief

Damn, that's just fucking stupid.

"Yeah, I wanna keep an eye on antisemitic conspiracy mongers. Maybe if I take their money, and let them into my keggar, no one will think I actually approve of their bullshit. Brilliant!"

265 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:10:59pm

re: #264 Slumbering Behemoth

Or, you could simply take the organizers at their word when they say that they didn't seek out the Birchers, but the Birchers came to them, and they said "whatever."

Considering their attempt at shaking down FedEx for a couple million, I have no problem thinking that it's all about the green, and not about endorsing their ideology.

Tolerance. Not accepting their ideology, but saying "we are not afraid of your ideology and we think that it'll be properly handled in the free market of ideas. In other words, you'll be paying good money to be laughed at, and we're glad to take your money."

You do far more for the Birchers by assigning them this tremendous power and influence and scariness than I do by laughing at them. Is that your intent?

266 ernie1241  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:13:27pm

I copy below comments made by JBS founder Robert Welch to the first meeting of the JBS National Council. These comments are rarely acknowledged by the JBS to be the underlying premises upon which they operate-–even today.

In 2002, the JBS published a new edition of Robert Welch’s so-called “private letter”, The Politician. The JBS describes this 2002 edition on the back cover as “perhaps the most devestating expose of the last century” because it “tells the bitter, but little known, truth” about our postwar history.

Among the “truths” which the JBS wants everyone to read and believe is that President Eisenhower and most of our political leaders and government officials during the past 8 decades have been traitors and conspirators.

And to bring this message into contemporary history, the back cover of the 2002 edition states:

“But most importantly The Politician exposes that ‘conspiracy of gangsters’ which even now is setting America’s foreign and domestic policy.”

JBS officials no longer subscribe to their former pretense which claimed that what Welch wrote in his “private letter” was not connected to the JBS. Instead, they now embrace the content of Welch’s manuscript. See, for example, the Foreword to the new 2002 edition written by the former CEO of the JBS.

Furthermore, in a 8/22/62 letter to Ezra Taft Benson in which he offered to send a copy of his manuscript to Benson, Mr. Welch wrote:

“For there are quite a number of outstanding Americans who are among our strongest and most unshakable supporters who had been made so by reading this document; and we have never really had any trouble with, or criticism from, those who have actually read the ‘letter’ themselves…”

And in the September 1963 JBS Bulletin, Mr. Welch wrote that “The Politician has now proved to be by far the most effective single help to our recruiting efforts.”

Incidentally, the themes, assertions, arguments, and evidence in The Politician differ not one iota from the themes, assertions, arguments and evidence used in JBS literature since its inception — so it is quite disingenuous to propose that there was ever some sort of distinction between what the JBS believes versus what Mr. Welch wrote in his so-called “private letter”.

In private remarks to the first meeting of his JBS National Council on January 9, 1960, at the Union League Club in Chicago, Welch made these observations about the gravity of our situation:

“From a careful and realistic study of the mountainous pile of evidence that is there for all to see, certain terrifying conclusions are objectively inescapable. Among them are:

(1) The Communists are winning their large victories, as they always have, through the cumulative effect of small gains;
(2) They make these gains chiefly through the conniving assistance of many of the very diplomats and officials who are supposed to be opposing them;
(3) Communist influences are now in almost complete working control of our government;
(4) And hence, the United States Government is today, as it has been for many years, the most important and powerful single force promoting the world-wide Communist advance.”

Furthermore, according to the minutes of this meeting, Robert Welch stated:

“Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists.”

For the complete text of Welch's remarks, see my JBS Report at:
Your text to link...

267 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:16:29pm

re: #266 ernie1241

Thanks for the backup, ernie. As I said, they're nuts -- and nuts like that are more dangerous in secret than out in public. Imagine if those had been publicized at the time...

OK, on that note, I'm outta here for a bit...

268 elizajane  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:18:09pm

No conspiracy theory too far-fetched to be endorsed whole-heartedly by the majority of Republicans.
Look at the current statistics on how few Republicans "believe in" climate change. It's all a conspiracy! Just this morning I heard Rush gleefully bashing global warming morons on the grounds that climate change has ALWAYS BEEN a vast left-wing conspiracy to defraud taxpayers of their hard-earned dollars. Yes, even for the past 8 years, under the Bush administration when most research was being funded by a Republican government, all those scientists were secretly working for the left! Oh yes!
My partner works on climate change and we have a lot of friends who are climate scientists and we'd all like to know where we can go to sign up for the conspiracy money.
I know this is stuff for another thread but I don't get to hear Rush that often so it's the conspiracy on my mind at the moment.

269 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:19:27pm

re: #265 BunnyThief

You do far more for the Birchers by assigning them this tremendous power and influence and scariness than I do by laughing at them. Is that your intent?

You're so full of shit. Assigning tremendous power? No, I've been saying no one should be "breaking bread" with these assholes, or promoting their propaganda.

And you're not laughing at them. You are making excuses and whitewashing those who choose to associate with them.

270 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:20:40pm

re: #267 BunnyThief

Thanks for the backup, ernie. As I said, they're nuts -- and nuts like that are more dangerous in secret than out in public. Imagine if those had been publicized at the time...

OK, on that note, I'm outta here for a bit...

I don't think that was backup for you, Bunny. I don't think ernie is laughing at 'em. Did you click on the link?

271 elizajane  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:21:42pm

re: #263 BunnyThief

Sorry Bunny, but that's not how it works. Maybe *you* would go to laugh, but to most of the people who attend such a convention, a group's presence there registers its legitimacy.

272 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:35:37pm

re: #271 elizajane

Don't you get it, Elizajane? It's totally cool to give antisemitic conspiracy mongers a legitimizing spot in your party as long as you pretend to point and laugh at them. Duh!
/dripping

273 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:37:42pm

No one should forget that the Birchers were the ones with the posters of Obama as Hitler at the health care town halls.

274 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:38:13pm

Hmm.... let's game this out.

Scenario 1:

Birchers: "CPAC, we'd like to buy a table at your conference."

CPAC: "Sorry, you're nuts, and we don't want whackos thinking that, by not blackballing you, we're endorsing every single nutty thing you've ever said."

Birchers: "Oh, you're AFRAID of us! You know we'll tell everyone THE TRUTH, and you're afraid of the truth!"

CPAC: "No, you're just nuts."

Birchers: "Help! Help! We're being oppressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!"

Scenario 2:

Birchers: "CPAC, we'd like to buy a table at your conference."

CPAC: "Yeah, whatever. Have that table over in the corner. Next!"

No reason to give the dips an excuse to play the martyr card. Hell, no excuse to give them any attention whatsoever. Take their money, stick 'em in a corner, and ignore 'em.

They are obnoxious nuts with a paranoid, repugnant ideology. The last thing you wanna do is give them any excuse to cry persecution or a

275 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:40:11pm

Crud, accidentally hit post. Anyway...

...cry persecution or act like you take them in any way seriously. Just pay them as little mind as possible.

They aren't dangerous. No reason to treat them as dangerous.

276 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:45:43am

re: #275 BunnyThief

They are obnoxious nuts with a paranoid, repugnant ideology. The last thing you wanna do is give them any excuse to cry persecution or act like you take them in any way seriously.

Your statement here belies all of your deflection and "nothing to see here" rhetoric re: the Birchers. I find your motives suspect.

277 BunnyThief  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 2:13:29am

re: #276 Slumbering Behemoth

And I'm finding your fixation on me flattering, yet slightly creepy.

There's no contradiction. The Birchers are paranoid. Their beliefs are repulsive. But they're also nuts. Those beliefs appeal only to a very few, and only in specific circumstances. "In a dark corner of a bar after a few drinks" is one such circumstance. "In a convention of all types of conservatives, where their ideology has to compete in the marketplace of ideas" is not.

The two worst things you can do to nuts like this is to ignore them and laugh at them. That will be the most common reactions.

One of the things they thrive on most is negative attention, being able to boast about how they're being singled out and persecuted for their beliefs, how the establishment is afraid of them because they know THE TROOOOTH. That's what you wanna do.

I don't wanna give them that kind of attention. I like the idea of them paying their slim resources for such a pointless exercise as sponsoring CPAC instead of more covert (and, for them, more successful) recruiting techniques.

And as I've said before, I find them tremendously entertaining. I wanna see the accounts of their presence there and laugh at them.

278 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 9:02:30am

re: #276 Slumbering Behemoth

Your statement here belies all of your deflection and "nothing to see here" rhetoric re: the Birchers. I find your motives suspect.

As do I.

It's absolutely insane to suggest that the best way to deal with groups like the Birchers is to just let them attach themselves to the GOP, or to say we should just "ignore" them. That's not going to happen at LGF, and I find it very suspicious when people try to float this kind of nonsense here.

279 BunnyThief  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 9:16:29am

My apologies, then, Charles. I agree that the Birchers are whackos; I just think -- based on their lengthy history -- that they're simply not dangerous whackos. And I worry that attempts to marginalize them will feed into their paranoia-induced persecution complex.

I believe the best way to handle them is to not give them any undue attention, just ignore them and let them remain on the lunatic fringe.

But keep an eye on them for when they take their crazy talk into the realm of crazy action.

280 jvic  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 9:43:57am

I chanced on some Bircher recruitment literature from the time when Buckley kicked them out of National Review. Innocuous stuff. On the face of it, you'd never think they held that Eisenhower was a Communist agent.

Birchers and similar groups across the political spectrum are like opportunistic infections dormant in the body politic. They openly demonstrate their true nature only when the body is weakened and vulnerable.

To get paranoid about them is to move onto their home ground, but they are too dangerous to ignore or accommodate.

281 Randall Gross  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:09:34am

Smells like the same old bunny ___ to me.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Big Moon - Why Director/Editor - Jonjo LoweProducer - Rosie BrearDoP - Alistair LittleCinema 4D Animation - Jay DarlingtonGrade - Myles Bevan @ Time Based ArtsEdit/FX Assistant - Carina EtaeCollage Design Assist - Bex LiuChoreography - Grace Nicol Special thanks - Thrds Studio, ...
Thanos
22 hours, 52 minutes ago
Views: 182 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
Deep Sea Diver - Impossible Weight (Studio Video) “Impossible Weight” off Deep Sea Diver’s new album 'Impossible Weight' out now. Filmed during the recording of Impossible Weight at Hall of Justice in Seattle WA. STREAM / BUY "Impossible Weight" here smarturl.it WATCH OFFICAL MUSIC VIDEO HERE : ...
Thanos
5 days, 2 hours ago
Views: 447 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
Eddie Vedder - Matter of Time (Official Music Video) The official music video for "Matter of Time" by Eddie Vedder. Written for everyone worldwide afflicted with Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB). To help fund research aimed at treating and curing EB, please donate to the EB Research Partnership: ebresearch.org “Matter ...
Thanos
5 days, 15 hours ago
Views: 514 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 2 •
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 201122 Saturday was general maintenance around the place.Mowing, weed whacking, palm tree trimming, etc.Nothing picture worthy or really, even pond related. Sunday was more rain. We really were lucky for that first year. Not one Sunday did we get rained ...
dangerman
6 days, 18 hours ago
Views: 562 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
Tweets: 0 •
Nduduzo Makhathini - UmlothaMusic video by Nduduzo Makhathini performing Umlotha. © 2020 Universal Music (Pty) Ltd South Africa vevo.ly
Thanos
1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 740 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 7 •
Brian Eno - Decline and Fall (From ‘O Nome Da Morte’) The official music video for "Decline and Fall”, a track from the new album “Film Music 1976 - 2020”, is a cinematic collaboration between Brian Eno and acclaimed Brazilian film director Henrique Goldman which contemplates rain and fire, fiction ...
Thanos
1 week, 5 days ago
Views: 1,210 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
Brian Eno - Like I Was a Spectator 'Like I Was A Spectator', a brand new track by Brian Eno with Daniel Lanois and Roger Eno from ‘Apollo – Atmospheres & Soundtracks – Extended Edition’. The video was created using rare N.A.S.A. footage.Order now: brianeno.lnk.to Follow Brian ...
Thanos
1 week, 5 days ago
Views: 956 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 201115After two really sunny and swell days since Eta left, Saturday was a mix of mostly sun and a bit of rain.We still managed to be really productive both days anyway. Got all the lava rock washed and shoveled into ...
dangerman
2 weeks ago
Views: 1,178 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 6
Tweets: 0 •
Michael Kiwanuka - Solid Ground (Live at the V&A) Listen to the Mercury Prize winning album ’KIWANUKA' now: michaelkiwanuka.lnk.to Michael Kiwanuka performing Solid Ground taken from the Mercury Prize winning album 'KIWANUKA' live at the Victoria & Albert museum in London. Sign up to Michael's mailing list: michaelkiwanuka.lnk.toFollow ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Views: 1,234 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
Deep Sea Diver - Impossible Weight Featuring Sharon Van Etten (Official Video) “Impossible Weight” off Deep Sea Diver’s new album 'Impossible Weight' out now. Order 'Impossible Weight' here smarturl.it Distributed by ATO Records ~~~~~~~~~ Directors: Jessica Dobson, Peter Mansen, Tyler KalbergArt direction: Jessica Dobson, Tyler KalbergDirector of photography: Tyler KalbergCamera operator ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Views: 1,527 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 3 •