We are better able to protect ourselves from the virulent excesses of shrill political invective than we are able to deal with the deceptive misrepresentation quietly intoned by leaders in response to the president's state of the union speech and other important issues of the day. However much the mindless diatribes of Rush Limbaugh abuse our sensibilities or the stunning irrelevance of Michele Bachmann is absorbed by an insensate audience, voters may yet find reason to re-examine the basis for their support.
But when we are enticed to listen intently to spokespeople who give the appearance of rational thought and carefully considered opinion we are in for a rocky ride. Bobby Jindal's response to the president's first state of the union speech was greeted with laughter at the governor's awkward, self-conscious demeanor. Oddly enough Representative Paul's response this time around was similar in tone even though Ryan is quite a different person. It seems as if the two men were attempting to disguise their true nature by assuming a false air of reasonableness, a hard act to pull off given their usual behavior and partisanship - - speak softly and hew rigidly to the party's far-right agenda.
This may be the new approach Republicans are taking as they fall back from the rough and ready course Sarah Palin and Tea Party advocates set for the party only a few short months ago. Perhaps Palin did irreparable damage to whatever political goals she has for herself with her 'it's all about me' take on the shooting in Tucson. Her star seems to have dimmed somewhat, a celestial reconfiguration that has been long overdue. But nothing dims her self-aggrandizing approach to the national dialogue. She can't even bring herself to support closing the gun-show loophole or limiting the size of ammunition clips. If shooting wild animals from a helicopter requires a fully-loaded clip of that magnitude gun lovers should think about redefining what they mean by 'sport.' And what possible justification can there be for endangering the lives of law-enforcement personnel and overwhelming an unarmed population with excessive fire power?
Extrapolating something of value from the vapid thought processes of the Palins and Bachmanns is a fool's errand. They would be better left unattended except that news organizations keep treating their every dopey observation as if it were newsworthy. And Palin is out there all the time talking trash about how the president wants to take people's guns away and acting as if she were a worthy opponent for him. Unlike the scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz she isn't even looking for a brain; only the most desperately uninformed can possibly turn to her for political guidance. As someone once said, these are people who don't realize how truly ignorant they really are.
The turbulence in Egypt has given rise to a spate of critical views both informed and not so much. It is a travesty our media personalities work upon us that so much opinion derives from so little intellect. Over the weekend one commentator opined that, with the Middle East in a state of flux, perhaps George Bush will be vindicated for his decision to invade Iraq. How one could reach that conclusion from what is occurring is hard to fathom, but pundits are always eager to make dubious connections just in case someone in Cairo pops up suddenly and says 'George Bush, what a guy.' Of course the perception that Bush contributed something valuable to the world order is confirmed by the former president's smug demeanor as he gives interviews about the decision-making process he undertook during his presidency.
And what could be more absurd than a discussion between Fox regulars Beck and O'Reilly about the future of Egypt's political dynamic? While most experts in the region say that the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda are not likely to coalesce and in fact are more likely to have an antagonistic relationship, O'Reilly and Beck spent their time saying exactly the opposite. Americans who tune into Fox on a regular basis will undoubtedly spread the word and a new wave of Al Qaeda fear mongering will emerge.
But if the rants on the right give us pause, it is the soft deceptive murmurings of right-wing partisans who promote a false sense of comity and cooperation that are of greater concern.
David Brooks
. . . is the consummate "reasonable" conservative pundit. I've always regarded his discourse as dangerously mild sounding. He never fails to support the neo-con objectives.
A little off topic but...about those high capacity clips
What we need to understand about the gun culture is the reason that many gun enthusiasts want firepower. It is for the coming "showdown" with the librul Islamo-Socialist Big Government they fear. So wondering how they could possibly want high capacity ammo clips and automatic weapons for "hunting" or "self defense" is to misunderestimate (I love that word...thanks W!) their motivation entirely.
Off topic comments are trollish
Your comment is a distraction from the main point. Taking sides on non-financial wedge issues only serves the "divide and conquer" strategy of the upper 1%. They could care less if everyone or no one owned firearms. All they care about is looting and enslaving the entire planet. So far, they're doing a pretty good job of it!
"Trollish?"
I believe Ms. Davidow's main point was that there's greater danger in the right's efforts to tack toward the appearance of reasonableness than in the increasingly hysterical rantings of their more colorful screwballs. In your zeal to wail instead about the wealth gap, it appears that it is you, sir, who missed her point entirely. Too bad because the point she makes in this column is an excellent one. You should read it.