Happy Hour Discurso

Today’s opining on the public discourse.

What is it with conservative personalities and their propensity for calling for the assassination of Democratic leaders? Now even their golf guys are going for the guns:

Chances are, David Feherty, a golf analyst of CBS, thought he was being funny. He wrote a disjointed, 1,500-word piece for D Magazine about George and Laura Bush moving to Dallas, and Feherty apparently thought it would be a good time to dabble in some political analysis.

After explaining his belief that Bush’s critics are awful, his presidency will be appreciated in the future, and Bush was dealt “rotten cards” to play, Feherty argued:

From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this, though: despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there’s a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death.

Awaiting the conservative outcry, here. After all, this schmuck’s suggesting our troops are homicidal maniacs.

While we enjoy the silence, we can also enjoy some irony:

Feherty’s most recent book, incidentally, is titled An Idiot For All Seasons. Indeed.

Meanwhile, Michael Steele calls ’em as he sees ’em:

While guest-hosting Bill Bennett’s radio show yesterday, Steele debated a caller who thought Romney could have beat Obama if Democrats and the New York Times hadn’t “co-opted” the GOP primaries.

Steele insisted, however, that Romney couldn’t have won because the GOP based “rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism”:

STEELE: Yeah, but let me ask you. Ok, Jay, I’m there with you. But remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life. It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism. It was the base that rejected Mitch, Mitt, because they thought he was back and forth and waffling on those very economic issues you’re talking about. So, I mean, I hear what you’re saying, but before we even got to a primary vote, the base had made very clear they had issues with Mitt because if they didn’t, he would have defeated John McCain in those primaries in which he lost.

I don’t think the base will appreciate being called out for being anti-Mormon bigots. Expect fireworks.

Mike Huckabee, once and future presidential hopeful, sees an opportunity. See him position himself as the rabid right’s champion:

The National Council for a New America, the Republicans’ rebranding initiative, seems to have made a deliberate effort to downplay the party’s social agenda. When it unveiled a list of broad policy priorities last week, there were no references to abortion, gays, state-sponsored religion, etc., suggesting party leaders don’t see the culture war as the key to long-term success.

The religious right is, not surprisingly, not at all pleased. Yesterday, Mike Huckabee raised his own concerns.

In an interview with the California newspaper The Visalia Times-Delta, Huckabee said the GOP would only further decline in influence should it alienate social conservatives — largely considered the most energetic and loyal faction of the party.

“Throw the social conservatives the pro-life, pro-family people overboard and the Republican party will be as irrelevant as the Whigs,” he said in reference to the American political party that largely disbanded in the mid 1800s.

“They’ll basically be a party of gray-haired old men sitting around the country club puffing cigars, sipping brandy and wondering whatever happened to the country. That will be the end of the party,” he said in the interview published Thursday.

Mike’s such a blessing to Dems. With him whipping up the far frothing right, there’s little chance the Republican party will get a chance to regain some relevance to the larger public. Thanks for making Dems’ jobs easier, Mike!

And finally, from the hypocrisy files:

The wingnuts were just wild over the fact that President Obama ordered Dijon mustard on his burger. Well, C&Ler David sent in this White House web page full of Independence Day recipes: What a hoot. Dear Instapundit, Jon Stewart never mentioned anything about mustard in his burger piece and wasn’t that the point of your silliness? However, your Holy leader George Bush really loves his Dijon mustard too.

President and Laura Bush’s Deviled Eggs Recipe

12 large eggs, boiled hard and peeled
1 Tbsp (plus) soft butter
1 Tbsp (plus) mayonnaise
1 Tbsp Dijon mustard
1/2 tsp Yucatan Sunshine Habanero sauce
Salt to taste

And what’s with that anti-Amurkin Mexican sauce, eh? I mean, I knew Bush hated America – no one who loves her would’ve bankrupted her with two useless wars, let Wall Street destroy Main Street, and turned us into despicable torturing war criminals – but isn’t what he’s done to the traditional deviled egg a bridge too far for the kind of people who obsess for a week over dijon mustard on a burger?

Not that one should ever expect consistency from Cons.

Happy Hour Discurso
The Orbit is still fighting a SLAPP suit! Help defend freedom of speech, click here to find out more and donate!

2 thoughts on “Happy Hour Discurso

  1. 1

    “I don’t think the base will appreciate being called out for being anti-Mormon bigots. Expect fireworks.”No, I don’t think so.I think “the base” doesn’t think of themselves as “anti-Mormon bigots.” The base thinks of itself as “pro-Christian warriors for God.” It’s merely incidental that they consider Mormons non-Christians and thus “the enemy.” The base won’t even register that they were called “anti Mormon bigots”, and I don’t think it was the intent of Michael Steele to call them anti-Mormon bigots.I’m not sure the word bigot even applies here. If I judge someone to be incompetent because of a decision they’ve made, when it is obvious to me that the decision they’ve made is idiotic, is that bigotry? If so, I’m a bigot.I’m not sure it makes a difference if one judges another on making an idiotic decision AND one has also made a very similar idiotic decision oneself (e.g. being a Baptist (idiotic) vs. being a Mormon (also idiotic.))Does it matter if the Baptist decides the Mormon is an idiot for not seeing that Mormonism is idiocy despite being an idiot himself by way of not seeing that Baptistism(?) is idiocy?I think the word “bigotry” gets tossed around a little too freely sometimes. But maybe I’m a bigot. I’ve been called one now and then.

Comments are closed.