1
1
1
Not to be outdone, Fox News celebrity Sean Hannity ran an ill-advised poll on his Web site last month. It has to be read to be believed.
He asked his readers what kind of revolution do they want and offered three options: 1. Military coup; 2. Armed rebellion; or, 3. War for succession. Hannity offered innocently, "#3 seems most realistic since it does present an opportunity for more homogeneous states to sort of capitalize on their homogeneity. However, it would likely lead to mass migrations of the minority partisans out of the rebel states.
Of course, that may be fine with those states. Yet it seems that the ultimate paradox in any rebellion for freedom from within is that the ultimate goal is to impose the will of the rebels on everyone else through force. It seems the very foundation of representative democracy is shattered if we accept that we exchange the power of ideas for the power of the sword upon each other. Nevertheless, I am still very interested in your own preferred form of revolt."
Without going into a lengthy and unnecessary explanation, Hannity is nuts. Incredible this guy appears on a major network. Soon after it appeared the page was removed from his Web site.
Not to be outdone, Glenn Beck, a right-wing spokesman with a radio show, asserted with bombastic rhetoric that President Obama's lifting of the ban on embryonic stem cell research would open the way for the genetic development of a new master race.
Also, Glenn Beck presented a program called "War Room" that described various scenarios including the overthrow of an oppressive U.S. government when "bubba" militias rise up and gain the support of the American military.
The show featured former CIA officer Michael Scheuer, retired U.S. Army Sgt. Major Tim Strong, and Gerald Celente, a prognosticator who began pitching the idea of an armed rebellion on Fox News shortly after Obama's election.
A transcript of the presentation is not worth posting. It is needlessly frightening and the actors are Neanderthals, more fitting for a Hollywood thriller than a theoretically responsible news program. Beck is nuts.
Leading this disenchanting choir is Rush Limbaugh, who has stated unequivocally that he wants the President of the United States to fail. He is the honorary chairman and spokesman for the RNC, much to the lament of moderate conservatives.
Conservative David Frum of Newsweek complains, "Every day Rush Limbaugh reassures millions of core Republican voters that no change is needed: if people don't appreciate what we are saying, then say it louder.
Isn't that what happened in 1994? Certainly this is a good approach for Rush himself. He claims 20 million listeners per week, and that suffices to make him a very wealthy man. And if another 100 million people cannot stand him, what does he care? What can they do to him other than ... not listen?
It's not as if they can vote against him. But they can vote against Republican candidates for Congress. They can vote against Republican nominees for president. And if we allow ourselves to be over-identified with somebody who earns his fortune by giving offense, they will vote against us." Limbaugh is nuts ... and very dangerous to the conservative agenda.
NY Times writer, William Rivers Pitt, concludes, "The hardest part for the GOP? Neither Obama nor any other Democrat have been required to say a word about any of this. The right-wing shouters do their shouting, get shouted at by other right-wing shouters, and a perfect circle of Republican self-destruction is formed." That pretty much says it all.
Robert Parry discuses another conundrum for the GOP. "[The Right-Wing Machine] is also a machine that can run only on the high-octane fuel of anger and hate. If it tried to down-shift to a more responsible approach to politics, it would stall out, losing its core audience of angry white men who feel deeply aggrieved by their loss of status."
Parry adds, "In turn, Republican leaders can't disown the right-wing media infrastructure that has advanced their interests for so long. In the first month of Obama's presidency, the congressional Republicans fell in line behind Rush Limbaugh's openly declared desire for Obama to fail."
Parry also concludes that "The national news media remains largely enthralled by the pro-Republican rules of the past three decades." Switching on to the evening news every day, regardless of network, that is a concept many believe is certain beyond a doubt. Over half the news programs are pure pabulum. Moreover, what they say is far less important than what they don't say. If one relies on the MSM for the news, one would be a news eunuch.
Staid publications like the NY Times and Washington Post are also on the hook for misleading articles generated by their conservative-leaning business masters. Both reported recently on the shocking revelation of 6.2% drop of the GDP during the last quarter of 2008 while Bush was at the helm.
