Robert Gibbs' recent dictate that progressive pundits should not dare to question President Obama's agenda will give historians and analysts the raw material for pumping out books and dissertations for years to come. This column will (as all columns essentially are) be a personal response encouraging the audience to ponder the edict and reach their own conclusions about political loyalty. Gibbs comments were reported in a <a href =click here;story Tuesday, by Sam Youngman</a>, on The Hill website.
Earlier this summer, this columnist was summarily tossed off a different liberal website for espousing some unapproved ideas and speculation and that fact inspired the writer to ask himself some questions which are now made more intriguing by the stun grenade which Gibbs just threw into the midst of the wolfpack of progressive pundits.
The World's Laziest Journalist assumes that the electronic voting machines are a viable factor in the contemporary American political scene. It is a verboten belief on that particular website because el jefe and the vigilant brigade of regulars (what means "marching orders?") consider it a conspiracy theory.
First question that comes to mind is this: Since there is a great deal of scientific opinion substantiating the doubt of the results produced by the electronic voting machines, does that mean that the idea of unreliable results is as suspicious as the global warming calamity that only scientists believe? Or is there a bit of selective use of reliance on scientific opinion at work in the ranks of the Democrats? Do Democrats put undying belief in the one bit of scientific opinion and have grave doubts in the other or do scientists get the benefit of double or nothing certainty in their conclusions?
Gibbs made reference to professional progressive pundits and that brings up a bit of obfuscation that needs clarification. Does Gibbs think that all the contributors to liberal websites (such as the one that rigidly proscribes what the contributors can and cannot say) get paid for their work? Or was he hinting that the Democrats are only paying some high profile progressive pundits some undisclosed bonus money in return for their loyalty?
Rush Limbaugh seems to never deviate from the official Republican creed. Is there some kind of undisclosed quid pro quo at work? Is his loyalty required by the folks paying his substantial salary? Was Gibbs saying that rebellion against the officially sanctioned cant means automatic elimination from the ranks of the unpaid contributors who are granted the privilege of working in the secretly subsidized progressive hall of mirrors?
Did Gibbs mean to hint that some progressive pundits may be getting subsidy money directly from the Democrats Party's private war chest account?
That brings up another interesting question. Most progressive websites seem to always be on the brink of financial insolvency. One in particular does not seem to conduct serious fund raising drives, yet they apparently can shell out the money for some extensive polling and, when the data doesn't add up, they also have the money to fact check the polls and then have money to get a lawsuit going against the people they did hire to produce faulty data. Isn't extensive polling rather expensive? Uh-oh! Did Gibbs goof and give away a hint that should have remained buried?
Here is an additional bit of possible humorous symbolism: One of the American Heritage Dictionary definitions for the word poll is "to cut off horns," which would mean that the aforementioned website, if they do get financial subsidies direct from Democratic Headquarters, gets a twofer because they do opinion surveys and also clip the horns of the conspiracy theory heretics.
Next question concerns Gibbs assertion that pundits who question Obama's agenda are nuts. Thanks, Mr. Gibbs, this particular columnist will take that as a dare to go into topics and speculation that might cause you some extreme discomfort in the near future.
At this point, we are reminded of one of our friend's brag that the voices he hears in his head have the "call waiting" feature. He isn't a liberal. Maybe he can give us some good column topic suggestions and then you'll know what "crazy" really sounds like.
Yeah, maybe we'll do some warm up pitches with a column that tries to parody what a contemporary bit of punditry would be like if it was written by William S. Porter, aka O. Henry. The fellow was particularly noted for unexpected plot twists. We'll see what we can concoct in the next several days and post it ASAP.
Next we want to address the implication that President Obama is entitled to my loyalty.
During the summer and fall of 2008, when the liberal websites seemed sharply divided into two camps, the Hillary vs. Obama factions, this columnist tried very diligently to sidestep the either-or trap. We studiously avoided telling our readers what they should think. We did assume that the lady frontrunner had a lock on the nomination.
[You want some of my personal opinions? The Stones are a much better rock'n'roll band than the Beatles ever could hope to be. (The Stones have been around for almost 50 years. How long did the Beatle manage to stay together?) The Yankee team from the early Fifties would have (in a hypothetical match up) put the 1927 Yankee team to shame. "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" was a much better film than "Citizen Kane." Duane Eddy was the greatest rock guitarist of them all. Want more? Thorne Smith's novel "The Bishop's Jaegers," even though it is more than 70 years old, is still ahead of its time and too hot to be made into a movie.]
The Republicans seemed to enjoy immensely the Hilary vs. Obama tussle, but if they can step back this fall and just watch the progressive pundits pummel each other continuously right up to the election night broadcasts, they will have an easy job of getting a filibuster/veto proof majority in both the House and maybe even the Senate. Thus, if Jeb Bush is inaugurated in January of 2013, he may have to give Mr. Gibb a shout out of appreciation in his Inaugural Address.