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?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).