Libertarian Librarian

I've stopped listening. They are getting seriously unhinged. It's actually rather disturbing to listen to of late-- so I've stopped. I think I'll check back after the elections, because they seem to be getting worn out carrying water for a Republican Party with no soul and no compunction. Torture is acceptable policy because national security trumps all. No matter how slimy a particular Republican is, you must vote for him, because otherwise the Dems might win control of Congress, and Nancy Pelosi is the Anti-Christ (I exagerate, but not by much. It is amazing the amount of venom Sean Hannity alone managed to sling at Nancy Pelosi in the 10 minutes I could stand listening to his... rant. Yeah, rant. Only word that really sums up his disjointed verbal tar and feathering of Pelosi).

Rush, always a preening windbag with somewhat tenuous familiarity with the truth, has gone completely off the deep end. Here are the two bits that have convinced me never to listen to, much less believe, Rush ever again. #1, a bumper plug for his show: "So smart, he'll do your thinking for you." That's probably not word for word, but it was the gist of the plug-- listen to Rush, so you know what to think. Ye gods. #2: Last time I listened, about 2 weeks ago, Rush was ranting about a recent study that found a new medical use for marijuana. I'm not certain (I turned on the radio mid-rant), but I suspect it was this study. Anyway, this is Rush's response (again, paraphrased, but the gist is DOBA):

Well, I'm not saying this is the case or anything, but it wouldn't surprise me if some, maybe most, of the scientists doing the study were toking. These peeeepuhl have an agenda, and they want to get marijuana legalised because most of them smoke it anyway. Now, again, I'm not saying these scientists DO smoke pot, but it wouldn't shock me if they did.

Mind you, he had not a single iota of evidence to support the idea that the scientists were on drugs, nor that they had an "agenda" to legalize marijuana, but since he wasn't "saying this is the case" I guess all this hypothesizing is okay, huh? What a maroon.

Hannity seems to have an unnatural fixation on Nancy Pelosi, as noted above, and nobody pounds the "Patriots Vote for National Security" drum harder than he. Tiresome. And inaccurate. Patriots vote for what they believe is best for their country-- and I am more and more thinking that single-party domination of all branches of our government is a very bad thing for our country. Because instead of focusing on the central points of that party-- smaller gov't, lower taxes, federalism, "speak softly but carry a bit stick"-- all the nutjobs are soundly baying at the moon because "their" party is in power and must fulfill all the nutjob desires. With relatively unfettered control, the party in power tries to push through all the piddly/odd crap that they know will never fly in a split Congress or a split Legislative/Executive power structure.

Which brings me to a more local level. In Milwaukee, we have a number of conservative on-air pundits, but the only one I listen to with any regularity is Mark Belling. Arrogant, sometimes mean-spirited, nearly always condescending, and belligerent to callers that dare disagree with him, he usually does offer some interesting commentary and, unlike Rush and Hannity, usually does not reflexively support the Republican Party. Rather, he usually supports conservative principles, and decries hypocrisy and stupidity on both sides of the political spectrum.

Not so much, lately. Lately, any national commentary-- the local stuff is still generally insightful and rational-- seems to be taken straight from the Karl Rove playbook. National security trumps all, if you are "soft" on terror (meaning you oppose torture or have reservations about any aspect of the NSA phone taps or have any reservations about the Patriot Act, or that you think the recent shift of power to the Executive branch might be a bad thing) you are unpatriotic and must not be allowed anywhere near elected office. If you are disgruntled with the horrible performance of the Republicans, you must vote for them anyway, because the Democrats would unquestionably be worse.

Key word being unquestionably, of course. We just know the democrats would be worse. Granted, there is no real evidence to support that, since the new reality of 9/11 is very recent and the Democrats haven't been in power since it happened. But Clinton did little or nothing about bin Laden back before we really understood the threat, so naturally, any and all Democrats would be as bad or worse.

The things that I find so distasteful about it all, because there are some good points mixed in with the dreck, are the ad hominem nature of the attacks-- Nancy Pelosi is this, Russ Feingold is that-- and the incredible shrillness with which the points are made. They are not thoughtful, rational explanations. They are strident and unreasoning bullet points with no room for debate or compromise. You must believe 100% or be cast out as unclean.

Not

Gonna

Do it.

So, here's my new tweak of my write-in an actually qualified candidate paradigm. Find someone of the opposite ideological bent as you. Tell them you're sick of it all and don't want to vote for any of the hacks running but you also don't want to "waste" your vote. Try to convince him or her to also write-in someone-- that way your two non-votes cancel each other out, just like they would if you both voted a straight party ticket on opposite sides. You both get to have a clear conscience of having voted for someone qualified and-- gasp!-- honest, while not having to worry that your non-vote was actually a vote for the other party.

Ideally, your "vote partner" would be in the same state as you, so that your elections match up as closely as possible. Same city would be even better.

So, watchya say, tc? Want to write-in my brother for Governor? I will if you will.

Labels: Politics