Bruce Bartlett, former Reagan economic policy advisor: "one of our political parties is insane"

[UnrepentantLiberal]

Last edited Tue Jul 24, 2012, 08:17 PM - Edit history (2)

Here's a link to a video of him saying this on the Daily Show. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-22-2012/bruce-bartlett

[Gidney N Cloyd]

2. I'd love to see a few more of these old timers chime in like this.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

10. Here's a few more.

“To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots… But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.”

- Mike Lofgren, former GOP congressional staffer

“Some of my Republican friends ask if I’ve gone crazy. I say: Look in the mirror.”

- David Frum, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush

“I’ve become less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy.”

- Reagan-appointed Judge Richard Posner

[freshwest]

41. Woo! Those are awesome.

[Iggy]

50. I'd Add Kevin Phillips

Add Kevin Phillips to the list-- he's a former Reagan speech writer.

he's written some amazing books regarding the degeneration of conservatives, and our financial
trainwreck:

http://www.amazon.com/American-Theocracy-Politics-Religion-Borrowed/dp/0143038281/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1343220716&sr=8-2&keywords=kevin+phillips

I've read this book twice.. incredibly prescient; written prior to the 2008 crash.

[Berlum]

3. "D'oh" - Decent & Honest American Citizens with Integrity

[Gold Metal Flake]

4. Anarchists.

If we really had a "liberal media" we could make that label stick.

[Bjorn Against]

13. That is the one part of his quote that is not accurate though

The Republicans are not anarchists, in fact contrary to popular belief they want a bigger, more intrusive government. They support a larger Pentagon budget, more police powers, the restriction of a woman's right to control her own body, restrictive conditions on who can and can not marry, making it more difficult to vote, warrantless wiretapping of American's phones, torture, massive government contracts for private corporations, "faith based" initiatives, the list goes on and on. The right-wing does not want anarchy nor do they want a smaller government, what they want is a government that serves corporate interests rather than the people.

[Curmudgeoness]

17. Let's put it a different way....

They try to convince themselves that they want the government shut down, out of the way, out of their lives.

With that opinion of themselves, we can still say that they are advocating anarchy. And I would like to have that word assigned to their views.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

22. Except that they don't espouse any of the tenets of anarchism.

Anarchism is:

Pro-labor; anti-capitalist
Solidarity
Non-hierarchical
Non-oppressive
Egalitarian
Inclusive; not exclusive
Communitarian
Non-coercive
Non-racist
Non-sexist
Pro mutual aid

Do Republicans want any of the above? Hardly.

[Puregonzo1188]

70. Thanks for sharing with us what anarchism is. Every time I see that term misused on DU I try to

remind people of anarchists involvement in the labor movement.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

74. They brought us the 8 hour work day.

Among other things ...yet, still are demonized. Thanks for your support.

[freshwest]

42. No, they are corporatists in the traditional meaning of the word. They want chaos,

At which time they will set up a strong man dictatorship. They have no intention of letting things work our naturally like anarchists might.

Their media has been preparing milllons of their followers to act as brownshirts to fight their enemies they demonize. Those who are not in favor of theocracy, who refuse to bow down to the oligarchs, and refuse get in line with their way of running the world.

They have an enemies list they have been preaching for almost 20 years and non-believers, liberals, progressives, unionists, environmentalists, Democrats, socialists, etc. are on that list.

This is almost exactly the same as the 1930s, they are taking over everything, culturally, religiously and commercially. They have a plan that is well-funded. They are not crazy. They are fascists and are following the method very well. Sorry to bore you if you've seen this quote before, but:

"The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence.

His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power...

They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest.

Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."

-- U.S. Vice President Henry A. Wallace, quoted in the New York Times, April 9, 1944

[chknltl]

57. bookmarking thread for THIS post.

Democracy requires an enlightened electorate. Thank you for a major upgrade on this voter's enlightenment.

[Curmudgeoness]

65. This is frightening. And true.

It appears that they are in the last stages of their plan, since they have the rabble whipped up to a frenzy. With patriotism.

Thanks for the insight, I think. Not sure I wanted to hear it.

[freshwest]

67. I think that's a good deal of what we've done, is not look at it. We exclaim how stupid or crazy

These guys are, or they are misguided. Bush wasn't stupid, I've posted a video from Parenti that dispells that totally.

The GOP is not crazy, they epresentan different way of ruling the world than we believe in. When we listen to them saying this, especially GOP operatives, I'm always suspicious.

For me, it's like, oh, so you JUST NOW noticed something wrong? You didn't see anything intrinsically wrong with what Reagan, Bush, etc. did? And what did you do to maintain the New Deal, or did you work against it for the last 30 years?

It's just been a form of denial, and when people see things happening, they don't want it to be true. Sometimes the dire wolf at the door is not a joke. And he's not kidding.

[bread_and_roses]

52. They are authoritarians, not anarchists

and they only want certain parts of "the government" shut down: consumer protections, regulations, standards, worker protections, environmental protections, civil rights protections, safety net protections, human rights ... you get the drift. They are authoritarian corporatists. There's another word for that but it's considered "crazy" to use it.

They are definitely not anarchists.

[xtraxritical]

58. The word is fascist.

[Curmudgeoness]

66. Yes, sadly, you are right.

Despite all the talk of less government, it is only less of the government that they don't like. You know, the kind that actually protects the citizens.

[leftieNanner]

21. Agreed. And They want Theocracy

All this talk about the US being a "Christian" nation and the claptrap from the lunatic Bachman-Palin twins about how the founding fathers didn't really mean Separation of Church and State is a part of this whole deal. They are narrowing Americans' lives and the definitions of patriotism just the same way abusers narrow their spouses' lives. It's all about controlling - first the message, and then the whole magilla. Scary Stuff!

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. Truth be told ...

I don't believe that the men behind the curtain want a theocracy because that theocracy would ultimately affect them, as well.

No ... I think they are empowering those that want a theocracy, in the same way, the gop empowered the "moral majority" ... The term useful idiots comes to mind.

[robinlynne]

30. well said.

[progressoid]

39. Agreed. Bartlett is right about the insane part, but wrong about ending government.

They want to transform it into their convoluted ideal of a "conservative" government.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

44. Ultimately they would like corporations to be the government

to the point where talking back to your boss isn't just insubordination, it's treason.

[russspeakeasy]

60. They don't want "their" government shut down.

They want "our" government shut down.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

20. Anarchism, the philosophy, is demonstrably nothing what the Republicans want.

Anarchism is the no government form of socialism; "socialism-from-below." Anarchism is based on the Labor Theory of Value, and is anathema to capitalism.

So, no, Republicans do not want anything resembling anarchism, and neither do their teabagger brethren who are really nothing but fascists masquerading as libertarians.

"The most perfect Socialism is possible only on the condition of the most perfect individualism." ~ Benjamin Tucker

"Society is nothing without the individual, and the individual is nothing without society." ~ Unattributed

“If this is the price to be paid for an idea, then let us pay. There is no need of being troubled about it, afraid, or ashamed. This is the time to boldly say, “Yes, I believe in the displacement of this system of injustice by a just one; I believe in the end of starvation, exposure, and the crimes caused by them; I believe in the human soul regnant over all laws which man has made or will make; I believe there is no peace now, and there will never be peace, so long as one rules over another; I believe in the total disintegration and dissolution of the principle and practice of authority; I am an Anarchist, and if for this you condemn me, I stand ready to receive your condemnation.” ~ Voltairine de Cleyre

“Modern industrial civilisation has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilisation has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy, on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits⎯in the classic formulation.
Now, it's long been understood very well that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist with whatever suffering and injustice it entails as long as it's possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited: that the World is an infinite resource, and that the World is an infinite garbage-can. At this stage of History, either one of two things is possible: either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community-interests, guided by values of solidarity and sympathy and concern for others; or, alternatively, there will be no destiny for anyone to control.
As long as some specialised class is in a position of authority, it is going to set policy in the special interests that it serves. But the conditions of survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning in the interests of the community as a whole⎯and, by now, that means the Global Community. The question is whether privileged élites should dominate mass-communication, and should use this power as they tell us they must, namely, to impose necessary illusions, manipulate and deceive the stupid majority, and remove them from the public arena. The question, in brief, is whether Democracy and Freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided. In this possibly-terminal phase of human existence, Democracy and Freedom are more than values to be treasured, they may well be essential to survival.” ~ Noam Chomsky

“That Anarchist world, I admit, is our dream; we do believe - well, I, at any rate, believe this present world, this planet, will some day bear a race beyond our most exalted and temerarious dreams, a race begotten of our wills and the substance of our bodies, a race, so I have said it, 'who will stand upon the earth as one stands upon a footstool, and laugh and reach out their hands amidst the stars,' but the way to that is through education and discipline and law. Socialism is the preparation for that higher Anarchism; painfully, laboriously we mean to destroy false ideas of property and self, eliminate unjust laws and poisonous and hateful suggestions and prejudices, create a system of social right-dealing and a tradition of right-feeling and action. Socialism is the schoolroom of true and noble Anarchism, wherein by training and restraint we shall make free men.” ~ H.G Wells

"Socialism will be free or it will not be at all. In its recognition of this fact lies the genuine and profound justification of Anarchism. ” ~ Rudolph Rocker

"The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order and in the assertion that, without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a violent revolution. But it will be instituted only by there being more and more people who do not require the protection of governmental power and by there being more and more people who will be ashamed of applying this power." ~ Leo Tolstoy

"That government is best which governs not at all;' and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." - Henry David Thoreau

"Anarchy is order! Property is theft!" ~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

For more information on anarchism, please see the link below:

Anarchism: From Theory to Practice by Daniel Guerin

[Ikonoklast]

32. Norquist is a prime example. He yearns for Anarchy.

He believes that the Oligarchs will consolidate power over all of us if government is destroyed.

I wonder if he thinks it will be the first time in history that the peasants will just shrug their shoulders and patiently watch their children starve.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

47. No, anarchy is anathema to capitalism.

Norquist doesn't yearn for anarchy. That would make him a socialist. He yearns for fascism.

[JackInGreen]

48. Brother or Sister

I don't think they're listening entirely, more a matter of pop use of idiom than ignorance or being mean. S'alright though, despite popular nomenclature issues, I think it might be getting through.....eventually.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

49. That's why I corrected his/her post.

It is unfortunate, the misuse of the word anarchy; especially when doing so is just carrying the water for those who would "profit" (pun intended) by such misuse.



Welcome to DU, comrade.

[JHB]

36. Not anarchy, just Freedom for the Most Ruthless...

...to do whatever they can get away with to everyone else.

[Baitball Blogger]

5. I've been living that nightmare.

On a small town level.

[madrchsod]

7. i live in reagan`s hometown

[Aerows]

6. I wanted to believe differently

That it was truly a Democratic vs. Republican debate, but I honestly cannot anymore.

It truly is that President Obama is black, and that's why they despise him. I have literally come up with every possible argument with some of my (obviously white) family members, and none of them have a cogent argument other than "he's Obama".

I didn't believe it until I tried to argue it with people that should know better, but are unable to.

If the worst you have against President Obama is that he is black, you are the problem, not the solution. It really is that simple. The man is worthy of my respect, red, yellow, black or white.

[existentialist]

11. I don't think so.

I think rather that the Republican establishment will use anything that they can against any Democrat. Obama is black, and there is an element of their base that the Republican establishment can excite be exploiting their racist tendencies, but they would do the same against any member of any group that they thought that they could discredit by derogatory appeals.

Back in 2007 and 2008 when it looked like Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee there was one Republican backed shell group that had started up going by the name Citizens United Not Timid, and they used the Acronym freely--of course there is no Republican war against women either.

Or against Hispanics, or Asians, or Muslims, or gays and lesbians, or the unemployed, or the uninsured, or unions, or anybody else that they can attack and thereby inflame their (shrinking) base.

[Aerows]

15. I disagree

These are people that state they would vote for Hillary Clinton. They just won't vote for a black man. Then again, they could be lying about voting for Hillary Clinton. They always vote Republican, so they are probably full of it, and have a longing to split the base between SOS Clinton on President Obama.

[nikto]

28. You are right!

So-called, "Conservatism" has traditionally been the classiest & most convincing
place for a racist to hide.


Worked like a dream.
And still does, more than ever.

[Skittles]

8. CORRECT!

[lobodons]

9. Is he related to....

He seems pretty reasonable. Is he related to President Bartlett?

[progressivebydesign]

12. Speechless at the astounding insight. -nt

[justiceischeap]

14. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ronald Reagan could never get elected

in this climate. He would be considered a liberal.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

16. He said this on the Daily Show last Februrary.

Here's the link to the interview. I agreed with almost everything he said.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-22-2012/bruce-bartlett

[JDPriestly]

18. Precisely. They want to end government.

They are not interested in insuring domestic tranquility. That's far too boring for them. And then they claim they are conservative?

They say they love the military, but even richest among them who have the most to lose if our seas, our trade routes, our allies become unsafe, refuse to pay the taxes necessary to maintain on the one hand domestic tranquility (justice for all) and on the other national security.

Yes. The rich are being asked to pay more than the poor or middle class. But that's because they have more and get more from sustaining the system we have.

No one is asking them to give their wealth to the poor and live like paupers as Jesus did. They are simply being asked to use their common sense and support their country.

The poor and the crushed middle class in America cannot pay more. Only the rich can pay to cover the deficit and repay the debt of the government to among others the Social Security trust fund.

The Republican Party on the whole is bonkers.

[Tikki]

19. And remember if they succeed in getting rid of government they will own...

literally everything...then the all of the 'you people' will know of the sorrow I already can imagine.


Tikki

[Raine]

23. Ironically Raygun is responsible for starting the insanity of that party, it began with him. nt

[UnrepentantLiberal]

24. I agree.

And we are on the road he and they started us down.

[trotsky]

51. I wouldn't exactly say that he started it...

but he certainly "mainstreamed" and legitimized the rabid anti-government mouth-frothers within the party.

[bayareaboy]

25. So what do you think Ed Brooke would think of his Party ...

And of course Mittens.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

27. I know they wouldn't be crazy about him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Brooke

An affair Barbara Walters... Sweet.

[bayareaboy]

34. Ain't that the truth ...

I look at Ed Brook and Pete McClosky and wonder where they went wrong. Everything was fine until they made the big decision. Hell I even voted for Mr McClosky, all the time figuring that my daddy was right behind me with a paddle.

Barbara Walters has been around though, that whole Roy Cohn thing was pretty un-seemingly, in my opinion

[calimary]

29. Well??? Whaddya gonna do about it, bartlett?

It's got YOUR name on it, too, as long as you call yourself a member of the GOP. What do you intend to do about it? Resign from the party very loudly and publicly? Renouncing individual offenders by name? Do you have anything in mind, or any intention, of making any sort of pushback, or reparations, or interventions with some of your sicker colleagues?

Still waiting. Talk is cheap.

[coalition_unwilling]

59. +1000000000000000. Words don't mean shit any more - n/t

[calimary]

61. I want to see ACTION. NOT words.

There was this cartoon my mother really loved, and she quoted from it often. I don't know if the caption was already a well-worn exclamation, but here it is: "you mean to sit there and say!" The cartoon using this depicted a middle-aged couple in the bathroom together. As I remember it from about age six, she's at the sink and he's on the throne reading the newspaper while he's "working". And she's turning to him and saying something.

So bartlett - "you mean to sit there and say?" Get up off your ass, show your Insanity Party what REAL courage and patriotism is, and CALL THEM OUT. File a libel suit or otherwise make trouble for them. Call them out on EXACTLY who they've become and make a public spectacle of them. If someone like you, with your credentials, were to take a public stand, go on offense, start circulating on radio and broadcast and cable TV. Do full-on internet. For Heaven's sake, there are people you can hire to help you do that shrewdly and more effectively if you don't know how, yourself. A good publicist would be glad to help you and some of them aren't terribly expensive. OR you must have friends who are adept at this kind of strategic thinking and tactical planning whom you could consult or ask their advice or pick their brain for directions or ideas here. They wouldn't charge you and just a few suggestions from them would give you MORE than enough to keep you busy on this pro-active on-the-offensive campaign. So it doesn't have to be about the money. It'd be your time, your name, and your face. Heck, I just gave you a bunch of ideas for free, and MULTIPLE other people here on DU are BRILLIANT thinkers and strategizers and their posts would be beneficial to read and heed.

And all the yahoos would descend upon you for sure. Never mind. You'd start gaining momentum as more reasonable minds began to take notice, issue public statements of gratitude and agreement, and your profile in this regard begins to grow. bartlett, do it for your own enlightened self-interest. There'll be a book deal in this eventually, and you'll do so much television that you'll shape an even more burnished and higher-octane reputation, the kind that images you securely in viewers' and decision-makers' minds as a widely-acknowledged prominent expert. Soon enough, nowadays, that's apt to lead to a radio talk show or an hour on MSNBC, and then you're in a different game. One that pays very nicely. Your future would have been given a shot in the arm, especially as you age. That becomes a lot more important as you age, dude. Don't just stop at the "Daily Show."

Don't just "sit there and say." Do NOT. If you care about your country - hell, if you care about your own party and people who you THOUGHT shared your views and saw the world the way you did. If they once did, as you've now recognized publicly, they don't anymore. You don't even know who or what these folks are anymore. It's THEY who are "other." It's THEY who are foreign and "not one of us." The whole I-am-rubber-you-are-glue thing, where the most heinous and treasonous condemnations your side rains down on ours actually bounce back and land squarely on you. That has to be a horrifically jolting realization to have to face, especially if it's a political party and political ideals that you've grown up with. Ideals that you've had faith in. But you've realized that these people are turning those ideals inside-out and upside-down and backwards.

bartlett, you need to step up. It's for your own good, in the short run AND long run. It's awfully good for your conscience. And you won't be standing there alone. You'll be surprised who'll be standing with you, and how many there'll be.

Don't just "sit there and say." Get up off yer ass and get to work!!! ACTION. The whole actions-speak-louder-than-words thing. You could rescue this country, or at least be the start of that rescue.

Don't just "sit there and say." Get up off yer ass and do something.

[coalition_unwilling]

62. Story is that, running up to Nov. 1968, Kissinger, seeking approval from

his buddies at Harvard and with Nelson Rockefeller's campaign, would bad-mouth Nixon in quasi-absolutist terms as 'ruinous for the country.' Then, when Kissinger sought favor from Nixon and his Junta, he would turn around and bad-mouth the Eastern liberal establishment (code for "Jews&quot or, at least, silently assent while Nixon did so.

Bartlett strikes me as cut from the same coat of mealy-mouthed two-facedness as Kissinger. Around his educated friends, he finds it fashionable to bash the Yahoos. But put him with those Yahoos and he will soon become indistinguishable from them.

Still, I dig what you're saying.

[calimary]

64. And I dig what you're saying, too.

What I want to see is something beyond flirting with Jon Stewart for one evening. Get noisy! Get out there! Do ALL the Jon Stewarts and don't even stop there. I hope he doesn't flatter himself that doing one Jon Stewart appearance means he's completely discharged his obligation. He's only BEGUN to discharge his obligation.

[coalition_unwilling]

69. My feeling is that many people who overtly self-identify as

"Independent' do so not because they're truly independent and swing like pendula with each political tremor. No, they do it because they're too ashamed to call themselves Republican which is how they usually vote and who they really are.

These Republicans need to do some serious self-flagellation in public and begging the poor's forgiveness. Then and only then will they begin to discharge their obligation.

[calimary]

73. I noticed something similar about self-described libertarians.

Some of them call themselves that because they're too embarrassed to say they're with the GOP, but given t he choice between D and R, they'd definitely always vote for the R. They don't fool me!!!

[JBoy]

31. He's from the era when I first got interested in politics.

I used to watch the Sunday morning talk shows as a teenager - David Brinkley, etc., and enjoyed the actual, real debate of competing ideas, along with the "sport" of politics. I credit that experience for giving me a "balanced" view of things, and figuring out where I stood.

I pity the young person now - there's no debate of ideas anymore. I'm not under the illusion that the progressive way is the only "true" way, but there's nothing reasonable on the other side any more. Their currency is fear and emotion, not ideas.

[MrSlayer]

33. Yeah and your guy started all this shit Bartlett.

All of this economic tragedy and political insanity we're dealing with is the legacy of one Ronald Wilson Reagan.

[Angry Dragon]

35. There is at least one sane republican

I wonder if there are any more??

[Vox Moi]

37. Reagan was actually the first neocon:

A strange mixture of Pax Americana, smaller government and among the first to identify the government as an obstacle to the American Dream. And he busted unions.
When Reagan was a Presidential candidate he used to tell an apocryphal story about 'The Welfare Queen' and her Cadillac.
This largely imaginary woman lived in Chicago's South Side and went by 80 names in 30 addresses with an income of $150,000.
The closest match seems to have been a woman who made fraudulent Medicaid claims for $8000.
Reagan's purpose may have been to point out the fraud and inefficiency that belabor welfare and Medicaid but his emphasis was on the individual and not the bureaucracy. It is not that far from Romney's references to people who wanted 'Free Stuff'.
Poor people looking for a hand-out are to the Republicans as the Zombie Apocalypse is to the rest of us, only we know that zombies are not real.
Justified or not, the Republicans have a long-held fear of being cheated by poor people.

[JHB]

38. However, your "reasonableness" fed these people to gain power...

...and they ate your movement. That wasn't too damn reasonable, was it?

The big question now is, what will you do about it Mr. Bartlett? Are you going to sit safely ensconsed in your think tank writing the occasional book, or are you going to work to undo the damage? Because that's going to mean being "unreasonably" liberal.

Thanks for pointing out ther big hole you helped dig. Now help fill it in.

[Kennah]

40. Lewis Black was more direct, in talking about Dubya

?t=5m8s

Go to 5 minutes 8 seconds.

[cyclezealot]

43. Thanks.. Great link

[14thColony]

45. Anarchy with a small 'a'

As opposed to Anarchy the political philosophy.

What he really implies is Thomas Hobbes 'State of Nature' -- the 'war of all against all', a world in which those who can, do, and those who cannot, submit.

[Skidmore]

46. That is fine hair you are splitting.

Regardless, Big A or little a, pushing chaos for the sake of pushing chaos is equally destructive.

[14thColony]

63. It's in reference to the multiple comments above

And your point is the point I'm trying to make. We agree.

[annabanana]

53. Clearly Bartlett doesn't know enough about anarchy to use the word correctly. That SAID..

His quote is a resounding damnation of the current repub party.

[Scurrilous]

54. K & R

[raouldukelives]

55. Almost seems like a system is in place.

From radio to TV to our politicians. Sometimes it feels like they are pushing the reaches of insanity on purpose. Someone will come out and say something totally far right insane and that will become the new benchmark of kookiness. Following behind that commentator will be scores who say things that might used to have been considered borderline but because of the new "craziness level" it passes almost unaware. Rinse, lather, repeat. Soon the edges of what is considered decent can be frayed and stretched to unthinkable limits.
Just a goofy theory knocking around my head.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

56. It's not a goofy theory,

it's absolutely true. No one watching Fox "News" really believes that Obama is a Muslim socialist who was born in Kenya. They remind me of chimpanzees working themselves into a frenzy before they go on a murderous rampage.

[ellisonz]

68. And they have a fuckton of guns...

[TheKentuckian]

71. Thats the facts, Jack.

I'd argue their endgame is probably worse than anarchy. More of a fucked up corporate feudal, exploitative police state that dresses in theocracy and phony patriotism using fear and propaganda as tools of control.

Unfortunately, the alternative plan is to give the theocracy a pass and maintain government in a symbiotic relationship with the fucked up corporate feudal police state but it less evil and and chaotic which folks tend to get trampled less even if they are ground down just as much.

[alp227]

72. The odd thing is that two of Reagan's top advisers turned around politically.

David Stockman and Bruce Bartlett. They now exercise their post-White House careers to criticize the Republican Party. I read Bartlett's book The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward and would recommend it to any fellow progressives and even conservatives.