Obama is, by any normal measure, vulnerable. He hasn’t been a good president, and I see no reason to believe that he would improve during a second term. If he manages to hold onto the gig, the deciding factor won’t be his accomplishments or promises, but the sheer scary surreality of the modern Republican party.
Case in point: This lady. I believe that her little scheme falls under the Constitutional definition of treason. They’ve been edging up to that line for years, and now they’ve crossed it.
Then there are the party platforms:
Predictably, Texas Republicans want a land without Social Security, without the United Nations, and without President Obama. But the 23-page platform has some truly random gems, like opposing the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was negotiated and adopted under the presidencies of those dangerous radicals, Reagan and Bush. They oppose implanting a radio chip in your body. (Radio chips bad; tortilla chips good.)
On the economy, the Texans proudly quote at great length from the GOP’s national platform—from 1932. I kid you not. These folks pine for the policies of Herbert Hoover. They want to repeal the minimum wage, abolish the Federal Reserve, and return to the gold standard. By next year they’ll be calling for a return to wampum and barter.
We can always count on Larry Klayman to bring The Crazy.
In fact, those who favor Obama (or who consider him the least stinky of the two stinkers) should encourage the madmen of the right to keep doing their Renfield-in-the-asylum impressions in public places. The widespread perception that Klaymanesque kooks have taken over the GOP may be the only reason why Romney isn’t clobbering Obama.
“This lady” is Randi Shannon, a “Republican state Senate candidate in Iowa [who] has decided to bow out of the race and become a U.S. senator of an alternative form of government.”
I will concede that Larry Klayman is a kook, but he holds no official position in the Republican Party. In 2003 he tried running for the Senate in Florida but lost in the primary.
As for the Texas state Republican party platform, if you actually read the document you will discover it’s not quite as crazy as Paul Begala would like you to believe. There is stuff in there I don’t agree with, like their positions on abortion and gay marriage, but it’s mostly mainstream conservative dogma.
Cannon’s post is a classic example of “nutpicking“, which has nothing to do with scratching your genitals:
NUTPICKING….Last night I held a contest to create a name for the moronic practice of trawling through open comment threads in order to find a few wackjobs who can be held up as evidence that liberals are nuts. It’s both lazy and self-refuting, since if the best evidence of wackjobism you can find is a few anonymous nutballs commenting on a blog, then the particular brand of wackjobism you’re complaining about must not be very widespread after all.
So Cannon takes a couple ostensible Republicans who hold no elective office or official positions in the GOP and he holds them up as typical Republicans. Then he adds in an article by Paul Begala that basically nutpicks the Texas state Republican party platform, which I doubt few Texas Republicans have even read.
Just like that he has what superficially appears to be a logical, reasoned argument proving that the Republicans are batshit insane. The problem is his argument is based on the logical fallacy of incomplete evidence, also known as confirmation bias.
We see this nutpicking pattern a lot. The purpose is always the same – to delegitimize the opposition. As Cannon himself puts it:
Oh, hell, there’s no point arguing with this nonsense. You can’t talk a madman out of his madness.
A few crazies = they’re all crazy = there is no point in even talking to them.
To be fair, Republicans do the same thing. Ironically, they have been known to use Joe Cannon as an example of left-wing craziness.