I guess maybe I should actually thank Richard Viguerie of conservativehq dot com for keeping me apprised in the latest in sheer wingnuttery, as he did with a recent correspondence.
There are three topics in particular that I want to note from Viguerie’s latest screed, and they are as follows.
First, that paragon of journalistic integrity Tony Blankley (in a column in the Moonie Times where he apparently pulled his “sources” from a bodily orifice), tells us here that…
…it is a political fact of the highest significance that the Democratic Party leaders – and perhaps the politically shrewd president-elect himself – want to legally kill conservative talk radio by reinstituting the deceptively misnamed “Fairness Doctrine” (or perhaps the equally lethal to conservative talk-radio doctrine of localism).
OK people, let’s get this straight for the record right now, OK?
As noted here, President-Elect Obama has no intention at all of trying to revive the Fairness Doctrine, because he considers the debate to be more or less a distraction from trying to address our myriad other problems, OK?
Just for emphasis on behalf of the wingnuts, I’ll repeat this using fewer and smaller words: Barack… Obama… is… not… going… to… bring… back… the… Fairness… Doctrine.
Next, Viguerie links to someone named Robert Stacy McCain, who purports to offer the following sage advice here…
Failure is a foregone conclusion for the Democrats’ economic agenda, and Republicans seeking a coherent conservative response can boil their message down to three words: It won’t work.
Infrastructure “investments”? It won’t work. Pump-priming “stimulus” payments? It won’t work. More taxpayer-funded bailouts? It won’t work. Go through the familiar liberal litany of economic prescriptions that Democrats are now suggesting, pick any proposal, and the message is the same: It won’t work.
Yep, Repugs, that whole “sitting there with your eyes closed and hands over your ears while shaking your head” approach worked so beautifully for you over those last two election cycles, didn’t it (and it looks like the Senate Repugs are all set to pick up where they left off with this on the automaker loan, as noted here – and by the way, let’s not lose sight of the fact that we’re talking about money that had already been proposed for the “Big Three” that they were due to get for retooling, only now they’ll be forced to use it to stay afloat if they can).
Update: If I were The Rude Pundit (which I most definitely am not; I would never dare to claim his mantle), I would have suggested that Dubya and co. tie Elaine Chao to a chair and threaten to visit unspeakable things upon her person to make Mitchy-poo play nice on the automaker bailout; sadly, it appears to be too late for such a tactic anyway.
Indeed, the “strategy” of denial has worked so well, in fact, that the Republican Party is, for the most part, now a regional, fraternal organization of middle aged white guys preoccupied with not letting gays marry, enforcing carry permits for all of our cities, studying all of the varied nuances of the NASCAR/Winston Cup driver points standings, and wondering when Lee Greenwood is going to re-re-release “God Bless The U.S.A.”
Also, please note above that I said “for the most part” about the Repugs, since Viguerie also proclaims the fact that (as noted here), Repug Anh “Joseph” Cao won election to the U.S. House from Louisiana’s 2nd District. If that seat sounds a bit familiar, it is because the person who held it previously and was defeated by Cao was Dem William ($90K Worth Of Bribes Stashed In The Freezer) Jefferson (wow, what a “triumph” for The Party of Dubya to knock off such an “entrenched” political figure).
So what exactly are Cao’s qualifications? Well, as we learn from the Moonie Times…
“The only thing I am certain of is that I am anti-abortion,” Mr. Cao said.
Of course (and kos has more here).
And finally, I should note that Viguerie tells us here that “Mike” Duncan is “running to keep (his) job” as head of the Republican National Committee (who, in keeping with his party in general, has a bit of a problem with the facts, as noted here).