Marco Pinocchio

What is it about this Tea Party crowd and their embarrassing commentary? We have Michele Bachmann who wants to be president yet doesn’t know where the American Revolution began. Then there’s Sarah Palin for whom misstatements are a staple regardless of the topic. We had two contenders for the U.S. Senate, Sharron Angle and Joe Miller who basically talked their way out of winning with comments about “Second Amendment Solutions”, confusing Asians for Latinos, calling unemployment compensation unconstitutional, and lying about using coworkers computers to unfairly influence GOP polling. We’ve had Christine O’Donnell talking about witchcraft and Rick Perry accusing Ben Bernake of treason and suggesting Texas might just leave the union. Does this sort of thing run in the family so to speak?

Well now we have one of the few remaining Tea Party supported stars apparently fudging the facts as to how his family “escaped” from the clutches of Fidel Castro and his Communists. According to Marco Rubio’s onetime official Senate biography: “In 1971, Marco was born in Miami to Cuban-born parents who came to America following Fidel Castro’s takeover” However, the official account seems to be sorely at variance with the facts. Rubio’s family actually came to the United States in May of 1956. However, Castro’s revolution was nothing but a Communist hope and dream at the time when the Rubio family headed for Florida. In fact in May of 1956 Castro and his cadre of revolutionaries were still in exile in Mexico and they would not return to Cuba until December of 1956, seven months after the departure of the Rubio’s. Thus there was no way anyone could predict the success or failure of a future Communist revolution in Cuba or if one would even take place. That said Rubio has clearly embellished his family history for political ends and as such his personal honesty is now highly suspect.

The questions surrounding Rubio’s honesty are even more pronounced when you consider that: “In various television interviews over the years, Mr. Rubio gave various dates for his parents’ arrival, 1957, ’58 or ’59.” Quoting University of Miami Cuban-American political science professor George Gonzalez: “Every Cuban-American knows when their parents arrived and the circumstances under which they arrived… That’s part of the Cuban exile experience, the political and psychological trauma of it. So the idea that he was murky on those does not cut ice… To my father and grandparents, if you came before the revolution, it puts you in a different category.”

Responding to articles in the St. Petersburg Times and the Washington Post which underscore the discrepancy between Rubio’s official statements and his family history Rubio said: “essential facts of my family’s story are completely accurate.” Clearly they are not, in fact the history shows that Rubio is both on the wrong side of the facts and is guilty of public dishonesty. Marco Rubio would seek to defuse the controversy by suggesting that “the dates he had referred to in the past were based on his parents’ recollection of events and were told to him two decades later.” Well believing that a young man who came from a family that had left Cuba in the 1950s would not be aware of the circumstances surrounding their emigration is just too far fetched to be credible. Moreover, to think that a candidate for the U.S. Senate and possible 2012 Vice Presidential candidate wouldn’t spend the requisite time on his own official biography to insure its accuracy is even less believable. In fact Senator Rubio had the phrase “Cuban-born parents came to America following Fidel Castro’s takeover” removed from his official senate biography after the abovementioned news articles came to light. In the end it all amounts to sad commentary on the career of a guy who had so much to offer in the way of hope for the future of the Tea Party movement as an agent of change inside the Washington Beltway and nationally on the political stage.

Steven J. Gulitti
10/27/11

Sources:

Florida Senator Denies Claim He Gilded His Family History; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/us/politics/marco-rubio-denies-claim-he-exaggerated-his-biography.html?emc=eta1

Senator Lashes Out at Critics Who Say He Embellished His Family’s Story; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/us/politics/rubio-lashes-out-at-critics-of-his-biography.html?emc=eta1

1959 The Cuban Revolution; http://library.thinkquest.org/18355/the_cuban_revolution_-_1959.html

Time to Put a Fork in the Bachmann Campaign?

Has Michele Bachmann become a Tea Party darling that forgot to heed the dimming of the stage lights? Well apparently that may in fact be the case. As it turns out: “Five of Michele Bachmann’s New Hampshire campaign team released a statement on Monday confirming that they have quit the campaign despite comments by Bachmann and her team that the New Hampshire campaign was still together. The five members, who comprised the entirety of Bachmann’s New Hampshire staff, said that her campaign was “rude, unprofessional, dishonest, and at times cruel” to the New Hampshire staffers.”

Okay so lets all ask ourselves a question, if New Hampshire is the preeminent forum for retail politics and Bachmann’s New Hampshire team has ditched her and she can’t effectively manage her own campaign, then how can a Bachmann administration ever hope to function effectively in leading the United States during a period as challenging as this? The answer of course is that it can’t and it’s high time for her to realize this and get out of the way so serious political contenders can get down to the business of determining who will lead this country after 2012. The time for frivolity is long since past and the time to get down to business has long since arrived. Enough said?

SJG
10/26/11

Sources:

Bachmann’s NH team quits, cites campaign dishonesty, rudeness, cruelty; http://minnesotaindependent.com/90549/bachmanns-nh-team-quits-cites-campaign-dishonesty-rudeness-cruelty

Bachmann NH Team Quits; http://thepage.time.com/2011/10/21/bachmanns-nh-team-quits/

9-9-9; The Devil Is in the Details

After watching Herman Cain get mauled in last night’s Republican presidential debate by his fellow contenders regarding his 9-9-9 tax proposals its hard to make the claim that the Progressives and the “Progressive media” are struggling hard to find anything they can against Herman Cain. When people like Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Ron Paul publicly savage Cain over the particulars of his 9-9-9 tax proposals, the claim that it is all the work of “progressives” is completely and undeniably revealed to be nothing less than completely absurd. None of the aforementioned can genuinely be considered “progressives” except in a stretch and that would be Perry for his tuition assistance for immigrant children.

As far as the claim that for the vast majority will see their taxes lowered, well that doesn’t hold any water either. You see just be fore the debate the Tax Policy Center came out with the first comprehensive look at the 9-9-9 proposals and they found that the bottom 84% of taxpayers would pay more in taxes. Glenn Kessler the fact checker of the Washington Post who appeared on tonight’s PBS New Hour provided a recap of the Tax Policy conclusions and gave Rick Santorum credit for being well informed of just how this report lays waste to Cain’s claim that more people would see their taxes lowered than not. Kessler went on to point out that the people in the highest brackets would see a huge windfall from the Cain proposals and that those on the bottom would experience take a huge hit by paying proportionately more taxes than they do now. It goes without saying that in a political environment now playing out against the backdrop of the growing and worldwide Occupy Wall Street movement, advocating tax increases for 84% of the taxpayers while the richest get yet another unneeded break would seem to be a losing strategy. Herman cain is right to campaign in favor of tax code reform, its just that his 9-9-9 plan isn’t the solution its cranked up to be as per the analysis of the Tax Policy Center.

Herman Cain is a likeable guy and a real American success story. However, he is also an “accidental” frontrunner whose sudden surge in popularity probably comes as a surprise to him as much as it does to the rest of us. Cain will now have to struggle to defend and define his ideas on the economy and foreign policy as he comes under greater and more stringent scrutiny. For Herman Cain the hard part is just beginning and there are only going to be so many opportunities to wave off gaffes and policy misstatements with jokes before his candidacy will become a joke in and of itself. To what degree is Cain for real and to what degree is his candidacy just enjoying the latest popularity boomlet among a conservative base that is still not happy with Mitt Romney and that has fallen for and then rejected one contender after another from Donald Trump to Michele Bachmann to Rick Perry to now Herman Cain?

Occupy Wall Street Tops Tea Party in Popularity

Another day dawns and with it comes more bad news for those who want to deny the rising influence of the “Occupy” movement that’s been spreading like a political prairie fire across America. Likewise the news isn’t any better for those who are living under the false assumption that the Tea Party movement isn’t in a state of serious decline. A new poll by Time magazine shows that as the Tea Party’s popularity continues to fade, just as so many commentators had predicted it would. Meanwhile the newly found popularity of the “Occupy Movement” has risen and it’s risen among Republicans as well, just not to the same degree. As I suggested yesterday the economic pain of the Great Recession knows no political boundaries. The economic populists on the right have been pummeled as hard as have those on the left. That makes for strange bedfellows. Let’s take a look, shall we?

“One of the juicier nuggets in TIME’s wide-ranging new poll is that voters are embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement as they sour on the Tea Party. Twice as many respondents (54%) have a favorable impression of the eclectic band massing in lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park than of the conservative movement that has, after two years, become a staple of the American political scene.” – I think that these findings suggest that the claim that the wind has come out of the Tea Party movement is highly credible and speaks volumes as to why no wave of massive counter demonstrations aimed at blunting the force of the “Occupy” movement has yet to materialize.

“Of the respondents in TIME’s poll familiar with the protests, 86% — including 77% of Republicans — agree with the movement’s contention that Wall Street and its proxies in Washington exert too much influence over the political process. More than 70%, and 65% of Republicans, think the financial chieftains responsible for dragging the U.S. economy to the brink of implosion in the fall of 2008 should be prosecuted. Other questions reveal a sharper split along partisan lines but nonetheless reveal the strength of economic populism. Nearly 80% of respondents (96% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans) think the class chasm between rich and poor has grown too large, and 68%, including 40% of Republicans, say the affluent should pay more taxes.” – It goes without saying that the high percentage of Republican respondents who are aligned with the protestors on most of the issues lays waste to the claims that the crowd is made up of “progressives”, dead beats, Marxists, spolied college kids or anarchists”, an absurd claim prima facie, and one that can now undoubtedly and undeniably be dismissed outright by anyone who had ever taken it seriously in the first place.

“There are warning signs embedded in the good news too. Not the least of these is the Tea Party’s own waning influence. That grassroots movement also grew from the seeds of economic frustration, generalized rage at Washington’s policies and a virulent strain of populism. Over time, those broadly popular sentiments calcified into a hard-line movement that regards political cooperation as grounds for a primary challenge. TIME’s poll provides a snapshot of a movement that no longer boasts the broad support it once enjoyed. Just 34% say the Tea Party has had a positive impact on U.S. politics, including just 35% of independents. Only 11% of respondents familiar with the movement call themselves members. It’s easy to trace the Tea Party’s withering support to its obstinacy; 89% of those surveyed argue that it’s better for politicians to find common ground than to be hidebound to fixed principles.” – I think the aforementioned more than vindicates earlier predictions on the subject and to date I am still waiting for my political opponents to provide me with independently verifiable data that shows that the Tea Party movement is anything if not in decline. The above cited findings effectively pitch the last shovel of dirt onto the ridiculous claim that the vast majority of Americans have accepted and support the Tea Party movement, in fact its just the opposite. Oh the pathos of self inflicted self deception among the radical right. Oh the sorry and the pity of having to realize that so many in that camp have effectively fooled themselves and lived in a world of falsehood for so long.

SJG

Source

Why Occupy Wall Street Is More Popular than the Tea Party*

Why Occupy Wall Street Is More Popular than the Tea Party*

(*For Now)

Grass Roots vs. The Tea Party

Some conservatives are desperately trying to besmirch the ever growing “Occupy Wall Street Movement” as something other than a grass roots movement and some have gone so far as to say that America’s newest grass roots movement is trying to make themselves look “as grassroots as the tea party.” Moreover, they’re saying that the “Occupy” movement has co-opted the Tea Party slogan “take back our country.” There’s more than one fallacy contained in this analysis, lets take a look.

First, the phrase “take our country back” predates the Tea Party movement by several years. I recall it being used by Republicans who wanted to retake the White House from Bill Clinton on the theory that by having won a plurality, his presidency was somehow not quite legitimate. Odd but one of the few Tea Party candidate’s who won a senate seat in 2010, Marco Rubio of Florida, won by a plurality as well. The phrase was used yet again by Democrats in the 2004 elections as they were enraged by the fact that George Bush was handed the 2000 election by the Supreme Court. Hence there is no way that the phrase “take back our country” is generically a Tea Party creation.

As far as the Tea Party movement being genuinely grass roots, well by now it’s a well known fact that the “movement” has been buoyed up by the money of rich conservatives, PACs and other conservative organizations. Jane Mayer, of the New Yorker in an article called “Covert Operations detailed the support given to the Tea Party movement by the billionaire Koch Brothers. To wit: “A few weeks after the Lincoln Center gala, the advocacy wing of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation—an organization that David Koch started, in 2004—held a different kind of gathering…Five hundred people attended the summit, which served, in part, as a training session for Tea Party activists in Texas…At the lectern in Austin, however, Peggy Venable—a longtime political operative who draws a salary from Americans for Prosperity, and who has worked for Koch-funded political groups since 1994—spoke less warily. “We love what the Tea Parties are doing, because that’s how we’re going to take back America!” she declared, as the crowd cheered. In a subsequent interview, she described herself as an early member of the movement, joking, “I was part of the Tea Party before it was cool!” She explained that the role of Americans for Prosperity was to help “educate” Tea Party activists on policy details, and to give them “next-step training” after their rallies, so that their political energy could be channeled “more effectively.” And she noted that Americans for Prosperity had provided Tea Party activists with lists of elected officials to target. She said of the Koch’s, “They’re certainly our people. David’s the chairman of our board. I’ve certainly met with them, and I’m very appreciative of what they do.” Beyond the Koch Brother’s there’s the millions of dollars funneled into the “movement” by Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks. Then there’s the Tea Party Express and various and sundry other groups. By now all of this is established fact and undeniable as well.

Lastly, if the Tea Party is such a viable grass roots organization then why does it have such low favorability ratings? In April of this year in an article titled “The Fading Allure of the Tea Party Movement” I detailed how the “movement’s” favorability ratings had fallen to the levels of the two political party’s. Moreover, this decline was attributable to the fall off in support among those earning less than $50,000.00 per year, a threshold that represents roughly the mid point in American incomes. Thus it’s no surprise that the Tea Party continues to have low favorability ratings as per PollingReport.com which shows as of September of 2011 some polls show the Tea Party movement polling its lowest favorable and highest unfavorable ratings of all time or darn close to it. When asked “do you consider yourself part of the Tea Party movement only 12 percent of respondents answered yes and when asked if they supported the movement the number is a low 25 percent. Thus even if the Tea Party movement can legitimately be considered grass roots, big money donors aside, it’s obvious that most of that grass has wilted or died off all together. I have asked many of my friends on the right to show me something that contradicts these findings and I have yet to see anything from a legitimate source that shows the Tea Party ascendant.

SJG
10/10/11

Sources:

Covert Operations by Jane Mayer; http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer#ixzz1aQCFuZAK

The Fading Allure of the Tea Party Movement; http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_j_gulitti/2011/04/23/the_fading_allure_of_the_tea_party_movement

PollingReport.com: Politics – Tea Party; http://www.pollingreport.com/politics.htm

Where are the Tea Party Counter Demonstrations?

In the wake of the growing number and crescendo of Occupy Wall Street protests and the rising level of alarm among conservative politicians and pundits, one would think that there would be a wave of counter demonstrations by the rank and file of the Tea Party movement which is supposed to be so vociferous about “taking their country back.” However, to date, these counter demonstrations have not materialized and that leads to the question: What became of all the energy that the Tea Party movement displayed back in the summer of 2008 during the health care town halls?

That the Tea Party movement’s popularity is on the wane is by now an established political fact. Likewise it’s declining popularity among those who earn less than $50,000.00 a year is also an established fact. That’s probably a big reason behind the lack of spontaneity, energy or interest in launching a counter effort to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Are there simply not enough foot soldiers around to man the front lines of a counter attack on the scale of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations? Or if a large number of rank and file Tea Party members still exist do they lack the fire in their bellies that they had in the summer of 2008 and if so why? I’ve gotten some real pushback from pointing out the fading allure of the Tea Party movement but when I’ve asked my critics to provide me with some independently verifiable proof to the contrary all that I have received in response are people’s unsubstantiated opinions or deflections that the Wisconsin recall elections is proof of the Tea Party’s continuing viability. However the Tea Party wasn’t on the ballot in Wisconsin and I don’t think that any of the Republican winners were Tea Party sympathizers either. At any rate Republican’s suffered a net loss of two seats so that doesn’t square to well with the claim that Wisconsin was a referendum on the Tea Party movement, it wasn’t.

Now I know the comeback that will surely come from my own Tea Party family members and friends: “Tea Party people are all at work or doing something with their families.” Well that’s a quaint notion isn’t it? However, if this crowd was so busy with work and family in 2008, where did they find the time to protest and in many cases disrupt congressional town halls? Surely with the Occupy Wall Street movement now a 24 / 7 operation there’s got to be some time on the weekend to devote to attending counter demonstrations if you’re really interested in “taking your country back” from protestors who are making the same claim. Likewise there’s time after work, on the way home, seeing that so many of the 147 plus “Occupy” demonstrations are taking place in America’s business districts or government centers. It’s like a tug of war where only one team has shown up. Where is team Tea Party?

The last time I saw anything about a right-wing street protest was this past summer when Michele Bachmann called out the troops to protest in front of the Capitol in opposition to raising the debt ceiling. However, there weren’t even enough people at the demonstration to fill up the view of a wide angle camera lens. Again the lack of passion in the street on the right was undeniable. Yet beyond the politicians and cable news crowd there is now a telling quiet on the right, a quiet that leads me to believe that some part of the message coming out of the Occupy Wall Street movement is resonating on the right as well. The pain of the Great Recession doesn’t differentiate on the basis of political philosophy and the notion that perhaps the rich aren’t paying their fair share, that more needs to be done about jobs or that a lightly regulated financial sector almost drove the economy into another Great Depression more likely than not resonates with lower income conservatives who are being pummeled economically just as it does with others. At any rate it’s hard to deny, that in the highly polarized political landscape of today’s America, a lack of a street response from the right is rather peculiar. That peculiarity exists especially in light of all the hyperventilated rhetoric flowing from conservative talk radio, cable channels and the blogosphere. Moreover, due to the fact that the radicalized right took to the streets in summer of 2008 in response to the supposed threats that the Obama administration posed to their version of what America should be one would think that they’d be back in the streets again. Shouldn’t the right be in the streets so as to stand up to a movement that they believe to be, beyond the shadow of a doubt, anti-American or even ‘Marxist”? Yet they’re nowhere to be found and to me that speaks volumes.

S.J. Gulitti
10/12/11

Poof Goes Palin

Well we sure are in the midst of non-stop political news. Coming close on the heals of Chris Christie declining to run for the presidency we get much the same news from Sarah Palin. Hot from a cool Wasilla: “After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States.” I don’t know how much there really was to consider. After all the G.O.P. establishment was against her, the talking heads in the main stream media never gave her a chance at winning and if the experiences of other Tea Party backed candidates are any indication, the Tea Party label isn’t necessarily a winner either, at least not at this point. Rick Perry’s hopes are sinking and Michele Bachmann’s have already sunk. Perry may have a second wind in him if he can overcome the fact that his support among conservatives has been cut in half, according to political analyst Chuck Todd, and if he doesn’t have any more pet rocks sitting around the ranch that might embarrass him. As for Bachmann, who is rather Palinesque in her own approach, she seems doomed and beyond resurrection as her campaign staff continues to jump ship and big money donors continue to give her the cold shoulder.

But there is another part of Palin’s announcement that I find even more interesting if at least from the viewpoint of comic relief: “My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency.” Well for one thing, scolding us for spending too much aside, I don’t think you’ll find too many voters who think that “common sense Conservatives” have achieved much more than running a campaign of obstruction in Washington. Not for nothing but congressional Republicans are polling lower favorability ratings than either the Democrats or Barack Obama. Likewise independents aren’t exactly joined to the hip with conservatives. What’s also funny is the intended swipe at the Democrats. Why would I find that funny? Well simply because that when Palin was Governor of Alaska her political success was a function of her alliance with the state’s Democrats and her alienation of Democrats generally after 2008 pretty much sealed the end of her political career at home. As for Palin’s effectiveness in helping other candidates get elected, well that’s a stretch as well. I doubt you’ll see too many Republicans sharing a stage with Sarah Palin. God forbid she start lecturing the crowd about the Constitution or some other long ago historical moment that she’s apt to get wrong or if not getting the moment technically wrong, misconstruing the significance of the event. Lastly, I can’t help but laugh at the phrase “effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office”; does that mean she doesn’t consider herself to be a “true public servant” seeing as she quit the office of governor in mid-term? Go figure.

Personally I was hoping for a fiery Palin finale with her entering the race for on last political kamikaze flight where she would go out with a big bang, a pop heard round the political world. Instead, all I got was a poof!

SJG
10/5/11

Sarah Palin Will Not Run for President; http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/105741/

The Fading of a Great White Hope

Well there you have it, Republican Governor Chris Christie has decided not to run for president in 2012. This will certainly be a let down for many in the G.O.P. but in reality it probably doesn’t matter all that much anyway. For one thing, as political columnist E.J. Dionne opined on last week’s Meet the Press, Christie was being pushed to run by moderate and liberal Republicans in the New York metropolitan area and by the media conservative pundits who have invested mightily in a multiyear campaign of opposition to President Obama and have been opining about beating him since the midnight of election day 2008. Chris Christie was never a darling of the radicalized right and at this point its unknowable as to whether or not he would have fared better with the Republican radicals than has Mitt Romney. Republican strategist Mike Murphy who also appeared on Meet the Press said: “Christie might not do well upon a second and third look-over by the Republican base.” Likewise conservative commentator Peggy Noonan claimed that there was no guarantee that Christie would find it “smooth sailing” when he came up against the Tea Party element within the G.O.P.

For one thing there’s the question of just how far to the right Chris Christie would be willing to tack in order to gain the acceptance of the G.O.P.’s most stridently conservative members. Remember that Christie is a blue state governor who while having pushed through some very tough measures did so without the divisive conflict that erupted in Scott Walker’s Wisconsin or that’s currently bubbling under the surface of John Kasich’s Ohio. Christie has also shown that he can work with Democrats rather than just assume the position of being an obstructionist. Lastly, unemployment is higher in New Jersey, 9.4% in August of 2011, than it is nationally and that undercuts any claim Christie could make about solving the jobs problem.

So where does this leave us. Well for one thing it leaves Mitt Romney in a better position than he was this morning and it may resurrect the hopes of Rick Perry to some degree. But in the final analysis what I think you’ll find is that due to the closing window of opportunity that now confronts the 2012 Republican hopefuls the stage is now set for the intra-party battle between the Tea Party radicals and the old line Republican establishment over whether or not it will be Romney or Perry. Sure there are those who are hoping that Christie’s reluctance will spring Mitch Daniels or Jeb Bush to action but that’s just so much wishful thinking on the part of those who are unhappy with the two front runners. Then there’s a last chance bid by Sarah Palin, but again that’s just more wishful thinking. In fact as it regards Palin, it’s hoping beyond hope for a solution as Palin is unelectable and everyone including Palin knows that. Thus why bother with further postulations as to whether or not a Palin candidacy is a viable alternative.

Quoting New York Magazine’s political writer John Heilemann, “Conservatives want someone to beat Obama to a bloody pulp. They see this as their moment.” Well whether or not either Perry or Romney can “beat Obama to a bloody pulp” remains to be seen but if the rank and file of American conservativism had believed that either of them could, they would have never sought the candidacy of Christie in the first place. Nor would they be still hoping for Mitch Daniels or Jeb Bush as well. That said it seems that America’s conservatives are going to have to settle for a candidate rather than to be able to hone and fashion their own 2012 Achilles. Needless to say both Perry, due to his past track record of controversial remarks, and Romney, due to his more moderate cast both have Achilles heals of their own to worry about and along with that fact so do the conservatives.

SJG
9/4/11

When Silence Isn’t Golden

There have been two disturbing moments of silence during recent Republican presidential candidate debates that are disconcerting in the least and potentially damaging for the Republican Party at the very worst. One took place during a debate when the question of whether or not a healthily individual who had the option to purchase health care and did not, should be allowed to die if he became severely injured. Before an candidate could utter a word, the crowd cheered the thought of letting the uninsured die. None of the candidates publicly took umbrage with this crass show of a lack of compassion.

More recently when a gay soldier serving overseas made a comment via satellite link into the last Republican debate, and identified himself as gay, he was roundly booed by the audience. Once again none of the candidates on the stage uttered a word in opposition to the lack of respect shown a member of our Armed Forces who was serving in harms way so that those in the audience could enjoy the freedoms that they currently do.

Thus four questions of the utmost gravity come immediately to the fore:

(1) Are the current crop of Republican contenders so cowed by radical right extremists within the G.O.P. that they can’t summon the courage to stand up to this sort of despicable behavior?

(2) Will the Republican presidential contenders of 2012 have to tack so far to the right in order to placate the party’s radicals during the primaries that it will make them so unattractive to moderates and independents as to make them unelectable, in spite of the fact that Barack Obama is clearly vulnerable?

(3) Will the tolerance of this radically incendiary behavior among the far right allow Barack Obama to frame the 2012 elections as our last chance to avoid America going completely off the rails, leaving behind any hope of comity and compromise, as we head into an abyss characterized by radically charged intolerance.

(4) Will right wing extremism affect a change in Barack Obama’s message from one of hope to one of fear which will thereby deflect the attention that is needed to address chronic economic problems?

SJG
10/3/11