Jon Stewart -- the definition of insanity

By R.K. Barry

I like Jon Stewart. I like The Daily Show and usually watch it every night. One has to be constantly reminded that Stewart is primarily a comedian because his political commentary is so frequently bang on and his interviews so thoughtful and compelling.

But even before the recent Stewart/Colbert Rally to Restore Sanity, something was starting to bother me about Stewart's approach, which has been, simply put, his more recent suggestion that the left and right in America are in some sense equally culpable for poisoning the current environment in which political ideas are framed, articulated, and advocated.

If what he means is that conservatives have bent the truth beyond recognition and pandered to the worst instincts of human nature in order to troll for votes, while progressives have fought back as best they could, though fairly feebly, then, yes, both left and right are equally culpable.

Let's face it, for the past many months, countless Republican candidates, Tea Party activists, Fox News and its stable of crazies, and other purveyors of the hysterical conservative narrative have shown no interest in facts and rational argument and reasonable political accommodation. They have harnessed voter anger and frustration in the most effective ways possible.

Democrats, who clearly have not caught on fast enough to the "new normal" of political discourse in America, have been getting their asses kicked.

So, watching Jon Stewart say to what were undoubtedly mostly a bunch of fairly progressive citizens that they ought to become more reasonable and rational in their attitude towards politics was a little like watching the Rand Paul campaign organizer asking the women whose head he stomped to apologize for getting her noggin stuck under his foot.

Surely Mr. Stewart doesn't think that his audience, either on the National Mall or at Comedy Central, is composed of many conservatives.

But it is conservative hysteria that has driven the current climate of debate and to suggest that progressives, liberals, or Democrats are equally culpable is to show that one has simply not been paying enough attention. To ask this group to calm down and be more "sane" is not only foolish but a little dangerous.

I cannot help but think of a dozen metaphors to express what is wrong with this, most of them violent metaphors (make of that what you will). The inadvisability of unilateral disarmament comes to mind.

The current election campaign is now almost over. I invite you to catalogue the misrepresentations, outright prevarications, and bat-shit crazy ideas and behaviour coming from the conservative leadership in the current struggle for the hearts and minds of the American voter. And while I would not suggest that Democrats are devoid of sin, you cannot reasonably compare the two. But the conservative record is pretty clear.

Where to begin? Sarah Palin's lies about "death panels" in Obama's health-care legislation; Carl Paladino's homophobic rants; Rand Paul's misrepresentation of the Civil Rights Act and his thuggish repression of dissent on the campaign trail; Sharron Angle's call for Second Amendment remedies to solve disputes; Christine O'Donnell's rejection of the separation of church and state; Ken Buck's rejection of abortion even in the case of rape and incest; and almost anything said by Glenn Beck and all the others on Fox News about America's inevitable descent into totalitarianism at the hands of the socialist Obama. And I can't even begin to list the instances of idiocy from the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

Again, it's late in the campaign season, so there is no need to restate everything. But to suggest that conservatives and progressives are equally culpable for poisoning the tone of debate is not credible.

Yes, people like Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow get excited in defending the truth, and I am so glad they do. It is not, after all, passion that we should worry about, for passion in the service of the truth should always be looked on as a positive contribution.

It is passion and aggressiveness with the goal of misrepresenting the facts in order to appeal to people's fears, irrational biases and lesser angels. This has been the conservatives' stock-in-trade.

By implication there is a suggestion on Stewart's part that we all just need to calm down and talk to each other rationally in order to arrive at some sort of agreement as to how America can move forward and solve the problems that need addressing.

Great idea, but that train has left the station. For conservatives, I don't think it ever made that station stop at all.

Passion in the defence of truth, passion in the defence of the facts, passion for the openness of political discussions that might get us closer to solving our problem. Yes, to all of these things.

But now is not the time for progressives to calm down in their struggle against the dangerous vision for America presented by the likes of the Tea Party movement and those others in the Republican Party afraid to cross them.

Progressives are in a very serious conflict here and they will need to bring their best effort to have a chance, both over the next few days and in what is to follow. It would be insane to do otherwise.

It is simply not true that progressives and conservatives are equally responsible for the tone of the current political debate, and we ought to stop suggesting it is. Conservatives have, for the time being, cornered the market on anger. Progressives need to get back in the game and be just as passionate in defense of the kind of America they want.

To do any less would be the very definition of insanity. And -- forgive another violent metaphor -- it would be like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

When independents turn stupid (and vote for Republican extremists)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There are a number of reasons why Republicans will win next Tuesday, likely taking back the House (if not the Senate) and doing very well at the state level. The so-called "enthusiasm gap" is a big reason, with anti-government yet also theocratic Tea Party-led Republicans frothing at the mouth, as is the general and thoroughly irrational anti-incumbent sentiment sweeping the country. But it seems that "independents," that ever-so-important group, are also pushing this election to the GOP.

As Time is reporting, new polls show independents helping Republicans to the lead in four key Senate races:

-- In Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey is leading Joe Sestak 49-45.

-- In Kentucky, Rand Paul is leading Jack Conway 50-43.

-- In Colorado, Ken Buck is leading Michael Bennet 47-46.

-- In Nevada, Sharron Angle is leading Harry Reid 49-45.

Of course, independents are not the only group, or demographic, pushing these Republicans over the top. In Nevada, for example, Angle maintains "sizable margins among males, white voters and voters over 50." And, of course, these are four somewhat purple states where state-wide Republicans wins aren't at all surprising. It makes some sense, even if their specific policies/views do not, that Paul's libertarianism is popular, that Angle is ahead of a deeply unpopular incumbent (and Democratic leader), and that Buck may pull out a victory in a flip-flopping state that can usually go either way. Even Toomey's lead is understandable. Pennsylvania can be described as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Alabama in between. It's a purple state that is Democratic only because of its two metropolises. When the urban vote isn't there, Republicans can win.

I say that it "makes some sense," but at least three of these four are ideological extremists who shouldn't win, ever. I'll leave Toomey off that list, though he too has embraced the far right, such as on climate change. And, poor economy and anti-incumbent sentiment aside, it makes absolutely no sense that these three are leading, solidly, among independents -- most of whom, presumably, are more or less in the wishy-washy center, and who should be swayed against such Republican extremism even if they don't much care for what Democrats have to offer either.

Take Buck, for example, who is an anti-gay bigot and a theocrat who objects to the separation of church and state. Or Angle, whose sheer craziness, as she has proven throughout this campaign, is enormous. In this year of collective voter ignorance and insanity, of fear, anger, and bitterness dominating the political landscape and motivating voters to make terrible choices, it's almost surprising that independents aren't putting the supremely unqualified Christine O'Donnell over the top in Delaware. In some states, like Delaware and New York, where the anti-gay bigot and wealthy teabagger Carl Paladino will get crushed in the gubernatorial race, I suppose not even delusional independents are enough.

This, of course, would not be the first time that voters turned stupid. But while we can expect Republicans to embrace the most partisan and most ideologically extreme of their kind, independents are supposed to know better, are they not? Well, no. Some may suppose that they do, but they don't. The David Broder-influenced media drool all over independents, giving them a place of prominence they don't deserve, as if they are by far the most important voters in America, but, really, they often don't much of a clue and are easily manipulated, this year by Republican propaganda.

Call me a cynic, but I think this Family Guy clip about undecided (and hence more or less independent) voters (which I found here), with Lois running for mayor against incumbent Adam West and, on Brian's advice, resorting to GOP-style appeals to idiocy ("Jesus," "9/11" -- you might as well put "tax cuts" in there, too), says it all:

Craziest Republican of the Day: Ken Buck

By Michael J.W. Stickings

On NBC's Meet the Press yesterday, the Colorado Republican candidate for Senate said that being gay is a choice and then, pressed by host David Gregory, unleashed this gem:

I think that birth has an influence over it, like alcoholism and some other things, but I think that basically you have a choice.

In Buck's view, then -- if we try to wade into and through this nonsense -- homosexuality is mostly a choice but nature/genetics may have something to do with it. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, what he is saying is that people may be genetically predisposed to it, as some (probably) are to alcoholism.

But there's no reason to give him the benefit of anything. He's obviously wrong about homosexuality being a choice and his comparison of homosexuality to alcoholism (as opposed to any other example he could have given) reveal him to be an ignorant and intolerant -- and crazy -- moron. And yet, as Steve Benen explains (link above):

It's also a reminder about a larger truth this campaign season. Like Wisconsin's Ron Johnson, Pennsylvania's Pat Toomey, and Florida's Marco Rubio, Buck has benefited greatly from the fact that he's been overshadowed by other extremist candidates.

In a typical year, someone like Buck would be an almost cartoonish right-wing nut, and the subject of national ridicule. After all, the far-right candidate supports repealing the 17th Amendment, eliminating the Department of Education, scrapping the federal student loan program, banning certain forms of birth control and all abortion rights, even in cases of rape or incest. He's said Americans he doesn't like are a bigger threat than terrorists, and is on record talking about privatizing Social Security, the V.A., and the Centers for Disease Control.

And now Buck is insisting sexual orientation is a choice and gays are like alcoholics.

I like to think Colorado is better than this, but I suppose we'll find out in 16 days.

This year, it's hard to know what to think. Whether Buck wins or not (and Colorado is a tough state for predictions), the crazies are sure to do well in November and may even win back the House while making significant gains at the state level all around the country.

Colorado, and America, should be better than this, but the polls suggest otherwise.