I have no idea why I said Senator. Brain fart, I guess. I know McKinney was a member of the house. She’s too nuts to make it into the Senate.
But yes, Van Jones is a Truther. He’s made statements to that effect, and he signed a petition to that effect. I could give a rat’s ass that he denies it when the heat’s on. Jones is also a Marxist, and a radical. A guy like that should be nowhere near the halls of power in the United States.
Who in the hell is Van Jones and how can you possibly compare him to Limbaugh or Beck, who are on the airwaves for hours every day, speaking to millions. I can safely say that I have never heard of Van Jones until yesterday, and have never heard him speak at all.
No kidding. He’d have to be elected, what 7, 8, maybe 9 times before he’s, you know, main stream.
Not automatically, no. You don’'t have to be mainstream to get elected to the House. It’s not like the Senate where you have to win a whole state. You just have to win one district. Cynthia McKinney was never embraced or supported by the Democrats and she left the party. She also never had much of a following. She was not a significant, or important or infleuential voice in the Democratic party or on the political left in general. You’ve got nothing. If the left had embraced her the way the right embraces idiots like Palin and Michelle Batshit, you might have a parallel, but you don’t. The Democrats were embarrassed by McKinney and disavowed her. The righties want to marry Sarah Palin.
He doesn’t have to get elected at all. He just have to have some kind of following or influence, and be accepted as a representative voice by self-confessed liberals. he is none of those things. Neither was McKinney.
this is false.
He signed a petotion in 2005 asking for an investigation into 9/11. he now says he didn’t read it carefully before he signed it. That’s the extent of his “truther” career. It’s ridiculous to accuse somebody of espousing a view which they deny that they believe. The point is to name people who actually PROPOGATE crazy positions, not deny them.
Cite?
A radical what?
The challenge is not showing that there are crazies on the left, because there obviously are. The challenge is showing that these crazies have the wide audience and influence that Rush, Beck, et al have. Some random crazy congressperson or Obama’s advisor on green jobs doesn’t cut it.
Why not?
Because conservatism is the only political belief system that should be allowed to gain power.
Why not? The OP asked for Democrats OR pundits. For example, he cited both Bachmann and Palin, neither of which are pundits. We have given a liberal (Hah!) supply of Democrats in similar situations engaging in the same behavior. For example he cited Bachmann (only elected 2 times, btw. She’s real fringe.) Sam Stone cited Cynthia McKinney. He cited Steele, I cited Howard Dean.
Steele shouldn’t be on the rightie list. He’s not a nut. Just kind of a sell out.
You misspelled “oreo”.
To pick the first good example, FriarTed pointed out Kennedy’s campaign against Bork early on. You don’t get more mainstream that him, and some of the things he said were patently false (re: teaching evolution), and others were gross distortions, and it was all done as part of a concerted campaign.
I can’t say I watch Keith Olbermann regularly, but when I have he’s usually picking up on whatever meme is bouncing around Kos or Dem Underground; some of which are fair criticism, some of which are not. He’s called Bush a fascist, which I’d regard as dishonest, and frankly I’d call his nightly feature on “the worst person in the world” a form of character assassination. I realize it’s somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it’s still pretty clear to me that the message he’s sending is that those he disagrees with are not merely mistaken, they are bad people.
In any event, others have given a lot more since, and you can deal with them. I’m leaving town for the weekend, so I’ll bow out of the thread.
He is not an oreo. He is Poochie. There is a distinct difference.
Was Rupert Murdoch in the US yet? I know the Cato Institute was, & Limbaugh.
This compares to the OP how?
OK, I guess. But Kucinich seems to have been pretty mellow & calm about the whole thing.
The Iraq conspiracy theories seemed possibly true at the time. The Enron stuff is pretty weak, as far as I know, but Bush did wink at Ken Lay’s behavior as governor.
Well, he did recommend himself as VP in an odd way.
That is an overstatement, you’re right.
Didn’t he?
Yeah, that was a cynical campaign play. Not exactly Glenn Beck’s tears, tho’, was it?
While W Bush may not be strictly a fascist (he’s not good enough to be a fascist! fascists try to take care of their countries! or at least pretend!) his reelection in 2004 had a certain quasi-fascist aspect. Not him but the party. All this “I support the president” jive, when his term was up & there was no good constitutional reason for the GOP to renominate someone who had an oafish foreign policy.
Yes, I’m still sore about that.