Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

The Death of Discourse

I had the misfortune today of catching an interview with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) on the Neal Boortz radio show.  In a display of knuckle-dragging impolitic diatribe Sen Inhofe accused President Obama of intentionally setting out to destroy America and eagerly agreed with the host that Obama lacks the courage to authorize a rescue of pfc. Bowe Bergdahl, currently being held captive in Afghanistan.

Once again I find myself appalled at what is passing for political discourse from Republican politicians.  Not: “I disagree with the policies of the President”, but rather: [sic]”I think the President is doing all he can to destroy the country.”

Boortz: “I believe Obama is dedicated to the cause of weakening America.”

Inhofe: “I agree completely.  I think he really is.”

Boortz: “Does Obama have the stones to send a mission to rescue our captured soldier?”

Inhofe: “No, he definitely doesn’t.”

These were by no means the only words Sen. Inhofe had to say, and his enthusiasm in expanding on the theme left no doubt whatsoever that he wished to express his firm belief that President Obama has set out to intentionally destroy the country.  He made it overwhelmingly clear in his own words and his unblinking agreement to his interviewer’s most extreme accusations against the President that Barack Obama has no love for America and is in fact the kind of mole sent to destroy our Republic that the most fanatical extreme-right-wing survivalist tinfoil hatters claim him to be.

Sen. Inhofe?  On behalf of many center and center-right voters, I would like to tell you that there is nothing you can do to drive me further into your political opposition’s camp.

When I heard statements from Democrats – either private citizens or politicians – during the previous administration that were in any way similar in accusing then President Bush of intentionally acting against the interests of the country I called them out for what they were: at best enthusiastically hyperbolic trash-talk and at worst libelous paranoid delusion.  Though I cannot say as I sit here today that Democratic politicians engaged in the type of direct accusations of treason (“the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one’s sovereign or nation”) against the sitting President I will willingly acknowledge any examples that can be produced.  For senior members of federal bodies of government to casually level such accusations against the President is disgraceful and self-serving, at the cost to the country of inspiring internal extremism.  These sorts of accusations made by senior Senators on national radio shows listened to by those who are already inclined towards extreme actions is – to be very Conservative – carelessly adding to the risk to the President himself, and to be very harsh crosses over the line into willfully bringing risk against the President.

I enjoy heated debate over important topics.  I fully understand the necessity to retain a civil discourse and to assume and support the positive intentions of my counterparts and even opponents in these debates.  To insert such wild accusations against the intentions of another – particulary among the United States leadership – strikes me as either the height of childish idiocy or the despicable underbelly of coldly calculated malice.

Sen. Inhofe, I find it virtually impossible to believe that you intentionally attack the foundation of the essential political discourse necessary to guide this country, or that you knowingly feed the fires of those irrational and dangerous extremists among us who could heighten the risk to our President.  I also find it extremely difficult to believe that you are not fully cognizant of the power and import of your words.  Only you can explain to all of us what you can be thinking by publicly casting your President as a willful traitor to the best interests of our country.  Please, help me to see that you in fact have our best interests in mind.  


  1. Or at least, they get some attention.

    And at this point, that’s what they’re hoping for. Attention. As much attention to the Wing Nuts, the idiots, the microencephalitic knuckle draggers. As much attention as possible, and I think the gamble is, much like during the rise of Rush on radio, that when there is enough Wharrgarbl and spitting and stoopid circulating, then the more reasoned voices will creep out. Their positions seemingly sane in comparison.

    It is a tried and true tactic. It is predicated on the American public having short memories, and it is entirely a short term gain sort of strategy. Long term would be actually investing in policies that weren’t just profit driven for the coming quarters, but good for the health of the nation as a whole.

    This, I don’t think, we’re going to see soon. Not unless the leadership can sort itself out, and not if they can’t control the Wing Nut Brigade that they’ve let loose, and whipped into a frenzy.

    When the message congeals, in comparison, it will be reasoned and sane. But that isn’t the same as real leadership. This is still strategy, and fuck Lee Atwater, and fuck Karl Rove for turning my party to this kind pandering bullshit.  

  2. Hell, the Republicans have been calling Democrats traitors for my entire life. Probably before that, too. Let’s see… Unions are un-American. Want fewer guns in the hands of criminals? Un-American. Pro-choice? Not only un-American, but anti-Christian as well. Against irresponsible wars? Traitorous filth. In favor of health reform? Anti-American socialist bent on destroying America as we know it. It goes on and on. Inhofe is simply playing the same cards the GOP has been playing for the last 30 years.

  3. civil discourse died some time ago when the stoopids became the majority. Some days I think the last sane people left in America are me and my fellow Moosers. And I’m not so sure about some of them.

  4. HappyinVT

    Appearing on “Larry King,” she dismissed the Castle video and suggested that people have reason to question Obama’s national loyalty.

    “I think the Democrats have got more crazies than the Republicans do,” Cheney said. “But setting that aside, one of the reasons you see people so concerned about this, I think this issue is, people are uncomfortable with having for the first time ever, I think, a president who seems so reluctant to defend the nation overseas …”

    Asked directly by King if she actually thought Obama was born in Kenya, Cheney responded, “No, I’m not saying that.” But then she kept going. “I’m saying that people are fundamentally uncomfortable and fundamentally I think increasingly uncomfortable with an American president who seems to be afraid to defend America, stand up for what we believe in.”

    Fellow guest James Carville seemed momentarily flabbergasted. “These poor pathetic people are believing stuff just like Ms. Cheney tonight,” he concluded. “She refuses to say this is ludicrous because she wants these people to believe this.”

    huffington post

  5. sfnhltb

    If you look at the broad statistics, particularly since Reagan, the Republican party is about keeping unemployment high (to keep wages rising more slowly, and therefore help keep overall inflation down), changing the tax system to be more regressive, cutting back government services and funneling money to various groups of private interests.

    Having rational policy discussions (particularly on economic issues) would lead to the current Republican party to have probably less than 5% of the population supporting them. Hence the highly charged and probably intractable in the short term issues of guns, gays and abortions are used to polarize opinions and debate.

    The problem the Republicans have is when the economy goes bad, there is a limit to how much they can bluster about “trickle down” (or whatever the latest euphemism for the same idea that cutting taxes on the rich is an effective way of doing anything other than making those people richer). As more peoples jobs are threatened, the “social issues” drumbeat has to get louder to avoid the political conversation turning to the economy.

    With Bush being so obviously an inept puppet the volume had already at 11 for years, and the majority of discussion on those issues was already massively hyperbolic, or even crazy on some subjects. The same tenor of conversation on those core issues has been pushed for so long that it has spread across pretty much all political conversation coming from the right. There is no such thing as rational disagreement based on different values and subject appraisals of the merits of particular policies – you either agree absolutely on all issues, or you are treasonous, a traitor, a murderer, genocidal, unamerican, or whatever.

  6. creamer

     Blue collar republicans(wich should be an oxymoron) are for the most part unable to express why they vote red. They fall back on abortion(wich is at least legitimate) or resort to calls of socialism. I fear a good many agree with Pat Buchanon, though they won’t admit it openly. while others have always voted republican and to change would require an aknowledgement they were wrong, wich isn’t a strength among americans in general.


  7. anna shane

    our own party. The pugs are fringe, but they’re the only other one, so they’re not dead.  When Bill was elected they went out full force to delegitimize his presidency,  Now the same with Barack.  It’s close to treason, but who’s asking.  There needs to be a reasonable opposition, but doesn’t look like that will happen.  So these guys could win again, by our own party being stupid.

Comments are closed.