Skip to main content

Putting Words in Rick Perry's Mouth, Ct'd

The Wall Street Journal has come to Rick Perry's defense regarding his statements on Ben Bernanke (statements that some, including Andrew Sullivan, have interpreted as threats). From the Journal:

Let's stipulate that Mr. Perry, in his first week on the Presidential stump, was wrong to use the words "almost treacherous, treasonous" in referring to Mr. Bernanke. Both of those words ought to be reserved for specific acts of betrayal against America, and the Fed chief is certainly a patriot. In particular, "treason" is the only crime specifically defined in the Constitution, which is something a tea party politician ought to learn.

On the other hand, everybody knows Mr. Perry meant no literal harm and was indulging the irrational exuberance that is one of his trademarks. The faux-outrage from liberals who routinely refer to the tea party as "terrorists" shouldn't be taken seriously.


The WSJ can get bent for referring to "liberals who refer to the Tea Party as terrorists," but the gist of the article is basically accurate. Andrew Sullivan responds:

There is nothing faux about the outrage here. And the bargaining position of the GOP over the debt ceiling was classic economic terrorism - using a collapse of the entire global economy as leverage for their anti-tax fanaticism. The threat of personal thuggery is not "irrational exuberance." It is rational intimidation.


Despite his silly statement about "personal thuggery," Sullivan also has a point here. While referring to Perry and the Tea Party as terrorists is irresponsible and hyperbolic, Perry and his TP cohorts are playing a dangerous, dangerous game by attempting to drag their crackpot economic theories into the real world. In this respect, the debt ceiling debate and bombastic statements about Bernanke et. al. are only the beginning.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Apparently, Liberals Are The Illuminati

posted 10/5/2012 by the Salt City Sinner Greetings, sheeple, from my stronghold high atop the Wells Fargo Building in downtown Salt City, where I type this before a massive, glowing bank of monitors that display the ongoing progress of my 23-point plan for complete social control. Whether you want to demonize me as a "liberal," or prefer the Glenn Beck update "progressive," we all know the truth, and it's time to pull the curtain aside: like all left-leaning persons, I am actually a member of the Illuminati. How else to explain how much power my side of the aisle wields in U.S. American politics? According to conservatives, liberals/the Illuminati control the media * , science * , academia in general * , public schools * , public radio * , pretty much anything "public," the courts * , and Hollywood * . Hell, we pretty much control everything except for scrappy, underdog operations like WND and Fox News, or quiet, marginalized voices like

Cult Books: One Good, One Terrible

  I’ve finished writing a new novel (stay tuned for details) in which the massacre at Jonestown in November 1978 plays a pivotal role. Both to research it and because the phenomenon interests me, I’ve read more than a few books on cults and cultic ideology over the last year.

God, Power, Fear, and Donald Trump

Posted on 11/23/2019 by the Salt City Sinner What does it mean to love God, what does it mean to love power, and what does it mean to love Donald Trump? Are these separate questions, or have they become scrambled together? Given that 81% of Evangelicals voted for Trump , it’s safe to conclude that the latter is the case. Unpacking the tangled webbing of fear, greed, superstition, and credulity that binds white Evangelicals to Donald J. Trump, the most profane and libertine President in United States history, will be the project of generations. Religious conservatives didn’t get here overnight, and it’s an odd place for them to have arrived at, but the journey isn’t as mysterious as it might seem at first glance. A good place to start is Believe Me: the Evangelical Road to Donald Trump , by John Fea . Fea’s book is an attempt to answer these questions in a serious way, and from the standpoint of one who shares many of the values and presuppositions of the average parish