Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 11, 2008

HOUSE GOP POISED TO BRING ON THE CRAZY.... Voters heard all kinds of bizarre rhetoric from Republicans about Barack Obama during the campaign, but one hoped that it was just the result of poor character and campaign desperation. It's not as if party leaders and elected officials actually believe such stupidity; they were just willing to repeat nonsense to win votes.

It's more troubling when these folks start accepting their own talking points as true.

A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may -- may not, I hope not -- but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism." [...]

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist." [...]

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."

Now, if I'd read this perspective on some right-wing blog, I'd assume it was just some random nut. But Paul Broun is a member of Congress, speaking on the record, to a national news outlet.

It's tempting to ignore the point of Broun's madness, but in case there's any confusion here, his paranoia about a "national security force" that answers to Obama is apparently a reference to speech Obama delivered over the summer about, as the AP noted, "a civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure -- an idea endorsed by the Bush administration."

Broun said his lunacy "may sound a bit crazy." Don't sell yourself short, congressman, it is crazy.

The New York Times reported the other day that there's "a great tradition of paint-peeling political hyperbole during presidential campaign years. And there is an equally great tradition of backing off from it all afterward, though with varying degrees of deftness."

Poor Paul Broun. He missed the memo.

Steve Benen 1:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

He should be made to make a public apology in the House of Congress.

The Republicans have not yet processed the fact that they lost...not only lost, but to a profound ass kicking. Their antics didn't win them the election, and there is a true excitement in the nation and abroad over the coming adminstration. I don't see the public having much patience for this sort of insulting, divisive, corrosive nonsence. The GOP will fall further from the mainstream and relevance if they keep this up.

Posted by: Saint Zak on November 11, 2008 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

I think that Republican right-wing loonies have been out there all the time-- but they've been shielded to some degree by moderates and adults. So a reporter had choices about where to go for a quote.

But the moderates and the adults are now gone, baby gone-- so when a media person goes to a Republican for a quote, they're much more likely to get a quote from a different space-time continuum.

Posted by: MattF on November 11, 2008 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

I idea of a national security force was a spoof on one of Obama's speeches. It was meant for fun, but you had to look closely to get the humur.

I saw the spoof on the Free Republic, and even those bozos figured out the humor. Later, Drudge, the liar that he is, took just on sentence from the spoof and published. Now it appears that really ignorant Republican congressman missed the whole spoof idea.

It is not just embarrassing for the Repubs and Drudge, it shows incredible stupidity of conservative traditional hysteria.

Posted by: MattYoung on November 11, 2008 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

As usual, a right wing nut job who has no knowledge of history. Hitler was NOT "elected in a democratic Germany". Hitler was beaten badly in the elections in which he participated, never setting above 37% of the vote. Instead he had his crazies in the Nazi Party stir up enough civil unrest that in a backroom deal he was appointed Chancellor in the tragically mistaken belief he could be controlled by the majority. If there are any parallels to our just finished election it is certainly NOT to a majority of the country choosing Obama and the Democratic Party over the right wing nutjobs.

Posted by: MW on November 11, 2008 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see...it was a republican president who gave us the Patriot Act, indefinite detention without charge, warrantless wiretapping, nationalized banks, no-fly lists, a border fence, the requirement of a passport to visit Canada and Mexico, imposed a back-door draft on the serving military, abused National Security Letters, outed a CIA agent for political payback, and a whole host of offenses that I have left off the list.

Where was Broun's outrage when all that was going on?

Posted by: Blue Girl on November 11, 2008 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, I'm down with the idea of a civilian force and I'll join.

Now guess who will be first on my list to pick up for re-education camp?

LOL

Posted by: Roger on November 11, 2008 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Has everyone seen this? The let Joe stay website?
http://letjoestay.blogspot.com/

Spam the hell out of it. I bet it his cronnie Whitless runnning it.

Posted by: Rick on November 11, 2008 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Was it Dick Durbin who was forced to tearfully apologize for comparing our secret interrogation and incarceration of terrorism suspects to Soviet Russia? The difference between that commentary and this seems only to be that the former was grounded in truth.

Posted by: dob on November 11, 2008 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler.

Riiiiiight. I call Godwin's Law on this jackass.

Anyway, don't we already have a national security force? What the hell does the massive Pentagon budget go for, chocolate pudding?

Posted by: Gregory on November 11, 2008 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

If only we could get Janet Reno to head it up, their heads would explode.

Posted by: RollaMO on November 11, 2008 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Though I usually don't think the psychological perspective is too useful for understanding political views, this does seem to be a case of someone who has trouble with his strong support for the national security state, both abroad and at home, with his traditionalist views about a weak state. Since Broun cannot cope with the tension in his own views he projects this mess onto his political opponent.

Indefinite detention without judicial review on the say-so of the President? The Democrats/alien Marxist did it! How could it be otherwise?

Posted by: stefan on November 11, 2008 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Electoral-vote.com did a survey among generally progressive interest groups, including ACLU, Americans for Democratic Action, Children's Defense Fund and SEIU. Broun distinuishes himself by being the only congressman to get a zero percent rating across the board. Even Michelle Bachman and Steve King can't claim that honor. One interesting thing about the chart is that the top two rated Republicans lost their seats last week to Dems. Chris Shay to a Dem, and Wayne Gilcrist (MD) to a right winger who then lost to the Dem.

Posted by: Danp on November 11, 2008 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Broun's just pointing out all the ways he thinks Obama is like Hitler. But come on, it's not like he's "comparing" him to Hitler.

It's pretty easy to see how Limbaugh can envision himself as the premiere erudite intellectual of his movement, innit?

Posted by: DH Walker on November 11, 2008 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Funny, I seem to remember it was the BUSH ADMINISTRATION that proposed violating Posse Comitatus and tasking an active brigade in Colorado with subduing the citizenry.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

What was that about a "national security force"?

Posted by: Keori on November 11, 2008 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Paul Broun is crazy. He is of the Ron Paul ilk, and he won his seat in a special election with really low turnout. He was not the establishment choice, and now it is obvious why. Republicans say crazy shit during election years, but most seem to realize that it's all b.s.

This sort of thing is why the Paultards will never control anything in this country.

Posted by: Lev on November 11, 2008 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Pres. Obama will actually control several powerful armed forces. He will be known by the quasi-fascist title "Commander in Chief". These forces will go by names like "Army" and "Navy". Remember - the Nazis also had an "Army" and "Navy"!

Posted by: M. Peachbush (if it's not too late) on November 11, 2008 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

>"don't we already have a national security force"

Don't forget that Bush took control of the national guard from the States... and quietly brought an army division back from Iraq to be assigned to 'domestic security'.

Standard RWA answer... "that's different"

Posted by: buford on November 11, 2008 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Know what REALLY grinds my gears about these buffoons?

That they're absolutely incapable of understanding the difference between "Marxism" (by which they really mean "Stalinism" but I digress) and "Nazism".

They are not the same thing folks, they're just not. In fact one might even say that they're Diametrically Opposed! One is extreme Right Wing, t'other is extreme Left Wing.*

What's the matter Paul? You couldn't come up with another boogieman to compare Obama to? What, no Idi Amin? No Mao? Not very creative are we Mr. Bloun?

What a maroon.

*I know, I know, one can make the argument that the spectrum is not a line but a circle and therefore the two extremes - Stalinism & Nazism are really right beside each other...but I doubt these knuckle-draggers are smart enough (like a 12th Grader would be) to grasp that distinction.

Posted by: neilt on November 11, 2008 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

One of the most comic yet disturbing aspects of this election has been wingers' willingness to bloody broadcast to the skies that they have no idea what fascism, Marxism and Islam are all about, much less that these philosophies are fundamentally irreconcilable.

They just search their angry, impotent little minds for strings of unrelated insults and start hurling them. It's like second graders shouting that so-and-so is a poopyhead stoopid smartypants meanie baby.

Posted by: shortstop on November 11, 2008 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

A few weeks ago some were rather concerned about this:

Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the "Homeland"? (Greenwald)

ACLU Demands Information on U.S. Military Domestic Operations (Tom Burghardt)

It wasn't the Republicans who were concerned, but that was when this sort of thing was safely in the hands of Bush/Cheney. I can see why Republicans would be concerned *now*. Something happened.

Posted by: neabinorb on November 11, 2008 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

Why shouldn't Broun, or any other wacko, say anything they want, no matter how stupid or inflamatory? What's the penalty? Anyone see the election results for Michelle Bachmann?

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 11, 2008 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

Damn! Just when I thought the Republican House caucus might actually get less crazy with the defeat of Marilyn Musgrave. I guess not.

Posted by: fostert on November 11, 2008 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

Just to be sure I understand correctly, Obama's proposed "civilian reserve corps" would not be an armed force, would it?

Posted by: TG Chicago on November 11, 2008 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

I second Neilt's comment. Broun must have read Jonah Goldberg's sci-fi book on liberalism.

Hitler was far right. He was a wingnut with power. He wasn't a lefty. He hated communists and socialists. Sheeesh. He murdered them and shipped them off to concentration camps with a vengeance. They were almost as despised by the NAZIS as Jews. And not a few NAZIS hated Jewish people because they suspected them of being socialists or communists.

Fascists and NAZIS were in direct opposition to socialists and communists. Socialists and communists flocked to Spain, for instance, to fight them. They were in direct and bloody opposition in dozens of countries.

All the Broun's and Goldbergs have is the word "socialist" in NAZI. That's what they hang their tin foil hat on. They completely ignore Fascist ideology, record and policies. Not to mention whom they decided to destroy. Just that word. And why was that word included? It was a sop to workers in Germany to try to get them on their side.

Once in power, they couldn't wait to destroy everything connected with the left.

Today's righties have no shame.

Sheeesh.

Posted by: Cuchulain on November 11, 2008 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory at 1:28:

I don't think you understand.
It's really good chocolate pudding.

Posted by: springfielder on November 11, 2008 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

As usual, a right wing nut job who has no knowledge of history. Hitler was NOT "elected in a democratic Germany". Hitler was beaten badly in the elections in which he participated, never setting above 37% of the vote.

Sigh...no. In a system with 8 or so major parties, 37% is a pretty substantial percentage of the vote. It certainly isn't getting "beaten badly". At risk of tedium, what happened was the following:

March 1930 - the Grand Coalition government of Social Democrat Hermann Mller, in which the Social Democrats join with the Catholic Centre Party and a couple of smaller liberal parties, falls apart over the issue of cutting back social programs to balance the budget in the wake of the Great Depression. It is replaced by a center-right government under Catholic Centre leader Heinrich Brning, with the Centre, the liberal parties, and a couple of conservative splinter parties.

September 1930 - Brning calls an election in the hopes of getting a majority for his coalition. Instead, his conservative and liberal allies get trounced, with huge gains for the Nazis, who come from virtually nowhere to be the second largest party in the Reichstag, and decent gains for the Communists. Now Brning can't possibly have a center-right majority, even with the support of the intransigent mainstream non-nazi right-wing party, the Nationalists. He has to rely on emergency decrees and the tacit support of the Social Democrats, theoretically in opposition, to rule.

April 1932 - German President Hindenburg, supported by the Social Democrats, the Catholic Centre, and the liberals, wins re-election over the opposition of Hitler, who gets 37% of the vote in the Run off to Hindenburg's 53%, with 10% for the Communists (most supporters of Nationalist Theodor Duesterberg moved over to Hitler between the first and second round of the election).

June 1932 - Hindenburg, under the sway of a far right wing "camarilla" fires Chancellor Brning and appoints obscure far right wing Catholic Centre party member Franz von Papen as Chancellor. Papen's government quickly becomes a laughing stock, as every party in parliament opposes it other than the nationalists.

July 1932 - Papen calls a new election, in hopes of getting some sort of majority for his government. Again, the Nazis get a huge increase, the Communists a decent-sized one, and everybody else loses support. Now no majority government is possible without the support of the Nazis or the Communists. Papen attempts negotiations with both the Catholic Centre (his own party, which had disavowed him) and the Nazis to support his government - Hitler refuses unless he is made chancellor.

November 1932 - with no majority possible from the parliament elected in July, Papen dissolves parliament immediately upon its meeting, and a new election is held. This time the Nazis lose some support, with some of it going to the Nationalists, and the Communists continue to grow in strength. But Papen is still incapable of gaining a majority - Hitler continues to demand the chancellorship as the price for his support, and without his support no majority is possible.

December 1932 - When Papen admits he can't get a majority, and suggests using the army to suppress both Communists and Nazis, President Hindenburg dismisses Papen and appoints his military advisor, Kurt von Schleicher, as Chancellor. Schleicher hopes to create a parliamentary majority by using the trade unions to get the Social Democrats on board, and then wooing away those elements of the Nazi Party unsatisfied with Hitler's leadership (particularly Gregor Strasser, the quasi-left wing Nazi leader) to also support his government. When this doesn't work, Schleicher, like Papen before him, suggests using the army to suppress both Nazis and Communists.

January 1933 - When ex-Chancellor Papen tells Hindenburg that he can gain Hitler's support for a coalition government with Hitler as chancellor, but non-Nazi conservatives in most of the other cabinet positions, Hindenburg is faced with a choice between Schleicher's military coup and Papen's proposed coalition. He chooses the latter. Hitler becomes chancellor of what is still a minority government - Nazis and Nationalists together do not quite have a majority of seats in the Reichstag. Hitler immediately proceeds to call for a new election.

March 1933 - in elections deeply tainted by Brownshirt thuggery and oppression, particularly suppression of the Communists following the Reichstag fire, Hitler's coalition with the Nationalists manages to win a narrow majority in the Reichstag. Hitler proceeds to muscle an Enabling Act through the Reichstag (with the reluctant support of the Catholic Centre) by which the Reichstag cedes legislative authority to the government for five years (I think). Hitler is now dictator.

So, at any rate, German democracy was not working well for three years prior to Hitler taking over. Basically, from 1930-1932 the only majority government possible was a grand coalition, but domestic political disagreements between the socialists and the centrist parties made that impossible, leading to minority government by the centrists through emergency decree. Then Hindenburg decided this wasn't right wing enough, and tried to bring in a right wing government of his buddies. This was supported by nobody, leading to two different elections. These new elections meant that now no majority government was possible - the Communists and Nazis together held a majority of the seats, and neither was seen as a responsible coalition party. Still, any attempt at a majority government would likely have to include the Nazis.

The Nazis didn't exactly come to power democratically, but they didn't exactly come to power undemocratically either. If anything, though, the appointment of Hitler as chancellor was a far more democratic move than Hindenburg's behavior over the course of the previous year in trying to rule through Papen and Schleicher, neither of whom had measurable parliamentary support. Appointing the leader of the largest party as chancellor and then allowing him to hold an election to try to get a majority for his near-majority coalition is, in the abstract, the right thing to do in the situation Germany found itself in in late 1932/early 1933. The problem was that Hitler was determined that once he got his majority, there would be no further elections.

Posted by: John on November 11, 2008 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Watch out congressman ! Here come those black helicopters.

Posted by: rbe1 on November 11, 2008 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

One of the most comic yet disturbing aspects of this election has been wingers' willingness to bloody broadcast to the skies that they have no idea what fascism, Marxism and Islam are all about, much less that these philosophies are fundamentally irreconcilable.

Right-wing ignoramuses have been making this kind of very serious, thoughtful argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care since before the election.

Indeed, that Obama is neither Marxist, Islamist nor facscist only strengthens their point...

(Seriously, I think Goldberg's magnum dopus was part revenge for being called on his authoritarian cheerleading and partly to inoculate the Republicans from having their auhtoritarianism examined.)

Posted by: Gregory on November 11, 2008 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

This guy's comments appeal to his constituency.

There are ignorant people in the world. Lefties have their share too, of course. I can't remember a leftie national politician making comments quite that stupid. But maybe - didn't Maxine Waters say crazy things about the World Trade Center attacks?

Posted by: flubber on November 11, 2008 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

I thought this was an eye opener.

Glenn Greenwald
MONDAY OCT. 27, 2008 11:12 EDT
Salon Radio: ACLU on the U.S. Army's domestic deployment

Last month, The Army Times reported that for "the first time an active [U.S. Army] unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities." The brigade, the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, has spent most of the last four years fighting a war in Iraq, and will now be assigned on a permanent basis to engage in numerous domestic functions -- including, as the article put it, "to help with civil unrest and crowd control."

The rest here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2008/10/27/hafetz/

Posted by: jeff on November 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

"Let's see...it was a republican president who gave us the Patriot Act, indefinite detention without charge, warrantless wiretapping, nationalized banks, no-fly lists, a border fence, the requirement of a passport to visit Canada and Mexico, imposed a back-door draft on the serving military, abused National Security Letters, outed a CIA agent for political payback, and a whole host of offenses that I have left off the list. "

The one you're forgetting that's most relevant is Blackwater USA. Blackwater, as I understand it, is a hyper-partisan private army that answers to influential right-wingers, not the U.S. government. If Obama were proposing a left-wing army that would report directly to him, I would certainly denounce it. So what about the fact that we have military missions being carried out by an ideological force that's completely outside the legitimate chain of command?

Posted by: Jurgan on November 11, 2008 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

But Gregory, while the "liberal fascism" thing is old hat, the "Muslim Marxist" charge that enjoyed such popularity from late September-early November 2008 (and is planning an open-ended off-off-off Broadway run in red states near you--doesn't it feel good to say the red states are near you instead of you for the first time in 44 years?) was a new one on me.

I must say, I was fascinated not only by this fresh new barb, but also of the hairdos of people employing it. So many treasured memories of this election.

Posted by: shortstop on November 11, 2008 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

MW -- you have that exactly right. Hitler was not elected. He was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg and the other conservatives in the mistaken belief that he could be controlled by them. The parallel to today's Republican party and the provincial Christian Right is instructive. Christian fundamentalists are fine upstanding people but they have yet to recognize that a politics based on their religious orthodoxy is by its very nature anti-democratic, authoritarian and bordering on fascism. You can't have democracy, or even politics, without compromise -- impossible for people whose politics is derived from faith about ultimate matters.

Beginning with Nixon's Southern Strategy Republicans thought they could take advantage of the white supremacist, neo-fascist, and nativist elements in the electorate but not be consumed by them. Reagan did a good job giving lip service to these anti-democratic and authoritarian religious traditionalists without allowing them to control his largely economically-focused agenda. It was Gingrich and George W. who let this beast out of the cave, which makes it impossible now for the GOP to reinvent itself as a modern party that can govern a nation as big and diverse as this one is. Today's GOP must continue to shout about States Rights because a state is about as large a jurisdiction as the GOP is capable of governing right now -- states, by the way, located in the deep south.

Posted by: Ted Frier on November 11, 2008 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Though I usually don't think the psychological perspective is too useful for understanding political views, this does seem to be a case of someone who has trouble with his strong support for the national security state, both abroad and at home, with his traditionalist views about a weak state. Since Broun cannot cope with the tension in his own views he projects this mess onto his political opponent. Posted by: stefan

This guy's just some crazy-assed cracker.

There. Fixed it for you.

Posted by: Jeff II on November 11, 2008 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK
Funny, I seem to remember it was the BUSH ADMINISTRATION that proposed violating Posse Comitatus and tasking an active brigade in Colorado with subduing the citizenry.

If the President does it (since he has explicit statutory authority to do so under the Insurrection Act—a power that has been recently expanded, particularly in the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act), it isn't a violation of Posse Comitatus (which prohibits the use of the Army or Air Force [but not, oddly, the Navy, including the Marine Corps] for law enforcement "except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress"). It may, nonetheless, be bad policy.

Because of the broad sweep of the Insurrection Act, the Posse Comitatus Act is, effectively, a limit on independent actions by subordinate officers, not much of a limit on the use of the military by the President.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 11, 2008 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

doesn't it feel good to say the red states are near you instead of you for the first time in 44 years?

Aside from the fact that 44 years ago I wasn't around to say it, hell yes!

Posted by: Gregory on November 11, 2008 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Christian fundamentalists are fine upstanding people but they have yet to recognize that a politics based on their religious orthodoxy is by its very nature anti-democratic, authoritarian and bordering on fascism.

I normally agree with much of what you write, but I see no evidence to believe either part of that statement, at least as far as the leaders of the fundamentalist political movement are concerned.

You can't have democracy, or even politics, without compromise -- impossible for people whose politics is derived from faith about ultimate matters.

Which is why the fundies' deluded belief that the US was founded as a Xtian nation is so ludicrous -- the Founders knew that full well and took painstaking steps to separate the roles of religion and politics.

Posted by: Gregory on November 11, 2008 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK
It's more troubling when these folks start accepting their own talking points as true.

Repubs have been doing this for years, and is the main reason they often appear so divorced from reality. It's also the reason they think the media is controlled by liberals, when media neglects to publish right wing spin as basic fact.

It's the root delusion that transformed their political philosophy into mental illness.

Posted by: JoeW on November 11, 2008 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

But the right wing has to fight a democratic presidency because they gave the president absolute, unquestioned, power. All of their extreme rhetoric will have a grain of truth since they are merely parroting the control they assigned to the executive branch. Now they have to deny that they rewrote the Constitution. Fortunately for them, the Supreme Court did not appoint another Supreme Dictator for Life.

Posted by: Kropotkin on November 11, 2008 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Guys, I saw that article and clicked on in. Within the page is a survey that had two choices: 1) that Sen. Broun is way off the mark (or some statement meaning same) and 2) he has a point. I clicked on 1) and the survey results were 49% for 1) and 51% for 2). WTF?

Posted by: Always Hopeful on November 11, 2008 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

"Just to be sure I understand correctly, Obama's proposed "civilian reserve corps" would not be an armed force, would it?"

His specific phrase was "a civilian national security force". You can have unarmed security guards, I suppose, although they're futile, but I would beware the law of unintended consequences. What will Jeb do with it?

Posted by: Forrest on November 11, 2008 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

a german just discovered the blueprints to the death camps.....

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1084269/Original-construction-plans-Nazi-death-camp-Auschwitz-Berlin-flat.html

lest we forget, that's what a Hitler actually looks like....

Posted by: dj spellchecka on November 11, 2008 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

National security force - Who needs crap like that? After 8 years of GOP totalitarianism Obama's got everything he needs to crush your cringing face beneath irresistible government jackboots forever.

Posted by: goldstein on November 11, 2008 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

It is so nice to realize that the nutjobs like Broun are no longer really relevant. In fact it is good to have them around to lead the Republican party further out into the wilderness. I just wish they did not control my state (Georgia.) Oh well... taking one for the team.

Posted by: Bubba John on November 11, 2008 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

Broun...that's a German name innit?. Maybe he's a closet Brownshirt trying to deflect.
( this is in now way reflectant of other fine upstanding German- Americans...)

Posted by: rememberNovember on November 11, 2008 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

No Forrest, Obama's specific phrase WAS 'civilian reserve corps', it is Republican idiotarians that have morphed that into 'national security force.'

As MattYoung pointed out, this shit appears to have originated in a spoof (that is a joke) article by FreeRepublic. Most of the FreeRepublic readers at the time reportedly recognized it as a spoof, which just goes to show that not ALL Republicans are idiots, or at least not all the time.

I do wonder how many of those that did recognize the humor of that original article, still recognized the source when it came back to them via the distorted ramblings of Drudge, Broun, et. al.

Posted by: tanstaafl on November 11, 2008 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

My apologies, though it was just one brief line in a speech given six months ago, Obama apparently did use the term 'civilian national security force', however Obama's speeches both before and after that as well as clarifications by his spokesman make it clear that he was refering to a civilian reserve corps modeled on a proposal by George W. Bush in the 2007 State of the Union address.

Posted by: tanstaafl on November 11, 2008 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

What? The Republicans don't like Posse Comitatus any more?

That's what happens when your quarterback refers to the Constitution as a damned piece of paper.


It's difficult to wrap your arms around the concept of these people being so blissfully stupid.

Posted by: toowearyforoutrage on November 11, 2008 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

"Has everyone seen this? The let Joe stay website? http://letjoestay.blogspot.com/ Spam the hell out of it."-Rick

Thamks for the free press, Rick!

Posted by: LetJoeStay on November 11, 2008 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

toowearyforoutrage:

It was difficult for me, too, to wrap arms and head around this mindset, this desire, need, to believe what they read and have shouted at them from the teevee and radio.
Then I accidentally stumbled upon Nadine:
http://jeffandnadine.blogspot.com/
It all starts to make sense...

Posted by: jeffreyleonard on November 11, 2008 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK
Now, if I'd read this perspective on some right-wing blog, I'd assume it was just some random nut. But Paul Broun is a member of Congress, speaking on the record, to a national news outlet.
Yes, of course. As a member of Congress, he is a professional performing nut, and if placed in front of a bank of microphones, he is the more likely of the two to say profoundly outrageous things. Posted by: Jassalasca Jape on November 12, 2008 at 2:13 AM | PERMALINK

To ALL you sniveling Socialist lunatics!

If you stopped running your stupid mouths long enough to find out what Broun is talking about you MIGHT get your first clue. Start with a video clip as we know you're incapable of reading;

The Most Terrible Danger of a Personality Cult
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIjnA_RZZUg

Posted by: Chris on November 13, 2008 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly