Another “This Day in ‘Duh’” so soon? With the level of political discourse at its current level in America, you should be thankful we don’t give you hourly updates. Which, during the Conservative Political Action Committee white/heterostravangza, we probably could have.
So what profound stupidity so irked us that we jumped out of our chairs, punched the nearest wall and unleashed a mighty bellow that may very well have been “Arrrrrg, what the fuck?!”? Was it conservative he-she and perennial favorite amongst the bigoted set Ann Coulter insinuating that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is a quote “faggot”? Newt Gingrich placing the blame on Katrina victims? Attorney General Alberto Gonzales telling the Christian Broadcasting Network he’s simply too busy to respond to pesky congressional subpoena requests? TIME’s Tool nouveau-blogger Joe Klein getting his panties in a knot over the liberal blogosphere’s prodigious use of the entire English language, including words arbitrarily deemed verboten?
Sadly, it wasn’t any of the aforementioned that blew our minds. It was this confounding nugget of flabbergastation, contained in a report by The Washington Times on this weekend’s CPAC shindig:
In interviews afterward, some attendees said Mr. Giuliani lost momentum when he heaped lavish praise on Abraham Lincoln.
We’ll let Daily Kos take it from there. We’re still screaming “Arrrrrg, what the fuck?!”
Addendum, 10:20 a.m.: The egotistical urge to contribute my two cents kicked in once I shook off my morning grogginess.
The rejection of Lincoln in favor of a pro-secessionist view is just the latest incident in the bifurcation of the so-called conservative movement. On one end are individuals who while not necessarily identifying themselves as such share much in common with the libertarian movement: they are pro-business, anti-tax, pro-individual rights and passionate proponents of a small and responsible system of governance. The second group, of the ilk of the anti-Lincoln CPAC-goers, are the social conservatives: a strong authoritarian bent, despite what they may otherwise claim, inextricable ties to or involvement in Christianist movements, and anti-science, anti-freedom, anti-reason tendencies. They have a clear retrogressive agenda. If they can’t drag our civilization back to the dark ages, they’re clearly comfortable with a pro-slavery secessionist entity. Why such sentiments aren’t outright being called treasonous by pundits who are usually quick to use the pejorative is beyond me.
