I've just read over my post praising, sort of, Michael Gerson, who in a recent column flayed some of the more manifestly absurd specimens of Republican opinion. I think now I gave him too much credit. The notion that candidates such as Sharron Angle and Rand Paul are anomalies who should be rebuked by "responsible Republicans" is preposterous. Gerson implies that these "responsible Republicans" are the ones who, unlike Paul, the party's candidate for US Senate in Kentucky, will not "retreat from the most basic social commitments to the weak, elderly and disadvantaged." Ridiculous, but it would have been even more ridiculous had he named the Republican office-holders whose record is a rebuff to Rand Paul.
The Republican party is the one whose most ardent adherents sneer at such phrases as "commitments to the weak, elderly and disadvantaged." Disadvantaged? Fuck you. I got mine, you try and get yours. That's their whole philosophy, minus the fondness for war and guns. Then there are the ones who claim Jesus as the source for these views!
Comments