Beck gave Debra Medina an engraved invitation to shoot herself in the foot before a national audience, which she did. Now, she doesn’t think of herself as a 9/11 Truther, and I don’t think of her that way. But it was politically inept to say that “questions have been raised”. Hell, there are always questions, somewhere, but there’s no credible evidence to suggest that the government had a hand in this one. I’m not going to stick up for Medina going there, but I have to question the wisdom or utility of Beck playing “gotcha”.
On the other hand, what I saw at Ace’s frankly disgusted me. If we’re not going to be tolerant of variations from orthodoxy in our candidates, we are going to get orthodox candidates, and there’s no change in that. There’s an attempt to read the Paulians and the libertarians out of the TEA movement, and make it another GOP joke, whereas any truly useful movement for change must destroy or transform the GOP. Sure, we’ll get the progressives first, because that’s the crisis right now. But the Republican party is merely the only available tool to do that, not a repository of any useful ideology.
“Crank libertarians, I mean. The kind that just want to argue about the gold standard…” (an immediately useful concept in this age of fiat money)
“If [Beck would] only lighten up on his obsession with Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt…” (my teacher said they were great guys)
“There is an element of psycho that wants to legalize drugs, get out of Iraq, and eliminate all taxation.” (What’s psycho about that?)
“Seems [Paulians] are very hateful.” (Same guy as the above…like “psycho” is not hateful?)
Right now AoSHq sounds like an echo chamber. And I ain’t got time for that.
“But to people who are politically “in the know,” the label libertarian has now lost most of its meaning. It’s become diluted by being applied to all kinds of opportunists and political thinkers who are, at most, sort of right-wingish compromisers. That’s not me. So I’ve moved on to other terms.” — Claire Wolfe