I'm going to have to come up with a new name for my personal political viewpoint, I can't continue to be associated with what are commonly referred to now as "conservatives."
I've mentioned on a couple of occasions that I make it my habit to
listen to and read from sources of editorial opinion that span the
political spectrum, e.g., I listen to both KPFK, the local Pacifica network outlet where
National Public Radio is regarded as a bunch of right wing
reactionaries and tools of the bourgouisie, and to KRLA, the Salem Radio Network outlet where
Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Dennis Miller, Bill
Bennett, and Glenn Beck (!) hold forth.
I was listening to Mike Gallagher
Wednesday evening to sample the conservative talk radio reaction to
Tuesday's election. I was hearing generally what I expected when my
ears pricked up as Gallagher started going on about Obama's visit to
India. He said he'd read that $200M per day would be spent on the trip,
including hotels, security, air transport, 34 naval vessels, etc. He
didn't buy into this figure with complete abandon, saying that it was
from an Indian newspaper, and prefacing some of his remarks with "if
this is true..." But in speaking with subsequent callers he did rail
against Obama using that figure.
Now, as it turns out, even the hardcore conservatives have distanced
themselves from the story, but just how clueless do you have to be
to hear such a thing and not immediately reject it out of hand? What
mental processes must have broken down to make a person WITH A
NATIONALLY SYNDICATED TALK SHOW so credulous that he even momentarily
took such a thing seriously?
Does being a conservative mean that if someone tells you it's raining
kittens and puppies you worry about taxes being raised to clean up the