Or maybe they believe in the rapture, and think it’s going to happen soon.

Posted by: janeboatler | Apr 18 2005 19:06 utc | 3

Norquist has been stuffing their heads with visions of ruling for at least forty years. They buy it, as well as believing they are smart enough that they will turn that forty into four hundred and four hundred into four thousand after which they quit counting.

Posted by: Marie | Apr 18 2005 19:17 utc | 5

How about selfish and immature? Grabbing what they can. If they ever thought about it, the GOP radicals think they will always be in power. God and free markets are on their side.

Posted by: Jim S | Apr 18 2005 19:27 utc | 7

Legal elections are valid and will be supported by the citizenry. Other kinds will quickly become ornamental, about as functional as ankle bracelets are for staying warm.
What are you wearing?

Posted by: citizen | Apr 18 2005 19:54 utc | 9

The Limbic system moderates fight or flight. Perhaps the conspiracy theories of Lizards taking over the reigns of power have neurological significance.

Posted by: Juannie | Apr 18 2005 20:27 utc | 11

I happen to think Eva, I mean Ann looks pretty darn good in that photo. It kind of reminds me of Lilly Tomlin on Laugh In sitting in that big chair acting like a little baby rocking back and forth. It makes her look like the little kid she is.

Posted by: jdp | Apr 18 2005 21:31 utc | 13

I have been watching Kudlow on CNBC. he had some woman and that wack job Hugh Hewitt arguing over the nuke option. Man is that Hewitt a fricking ass. He would not argue over long standing senate tradition, he just name called and belittled anyone not thinking like him.

Posted by: jdp | Apr 18 2005 21:52 utc | 15

.
hilarious; Billmon should send it to her.
.

Posted by: han shan | Apr 18 2005 22:29 utc | 17

Frankly, Eva Braun was more a mindless idiotic clone of another famous leader’s wife who met an infamous end, namely Marie-Antoinette. For Ann Coulter, you’d have to dig up an old 17th century picture of Erzbet Batory. But the intent surely was right.
As for there not getting any legitimate elections anymore, when did this stop the French, American and Russian peoples to riot and rebel?

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Apr 19 2005 0:04 utc | 19

Heres’s an interesting revelation
re: Anne Coulter:
Link to straponvets

Posted by: han shan | Apr 19 2005 0:25 utc | 21

The more I read about the American right the more I think all their thinking is shaped by a misinterpratian of FDR and the new deal. They believe that the New Deal and all the liberal changes to American society were achieved through the judiciary. This then made society more liberal which entrenched Democrats in power for so long.
Obviously this interpretation is wrong, but it has the advantage of allowing conservatives to believe that their ideologies were never rejected by the majority of Americans.
For conservatives, the way to correct this is to roll back the New Deal by means fair or foul including changing the judiciary. This is ok as, in their eyes, the New Deal and the entire liberal period following it was the result of cheating by FDR in the first place. Once this is done society will be forever changed back to the conservative pre-FDR values and most importantly a new conservative utopia will result where true free markets produce super economic growth and everyone is wealthy etc. This will eventually entrench Republicans in power.
I don’t think this plan involves the Republican party not losing upcoming elections. They may even be willing to get absolutely trashed in the next few elections once they have made the necessary changes as they beleive that the conservative utopia will be unstoppable.

Posted by: still working it out | Apr 19 2005 3:03 utc | 23

If you take the peak-oil, approaching rapture, and growing influence of personalities who will condone torture, killing, and even genocide then stretch these three line out into the future. I’d say we’ve got 15 maybe 25 years before we see the big elephant fall, which will crush a whole lot of grass and other life with it. Rapture, yeah, it is fast approaching!
Max

Posted by: Max Andersen | Apr 19 2005 4:09 utc | 25

Read Steve Clemon’s blog where he discusses Chris Nelson’s brave essay on the stakes for democracy in the John Bolton and Tom DeLay battles.

If the fight over John Bolton’s UN nomination were just about John Bolton, he’d be history already. But this isn’t about Bolton, it’s about the exercise of power. Same thing with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
If this was even 5 years ago, hed be toast.
We are at the point now where the Republican Leadership refuses to allow the possibility of a loss on anything, regardless of the merits. This renders “debate” meaningless, since nothing said actually matters, so truth is irrelevant.
“Science” depends on faith; everything is a test of power. Oppose something the President wants, and you aren’t just wrong, you are betraying the Party. The underlying message is that you are also offending a very particular definition of God.
The sad, sorry Bolton/DeLay spectacles are about total war, the kill-the-prisoners exercise of power that national US politics has become since the 2000 election. If it were merely about power, it wouldn’t be so terrifying. Washington is used to that. . .it’s what we exist for. But the fear, the self-loathing, the pathetic, cowardly, sniveling, excuse-making drivel from such “leaders” as Lugar, Hagel, Chafee, the entire House Republican Leadership under DeLay. . .and the ever-so-very carefully expressed angst of the Democrats. . .is about something far more dangerous to the Republic than mere political power.
What we are seeing is a fight for the political soul of the nation. We’ve had these before, in the existential sense. . .in my political lifetime, the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement, the women’s rights versus, to a certain extent, the right to life movement. But this time it’s totally and completely a fight about God. . .specifically, whether God is going to rule in the United States.
The Constitution says that would be illegal, and any serious expert can tell you that not only were the Founders liberal in their interpretation of the Deity, but they intentionally enshrined a purely secular civic government, including the courts. They didn’t think that Jesus had an official plan for us, much less did they think that politicians who defined their duties in secular terms were defying the word of God.
Tom Delay manifestly believes this, and it sounds like any number of Senate Republicans either agree, or lack the imagination or moral courage to disagree. . .why else would some endorse threats against Republican-appointed judges who dare to interpret the law in secular terms? This is what the Bolton fight is really about: you can’t dump him, because that lets the Democrats win on both the facts and principle. . .fatal notions to a desire to pack the courts with religious and secular policy extremists.
Why else would there be the constant drumbeat of attacks on the “liberal media”, except to undermine public trust in the Constitutionally provided mediator between the politicians and the people?
The Founders knew how to protect what they intended; this crowd has figured out how to undermine the very rule of law in the United States. Listen to what DeLay is arguing…that his excesses have nothing to do with his “persecution”, interesting choice of word, by the Democrats and their “liberal press allies”. If a majority of Congressional Republicans don’t, in their hearts, see the hypocrisy of all this, the Republic is doomed.
The real story behind Bolton and DeLay is obvious, to anyone not already seduced by the dark side.
Connect the dots. There’s still time.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Apr 19 2005 8:36 utc | 27