Agreed, most will vote for the Sane Republican Party. But the crazy Republicans wouldn’t be a rump party. They’d be totally legitimate, and still setting the agenda even with Democrats in charge.

That’s a much bigger problem than who wins this particular election.

I’ll take Romney. A Palin loss would only embolden the fascists IMO.

And this is interesting

And more generally: Would you rather have a GOP that goes so far off the conservative deep end that it implodes and becomes a powerless fringe party, or a GOP that pulls itself back from the brink and starts moving back towards the center?

except I think you’re making a big error here. I don’t think there is “too far” for the Republicans in the current political climate. If the Democrats weren’t competing with each other to see how far right they can move then you might be able to make an argument for the Republicans eventually imploding. However, and it’s a big however, the Democrats keep moving right when the Republicans move right, therefore validating and legitimizing the Republican position. They, the Democrats, are working their asses off to normalize and mainstream everything coming from the “other side”. So, if something doesn’t give among the Democrats, eventually we’re going to run through the whole hard fascist thrill ride. Only when that’s over and we have a chance to pick up the pieces would there be a chance to do anything the right way.

That is, unless something gives with the Democrats. And who thinks that will happen?

From the first paragraph:

rational conservatives

and…oxymoron, no need to read any farther.

This is one of the things I don’t like about Pam – that she would even think that this is worth putting on FDL. It’s just sad.

They are the enemy. Get off the fence and fight. There is no space for “civility”. These people are literally the enemies of everything we believe in. Stop trying to find common ground, and start fighting. Crap like this just makes the conservatives right about us when they accuse us of weakness. We are weak – they at least know the difference between allies and enemies.

I think you’re misdiagnosing the problem.

The problem with her statement is that it comes at a time when much of American finally has heard enough science points to being gay (or straight, for that matter) is certainly not a choice. While a black-and-white notion about sexual orientation is helpful to the lesbian and gay movement in the struggle for equality, this thinking at the same time renders bisexuality invisible.

The treatment of bisexuality in this piece is laudable. As someone that identified that way for a while, and stopped because I got out of labels like that altogether, I feel a lot of truth in your account of the invisible truth of bisexuality. While that is all good, it is missing the point.

The real problem that I’m seeing here is that the gay movement, represented here by Aravosis, seems to want the national conversation around equality to be less than honest for political reasons, demonstrated in this case by caving automatically to the right wing frame “choice=bad”. See what John does here:

But she needs to learn how to choose her words better, because she just fell into a right-wing trap, willingly. When the religious right says it’s a choice, they mean you quite literally choose your sexual orientation, you can change it at will, and that’s bull.

He just gives the game away right up front. He automatically grants legitimacy to the view of “choice=bad” when he doesn’t challenge it. The correct answer to a right winger playing the choice card is to reframe the debate completely.

In reality, sexual orientation exists on a continuum. It needs to be discussed that way, regardless of what the short term political consequences might be. This is the problem: if the truth needs to obfuscated in some way to ensure victory, you’re doing it wrong.

Instead of conceding the frame to the right and creating this black and white faux frame for the general public, the correct answer to any of that ‘it’s a choice’ bullshit is not John’s, or to poo poo what’s her face, but this:

So what? Do you not believe in individual liberty? Even if it is a choice, which it really isn’t, there is still nothing wrong with a free American or anyone else making such a choice.

And leave it at that. Done. Don’t give them an inch, and concede not even one little ounce of their belief system.

I don’t normally like most of your stuff Glenn, but I do read it. This piece is excellent. Especially this:

Brooks has skillfully branded himself as the Pundit Who Will Tell You About New Findings in the Human Sciences. But in Brooks’ hands all the new science somehow becomes justification for top-down, conservative and even authoritarian government. It’s all just a magical confirmation of Hobbes.

Spot on, perfect. A magical confirmation of Hobbes. That right there has to be the best one liner I’ve ever seen to totally define right wing ideology, no matter what the specific argument.

They’re getting started early, eh? The obots are going to be like clouds of mosquitoes come a year from today.