Schneier on the NSA’s Absurd Rationalizations »« Billy Graham: It’s the End Times All Over Again

Wingnut on Wingnut Crime: DeMar vs Norquist

One of the most persistent narratives the far right likes to push is the notion that they are outsiders, revolutionaries out to destroy the hidebound orthodoxy of The Elites (while pretending, of course, they are not at all “elite” themselves). And it’s their favorite way to attack the enemy within conservatism, those famous RINOs and “Washington insiders.” This is the tactic that Gary DeMar, a genuine Christian reconstructionist, takes in attacking Grover Norquist for his criticism of Ted Cruz.

Grover Norquist has been out front in his attacks against Ted Cruz. Norquist is the founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, an organization that opposes all tax increases. Norquist is an Establishment Republican insider while flirting with leftist causes like statehood for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, is on the advisory board of GOProud, a political organization representing Republican homosexuals, transgendered people, and sits on a six-person advisory panel that nominates Time magazine’s Person of the Year.

Hmmmm. What’s missing from that? Guilt by association? Got it. Tie him to The Gay? Check (after all, he thinks that gay people have rights when DeMar believes they should be stoned to death like the Bible says). Accuse him of being part of the liberal media? Done. Oh, I know: Declare him to be a Muslim.

In 2004, Grover Norquist married a Palestinian Muslim named Samah Alrayyes, a Kuwaiti PR specialist who was formerly a director of the Islamic Free Market Institute and specialist at the Bureau of Legislative and Public Affairs at United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

David Horowitz has described Norquist as an “Islamist Fifth Column.” Michelle Malkin has also written about Norquist’s Muslim ties.

Egads! He married a Muslim? Must be a terrorist then. What’s actually missing from this is any substantive engagement of the criticism that Norquist made of Cruz, but that’s to be expected. If you’re going to make arguments like this, it’s only because you don’t have anything else to say to make your case.

Comments

  1. says

    If you’re going to make arguments like this, it’s only because you don’t have anything else to say to make your case.”

    But they all make arguments like that. {lengthy pause}

  2. erichoug says

    I always find it said that Norquist, with all the political clout he has, has chosen the utterly stupid cause of “No tax increases” to really behind. I mean he could have taken on government graft and corruption, runaway military spending, especially wasteful pork military spending for pointless and non-functional systems, or any other number of items that would have greatly benefited Americans.

    But, instead, he is committed to making sure the wealthiest of our citizens pay as little as humanly possible into the public trust.

  3. says

    erichoug “I mean he could have taken on government graft and corruption, runaway military spending, especially wasteful pork military spending for pointless and non-functional systems, or any other number of items that would have greatly benefited Americans.”
    “…greatly benefited Americans”? You don’t know Grover Norquist at all. Besides, he’s probably for cutting all those things if you ask him, provided the money saved is used for tax cuts.

    “But, instead, he is committed to making sure the wealthiest of our citizens pay as little as humanly possible into the public trust.”
    And because of that he’s been successful.

  4. says

    “This is the tactic that Gary DeMar, a genuine Christian reconstructionist, takes in attacking Grover Norquist for his criticism of Ted Cruz.”

    That sentence makes me think of that old cartoon with the guppy being swallowed by the goldfish being swallowed by….

    Gosh, seeing poor Grover being attacked by a member of the BKBotBS*–a movement which he was instrumental in creating; a movement that he nurtured, funded and whose collective ego he stroked while it sought to kill liberalism and, instead, killed the last bits of genuine conservatism in the GOP–when I see that happening, I picture poor Grover weeping in the wreckage of his bunker mentality. I see that and I think:

    “Aw, c’mon Grover, things could be worse. You could be getting indicted for tax fraud, outed for being a HINO**, watching your entire portfolio going up in smoke or finding out that you have a rare, incurable form of colon cancer that will take a slow and painful course from your anus right to your brain, wasting your body along the way, until you’re small enough to drown in a cup of TEA!”

    That could ALL be happening, Grover (and I, for one, look forward to hearing that it has) but for now, you still have your money and your Fortress of Indignorance, although you HAVE lost control of your Frankenwhine followers.

    * Batshit KKKrazzeepants Brigade of the Burnin’ Stoopit.

    ** Heterosexual In Name Only

  5. troll says

    DeMar has made me feel a momentary twinge of sympathy for Grover Norquist. This is a crime I cannot forgive.

  6. busterggi says

    Liberal, gay, Muslim – unless they declare their opponents black, the ‘baggers will still want more reasons to hate.

  7. JustaTech says

    Wait, why is statehood for Puerto Rico a “leftist cause”? Because it’s full of not-super-white people?

  8. blf says

    Wait, why is statehood for Puerto Rico a “leftist cause”? Because it’s full of not-super-white people?

    And it would deprive USAlienstan of one of its few remaining colonies.

  9. D. C. Sessions says

    I’m feeling sympathy for Grover Norquist, too

    Sorry — every time I try, all I get is schadenfreude.

  10. eric says

    Wait, why is statehood for Puerto Rico a “leftist cause”? Because it’s full of not-super-white people?

    Both the moderate and ultraconservative arms of the GOP have reason to oppose it. The ultras oppose it because (as JustaTech said), they’re brown. But the moderates also oppose it, because that would add two democratic senators to the senate and probably result in a 1-Representative switch in the house.

    The same is true with DC, by the way. The GOP is opposed to statehood largely because the residents are overwhelmingly democratic. Their senators and reps would be Democrats. Not to mention, they couldn’t use the DC government as their private playground anymore.

  11. John Allman says

    “What’s actually missing from this is any substantive engagement of the criticism that Norquist made of Cruz”

    In fairness, during the past few day,I posted a comment on another piece of yours and subscribed to your column, I’ve read a fair amount of content of yours that is ad hominem, rather than critical of the ideas of the people whose sayings you have quoted.

  12. Michael Heath says

    John Allman writes:

    In fairness, during the past few day,I posted a comment on another piece of yours and subscribed to your column, I’ve read a fair amount of content of yours that is ad hominem, rather than critical of the ideas of the people whose sayings you have quoted.

    And yet you fail to blockquote even one of those supposed ad hominems.

    In this forum, linked citations to validate one’s assertions are always good form.

  13. says

    @Michael Heath:

    I think that Mr. All In has already established his teabaggist boner feedays, yesterday on the NYT religious column thread. Trolls will be trolls.

  14. says

    @Modusoperandi:

    Announcer: Oh, wow, did he leave that one out over the plate. Bet he wishes he had THAT comment back! Modusoperandi goes long, he goes deep–he goes YARD!

Leave a Reply