But even better is this clip of Pat vs. Jamie Court of Consumer Watchdog, who is smart and plain-speaking enough to completely dismantle and counter Pat's no-nothing presumptions that the Tea Party is (a) anything close to the majority will of the people (that was the last Presidential Election, actually, when Obama won a clearer mandate than Bush Jr. or Clinton ever did) and (b) that their anger is properly directed, as well as (c) that it's all a spontaneous citizen's revolt rather than something heavily influenced on the idea and financing level by big oil companies:
Pat keeps looking off camera left whenever Court nails him with the truth (often), which I expect is to a buddy he's with who shares his reactionary views. It's such a smug expression every time, like "get a load of this guy," the kind of avoidance look that seeks reinforcement of his pre-existing views rather than fair and open consideration of the other man's argument.
We've seen this smug smile before, on the face of El Presidente Bush back when he was in the White House. This goes to how Conservatives and Tea Partiers hold their assumptions and communicate in shorthand to each other their innate "rightness" when faced with real questions or counterarguments in the real world outside their Fox hollow.
It's the type of assumptiveness regarding, say, their self-serving interpretation of the Constitution that goes back to the Confederacy, when the nation faced the exact same kind of rightwing (and regional) obstruction that we are saddled with now by self-proclaimed Chancellors like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who has "a standing hold" on all Senate business unless he sees fit to let it come to a vote.
There's another word for what Sen. DeMint is practicing. It starts with "F."
No comments:
Post a Comment