Owning the Stupid

September 18th, 2010

Our country has come to a state where if you’re crazy, people will vote for you–but if you’re in therapy, they won’t.

It’s the right wing, mostly. You look at the people they have in the spotlight right now–Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer, Rand Paul, Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, Michele Bachmann–as well as people at the local level, like that guy who screamed his speech, or the Colorado guy who believes that a local bicycle-sharing program is an evil U.N. plot to destroy our freedoms.

Our country has come to a state where you get wild support if you say stuff which is out-and-out stupid, and I mean wildly idiotic–but if you say smart, responsible stuff, people feel threatened by you.

I mean, seriously. The last Republican vice-presidential candidate actually claimed that she was well-versed in foreign policy because she lived in a state where if you went to its farthest reaches, you could just barely make out the farthest outlying reaches of Russia, the government of which was located thousand of miles more distant. And it wasn’t a gaffe–she repeated it. And a lot of right-wingers echoed her on it, and few if any seemed to think it was something to be concerned about. It’s as if a red flag was waved, and now the crazy is all over the place. Headless bodies peppering the Arizona desert, the president is a Kenyan Socialist, Jesus rode a dinosaur, the Sufi community center is a terrorist victory mosque, we should apologize to BP, Obama Death Panels are gonna kill Grandma–and if we don’t win the election, it’s time for “Second Amendment remedies.” Maybe I’m just romanticizing the past, but I do seem to recall a time when saying batshit crazy and dumbass stuff like that was actually considered a serious problem for a campaign.

In the right-wing today, Dumb is Folksy, Crazy is Concerned, Hysterical is Thought-provoking. And invoking armed insurgency if you don’t get your way is patriotic.

As regular readers may recall, a conservative commenter recently asked that the Koran-burning pastor not be considered a right winger (something I had not even expressed in the post he was commenting on), as if going to that extreme somehow meant he was no longer among the right-wing population. The thing is, wherever you yourself may be right now, Dumb and Crazy are where the Republican Party is right now. They’re the ones being elected by Republicans, which makes them the mainstream of the movement you’ve associated yourself with. You may even consider them a freak show, but you’re still in the same tent.

I am reminded of a former colleague who was a regular watcher of Fox News; he looked me straight in the eye once and said with all casual innocence that he truly thought Fox was a balanced, serious, non-partisan news organization. Just as our recent guest could look at Glenn Beck and insist that what he says is “accurate.” Just as people can email photoshopped images of Obama as a pimp or a witch doctor and get angrily indignant when someone points out how racist that is. News Flash: it ain’t just a river in Egypt. Most if not all of these people get upset when those on the right wing that they disagree with are grouped together with them, because those guys are nuts, they’re not in the mainstream. The fact is, though, they’re just a slightly different kind of nuts; today, the crazies are the mainstream in the right wing. Whether it’s about Obama building FEMA concentration camps to enslave right-wingers by using census data, or 9/11 being caused by gays and abortions, or there’s a war on Christmas; whether it’s Bachmann or Paul or Beck or Palin or O’Donnell or Miller or Buck or O’Reilly or Barton or Angle or Brewer or Limbaugh or–you get the idea. There are simply too many strong examples of this to deny it. Too many of the stupid and crazy ones are winning primaries, too many of the “extremists” are too popular among the mainstream Republicans.

This is not a case like Glenn Beck taking an extremist Black Panther from ten years ago saying “kill all white people” and painting most progressives with it. This is not taking the most extreme of the extreme and trying to smear the mainstream with it. This is simply today’s GOP.

If you elect the Stupid, then you own the Stupid.

Update: Newt Gingrich just announced that he wants to ban Sharia law in the U.S., as if there’s a real danger that it’s going to be imposed.


  1. Troy
  2. Troy
    September 19th, 2010 at 06:14 | #2


    I was going to say that Gingrich’s thing on Shariah was to probably to prevent the extra-judicial encroachment of its practice inside the Islamic community in this country, but I see I am wrong, Gingrich’s recent speech at AEI:

    “Radical Islamists want to impose Sharia on all of us for legitimate reasons. Let me be quite clear. You can respect your adversary without agreeing or giving in. They have profound, deeply held beliefs and one of the great challenges for secularists is they can’t understand the level of passion that a belief which is derived from an underlying religious form leads one to have, which is why, frankly, deeply believing Christians and Jewish Americans have a much better understanding of what’s going on than do secular intellectuals in deracinated universities looking out of their ivory tower or trying to wonder what it is that would lead people to kill themselves and having no comprehension of the emotions and the depth of passion engaged.”

    One thing that is different now from the original foundations of modern American conservatism of the mid-1960s is that the conservatives have assembled an immense interlocked policy and power structure, with the AEI close to its center.

    Everything that comes out of that place is just total bullshit.

  3. Troy
    September 19th, 2010 at 06:18 | #3

    ^ that last link shows how the conservative public policy message machine was
    assembled started in the early 1970s.

    Goldwater conservatism didn’t have the benefit of this in the 1960s when neoliberalism was ascendant. Decade by decade it neoconservatism has increased its grip on this nation, and decade by decade we have been slipping a bit beneath the waves.

    It is a sad tale that I will be telling my grandkids, probably in Mandarin.

  4. Troy
    September 19th, 2010 at 10:09 | #4

    “Owning the Stupid”

    It’s also important to note that at least half the population has an IQ below 100.

    The top 0.001% in this country — 3000 people — can create the narrative to push these people around pretty easily.

    Goering: “Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

    Cheap-labor conservatives have benefitted greatly from their popular alliance with the more stupider people in this country, of which Palin et al are just the latest promotions from a group great in its extent and history in this country.


    O’Donnell is entirely correct,


    there are more stupid people in this country than smart people. P.T. Barnum applies, too.

    From the above article:

    “Her appearance capped a day in which conservative activists heard from a parade of potential 2012 GOP presidential contenders: former governors Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney; Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; former senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania; and Reps. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and Mike Pence, R-Ind.”

    ALL of those people are religious nutballs.

  5. September 19th, 2010 at 18:52 | #5

    Oooh, I made the big times, a mention in the main post!

    It appears I have not conveyed my positions well however. Asking if we can kick someone out of the ‘right wing’ was a humorous expression of disgust with the individual mentioned. My serious point is that I flatly reject a binary left/right system. No system based on grouping people so broadly can have any validity.


    “There are simply too many strong examples of this to deny it.” The exact same case can be made about Muslims being/supporting terrorists. Exact. And it is still wrong. Group attribution is wrong. One can perhaps make an exception when talking about a group defined by philosophical position, at least in the context of that position. But not when you define the group as half of America.

    You condemn an entire group (the ‘right wing’) for the actions of some portion of the group.

    The action you object to is them condemning an entire group (‘Muslims’) for the actions of some portion of the group.

    There are many terms for this. Bigotry, racism, etc. But they all boil down to ‘out group homogeneity’. And it is as wrong when it is done to those you despise as when it is done to those you support.

    It literally amazes and frightens me that you cannot see this. I know you are cognizant of the concept of ‘othering’. I have seen you mention it in your posts. Do you not see that you are busy doing it even as you are protesting it? I have considerable respect for your intelligence, far more than I have for most progressives. If you are caught up in dehumanizing your opponents, what chance others are not?

    You dehumanize your opponents to justify doing inhuman things to them.


    As for Beck, I mostly feel we spent way too much time on him. As I said, I do not listen to him myself, so I am going off the example you supplied. And in the context of a potential libel claim, I stand by my assertion. Nothing I saw in the article you provided was factually inaccurate. Your characterization of what he said certainly sounds excessive, but he is not responsible for your characterization. Only his own words.

  6. Troy
    September 19th, 2010 at 19:08 | #6

    I flatly reject a binary left/right system

    I don’t.

    The issues here are plain-as-day.

    1) Whether government has a role in redistributing incomes and wealth in society to give the poor a better chance at becoming and remaining productive members of society, or do we have a faith-based approach — faith in the Free Market Fairy — to provide this desired policy outcome.

    The Republicans have been fully taken over by the Goldwater/Reagan argument that the government is not the answer, to anything. This is seen in the party platform and media mouthpieces acting against anthropogenic global warming, government single-payer/public option/mandated health insurance with subsidies (even though the latter was something conservative enough for Romney to implement in Mass. and the 1990s Republican party to propose in competition with HillaryCare).

    2) Equal rights for gays and the general capture of the “right” by the American Taliban of Christian Fundamentalist Nutjobs. This new Christianism has become more evident in the battles over the teaching of evolution and human sexuality, birth control, and the availability of abortion.

    3) A complete misunderstanding of the nature of credit and banking, and distrust of the already rather conservative quasi-public Federal Reserve System.

    The polling is crystal clear on this. Ideology has rotted in the right side of the spectrum in the US, it is suffering under complete “epistemological closure”. The number of rational Republicans of national stature in this country can be counted on one hand — Lugar, Schwarzenegger, and the two princesses from Maine.

    The rest of the right has been driven into what Eisenhower termed in his famous 1954 letter to his Bircher brother the “stupid” wing of conservatism.

    Starting in the 1970s movement conservatism built this wing into the modern Conservative Establishment. As Luis said, you’ve got to own this stupidity because the neocon and cultural conservative element of the Republican party completely owns it these days.

    It is a joke and how anyone can attempt to defend it is mind-boggling.

    If you are caught up in dehumanizing your opponents, what chance others are not?

    It’s calling a spade a spade. The conservative mindset has been homogenized over the past 40 years. It is all bullshit, all the way down now.

  7. Troy
    September 19th, 2010 at 19:51 | #7

    “Thus their candidates’ advance men tell the world that they are beyond left and right, and stand merely for Freedom, which as Thomas Jefferson knew means no capital gains tax or teaching evolution.”


    “. . . it’s an illustrative enough example, thanks to the fractal self-similarity of the Wingnut Function.”


    ^ these two encapsulate my general thinking on this matter and I would like to append them to my argument. And this (my incidental comments in [ ] brackets):

    “The major practical difficulty inherent in such a strategy would be in translating Taft’s dictum [“The duty of the opposition Party is to oppose…”] into a workable policy. The Republicans must guard against the temptation to sink into mere obstructionism and negativity [guffaw]. They must organize and present a principled [codeword] opposition to Obama’s neo-Social Democracy [codeword] by offering clearly defined conservative, market based [epistemological closure — unbreakable faith in the Holy Market ] alternatives. It is critically important that the Party reinvigorate its relationship with the conservative think tanks so that it can again become a party of ideas and not simple politics.”


    Mr Birdnow nailed it, back in 2008. Mission Accomplished, good sir.

  8. Troy
    September 20th, 2010 at 03:10 | #8

    Part of the problem for conservatives looking for public policy space is that the Democrats as an institution have been “triangulating” on them. Carter was no McGovern or RFK. Clinton had the DLC behind him, incorporating the traditional conservative wing of the Dem party.

    Obama is running a sensible centrist course to the right of Clinton. By adopting the basis of conservatism’s implementable ideas, what’s remains for the opposition is mindless contraryism and fringeville.

    Eisenhower, (1970s) Nixon, Reagan himself, and Bush I would not be welcome in the current conservative pantheon. The right has gone completely off the rails.


    I voted for Tom Campbell instead of Feinstein in 2000 here in California. Back then I was a “low information” voter and did not understand how crazy the Republicans actually were and how stupid my vote was in running the risk of giving Republicans control of the Senate in 2001-2003.

    Republicans are like that STNG episode where the fleet is taken over by mindworms. The worm in this case is ideology, and this ideology is making it stupid.

    I am still something of a Tom Campbell type person, but I note the California Republican party selected Carly Fiorina over him to go up against Boxer.

    This is no country for Old Republicans.

    You dehumanize your opponents to justify doing inhuman things to them.

    LOL. I want conservatives to grow a brain and stop being stupid about everything. This is inhuman?

  9. Luis
    September 20th, 2010 at 11:54 | #9

    Jon: Here’s all I have to say about this.

    Glenn Beck regularly gloms together hosts of progressive organizations and personages as socialists, communists, and worse, based upon the flimsiest of associations and hysterical meanderings about international plots–and you defend him repeatedly as “factually accurate,” characterizing Beck’s raving tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory about the Tides Center as Beck having “brought what [Tides] was doing to the public’s attention.”

    But in countering the political trend that I note across posts, you use this one argument you have about me unfairly and even “inhumanly” classifying right-wingers in the aggregate: you tag me for “othering,” essentially calling me a bigot, because I note a rather clear and established pattern which huge numbers of conservatives are actively and publicly following. As if plurality and majority votes in Republican primaries across the nation are somehow not indicative of where the party is going as a whole.

    You say that you find it frightening and condemn me for grouping together people in an entire half of the political spectrum like that, saying I am dehumanizing them and it is beneath me. (“No system based on grouping people so broadly can have any validity.” […] “Do you not see that you are busy doing it even as you are protesting it?”) So many of them, candidates and followers alike, say and do and support these things, the right wing now being infused with them, the party and the movement as a whole not rejecting them, but rather for the most part embracing them. They are the emerging face of the party. In criticizing them in the aggregate, I am, you protest, dehumanizing them so I can, you say apparently in all seriousness, prepare to do “inhuman things” to them.

    Let me quote you then from the thread we are referring back to:

    “The scariest thing about the Progressive movement is how awe-inspiringly closed minded it is as an aggregate.”

    Hmm. What, exactly, does that statement do, then? Planning inhuman acts, are we?

    So let’s go back and look at another thing you have accused me of being: a hypocrite.

    I appreciate your statement to the effect that you respect my intelligence, even if it is used as a prop to legitimize an attack, couched within a scathing indictment against my humanity and decency, as if tossing in a word of backhanded respect makes it OK to denounce me as inhuman. I will not disrespect you by making similarly self-serving claims about my admiration of your integrity.

  10. September 20th, 2010 at 12:22 | #10

    “So many of them, candidates and followers alike, say and do and support these things, the right wing now being infused with them, the party and the movement as a whole not rejecting them, but rather for the most part embracing them. They are the emerging face of the party.”

    *So many of them, clerics and followers alike, say and do and support these things, Islam now being infused with them, the religion and the movement as a whole not rejecting them, but rather for the most part embracing them. They are the emerging face of the religion.*

    To you, one of these statements is acceptable. The other is bigotry.

    In absolute seriousness, I cannot for the life of me understand how you can think this way.

    From where I sit, it is like you have this huge blind spot, and I keep thinking you will either catch on and realize what you are doing, or explain it in some way besides some variant on ‘but they are really wrong!’.

  11. Luis
    September 20th, 2010 at 12:57 | #11

    Because, Jon, in the case of Muslims, the radicals have been rejected by the majority, and in particular the group building the project in Manhattan; in the case of conservatives, the radicals are being embraced by the majority, winning pluralities and majorities, enjoying the spotlight and adulation of the movement in general.

    I have no problem with the individuals within the conservative movement who reject the crazy and the stupid, but their existence by no means negates the definition of the whole. You accuse me of insinuating that they’re all identical, but that’s your incorrect interpretation of my statements. As a liberal, I reject and renounce those who I disagree with, but accept that the entire movement must deal with their baggage, and to be acceptable, the majority should make it clear their ideas are not mainstream. And though, for example, Democratic politicians are all too often weak-kneed, I personally decry that and stand apart, but it does not change the fact that Democratic politicians can be characterized that way, and that we Democrats elect them. We own that, and we own up to it. The same stands for conservatives; if the movement in general accepts, votes for, elects, and even adulates over people like those I have listed, along with their principles, words and actions, they cannot claim it is something not a part of the movement as a whole.

    Jon, you ignore your own blatant internal contradictions and hypocrisy, committing the precise errors you falsely accuse and defame others for, and refuse to acknowledge or answer for them even when they are placed squarely in front of you. When I make an error, I immediately recognize it, correct myself, and if appropriate, even apologize. You disappoint me in that you do not even attempt to note when you are plainly, absolutely wrong and in error; you flatly ignore the same type of challenge you demand be addressed. As such, I cannot in the least respect your integrity and will find nothing but frustration and a waste of time trying to converse with someone so unwilling to own up to what he says and does. I have more important things to do with my day.

  12. September 20th, 2010 at 15:39 | #12

    “You dehumanize your opponents to justify doing inhuman things to them.” This was intended as an aphorism, not an accusation. Like “You catch more flies…”.

    That seemed obvious to me when I wrote it, upon review not so much. My bad.


    Regarding this : “The scariest thing about the Progressive movement is how awe-inspiringly closed minded it is as an aggregate.”

    I refer back to what I said in my initial response : “Group attribution is wrong. One can perhaps make an exception when talking about a group defined by philosophical position, at least in the context of that position.”

    I did not refer to all ‘left wingers’. Or even all liberals. I refer to the progressive movement. I would say that a willingness to enforce their policies on others is the defining characteristic of the progressive movement with the larger liberal population. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I actually think that ‘progressives’ and the ‘religious right’ are almost identical movements from a libertarian perspective.

    So yes, I see criticizing a behavior that is closely related to a groups defining characteristic as being appropriate. Holding the entire ‘left wing’ responsible? Not so much.


    “…in the case of Muslims, the radicals have been rejected by the majority”. I don’t actually care; if 80% of Muslims supported the terrorists, it would STILL be unacceptable to blame the remaining 20% for that. Support of terrorism is NOT a defining part of Islam.

    It does not matter how loud the subset that does support terrorism is. It does not matter how much they are on the news.


    “I have no problem with the individuals within the conservative movement who reject the crazy and the stupid, but their existence by no means negates the definition of the whole.”

    There is no ‘conservative movement’. There are three primary groups within the ‘right wing’. The libertarians, the religious right, and the people who don’t care about politics as long as it doesn’t come to their door.

    The only thing that really unites the three groups is opposition to the progressives. Trying to keep members of the three groups acting in harmony is why the Tea Parties stay away from social issues. It’s also a large part of why they cannot find a unifying message, in my opinion.

    “As if plurality and majority votes in Republican primaries across the nation are somehow not indicative of where the party is going as a whole.”

    Actually, I think that is a reasonably fair position. The ‘Republican party’ is an entirely fair target. It is NOT the entire ‘right wing’ however. You have to have noticed the conflict between the Tea Parties and the Republican party. (Also, if you find an election where the “majority” of registered Republicans show up, I want to hear about it.)

    “You accuse me of insinuating that they’re all identical, but that’s your incorrect interpretation of my statements.”

    You may well not mean to. But you do. Much of what you decry as “right wing hypocrisy” is just relating instances of so-cons not living up to libertarian ideals. Example : http://blogd.com/wp/index.php/archives/8057


    Did I get everything? I rather dislike these rambling multi-subject posts. I am not trying to avoid instances where you say I am wrong; not even when I agree I AM wrong. But sometimes I am more concerned about what I see as the important parts getting lost in the details. My much narrower response was an attempt to render things down into the simplest possible form, with no distractions.

  13. Troy
    September 20th, 2010 at 16:54 | #13

    One stupid thought I just had is that I don’t hold any animus towards conservatives amd Republicans as individuals.

    My frustration and annoyance with them only comes with the stupid things they do collectively, which is put real idiots in power. Eg: Reagan’s various minions like James Watt, GWB’s neocon policy apparat (Rumsfeld was a real winner) and the economic deregulation crew that had experience creating the original S&L crisis and got right to work in 2001-2002 making the next housing bubble 10X worse.

    The sheer demonstrated incompetence of conservatives is what is galling.

    On the cultural side, if they want to homeschool their kids in their nutball religion and keep their daughters virginal until marriage, no skin off my nose. It’s when they impose their stupid religious bullshit on me and my friends that we have a problem.

    You have to have noticed the conflict between the Tea Parties and the Republican party

    It’s only a problem of electability and the overall fight over the direction of the Party. Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin are not some exterior power centers. They are fighting for the party, and winning.


    Without the “Values” vote the Republican party would be irrelevant in the US.

    “Palin meanwhile won the vice-presidential poll with a seven-vote lead over Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Huckabee placed third, fourth, and fifth.”

    ^ all these guys are religious nutballs.

    CNN Exit poll from 2004:

    Protestant/Weekly (16%):
    Bush: 70%
    Kerry: 29%

    Moral Values (22%):
    Bush: 80%
    Kerry: 18%

    Jon, you’ve got to disabuse yourself that the Republican party and conservatism in general can meaningfully shift away from this power base. It is who you are, or directly support, when you vote for Republicans — of any stripe — on the national level.

    Without this support of the ~20% crazies, there would be no conservative coalition in this country. It is who the neocons (Wm Kristol) got the McCain crew to pander to by selecting Palin for VP. While the TPers are not exclusively religious nuts, the number of TP challengers running as Republicans for the Senate this cycle is rather awe inspiring.

    Sharron Angle in NV, Ken Buck in CO, O’Donnell in DE, Miller in AK, and of course Rand Paul in KY.

    There is some distinct overlap between libertarianism and Christianism in these candidates, but it’s certainly one helluva marriage.

    Wisconson’s Johnson looks to be more a garden variety wingnut, but he too is running as a Republican, and just might boot my hero out of the Senate, Feingold.

    That would be interesting, in the sense of prompting me to look up airfares to NRT.

  14. Troy
    September 20th, 2010 at 19:25 | #14

    heh, it strikes me that even Goldwater would be run out of today’s Republican party:

    “There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.’ ”


    Kinda reminds me of Howard dean, back in early 2003:

    “I want my country back! We want our country back! I am tired of being divided! I don’t want to listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore! I want America to look like America, where we are all included, hand in hand. We have dream. We can only reach the dream if we are all together – black and white, gay and straight, man and woman. America! The Democratic Party! We are going to win in 2004!”


    Just like the Christianists hijacked the Republican party ca 1980, they’ve hijacked Dick Armey’s tea party too.

  15. Jon
    September 21st, 2010 at 01:43 | #15

    The religious right is very good at showing up. Sadly, this makes them very powerful for their size.

    The Libertarians are on their side not because we agree with them, but because they are weaker than the progressives. Some people complain about gridlock, we vote for it.

  16. Troy
    September 21st, 2010 at 04:23 | #16

    ^ looks like your getting your wish. Of course, people with money don’t really have to worry about the Christianist agenda. A good lawyer can create a “gay marriage” via the law, private schools and private hospitals provide the social services one requires, and abortion will always be just a plane ride away.

    Christianists picking a fight with the islamic world is one element you can’t control, however.

    At any rate, I’m totally down with the people’s decision this November. They want the conservatism of the libertarian-christofascists axis, they deserve to get it “good and hard” as the man said.

    Me, I’ll be with the popcorn.

  17. benito
    September 21st, 2010 at 13:03 | #17

    In the last four months Jan Brewer has been caught lying, three times and counting.

    The comments made on June 16, 2010, and June 27, 2010, clearly indicates that the Brewer says that immigrants are beheading people in the United States desert. She first ran away from the question and the press when confronted with the question. She finally when to FOX/ FAKE News to recant her lie.

    When Brewer was confronted with the fact the two of her top Advisors (Paul Senseman, Chuck Coughlin) are lobbyist for “Private Prisons” giant CCA she first ran away from the question and the press.

    In an attempt to gain sympathy, she first said her father had died in Germany fighting the Nazi in World War II (which ended 1945) but of course we find out the truth that her father was never in Germany and died in California in 1955. Do you see a trend here?

    Brewer signed into law SB 1070 Bill (Did she even read it?), lied about the crime rates in AZ (even Janet Napolitano knows that all crimes rates went down), and now we find out that she is in the pockets of PRIVATE PRISONS who stand to benefit with the increase Federal jailing, and thus they will pay her back, I wonder if it has to do anything about the fact that her son was transferred to a brand new prison, he was convicted for rape and sexual assault, I guess the fruit does not fall far the tree.

    “Private Prisons Lie”

    “AZ Crime Rates”

    “Father Lie”

  18. Troy
    September 21st, 2010 at 16:41 | #18

    I guess the fruit does not fall far the tree

    This is my unhappy face. Jan Brewer is Arizona’s problem, not mine, and attacking her so just adds noise. If there are civil rights issues being abused in AZ, hopefully the federal overwatch will correct them. Hopefully.

Comments are closed.