June 11, 2014
WSJ Breathlessly Suggests: Was David Brat's Defeat of a Jewish Congressman Somehow Related to His Hitler-Shall-Rise-Anew Agenda?
All of this is interesting -- hey, I learned something; I had no idea David Brat was a full-on libertarian -- but the piece is written as if to suggest the excerpts here constitute Dangerous Thoughts and therefore Campaign Fodder.
David Brat, the Virginia Republican who shocked House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) Tuesday, wrote in 2011 that Hitler’s rise "could all happen again, quite easily."
And?
Mr. Brat's remarks, in a 2011 issue of Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, came three years before he defeated the only Jewish Republican in Congress.
What?
They're suggesting Brat is pro-Hitler? How else can one read their noting that Brat said that Hitler could rise again, and then mention that in reference to the defeat of the GOP's only Jewish Congressmen as if they're linked?
Here's what he actually wrote:
Capitalism is here to stay, and we need a church model that corresponds to that reality. Read Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s diagnosis of the weak modern Christian democratic man was spot on. Jesus was a great man. Jesus said he was the Son of God. Jesus made things happen. Jesus had faith. Jesus actually made people better. Then came the Christians. What happened? What went wrong? We appear to be a bit passive. Hitler came along, and he did not meet with unified resistance. I have the sinking feeling that it could all happen again, quite easily. The church should rise up higher than Nietzsche could see and prove him wrong. We should love our neighbor so much that we actually believe in right and wrong, and do something about it. If we all did the right thing and had the guts to spread the word, we would not need the government to backstop every action we take.
Jesus Christ Almighty, the guy is upset by the fact that Christians (and Americans, generally, I think he'd say) are too "morally weak" to stand firm in the face of Hitlerian evil -- and urges them to be more resolute against a New Hitler -- and yet this writer frames this as some sort of Ekdahlian Hitler rehabilitation.
Unbelievable. Unbelievable.
Oh, read on, and you'll see this Ignoramus being surprised at the observation that the "government exercises a monopoly on the use of force." That truism strikes this idiot as possibly scandalous.
Via Twitchy, which collects reactions to the WSJ's ugly, venomous stupidity.
Update: Eric Cantor will step down as majority leader on July 31st.
Why wait so long? I know a vote has to be scheduled and people need to lobby and such, but why a month and a half from now?
Obviously he's in a greatly diminished position, having lost his reelection bid. How can he serve as Majority Leader, even for 50 days?
The Wall Street Journal: Many suggest that the WSJ printed this alleged news report because it is Establishment, corporatist, and relentlessly pro-amnesty.
Maybe. That's all true.
However, it must be remembered that while the WSJ ownership and editorial board are conservative (well, corporate conservative), its actual reporters are as progressive as anyone else's.
This could be less about the Establishment getting their own back against the Tea Party and more about simple progressive activism in the media.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/349749.php
