Propaganda explosion!

Holy hell. Today, the Oklahoman has outdone itself. That's because they decided to run a letter by Brent Parmer of Apache who, after no doubt going on a three or four day AM talk radio bender, vomited up a ridiculous mishmash of right-wing talking points devoid entirely of historical fact or sound reasoning. It's a true propaganda explosion. It's so shitty that almost every sentence reserves a careful reply:

Every time Republicans lose an election, liberals say Republicans must abandon conservative principles.

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. What mainstream political pundits are suggesting is that a party that has run on a platform of thinly veiled racism, fundamentalist Christianity, and economic policies strongly slanted to the fabulously wealth may want to reconsider some of those aspects given that a) the country is becoming less white, is less enthusiastic about far-right Christianity, and weary of working harder and still falling behind people like the Real Housewives, and the Kardashians.

When Richard Nixon used wage and price controls, did that bit of liberalism work out?

Nixon's response to rising inflation was certainly a bad one. But was it really an example of "liberalism"? Mr. Parmer is obviously making some facile assumption that "wage controls = communism" and thus, Nixon's plan must have been grounded in communist ideals. The reality, of course, is much more complex as economists were dealing with problems wherein that conventional "rules of economics [were] not working the way they used to."

When Jimmy Carter continued with detente the Russians reached out their loving hand of peace and invaded Afghanistan.

What the hell is this even about? Is he suggesting that Carter's policies towards Russia were somehow responsible for the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan?!? That's nuts!!!! Even a basic history shows that this reasoning is false:

In April 1978 Afghanistan’s centrist government ... was overthrown by left-wing military officers ... Power was thereafter shared by two Marxist-Leninist political groups, the People’s (Khalq) Party and the Banner (Parcham) Party—which had earlier emerged from a single organization, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan—and had reunited in an uneasy coalition shortly before the coup. The new government, which had little popular support, forged close ties with the Soviet Union, launched ruthless purges of all domestic opposition, and began extensive land and social reforms that were bitterly resented by the devoutly Muslim and largely anticommunist population. Insurgencies arose against the government among both tribal and urban groups, and all of these—known collectively as the mujahideen (Arabic mujāhidūn, “those who engage in jihad”)—were Islamic in orientation. 

These uprisings, along with internal fighting and coups within the government between the People’s and Banner factions, prompted the Soviets to invade the country on the night of Dec. 24, 1979, sending in some 30,000 troops and toppling the short-lived presidency of People’s leader Hafizullah Amin. The aim of the Soviet operation was to prop up their new but faltering client state, now headed by Banner leader Barak Karmal, but Karmal was unable to attain significant popular support. Backed by the United States, the mujahideen rebellion grew, spreading to all parts of the country. The Soviets initially left the suppression of the rebellion to the Afghan army, but the latter was beset by mass desertions and remained largely ineffective throughout the war.

It is crazy to imagine that Carter's failure to embrace "conservative principles" (whatever that means) was the cause of any of this.

When Bill Clinton changed banking regulations, the banks made more risky loans and George W. Bush took the blame.

Uh... isn't deregulation of financial institutions a conservative principle?

Are those good examples of why Republicans should abandon conservatism?

They're actually shitty examples of anything. Indeed, this whole letter is an example of how shitty the Oklahoman is when it comes to running letters. But it gets worse:

Medicare, Medicaid and tort lawyers have made quality health insurance too expensive.

Wait. What? It's hard to even know why he is including this. How on earth is Medicare making quality health insurance too expensive?!?

If your veterinarian was invaded by the world of government health care, your dog would be unaffordable. The only difference would be that the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals would never allow the partial-birth abortion of puppies.

What the hell?? Jesus. This is what Ulysses would read like if James Joyce were an uneducated right-wing nut job. But it gets worse:

When socialist programs designed to help the poor destroy the free markets and create more poverty, we haven't helped the poor. Weakening the U.S. military won't end war; liberalizing the Second Amendment won't stop criminals from crossing the Mexican border with machine guns while on the way to get a California driver's license.

Dwa grcht3oiqc4 htgiq!!!! Socialism! Second Amendment!!! MEXICANS!!! CALIFORNIA!!!FAW$@A!!YY%%$G$G!

How can the editors of a major newspaper actually run this shit?? What person read this and thought "wow-- he makes some good points here"??

Truly, it is embarrassing on multiple levels-- not the lease of which is the conservative movement. If this is the best they have to offer, then things are sad for them indeed.