Jim Gilmore and "Wingnut Welfare"

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Kyle Blankenship believes that Jim Gilmore's appointment as head of the Alexandria-based "Free Congress Foundation" is an example of "Wingnut Welfare." It's a catchy phrase, and it almost certainly applies to Gilmore. The "Welfare" part is self explanatory. As to the "Wingnut" part, let's just say that Gilmore could only be considered a moderate by the "Sideshow Bob" Marshall/Ken Kookinelli wing of the Republican Party. Thus, as governor of Virginia, Gilmore "signed into law legislation establishing a 24-hour waiting period and informed consent for women seeking an abortion" and "went to court to try to prevent the removal of a feeding tube of coma victim Hugh Finn." In addition, Gilmore's your standard-issue right-wingnut in terms of environmental issues ("drill baby drill!"), unions (opposes making it easier for people to join them), and something he calls "government-run health care" (apparently, Gilmore wants to eliminate Medicare and ditch Tricare), etc., etc.

Given all this, you'd think that Gilmore would fit in at the Free Congress Foundation, but I wonder if that organization might prove too wingnutty even for Gilmore:
FCF has also been willing to spark controversy on other fronts. It rejects what it calls Political Correctness, dubbing it "cultural Marxism" and blaming it on the Frankfurt School of left-wing thinkers. Accordingly, it has been more willing than many other conservative groups to endorse or entertain views that some, especially on the left, would consider offensive and evidence of bigotry. It is arguably hostile to Islam as a whole, rather than confining its criticism to extremist Islam or Islamism. With regard to Judaism, in his column of April 13, 2001 (Good Friday) titled Indeed, He is Risen!, Weyrich argued that "Christ was crucified by the Jews.... He was not what the Jews had expected so they considered Him a threat. Thus He was put to death."
Right, well, hmmmm. Anyway, as if all that's not wingnutty enough, FCF has also been opposed to the "War on Terror," the war in Iraq, free trade, arms control, and the USA PATRIOT Act. Does Jim Gilmore agree with all of this, or will he move to shift direction at his new wingnut home? If the latter, will Gilmore's prominent new role "affect the political/ideological landscape of a Republican Party and conservative wing dominated by advocates of an expansive and expensive U.S. military engagement abroad -- for what critics and some advocates call 'nation-building' -- who support a war on 'Islamo-fascism?'" I don't know, but it will be fascinating to watch as Gilmore settles in to his new "Wingnut Welfare" role.