NEW YORK TIMES HITS THE DEPTHS - AT 7:48 A.M. ET:  By publishing an op-ed piece by GOP-hating Max Blumenthal, whose work is often found in such moderate, thoughtful publications as The Nation.  Like others on the left, Blumenthal has suddenly discovered the wit and wisdom of Dwight Eisenhower, a man regularly ridiculed by his comrades because he didn't have a speech pattern exactly like theirs.  Blumenthal's target - this man who writes for The Nation - is "extremism" within the Republican Party.  Naturally, he is hyping his latest book on the subject:

IN this summer of town hall disruptions and birth-certificate controversies, a summer when it seemed as if the Republican Party had been captured by its extremist wing, it is worth recalling a now-obscure letter from President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Say what?  What, precisely, is extremist about the concerns raised this summer by Republicans about the Democratic health plan?  Most Americans seem to share those concerns.

Although Eisenhower is commonly remembered for a farewell address that raised concerns about the “military-industrial complex,” his letter offers an equally important — and relevant — warning: to beware the danger posed by those seeking freedom from the “mental stress and burden” of democracy.

Oh, please.  The "industrial-military complex" comments have been taken completely out of context.  Eisenhower was actually speaking about the need for an industrial-military complex, but noted legitimate concerns about its power.  His main concern, it later turned out, was pressure on Congress that distorted defense contracting, hardly a headline.

...perhaps it was his experience as supreme commander of Allied forces in Europe that taught him that the rise of extreme movements and authoritarianism could take root anywhere — even in a democracy.

Where, precisely, is the "authoritarianism" in the GOP that this fashionable leftist is talking about?  Does the GOP have a fringe element?  Yes, of course.  Almost all parties do.  William F. Buckley fought against them and Ronald Reagan distanced himself from them.  But to suggest that people who came to town meetings to fight against federal takeover of health care are dabbling in authoritarianism is quite a stretch.

Now, consider this story:

President Obama's "green jobs" adviser could become a mounting liability for the Obama administration, as the latest revelation about Van Jones shows his apparent belief that the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks may have been an inside job.

Jones joined the "9/11 truther" movement by signing a statement in 2004 calling for then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and others to launch an investigation into evidence that suggests "people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

The statement asked a series of critical questions hinting at Bush administration involvement in the attacks and called for "deeper inquiry." It was also signed by former Rep. Cynthia McKinney and Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans.

Jones has now "apologized," something he has never felt compelled to do in the five years since signing the nutbag statement.  And...

He also has consistently leaned on racially charged language, pointing the finger at "white polluters and the white environmentalists" for "steering poison" to minority communities, as he makes the case for lifting up low-income and minority communities with better environmental policy.

A declared "communist" during the 1990s, Jones once associated with a group that looked to Mao Zedong as an inspiration.

Jones' exceptional past is reminiscent of associations noted during the presidential campaign, when then-Sen. Barack Obama doggedly fended off claims that he was tied to radicals and overzealous activists.

Extremism?  Authoritarianism?  Look at your own side, Mr. Blumenthal.  Van Jones is still there.  So is Samantha Power.  So is a science adviser who once called for forced abortions. 

By the way, Eisenhower, in his "industrial-military complex" speech, also warned about the dangers of a federally funded science establishment, whose scientific research would be influenced by federal dollars.  Hmm.  Does the term "global warming" come to mind?

The extremist danger today comes heavily from the left.  The New York Times hasn't gotten around to telling us.

September 4, 2009