Ronald Reagan was successful partly because he had the discipline not to speak ill of other Republicans. I am more blunt, nay, tactless, than that.
Conservatives get used to being defensive about such things, openly wondering whether the Huffington Post's reports about Stella Tremblay (R-Auburn) should be taken seriously at all, or suspiciously asking whether important facts have been left out of this story. You may continue to be suspicious of HuffPo, and I can state from personal knowledge that important facts have indeed been left out of this story. Nonetheless, it is essentially true. I have encountered this woman personally as she tries to intervene on behalf of a deeply paranoid man who has been at our hospital. She has had the appropriate statutes about involuntary treatment and the clinical information about mental illness explained to her repeatedly. She doesn't get it, or doesn't want to.
She doesn't seem to be mentally ill herself. She seems ot-nay oo-tay ight-bray. As in the article above, she is unable to differentiate between ambiguous historical information that requires some explanation and proof of nefarious doings. If she had simply said that Woodrow Wilson was a racist, to a degree that we would brand white supremacist now, she would be fine. People who want to plump up the liberal version of the 20th C may not want to hear it, but it's a quite defensible position. Leaping from there to "agreed with Hitler" is exactly the sort of fevered reasoning common to paranoid folk, both cultural and psychotic.
I have been encountering an unusual number of conservative nutjobs lately. Such things tempt one to modify his political identification - until I go over to HuffPo and the ad at the top asks if I am a person rather than a corporation, encouraging me to support Al Franken's bid to overturn Citizens United.
Whatever view you have of Citizens United,* if you can't get that the word "person" in the discussion is not being used in the ordinary sense, but in some evolved legal sense, I don't see how discussion can proceed. I also don't get how Franken, clearly intelligent enough to understand the distinction if he wanted to, gets to be called anything but dishonest.
But as for Tremblay, I hope Auburn comes to its senses and gives her the heave-ho.
*I take as automatic that if more than one SCOTUS justice casts his/her vote for a position, it is by definition not insane legally, however wrong it may be. Biased, convenient, cowardly - sure, sure. But it has to have something going for it.